Heritage Statement

Old Court Cottage, Lelant,

St Ives, TR26 3EB

March 2021 Chartwood Planning Heritage & Planning Consultancy

Page | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 2.0 DESIGNATION 6 3.0 RELEVANT POLICY AND LEGISLATION 8 4.0 CARTOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 11 5.0 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 15 6.0 ASSESSING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROPOSALS 17 7.0 GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF BUILDING & IMPACT ASSESSMENT 19 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 19

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF REPORT 21 ANNEX 2 GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGES & IMPACT ASSESSMENT [SEPARATE COVER]

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Chartwood Planning was appointed to provide a suitable heritage statement in support of an application to undertake alterations and renovations at Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB.

This document has been prepared by Colin Sellars PGDip MA MRTPI IHBC, Director of Chartwood Planning (Heritage & Planning Consultants) and is intended to provide the Local Planning Authority (LPA) with an assessment of the significance of the proposals based upon the details available and to assess the effect the proposed works are considered to have on the significance of this Grade II listed heritage asset, in compliance with the relevant legislation and planning policies.

Outline of Proposals and Summary

The proposal is to carefully address a number of unsympathetic modern alterations and undertake a number of changes including the installation of new windows and doors, the re-ordering and replacement of the kitchen, and provision of a replacement summerhouse with hardstanding.

The proposals set out are considered beneficial in respect of the prevailing historic plan form, use, and aesthetics of the site. Overall, the proposals are likely to enhance the character and appearance of the building and protect any identified heritage values. Any harm noted is balanced against the benefits the proposed scheme will bring in terms of enabling the designated heritage asset to survive and fulfil its optimum viable use.

Specifically, this heritage statement has been prepared in accordance with:

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Chapter 16 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government).  The Setting of Heritage Assets; Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning (Historic England, 2015).  Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance (Historic England, 2008).  BS7913:2013 Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Institute, 2013)

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 4

Location

Approximate location of site shown centred on NGR: SW 54229 36792 (Easting: 154229 , Northing: 036792)

Images ©2021 CNES/Airbus, Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2021

Site & Context

The site is located within Cornwall Council’s administrative area and within the extent of St Ives Parish Council with a village population, at the 2011 Census, of some 3,892. Old Court Cottage is located adjacent to and west of the A3074 (Abbey Hill) which links the town of St Ives to the A30 trunk road, at the Hayle by-pass roundabout nearest to St Erth. Lelant is a relatively linear settlement which contains a number of heritage assets adjacent to the highway and is located generally west of the Hayle Estuary, about 4.0km south east of St Ives and 1.6km west of the town of Hayle.

The site is located within a Conservation Area but is not within the World Heritage Site or other notable landscape designation for the purpose of this report.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 5

Methodology

A site visit was conducted on Monday 1 March 2021. This appraisal has been augmented by desk-based research and limited cartographic analysis to further inform assessment and conclusions. This heritage statement focuses principally upon the impact assessment of the proposed renovations of the property with observational comments being provided, as appropriate, using relevant guidance along with the principles and philosophy below, and professional judgement.

Conservation Principles Conservation Philosophy

 Minimal Intervention with a ‘light touch’  Respect for authenticity and integrity  Like for like materials where possible (unless contraindicated, e.g.  Avoidance of conjecture cement based renders)  Respect for the setting  Conserve as found/ conservation of original fabric  Respect for significant contributions of all periods  Reversibility and re-treatability (repairs are able to be undone or do not  Respect for age and patina preclude the use of alternative interventions in the future)  Re-use of sound materials from the site contributes to sustainability  Use of tried and tested materials and methods  Mitigation e.g. recording and retaining  New work aspires to a quality of design and execution [materials and workmanship] which may be valued now and in the future. The new defers to the original (or setting) and is compatible (e.g. materials, scale, proportion)  Differentiation between old fabric and new interventions helps maintain reversibility and does not distort evidence by confusing the historic record  Periodic renewal of elements in a way that is visually and physically compatible and avoids incremental loss of heritage values

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 6

2.0 DESIGNATION

Relevant Designations

Listing Grade Description Grade I Buildings of exceptional interest (2.5% of listed buildings are in this class). Grade II* Particularly important buildings of more than special interest (5.5% of listed buildings). Grade II Are of special interest warranting every effort to preserve them (92% of listed buildings). A Conservation Area is ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which is desirable to protect or enhance’ (Section 69, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990)

National Heritage List for England (The ‘Listing’)

The part of the site being considered is now referred to as Old Court Cottage and is a Grade II listed building described as follows.

