Heritagecollective

HeritageCollective

Heritage Proof of Evidence

Dr Jonathan Edis BA MA PhD MCIfA IHBC

(1) Land North of St George’s Road, Semington

(2) Land North of Pound Lane, Semington

On behalf of Oxford Law Limited

May 2017

PINS Ref: APP/Y3940/W/16/3164255 PINS Ref: APP/Y3940/W/16/3162997

LPA Ref: 16/06956/OUT LPA Ref: 16/05783/OUT

Heritage Collective Ref: 3306

HeritageCollective

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION 5 3.0 RELEVANT HERITAGE POLICY AND GUIDANCE 8 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS 11 5.0 IMPACTS ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 22 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 27

Appendices (Two separate volumes, 1-29, and 30)

1 CANAL LOOKING WEST FROM SEMINGTON BRIDFE 2 CANAL LOOKING WEST, SEMINGTON AQUEDUCT 3 SEMINGTON AQUEDUCT 4 CANAL LOOKING WEST FROM THE SWING BRIDGE 5 ST GEORGE’S FROM THE CANAL 6 PILLBOX LOOKING SOUTH 7 PILLBOX, WESTERN EMBRASURE 8 PILLBOX, SOUTH SIDE 9 PILLBOX FROM FOOTPATH, ST GEORGE’S ROAD 10 ST GEORGE’S FROM THE NORTH WEST 11 ST GEORGES FROM THE WEST 12 ST GEORGES FROM THE WEST 13 ST GEORGE’S FROM THE WEST 14 ST GEORGES FROM THE WEST, ST GEORGE’S PLACE 15 ST GEORGE’S FROM THE SOUTH WEST, ST GEORGE’S PLACE 16 ST GEORGE’S FROM ST GEORGE’S PLACE, LOOKING NORTH 17 ST GEORGE’S FROM ST GEORGE’S PLACE, LOOKING NORTH WEST 18 ST GEORGE’S EAST SIDE, INCLUDING THE HANNICK HOMES SITE 19 ST GEORGE’S, FRONT ELEVATION 20 ST GEORGE’S, LOOKING WEST 21 ST GEORGE’S, LOOKING WEST 22 ST GEORGE’S LOOKING WEST OVER THE HANNICK HOMES SITE 23 MELKSHAM POOR LAW UNION 24 STEEPLE ASHTON ENCLOSURE MAP 1818 25 STEEPLE ASHTON TITHE MAP 1839 26 LISTED PILLBOXES – IMAGES OF ENGLAND 27 INDICATIVE LAYOUT, HANNICK HOMES SITE 16/01678/OUT 28 INDICATIVE LAYOUT, AMENDED APPEAL SCHEME 29 INDICATIVE LAYOUT, RICHBOROUGH ESTATES APPEAL SCHEME 30 ARCHAEOLOGY REPORT (BOUND SEPARATELY FROM THE ABOVE)

Heritage Proof of Land North of St George’s On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 3 Evidence Road, Semington Limited

HeritageCollective

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 I am Jonathan David Edis. I hold the degrees of BA (Hons) in History, MA with distinction in Architectural Building Conservation, and PhD, and I am a Member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (MCIfA) and a Member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). I have more than thirty years of professional experience of the historic built environment in the public and private sectors, including employment as a Conservation Officer with Bedfordshire County Council.

1.2 I am a Director of Heritage Collective, a company which provides independent heritage consultancy. During my career I have dealt with a wide range of cases involving physical changes to historic structures and development affecting the setting of heritage assets. I am also a Director of Archaeology Collective which is a subsidiary of Heritage Collective.

1.3 I have provided expert heritage evidence at more than a hundred public inquiries. My work has included the assessment of effects on a wide range of heritage receptors in England, Wales and Scotland, involving listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, historic parks and gardens, historic battlefields, and expansive prehistoric and medieval relict landscapes in upland areas. My firm is involved in a wide range of work including the effects of housing developments, urban extensions, renewable energy schemes, commercial and industrial developments, and national infrastructure projects.

