Why this Website?
A property development company has put forward proposals for converting Birch Church into residential accommodation and for two further residential developments in Birch. Although the developer had been engaged on this project for two or three years beforehand, members of Birch Parish Council and other local residents knew nothing about it until mid-May 2006.
This website was created to inform Birch residents about what is being proposed and to highlight some important questions raised. It is hoped the information here will help local people to decide whether or not they support the proposals. If, after due consideration, you are opposed to the proposals it is important to let relevant bodies and individuals know your views. It's your village and you are urged to make your voice heard before a decision is made on planning consent. It will be too late to complain after a decision has been made.
The information on this website is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. If you consider any of it is inaccurate or misleading please contact me, with details of the source or sources from which the correct facts can be verified. The content will then be reviewed.
What is Proposed?
To convert St Peter's Church, Birch, into six residences, with an anticipated market value in the region of £200,000 each. To finance the high cost of renovating the church, the scheme involves two further residential developments in Birch. One, near the top of Orpens Hill, comprising four properties each with an anticipated market value in the region of £500,000. The other, on the south side of the village hall, comprising ten properties with prices starting from around £240,000 each.
Who is the Developer?
Courtland Properties (Birch) Ltd, a private limited company incorporated on 10th March 2006. The address of its Registered Office is 13 David Mews, London W1U 6EQ. Its three Directors are Messrs Nick Fairman, Edward Fairman and Michael Schneidau. At a meeting of Birch Parish Council on June 5th 2006 they explained that Courtland Properties (Birch) Ltd is a shell company set up specifically for the proposed development in Birch. They further admitted that it currently has no assets of its own but will receive injections of funds as and when required. The source of those funds was not disclosed.
It is believed that work on the present proposals was initially undertaken by New Hall Properties Ltd until Courtland was set up. New Hall was incorporated on 1st April 2003 and its Registered Office is also at 13 David Mews. Courtland / New Hall work out of rented office accommodation at Ingatestone Hall. We know very little else about New Hall Properties and further information would be welcome. What previous projects, for example, has it undertaken and how successful were they? To date the Directors of Courtland / New Hall have appeared less than forthcoming about their business and their experience of this type of project.
Who is the Architect?
The architect is Charles Sheppard of Lloyd Sheppard Architects, The Studio, 1a Bath Road, London W4 1LL. Telephone 020-8742-8087. According to its publicity literature the partners are inheritors of a practice founded in 1898. The practice appears to have considerable experience of remodelling and developing heritage buildings. We have seen Mr Sheppard's drawings for the conversion of Birch Church to six residences. His scheme is designed to preserve, as far as practicable, the external appearance of the building. As we understand it no detailed plans have yet been drawn up for the associated residential development proposed at the top of Orpens Hill and next to the village hall.
Saving St Peter's Church, Birch?
A circular was distributed by Courtland Properties to houses (but not all) in Birch shortly prior to an exhibition of their proposals in the village hall on 19th May 2006. This was entitled "Proposals to Save St Peter's Church, Birch".
The proposals will not save St Peter's as a church. The interior will be radically altered when converted to private residential accommodation and there will be no public access.
What the proposals do offer is the last possible chance to preserve the tower, the spire and the outer walls of the church. The spire is undoubtedly an impressive and attractive local landmark which most of us would be sad to lose. The church's fabric is now in such a serious state that if Courtland's proposals are not approved the only realistic alternative and inevitable outcome will be the eventual demolition of the building.
The Developers' Interest and 'Enabling Development'
The proposed conversion of Birch Church to residential accommodation and restoration of its spire would undoubtedly be a very expensive and high risk venture. Courtland Properties is not a heritage body or charitable trust. It is a private limited liability property development company set up, one assumes, with the usual main objective of making profits for its owners. So far as we know, none of its Directors has any previous connection with or interest in our village or its church. The company says the cost of conversion and restoration will be far greater than can be recouped from the sale of the six residential units in the church. If there is no profit in this expensive and risky project, what possible interest can Courtland have in the preservation of Birch Church?
