Lift in listed building at 72 Grange Court, High Road, Chigwell

What was proposed

Listed building consent was sought for a passenger lift in the principal building, with associated internal layout changes and new openings.

“Listed building consent is sought for changes to a previously granted application for conversion, subdivision and extension of the building to provide 14 apartments with associated parking and landscaping. Most notably, the present proposals seek to introduce a lift in the principal building alongside associated changes to layout and insertion of new openings.”

Officer report

The building and its importance

Grange Court is a Grade II* Georgian residence with historic alterations, including work by Sir Edwin Lutyens, and lies within Chigwell Conservation Area.

“Grange Court was built in 1774 as a fine example of a Georgian gentleman’s residence. In its handsome principal elevations of classical design and high-quality interiors, it is a distinguished example of a building type once common on the fringes of London. The site has a long and complex history and played a prominent role in the history of the settlement of Chigwell. It is today a significant building within the Chigwell Conservation Area.”

“Significant alterations were carried out by Sir Edwin Lutyens, one of Edwardian England’s most acclaimed architects. The buff brick house with red brick and stucco dressings was refurbished by Sir Edwin Lutyens for his friend Sir Charles Baring in the early 20th century. Internally, he designed the corridor, monumental staircase and northeast extension.”

Officer report

Earlier schemes and site history

A 2017 scheme approved accessible apartments in a rear extension, while similar 2019 and 2022 proposals were refused and enforcement investigations remain unresolved.

“This scheme was the result of comprehensive and cooperative discussions between the applicants, the LPA, and Historic England to identify a viable use of the site that would secure the long-term future of the building. The large rear extension enabled the creation of modern apartments, providing step-free access, lifts, and modern facilities while minimising interventions to the historic core of the principal building.”

“Applications (EPF/0633/22 & EPF/0767/22) sought amendments to the approved layouts, including changes to the principal entrance, a side infill extension, and associated internal modifications. These were refused for similar reasons to the 2019 applications, citing substantial harm to the significance, layout, and fabric of the listed building. That decision was not challenged at appeal.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the lift would cause cumulative, irreversible heritage harm, while accessibility was already addressed and the submitted information was insufficient.

“The current proposals introduce significant and irreversible harm to the Grade II* listed building, exacerbating cumulative impacts of previous unauthorised interventions.”

“Paragraph 215 states that where a scheme would result in less than substantial harm, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. As explained above in this report, accessibility, which could constitute a public benefit, cannot be relied upon in this case. The needs cited for accessibility were fully addressed in the 2017 scheme, including the addition of the rear extension.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Two public representations supported the lift, while Chigwell Parish Council and Historic England objected on heritage grounds.

“Chigwell Parish Council – Objection. “The Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to the proposal, which would harm the special interest and physical fabric of the designated heritage asset, contrary to the NPPF heritage tests and the adopted local plan’s conservation policies. The scheme substantially repeats an application refused in 2019, which was rejected due to the cumulative harm it would cause and the absence of robust justification”.”

“Advice Letter dated 19 August 2025: Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications Direction 2021: “In their present form, the proposals would represent a more harmful intervention to previously objected applications. We do not consider that a robust justification has been presented for the resulting cumulative harm. Consequently, Historic England is content to retain our objection to the proposed lift insertion.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The Chairman explained the proposed deferral, and Councillor Paul Keska clarified why the application came before the committee.

Why the decision was deferred

The Chairman said it was fair and proper to await Historic England’s site visit and report before deciding the application.

“The Chairman announced he had decided to defer this application until Historic England had undertaken its site visit of Grange Court later in February. In his opinion it was only fair and proper to await their report before the committee made a decision on this application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee deferred the application to a future meeting pending Historic England’s site visit.

“The Committee DEFERRED the application to a future meeting of the Committee, pending the site visit by Historic England.”

Minutes