1.4 I understand my duty to the inquiry and have complied, and will continue to comply, with that duty. I confirm that this evidence identifies all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinion that I have expressed and that the Inquiry's attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of that opinion. I believe that the facts stated within this proof are true and that the opinions expressed are correct.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St George’s On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 4 Evidence Road, Semington Limited

HeritageCollective

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The appeal proposal

2.1 The proposed developments comprise (1) an amended outline planning application (16/06956/OUT) for 50 dwellings on land north of St George’s Lane, Semington, Wiltshire, for Oxford Law, and (2) an outline planning application for 75 dwellings on land north of Pound Lane, Semington, for Richborough Estates.

My involvement in these appeals

2.2 I first became involved in this case in February 2017. My evidence is given on behalf of the appellant in the case of appeal APP/Y3940/W/16/3164255, namely Oxford Law Limited.

Heritage considerations

2.3 Oxford Law’s application 16/06956/OUT was refused by Wiltshire Council on 4 November 2016. There was no heritage reason for refusal of planning permission. The committee report mentioned a number of heritage considerations which are addressed at various points in my proof of evidence below.

2.4 Paragraph 5.18 of Wiltshire Council’s statement of case asserts that the Oxford Law appeal proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the significance and setting of two heritage assets, as follows:

i. St George’s Hospital, which originated as a workhouse built by Melksham Union between 1836 and 1838. Designed by Henry Edward Kendall,1 it was listed grade II on 31 August 1988 and has been converted to residential use. It is referred to throughout my proof of evidence as St George’s.

1 There were two Henry Edward Kendalls, father and son (1776-1875 and 1805-1885 respectively) who both designed gaols and workhouses as part of their prolific output.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 5 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

ii. A Type FW3/28a pillbox dating to the Second World War. This is not a designated heritage asset.2

2.5 I address the substantive points relating to setting and significance below.

Scope of my evidence

2.6 My evidence relates to the effects of the proposed developments on the setting and significance of heritage assets. Chapter 5, which is in two parts, describes the effect of the Oxford Law appeal (APP/Y3940/W/16/3164255, on land north of St George’s Road) and the effect of the Richborough Estates appeal (APP/Y3940/W/16/3162997 on land north of Pound Lane). It does not involve an assessment of the overall planning balance, which is contained in the evidence of Mr Peter Frampton.

Relationship of my evidence to previous studies and statements

2.7 Oxford Law’s planning application 16/06956/OUT was supported by a Heritage Desk Based Assessment prepared by Cotswold Archaeology for Framptons dated May 2016. I do not depart from the material within Chapters 1 to 4 of that document3 but I distance myself somewhat from the assessment of setting in Chapter 5. That is not to say that I disagree with everything contained in Chapter 5, but for clarity I replace the assessment of setting with the analysis that follows in my proof of evidence. I broadly agree with the conclusions in Chapter 6 of the report, but paragraphs 6.10 to 6.14 relating to setting should be regarded as being substituted by the conclusions in my proof of evidence below.

2.8 I am the author of the heritage statement of case, on behalf of Oxford Law, relating to the Richborough Estates appeal APP/Y3940/W/16/3162997 on land north of Pound Lane, Semington (16/05783/OUT). That statement of case stands on its own merits and I do not add to it here save to further describe certain characteristics of the Kennet and Avon canal. I have tried

2 It should be noted that there are some technical inaccuracies in the way the harm relating to the pillbox has been described in paragraph 5.18 of the Council’s statement of case, but these are presumed to be drafting errors. 3 There are some comments in paragraphs 4.17 to 4.34 of the document which I would query in detail, but these do not seem to me to be material to the appeal and it is to be expected that there may be minor variations in approach between heritage consultants in such matters. Indeed, I rely on a quotation from one of these paragraphs below.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 6 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

not to repeat material that has already been set out in that statement of case, particularly in relation to the grade II listed structure known as Semington aqueduct.

Archaeology

2.9 During April and May 2017 Archaeology Collective managed a geophysical survey of the appeal site, followed by trial trenching, in liaison with Wiltshire Council’s Archaeology Officer. The results of that work will be available by the start of the inquiry and it is considered that any remaining matters can be agreed and addressed by way of condition. More specifically, the trial trenching report is in the final stages of preparation at the time of finalising my proof of evidence, and it is proposed to be issued on 25 May as Appendix 30, in a separate volume from Appendices 1 to 29 of my proof. It is anticipated that the report will in due course be “signed off” by the appropriate monitors and that it will not be an issue at the inquiry.