The only rational explanation is the potential of the church as a lever for obtaining planning consent for two other potentially very profitable developments. The proposed sites for these developments are parcels of agricultural land for which planning consent would not normally be granted under Colchester Borough Council's planning policy. Courtland will seek planning approval for the two additional developments on the grounds that they meet the criteria laid down by English Heritage for acceptable 'enabling development'. It will argue that the two additional developments are necessary to 'enable' funding of the high cost of converting and preserving the church.
Regardless of the profits the developers stand to make out of their scheme, one of the biggest issues for Birch residents is the likely impact of the two enabling developments on the village, its residents and the local environment. Will the developments, on balance, be beneficial to the village as a community and to its individual residents? Will they improve the quality of life here or detract from it?
Impact on Birch Village and its Rural Environment
Birch is a very small unspoiled village of character. The proposed enabling developments, involving the construction of 14 luxury homes, would completely change the character and attractiveness of the village. They would extend the length of the village, both north and south, and in a way that is unlikely to strengthen its life as a community but adversely affect existing residents.
One of the concerns of residents is potential traffic and parking problems. In addition to the 14 homes just mentioned, there will be 6 households in the converted church, each of which is likely to have at least two cars. From the plans we have been shown, very limited parking appears to be provided for the new properties. The village already suffers chronic parking problems by the school and the Memorial Cross. Parking at the village hall is already inadequate for functions held there. Then there is the issue of road access for the enabling developments. It is difficult to envisage how good safe access to an increasingly busy highway could be provided either for the development at the top of Orpens Hill or that next to the village hall.
One of the most distinctive characteristics of Birch is its fine surrounding countryside with sweeping views across open fields to the woods beyond. This delightful rural landscape, which constantly changes with the passing seasons, is a good part of the reason we have chosen to live here. It is scenery which provides pleasure and joy not only to the residents of Birch and Birch Green but to all who pass through the village. Faced with the choice of losing some of this for ever or losing the church spire (which is in a very poor state) many of us consider our rural heritage to be of greater long term importance.
Taking into account the likely number, location, and lifestyle of their potential occupants, are the three developments likely to bring any significant benefits to the village community and its existing residents? The school is not likely to benefit as it is already oversubscribed. It seems unlikely the village shop and Post Office would gain much additional custom.
Planning 'Creep' and Ribbon Development
A major fear of local residents is that if Courtland is granted planning consent for its enabling developments the door will be opened to further development along the road between Birch and Birch Green. Further ribbon development would be detrimental to both villages, their existing residents and the surrounding countryside. It should be firmly resisted. Courtland has stated further development would not be permitted but, of course, it does not control local planning. If Courtland's application was approved would not Colchester Borough Council be on much weaker ground when trying to resist future applications for development along Birch Road and Birch Street?
The Council's current planning policy is to preserve the character of Essex rural villages and restrict residential development to larger centres where adequate infrastructure exists or can be provided. That is a very sound policy which Courtland should not be permitted to circumvent by using the provisions relating to enabling development.
Impact on the Churchyard
The churchyard is still open for burials and will remain so. Many Birch residents have relatives buried in the churchyard, some of the graves being literally within feet of the church building, particularly on the north side. Under Courtland's plans the church will be occupied by six households and part of the churchyard immediately surrounding the church will be fenced off for their private use.
Although there is no theological objection to converting a church (after deconsecration) to residential use, there are local residents who feel it would be inappropriate at Birch. We do not consider that six residences in the middle of the churchyard would be conducive to the peace and dignity of the place where loved ones are laid to rest and burial services are still conducted. Our preferred option would be demolition of the church which at present looks most unsightly because of the corrugated steel sheeting around it to prevent injury from falling masonry. With the increasing number of cremations these days, perhaps the resultant space could be made into a Garden of Remembrance with facilities for the interment or scattering of ashes and a place for suitable memorials.
