BROOMFIELD HOUSE
To receive, a verbal update regarding Broomfield House.
(9.05 – 9.10 pm)
Minutes:
Councillor Dinah Barry (Associate Cabinet Member – Enfield West) gave a verbal update to Members regarding Broomfield House. An information sheet was tabled at the meeting for Members to note, as summarised below.
NOTED
1. The background to the current situation, and the status of Broomfield House and its stable block which were both included within Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. An integrated strategy was needed for the House and Stables.
2. Members were updated on the progress of the Project Board, which had been established in October 2014. A significant amount of work had been undertaken. These outputs included studies on heritage significance, structural feasibility, use options, costs and soft market testing.
3. Structural surveys of the building remains had shown that only 20-30% of the remains could be restored as it stands. The remaining 70% of the structure was unviable for the use for which it was intended. Any reconstruction of the House would therefore to a large extent be a replica rather than a restoration. All options would be examined. The existing covenant which restricted trade or business raised the risks around the provision of any future income generating use. The Heritage Lottery Fund feedback was that they still had issues around the funding gap and how the proposed end-uses would meet their requirement for very secure long term income generation and sustainable business viability.
4. In the coming months officers would undertake the further work which was required by Historic England, in accordance with government guidance (the National Planning Policy Guidance), on further testing of options. It was not possible to consult local people on the future of Broomfield House until a limited range of options or a preferred scheme had been identified. This could only be evolved by fully testing viability through the market. Officers would undertake a marketing procedure to seek expressions of interest from a commercial partner (a process which would take 9-12 months).
5. Officers would continue to work with the community on the alternative options and continue to liaise with the Heritage Lottery Fund.
6. That a report would be brought to a future Cabinet meeting for a decision on the way ahead. The Council would continue to work with the community to deliver a timely resolution.
7. In response to a question raised by Councillor Anderson, Councillor Barry outlined in more detail the results of the structural surveys. Whilst the majority of the brickwork could be retained and repaired, the majority of the building was of timber framed construction that was not capable of repair and retention. A drone survey had recently been carried out and the resulting video footage would be placed on the Council’s website. This would aid understanding of the building construction and the limited fabric which remained. It was noted that no more than 20-30% of the historic fabric of the building remained.