2.10 Comments made by the Archaeology Officer in relation to the Type FW3/28a pillbox are addressed separately below.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 7 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

3.0 RELEVANT HERITAGE POLICY AND GUIDANCE

3.1 The decision maker is required by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The decision maker must also give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building.4 There is a strong presumption against the grant of permission for development that would harm the setting of the listed building, though the presumption will plainly be lessened if the harm is less than substantial within the meaning in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as is explained further below.

3.2 Harm is defined by Historic England in paragraph 84 of Conservation Principles 2008 as change which erodes the significance of a heritage asset:

“Change to a significant place is inevitable, if only as a result of the passage of time, but can be neutral or beneficial in its effect on heritage values. It is only harmful if (and to the extent that) significance is eroded.”

3.3 The significance of a heritage asset is defined in the NPPF as potentially being made up of four main constituents, architectural interest, historical interest, archaeological interest and artistic interest. The setting of the heritage asset can also contribute to its significance. Setting is defined in the NPPF as follows:

“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.”

3.4 Historic England advocates in The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3 (March 2015) that a stepped approach should be taken to the assessment of impacts on setting and

4 East Northants [2014] EWCA Civ. 137.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 8 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

significance. This guidance, which was originally issued by English Heritage in 2011, has been revised in Historic England’s Good Practice Guide known as GPA3. It should be noted that the advice states in paragraph 1 that it does not constitute a prescriptive methodology. Further revisions to the document can be anticipated, following a recent public consultation exercise.

3.5 The assessments of setting and significance (and the assessments of impact) are normally made with primary reference to the four main elements of special significance identified in the NPPF.

3.6 The NPPF requires any impact involving harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be considered in terms of either “substantial harm” or “less than substantial harm” as described within paragraphs 132 to 134 of that document. Paragraph 132 states that:

“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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”

3.7 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF then goes on to describe the balancing exercise in cases where there is less than substantial harm (which is the position indicated in paragraph 5.18 of Wiltshire Council’s statement of case) as follows:

“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 securing its optimum viable use.”

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 9 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

3.8 Paragraph 139 of the NPPF is referred to below, in the context of a suggestion by Wiltshire Council’s Archaeology Officer to the effect that the Type 28A pillbox within the site is nationally significant – a point that is firmly rebutted later in my evidence. Paragraph 040 of National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is helpful in explaining paragraph 139 of the NPPF, which is clearly focused primarily on the management of conventional archaeological remains rather than on extant structures.

3.9 This assessment is confined to the significance of heritage assets, in particular the significance of the Kennet and Avon canal, Semington aqueduct, the type 28A pillbox and St George’s, and the impact of change on that significance. It does not address the planning balance in which public benefit is weighed against the degree of harm, if any.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 10 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS

Introduction

4.1 In this chapter of my proof of evidence I summarise the setting and significance of the heritage assets relevant to this appeal, namely (1) the Kennet and Avon canal and Semington aqueduct, (2) St George’s and (3) the Type FW3/28A pillbox.

The Kennet and Avon Canal and Semington Aqueduct

Historic background of the canal and aqueduct

4.2 The Kennet and Avon canal was built to link the River Avon to the River Thames, thereby creating a connection between Bristol and London. Authorised by an Act of Parliament, the line from Newbury to Hungerford opened in 1798 and was continued to Great Bedwyn in 1799 under the overall direction of the engineer John Rennie (1761-1821). The western part of the canal through Semington was finished in 1804, and the final locks were completed in Bath and Devizes in 1810.

4.3 The canal is carried over Semington brook on an earthen embankment that spans the shallow valley of the brook over a distance of about 220 metres. Semington brook itself runs under the canal through a brick and stone arch. The aqueduct was constructed c.1795-c.1799 by James McIlquham (fl. 1788-1802) and James Porteous, and it was listed grade II in two phases in 1985 and 1988.

Significance of the canal and aqueduct

4.4 Semington aqueduct belongs to a group of important aqueducts along the Kennet and Avon canal sharing common associations, all built under the general direction of the major canal engineer John Rennie (1761-1821). It is a structure that is evidently of special architectural and historic interest, and industrial archaeological interest.