HAMPTON COURT, LOWER LELANT

C18 house. Rubble. Two wings forming E-plan. Two storeys. Wide sashes with glazing bars. Slate roof with gable ends. Modern trench windows.

List Entry Number: 1136881 Date First Listed: 22 December 1972 Listing NGR: SW 54225 36796

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 7

Heritage Assets

Relevant Listed Building Details

There are a number of heritage assets adjacent and proximal to the principal building, as can be seen in the plate and list below.

ROSE COTTAGE Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1143318

IDAHO Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1327792

WESLEYAN CHAPEL Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1136883

BLUE DOOR AND THE COTTAGE Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1327793

TRENDREATH Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1143358

LANDFALL Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1143319 National Heritage List for England Map (Historic England, 2021) PARK COTTAGES BOUNDY'S HOUSE Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1143317 Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1136890 ARABELLA TRENDREATH HOUSE Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1143360 Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1143359

THE ABBEY Grade: II, List Entry Number: 1312587

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 8

3.0 RELEVANT POLICY AND LEGISLATION

National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF)

The NPPF has been revised and sets out government planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This requires the planning process to consider three dimensions, being economic, social and environmental considerations, and requires that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF goes on to state that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of life, including widening the choice of high quality homes. This proposal seeks to complete a number of renovations and make essential repairs to ensure the continuity of this heritage asset so as to retain the existing quality aesthetic and continue to provide the residential element therein.

Chapter 16 of the NPPF sets out the policies relating to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Notably, paragraph 189 states that “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.” Paragraph 193 goes on to state “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

Paragraph 194 explains that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification and that substantial harm, or the total loss of the significance of a heritage asset, should be wholly exceptional. Paragraph 195 notes that “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss”. This is worthy of note but is certainly not the case with this development.

Perhaps a more challenging scenario is set by paragraph 196 which has regard to less than substantial harm and outlines that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In this case there may be elements that reach the lower end of this threshold but, once the work is completed with appropriate detailing, the heritage asset will be enhanced and its continued optimum viable use secured.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 9

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The NPPG provides guidance on the policies in the NPPF echoing and explaining the prevailing policies contained in the NPPF, Circulars and best practice guidance. The NPPG says that heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting and goes on to say that being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understand any potential impact and the acceptability of proposals.

The NPPF defines setting as "The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of the asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral." In this respect, the NPPG notes a thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

This Act sets out the legislative duties placed upon the LPA with Section 66(1) stating that “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

This heritage statement has due regard to the implications of the Court of Appeal judgement in the Barnwell Manor Wind Energy vs East Northamptonshire et al [2014] case which ruled that considerable weight should be attached to the preservation or enhancement of the setting of heritage assets. The Court held that: “to make an assessment of the indirect impact of development or change upon an asset it is first necessary to make a judgement about the contribution made by its setting”. In the subsequent decision it was stated that there remains a strong presumption against granting planning permission for development which would cause harm to heritage assets as the desirability of preserving the special interest is of considerable importance and weight.

Furthermore, the heritage balance was clarified in Palmer vs Herefordshire Council & ANR [2016]. In this case it was confirmed that, where a development would affect a heritage asset or its settings in different ways, some positive and some negative, the decision maker may legitimately conclude that although each of the effects has an impact, the overall effect is taken on the basis of the development as a whole. On this basis, paragraphs 195 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would only be engaged where the harm is not outweighed by the heritage benefits delivered by a development. In other words, paragraphs 195 and 196 are only engaged when harm arising from the proposals outweighs the benefits, and the residual effect is considered harmful. It is suggested that no such scenario exists here and that the well considered proposals, once implemented, will not lead to such harmful effects.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 10

Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030.

Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, therefore proposals for development should be informed by and will be determined in line with statutory requirements, national policy guidance and specific relevant guidance, principles and best practice. Notably, Policy 24 (Historic Environment) states that development proposals will be permitted where they would sustain the cultural distinctiveness and significance of Cornwall’s historic rural, urban and coastal environment by protecting, conserving and where appropriate enhancing the significance of designated and non-designated assets and their settings. It is considered that the proposals set out herein fully comply with this aspiration and will lead to an enhancement of the heritage asset.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 11

4.0 CARTOGRAPHIC AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Lelant was the head settlement of the parish during the medieval period and was considered to be the principal market and port, containing the parish church. However, during the 14th century the port of Lelant became heavily silted and, as this was not addressed, its importance and functions as a central place weakened. In part, this decline was the stimulus for the growth and development of St Ives as it gained much of Lelant’s former trade as a planted market town. The name Lelant is said to derive from the Cornish ‘Lann’ and ‘Anta’, meaning church site of Anta. According to the publication ‘The Place Names of Cornwall’, the earliest attested spelling is ‘Lananta’ which is recorded circa 1170. Although little is known in respect of Anta, to whom the Carbis Bay church is dedicated, the Lelant parish church is dedicated to St Uny. Lake describes Lelant, in ‘A Complete Parochial History of the County of Cornwall’ (1870) as follows: “The parish of Lelant, Uny-Lelant, Lelant-Euny, or Lalant is situated in the deanery of Penwith, and in the eastern division of the hundred of Penwith; it is bounded on the north by St Ives and St Ives Bay; on the east by the estuary of the river Hayle, and St Erth; on the south by Ludgvan; and on the west by Towednack”.

Tithe & Census Information

The 1839 Tithe information confirms the owner and occupier of the land and buildings to have been Henry Hosking. Although the Tithe apportionment of 1839 confirms the owner and occupier details it does not confirm any particulars in respect of the built form beyond the annotated map drawn at the time. Notably, the Tithe apportionment describes the main site as it is today, being plot 1230, as containing a house and garden. Philip Daniel and Richard Williams are recorded as the occupiers of the house but no details are noted in the later, 1841 Census.

IR 29/6/201. Tithe Apportionments, 1836-1929 [database online]. TheGenealogist.co.uk 2021. Original data: "IR29 Tithe Commission and successors: Tithe Apportionments" The National Archives

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 12

Although, depending upon the skill of the drafters employed, the Tithe survey is often considered to be the earliest to indicate the built environment in a level of detail to allow the reader to draw conclusions about plan form and tenure. In conjunction with studying the Tithe Maps the following Ordnance Survey editions were reviewed:

 Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.1 (Hayle; Ludgvan; St Erth; St Ives). Surveyed 1876 and published in 1879.  Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.NW (Hayle; St Erth). Surveyed 1877 and published in 1888.  Ordnance Survey, Sheet 351 (Penzance Outline). Published in 1896.  Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.NW (Hayle; St Erth). Revised 1907 and published in 1908.  Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.1 (Hayle; Ludgvan; St Erth; St Ives). Revised 1936 and published in 1937.  Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.NW (Hayle; St Erth). Revised 1938 and published circa 1945.  Ordnance Survey, Provisional (Outline Edition) 1:25,000, Administrative Area Series. Revised 1906-1938 and published in 1951.  Ordnance Survey, SW53 - B (Hayle; Ludgvan; St Erth; St Hilary; St Ives). Published in 1960.  Ordnance Survey, SW53NW - A (Hayle; Ludgvan; St Erth; St Ives). Revised 1930-1962 and published in 1963.

As ever, the various Ordnance Survey editions and revisions, as noted, provide varying levels of clarity throughout the evolution of the site. Some of these editions are drafted as outline maps and provide little to see that would assist in the understanding of the building and its use. Indeed, the level of detail does not indicate, with any accuracy, the delineation of the buildings on some while some definitive plots of land are perceptible with most. Interestingly, the buildings shown on some editions are displayed as a homogenous block but this does not necessarily mean that they were conjoined but may be displayed this way for the sake of expediency or, of course, this could be as a result of a recording or drawing anomaly.

Setting this aside, the principal building present at the time of the survey for the 1879 Ordnance Survey edition generally continues to occupy a similar footprint to that of which can be observed today, with few discernible changes evident. The general layout of the site can be seen in the various iterations of the Ordnance Survey excerpts that follow but no information providing confirmation of any details of how the internal plan form was set out is available.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 13

Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.1 (Hayle; Ludgvan; St Erth; St Ives). Surveyed 1876 and published in 1879.

(Crown Copyright. OS Licence 105996079)

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 14

Ordnance Survey, Cornwall LXIX.NW (Hayle; St Erth). Revised 1907 and published in 1908.