Viability of Restoring the Church and Spire
It is common knowledge locally that the church's fabric has been in a serious state for many years. Major problems were recognised as far back as 1959/60 as recorded in Tom Millatt's history of the church. Over the years several people have told me that St Peter's Church was not constructed of the best quality materials when it was built in 1850. In particular the spire is of a relatively soft porous stone imported from France which has not weathered well and now has major structural defects. Anyone who doubts this can take a close look for themselves with a pair of binoculars.
St Peter's was closed for worship in 1987 because it was beyond economic repair and there was the danger of falling masonry. Since then the building has suffered nineteen years further exposure to the elements without proper maintenance. A leaking roof, broken windows and the absence of heating have also contributed to deterioration of the fabric. We understand a surveyor who carried out an inspection about five years ago concluded the spire was beyond repair and could only by restored by being dismantled and completely rebuilt. Tom Wayman, a long-time village resident and one of the last people to work on the church, has confirmed the opinion that the building is now at the end of its life. Some time ago corrugated steel sheeting had to be erected round much of the church to prevent injury from falling masonry.
South Door of St Peter's Church in 2002
In view of the state of the church's fabric are Courtland's proposals for the conversion and restoration of the church viable? There is a suspicion that the two, potentially very profitable, enabling developments would first be completed on the grounds that the sale proceeds were necessary to fund work on the church. At that stage it might well be argued that restoration of the church was no longer feasible because of the poor state of the structure or, for example, there was no market for the apartments (see below). The developer says this could not happen because planning approval for the enabling developments would be subject to a S.106 Agreement requiring them to complete the work on the Church. Because Courtland is a private limited liability company a S.106 Agreement would only constitute a cast-iron guarantee if the developer was required to place a bond with Colchester Borough Council for the full cost of the work on the church before any work commenced on the enabling developments.
Market for Residences in the Converted Church
Courtland have indicated that they would expect the six residences in the church to sell for around £200,000 each. A question asked by many Birch residents is whether a market really exists for apartments in a shared church building, surrounded by graves in a churchyard still used for burials? It is assumed that each occupier would also have a 1/6th liability for the exterior maintenance of this listed building (excluding the tower and spire - see below). It is well known that repairs to this type of building are always exceptionally expensive as they require the involvement of architects, approval from English Heritage, the use of special materials and the employment of specialist contractors.
Sustainability - Long-Term Maintenance and Repair of the Tower and Spire
The developer has said "The Council (Colchester Borough) requires that any restoration of the Church shall result in the building having a "sustainable use". They wish to ensure that the use of the building is such that it will be supported and maintained in the years ahead". Courtland has yet to give a proper answer to the question of who will be responsible for the long-term maintenance and upkeep of the tower and spire. It is unrealistic to expect that the occupiers of the apartments in the church would each be willing to accept a 1/6th liability for the undoubtedly substantial costs of maintenance in the years ahead.
At the Parish Council meeting on June 5th 2006 it was made clear that Courtland itself does not intend to accept the long-term responsibility for the tower and spire. The developer talked about setting up a endowment trust for the purpose, into which it would inject some funds, but indicated it would not be fully funding the trust. We were left with the impression that Courtland expected the village and its residents to contribute to the endowment. Given the strongly expressed opposition to the scheme at the meeting in June 2006 that seems a non-starter.
There is a potential risk here of the village and its residents being left to carry the can. If Courtland proceeds with its proposal for establishing a trust fund, we need answers to the following questions:
- What is the total sum of the endowment likely to be necessary to provide an adequate income for the long-term future maintenance and repair of the tower and spire?
- What contribution does Courtland propose to make to the endowment fund?
- From what source or sources will the balance of the endowment be found? (There is no suggestion that English Heritage will provide any funding.)
- Who does Courtland intend should act as trustees of such a fund?
- How are the trustees to be appointed?