4.5 Semington aqueduct should be considered in the context of Avoncliff aqueduct, which is listed grade II* and the Dundas aqueduct at Limpley

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 11 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

Stoke, which is a grade I listed building and a scheduled ancient monument. McIlquham was the builder of all three structures.

Setting of the canal and aqueduct

4.6 The canal passes through fields to the north of Semington. Appendices 1 to 4 illustrate how the canal is sequentially experienced within its surroundings, as follows:

 Appendix 1: The view of the canal corridor looking west from Semington bridge, including a grade II listed building known as Wharf Cottage. Here the canal is cut into the surrounding fields.

 Appendix 2: The view south-westward along the towpath on Semington aqueduct, at which point the canal is carried over the shallow valley of Semington Brook on an earthen embankment. The grassed fields on either side are lower than the canal for this stretch, the main part of which is about 220 metres long.

 Appendix 3: The view of the aqueduct from the valley of Semington brook.

 Appendix 4: The view from the swing bridge, looking east in the direction of the listed aqueduct. Here the canal is again cut into the surrounding fields.

4.7 The fields either side of the canal are an important part of the setting and significance of this non-designated heritage asset. By cutting through and crossing the pre-existing agricultural landscape, the canal has exercised a noticeable influence on the fields for a distance typically 100m to 150m on either side. While the character of the canal corridor must have changed in detail since it was opened just over 200 years ago, it would still be recognisable to a late Georgian inhabitant of Semington if they could hypothetically travel forward in time.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 12 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

St George’s

Historic background of St George’s

4.8 St George’s is illustrated in Appendix 5 and Appendices 10 to 22. It was built 1836-1838 and it was listed on 31 August 1988, at which time it was described as follows:

“Work house, now hospital for the mentally, handicapped. 1836-38 for Melksham Union, by H.E. Kendall. Limestone ashlar front, dressed limestone to rear ranges, Welsh slate roofs with brick stacks. Classical front range with four rear ranges arranged in a cross. Three-storey, 9-window front. Central three bays break forward with pediment, central 6-panelled door with pediment on corbels, aluminium windows replacing sashes with keystone and plain architrave either side and three windows to side bays. First floor has nine windows with keystones, second floor has nine with corbelled sills and no keys, corbelled eaves and pediment. Single- storey flanking wings with aluminium windows. Rear of main range has aluminium windows. Three-storey wing attached to centre rear of main range and running back to octagonal 3-storey block at axis of cross; 3-storey, 9-bay ranges run parallel to front range and a 2-storey 9-bay range continues to rear, shorter 2- storey or single- storey wings attached to ends of main ranges. All rear ranges have sashes or fixed windows with glazing bars, cast iron rainwater goods. Interior altered, but retains some original joinery, staircases. Built as a workhouse under the 1835 Poor Law Act for the Melksham Workhouse Union; original layout unaltered - front range contained boys' and girls' schoolrooms, board room in centre part, rear wings and yards for accommodation of men and women in separate blocks, kitchen and dining areas in central wing to rear. Single-storey buildings contained workshops stables and low building on east side contained cells for vagrants. (N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England, Wiltshire, 1975; plans in WRO)”

4.9 The Melksham Union Board of Guardians was formed in 1835, following the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834. There were 20 representatives on the board, eight from Trowbridge, six from Melksham, two each from Hilperton and Seend, and one each from Whaddon and Semington. The board first met in Melksham in November 1835, and unanimously agreed that the new

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 13 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

workhouse should be sited in Semington. A sub-committee was then formed to decide the exact location, and the Board of Guardians met thereafter in the Waggon and Horses public house in Semington.

4.10 Semington was an administrative anomaly in that it was not a parish in its own right, but was instead a chapelry or tithing of Steeple Ashton parish, most of which was within Westbury and Whorwellsdown Poor Law Union (Appendix 23). With only one representative on the board, Semington was remote from Trowbridge (which had eight representatives) and it was 3.5km from the nucleated village of Steeple Ashton which was itself the focus of a parish that dealt mainly with the Westbury and Whorwellsdown Poor Law Union. It was perhaps for that reason that the workhouse was located in Semington.