(Crown Copyright. OS Licence 101439383)

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 15

5.0 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Basis for Assessment of Significance

Significance is the sum of the cultural and natural heritage values of a place (English Heritage, 2008). Cultural heritage value has many aspects, including:

 Evidential Value (including archaeological value): The potential of a place to yield primary information about past human activity;  Historical Value: The ways in which it can provide direct links to past people, events and aspects of life;  Aesthetic Value (Architectural Value): The ways in which people respond to a place through sensory and intellectual experience of it; and,  Communal Value: The meanings of a place for the people who identify with it, and communities for whom it is part of their collective memory.

In addition, the historic environment is a cultural and natural heritage resource shared by communities characterised not just by geographical location but also by common interests and values. As such, emphasis may be placed upon important consequential benefits or potential, for example as an educational, recreational, or economic resource, which the historic environment provides.

The basis for assessing significance therefore allows consideration of the varying degrees of significance of different elements. By identifying those elements that must not be lost or compromised and are vital to the significance there is, by definition, a number of elements which are identified of lesser value, as well as those which may have little value or even detract from the significance of the site. For consistency the degrees of significance adopted and used in this statement are:

 Outstanding Significance: Elements of the place which are of key national or international significance, as among the best (or only surviving example) of an important type of monument, or outstanding representatives of important social or cultural phenomena, or are of very major regional or local significance.  Considerable Significance: Elements which constitute good and representative examples of an important class of monument (or the only example locally), or have a particular significance through association, although surviving examples may be relatively common on a national scale, or which make major contributions to the overall significance of the monument.  Moderate Significance: elements which contribute to the character and understanding of the place, or which provide an historical or cultural context for features of individually greater significance.  Low Significance: elements which are of individually low value in general terms or have little or no significance in promoting understanding or appreciation of the place, without being actually intrusive.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 16

Statement of Significance

Evidential Value

The evidential value of the site remains predominantly within the built heritage and the surviving elements of the plan form which remains and echoes the original building, as much as it is understood, with its various alterations and additions which culminate in the surviving building today. In terms of the heritage asset itself, this includes the materials and techniques utilised to construct the various phases of the building. The internal fabric of the main building retains limited potential to contain elements of further evidential value and it is noted that some of the alterations and adaptations undertaken over the years, coupled with other contemporary interventions, have led to a diminishing of some elements. The evidential value of the site is considered to be of moderate significance.

Historical & Communal Value

The built form, along with that of others which are nearby or grouped with this asset, have a clear association with the evolution and later demise of the settlement of Lelant and the subsequent expansion of St Ives. The surviving built form provides evidence and information in respect of the changing fortunes of the communities through the past centuries, indicating the previous importance of the settlement as a central place prior to it being usurped following the silting of the port. Albeit elements of the building have been altered or lost, during periods of planned and phased developments to better meet the needs of the occupiers, it still holds interest and is considered to be of moderate significance.

Aesthetic Value

The aesthetic value is derived, in part, with the other listed buildings along the main road which form a village group. The building itself is constructed of local materials and appears to have been a purposefully designed structure. Despite some elements, including the fenestrations and rear roof materials being somewhat unsympathetically altered in places, the house retains moderate aesthetic and architectural significance.

Overall Significance

The evidential, historical and aesthetic values of the site lead to the overall significance of the building and site being assessed as moderate.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 17

6.0 ASSESSING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROPOSALS

General Considerations

This section primarily applies to the physical changes proposed to the fabric of the building and where such changes have relevance to the setting of the said heritage asset. This section should be read in conjunction with the impact assessment relating to the specific proposed work which accompanies this document.

“Conservation is the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations.” (Historic England Principle 4.2).

“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.” (NPPF, 2018).

Understanding character, significance, features, relationship with setting and context should inform as to sensitivity to change and any ensuing adaptations. Design often requires careful balances and compromises between the requirements and expectations of modern living and lifestyle with protecting character and significance. This includes maintaining the setting with regard to the relationship between buildings, their immediate vicinity and wider landscape. This is important when considering the sense of enclosure, access, boundaries and materials.