The Parish Council wrote to Courtland in July 2006 asking for information on these points. In its reply of 7th August Courtland confirmed that its proposals did include the provision of a trust fund for maintenance of the church tower and spire, but that the amount of funding for this purpose is still to be determined. It has said it will provide the fund for this purpose. This suggests the developer will provide all the necessary funding but this is at variance with the comments from one of the Directors during the Parish Council meeting on June 5th 2006. Apart from proposing that the village should be represented on the tower and spire trust, the letter provides no further details about the proposed trust.
If Courtland is unable to put forward credible detailed proposals for the long-term upkeep of the spire and tower it will surely have failed the sustainability test for this development and planning consent should be refused.
The Present Position (as at February 2008)
Courtland carried out a consultation exercise in the village by holding an exhibition of their proposals on the afternoon of Friday 19th May 2006 in the village hall (see News page). The developers said that the written comments of visitors to the exhibition were "generally favourable" towards the scheme. There is reason to believe this was not a fair and balanced summary of the opinions expressed. If allowed to see the actual comments we would almost certainly find that many of those who expressed a desire to see the church spire saved also expressed reservations and concerns about the proposed 'enabling' developments. We do know there were 31 written comments made by residents and a mere 14 of these were in favour of the proposals.
Courtland consulted Birch Parish Council at its meeting held in the village hall on the evening of 5th June 2006. The meeting was very well attended and village hall was almost filled to capacity by local residents. After Courtland's presentation on their proposals, and subsequent debate, there was a show of hands to gauge the support of residents for the proposals. Not a single resident raised a hand in support of the proposals. There was a number of abstentions but the overwhelming majority expressed, with some feeling, their opposition to Courtland's scheme. (see Press Release.)
Courtland's proposals were also discussed at subsequent Parish Council meetings on July 17th and September 4th, 2006. Local opinion, as expressed at these meetings, continued to be overwhelmingly against Courtland's proposals with a preference that the church building be demolished. Reports on these Council meetings appear on the Press and News pages of this website.
Despite the strong local opposition expressed at Parish Council meetings, Courtland subsequently confirmed in writing its intention to continue work on its proposals with the objective of submitting a planning application. At Birch Parish Council meeting on 8th January 2007 Councillor Peter Crowe reported that the Planning Department was still in consultation with the developers about the proposed development of St Peter's Church. At the next Parish Council meeting on 5th February Councillor Crowe reported that no planning application had been made as at that date. In recent months things appear to have gone quiet but there is no room for complacency. We need to continue to monitor the situation closely and be ready to act quickly when an application is lodged. There will be strict time limits within which to make formal representations to our elected representatives and Colchester Borough Council.
Have Your Say
It will be apparent from the above that many of us believe Courtland's proposals would not, on balance, be beneficial to the village and should be opposed. We think it best to accept that St Peter's Church is, sadly, a very tired and worn out building which has come to the end of its useful life. Demolition would be preferable to the three developments now proposed and their likely impact on our village.
If you share our view it is important to make your voice heard before decisions are taken on planning approval for Courtland's proposals.
Although no application has yet been lodged, there is nothing to stop you making your views known now to the Parish Council (write to the Parish Clerk) and our Borough Councillors. When a planning application is made, that will be the critical time to write formally to both Birch Parish Council and Colchester Borough Council's Planning Department stating your objections and opposition to the proposals. The application will come before Birch Parish Council which is keen to receive the views of local residents. Council meetings are public and you are urged to attend the meeting at which any application is considered. A large attendance will underline the strength of local opposition to the granting of planning consent.
Contact details for the Parish Council, our two Borough Councillors, Colchester Borough Council Planning Department and Chelmsford Diocese can be found on the contacts page.
You may find the following tips helpful:
- A written letter tends to carry more weight than a telephone call or an email.
- If you have a telephone conversation it is a good idea to make a note of the date and time, the person you spoke to and a summary of what was said.
- If you send a letter or email, keep a copy for your records.
Website Feedback
I would be interested to receive comments and feedback from Birch residents on Courtland's proposals and this website - please see contact page. You may also like to have your name added to the list of those who we know are interested in opposing Courtland's scheme. We can then endeavour to keep you posted about developments as and when we become aware of them.