4.11 St George’s Road is depicted on the Steeple Ashton enclosure map of 1818 as Knap Lane, linking The Knap in Semington with Whaddon Lane to the west (Appendix 24). Therefore, St George’s Road certainly predates the workhouse and it probably has much earlier origins.

4.12 The architect of the workhouse, Henry Edward Kendall, followed a standard symmetrical layout suitable for the plot that the poor law guardians acquired from the Duke of Somerset. Kendall oriented the building so that its principal elevation faced north, onto Knap Lane, and so that the courts to the rear benefited from roughly equal amounts of sunshine.

4.13 The workhouse is described and illustrated in Cotswold Archaeology’s Heritage Desk Based Assessment.

Significance of St George’s

4.14 St George’s is evidently a building of special architectural and historic interest for the following principal reasons:

 Architectural interest: The building is associated with a notable 19th century architect, Henry Edward Kendall, and it illustrates a symmetrical model plan layout for housing the poor at the turn of the

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 14 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

Victorian era. The Classical stone facade on St George’s Road is a good example of its type (Appendices 10 and 19).

 Historic interest: St George’s is of social historical interest at a regional level, as an example of the way in which the Poor Laws were evolving in the 19th century in response to the effects of the industrial revolution and the agrarian revolution.

 Archaeological interest and artistic interest: St George’s is not specifically of archaeological or artistic interest, although there is an artistic element in the Classical architecture of the main elevations.

4.15 It is assumed that the interior of the workhouse has been altered as a result of its later uses and conversion (the list description says as much), but the essential external form is relatively well preserved.

Setting of St George’s

4.16 Unlike the canal, which had an active influence on its surroundings over a long swathe of countryside, the workhouse was more neutral and self- contained. It was not set within a designed landscape or within extensive grounds, and it does not seem to have affected earlier field boundaries or the alignment of Knap Lane. The building was intended to contain the poor on a self-sufficient basis, not to engage or interact with its wider surroundings. Therefore, the agricultural setting of the workhouse has carried on independently to a large degree, and there is no significant association with the even more distant canal that predates the workhouse by about 25-30 years.

4.17 The front elevation of the workhouse was clearly intended to appear imposing when seen from Knap Lane, with a rather austere facade acting as a warning to passers by (Appendix 19). There has been some change within the setting of the listed building, notably in the form of new housing to the west in St George’s Road, and to the south in St George’s Place. This has had an effect on the skyline either side of the listed building when seen from

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 15 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

the south (Appendix 5).5 There is a hard-surface tennis court on the north side of St George’s Road, opposite the listed building.

Type FW3/28a pillbox

Historic background of the Type 28A pillbox

4.18 The Type 28A pillbox stands just within the eastern boundary of the Oxford Law appeal site, near the public right of way, and about 350m south of the Kennet and Avon canal. The pillbox is illustrated in Appendices 6 to 9.

4.19 A number of different pillboxes, anti-tank gun emplacements and hardened shelters were designed by FW3, the Directorate of Fortifications and Works, after May 1940. At least 3,718 pillboxes of Types 22 to 28 are believed to survive.6 Types 22 and 24 were by far the most common, accounting for at least three quarters of all pillboxes. Type 28 is the third most numerous type, with 306 known examples that can be broken into three groups - the Type 28 (78 extant), the Type 28A (209 extant) and the Type 28 twin embrasure (19 extant). The pillbox on the appeal site is a Type 28A example.

4.20 The Type 28 is the largest and the only one with a specific anti-tank capability. It is almost square on plan, with the forward-facing corners chamfered. The shell-proof walls are about typically about 6.1 by 5.8 m long and about 1m thick. A large forward embrasure was designed to take a 2 pounder anti-tank gun or a Hotchkiss 6 pounder gun so that the gun shield would fill most of the aperture. There are usually embrasures suitable for rifles or light machine guns in each of the two side walls.

5 It is important not to overestimate the significance of the outline of the listed building on the skyline (Appendix 5). The workhouse was built on land that was made available to the guardians by the Duke of Somerset, so the site is unlikely to have been selected so that it could be seen from afar. If visibility had been a primary objective then it would have been sited on the outskirts of Trowbridge, 4.5km to the south-west. Moreover, public views of the building from the north would have been far more restricted had it not been for the incidental presence of the canal towpath. 6 Numbers of pillboxes vary according to the sources consulted. The numbers in the text are from Wikipedia, quoting a review of the DOB project in 2007 and statistics from pillbox study groups. Historic England gives higher figures, suggesting that about 6,500 pillboxes survive out of the 28,000 or so that were constructed (Listing Selection Guide: Military Structures – Historic England, April 2011).