There are often tensions between different solutions for varying elements but the core conservation principles provide a transparent means of reconciling these based on relative heritage values and the inter-relationship between the elements. As such, professional judgement is used to determine the importance of the resource and the magnitude of any impact is derived using the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) grading scale in the table that follows. Notably, the table is not intended to be exhaustive.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 18

Guide for Assessing the Magnitude of Impact (Excerpt from ICOMOS, 2011)

Description of Impact

Magnitude of Archaeological Remains Historic Buildings Historic Landscapes Impact

Major Change to most or all key Change to key historic building Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; extreme visual archaeological materials, elements, such that the resource is effects; gross change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit. totally altered. changes to the setting. Comprehensive changes to setting.

Moderate Changes to many key Change to many key historic Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, visual change to many archaeological materials, building elements, such that the key aspects of the historic landscape, noticeable differences in noise or sound quality, such that the resource is resource is significantly modified. considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape clearly modified. Changes to the setting of an character. Considerable changes to historic building, such that it is setting that affect the significantly modified. character of the asset.

Minor Changes to key Change to key historic building Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, slight visual changes to archaeological materials, elements, such that the asset is few key aspects of historic landscape, limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight such that the asset is slightly slightly different. Change to setting changes to use or access: resulting in limited changes to historic landscape character. altered. Slight changes to of an historic building, such that it setting. is noticeably changed.

Negligible Very minor changes to Slight changes to historic buildings Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, virtually archaeological materials, or elements or setting that hardly unchanged visual effects, very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes setting. affect it. to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character.

No change No Change No change to fabric or setting No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes arising from in amenity or community factors.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 19

7.0 GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGES & IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Details in respect of the proposed changes can be seen in the associated annex to this document, Annex 2: General Synopsis of Proposed Changes & Impact Assessment.

8.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

Summary

This report assesses the historic development and fabric of Old Court Cottage and, to a degree, its surrounds, confirming its historical origins and identifying where its significance lies. The evidential, historical and aesthetic values of the site have been considered and the overall significance is assessed as being moderate.

The key findings in respect of the proposals are:

 The character, appearance and setting of the building should not be substantially or inappropriately altered by the proposals;  The choice of design and materials is appropriate in this instance when measured against ‘minimum intervention’, ‘maintaining authenticity’ and ‘respect for significance’.  The identified heritage values will not be eroded by implementing these proposals.

Overall Assessment of the Impact of the Proposals

There will be a minor physical impact and the aesthetic impact is considered to be generally neutral to positive. In certain respects, the wider aesthetic view will be improved.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 20

Conclusion

As noted earlier, care has been taken to minimise the extent of any works so as to reduce or negate any potential adverse impact upon the heritage values of the listed building and its setting. The works will go towards ensuring that this surviving heritage asset is retained in an optimally viable use.

Indeed, the works are considered to fully comply with the conservation principles set out by Historic England (HE) and be well considered to involve the least amount of intervention possible to achieve the proposal’s aims. The proposals are not considered to lead to or materially harm the values of the place or adversely prejudice alternative solutions or proposals in the future.

The design of the proposals takes full account of the significance of the building and it is my professional view that the proposals do not cause significant harm or lead to the loss of significance, but will ensure that the building can continue to accrue value, in terms of heritage significance. In this respect there appears to be no material reason in conservation terms, subject to agreed details, why the Local Planning Authority should not support this project.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beacham, P. and Pevsner, N. (2014) The Buildings of England: Cornwall. Yale University Press: London. Bray, L. and Bray, D. (1992). St Ives Heritage; Recollections and Records of St Ives, Carbis Bay and Lelant. Landfall Publications: Cornwall. Cornwall County Council (2005). Cornwall and Scilly Urban Survey, Historic Characterisation for Regeneration: St Ives. Lake, W. (1870) A Complete Parochial History of the County of Cornwall. John Camden Hotten: London. Matthews, J.H. (1892). A History of the Parishes of St Ives, Lelant, Towednack and Zennor, in the County of Cornwall. Elliot Stock: London.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB Page | 21

ANNEX 1: TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF REPORT

Disclosure to a Third Party: This Report may not be relied upon by a Third Party for any purpose without the written consent of this Practice. Furthermore, this Report has been prepared and issued specifically for the benefit of the addressee and no responsibility will be extended to any Third Party for the whole or any part of its content.

This report may contain public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Any such OpenData information is used subject to the terms at http://os.uk/opendata/licence. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2020.

21175: Old Court Cottage, Lelant, St Ives, TR26 3EB