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 16 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

4.21 The Type 28A is variant is wider than the type 28, containing an additional chamber giving a forward-facing embrasure suitable for a rifle or light machine gun. The historical background and context of the Type 28A pillbox on the appeal site was described at length in Cotswold Archaeology’s Heritage Desk Based Assessment dated May 2016, and it is well summarised in paragraph 4.25 of that document which reads as follows:

“Semington formed part of GHQ Line Blue joining onto Line Green defences at Bradford-upon-Avon. Stop Line Blue followed the course of the Kennet and Avon Canal, which runs c.200m north of the Site and was approximately 60 miles long between Bradford upon Avon and Theale near Reading. In total there were some 400 FW3 concrete pill boxes and anti-tank gun emplacements along the line of the canal and at strategic canal crossings and villages which were fortified as strongpoints termed “hedgehogs”. Semington was one such fortified point, forming a bridgehead on the southern side of the canal with the main defensive line positioned on the rising ground to the north of the canal. These defences were further strengthened by anti-tank cylinders to block roads and defensive ditches to delay movement across country.”

4.22 An anti-tank ditch once surrounded the village of Semington to the east, south and west, running along the western boundary of the appeal site. This defensive earthwork would have extended southwards from the Kennet and Avon canal, and then alongside St George’s Road and, further to the east, across farmland. It has been filled in.

4.23 There is another pillbox about 350m to the north, closer to the canal and within the Richborough Estates appeal site (application 16/05783/OUT, appeal APP/Y3940/W/16/3162997). It is a Type 22 pillbox.

4.24 The pillboxes form part of Semington/Whaddon Defence Area 27 within the Defence of Britain (DOB) project, of which more below.

Significance of the Type 28A pillbox

4.25 Wiltshire Council’s statement of case mentions the pillbox on the appeal site in paragraph 5.18, treating it as a non-designated heritage asset. The

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 17 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

committee report records that Wiltshire Council’s Archaeology Officer has drawn attention to the recommendation of DOB Defence Area 27, to the effect that the surviving anti-invasion defence works in the Semington/Whaddon area be considered of national importance. The committee report also refers to paragraph 139 of the NPPF which states that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments should be considered subject to the polices for designated heritage assets. Finally, the committee report states that the heritage assessment (i.e. Cotswold Archaeology’s report) does not assess whether the pillbox is of equivalent significance to a scheduled ancient monument. These matters can be clarified and where necessary corrected as follows:

 When assessing the significance of the pillbox in the paragraphs between 5.15 and 6.3, no part of the Cotswold Archaeology report indicated that the pillbox is of national significance. In the event that Cotswold Archaeology had considered the pillbox to be of national importance or demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument, it would surely have been stated in these paragraphs. The absence of such a conclusion confirms (contrary to what is said in the committee report) that the pillbox has been assessed and has been found not to be of national significance. I agree with Cotswold Archaeology’s assessment that the pillbox is not of national significance, and that it is not demonstrably equivalent to a scheduled monument.

 The pillbox is not scheduled, and the DOB recommendation relating to national significance goes no further than the general report on Defence Area 27 which carries little weight in the present appeal.

 At least 40 pillboxes have been listed grade II, including some Type 28A examples (Appendix 26). The relatively small number of designations, when compared to the much larger number of extant pillboxes, suggests that the representative examples have been

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 18 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

selected from a monument type that is not normally considered to be of intrinsic special interest.7

 Historic England’s selection guide for the designation of military structures (see above, footnote 6) states that “Given the very considerable numbers of items that survive, considerable discretion should be used in their selection, particular attention being justified for those which directly illustrate their intended function as part of a key defensive line or nodal point.” The example on the appeal site is only one of a larger number of defensive points within its defensive line, it remains undesignated nearly thirty years after pillboxes were first listed systematically as a monument type. There is no evidence that it is of special architectural or historic interest.

 The DOB recommendation relating to national significance refers generically to all the anti-invasion defence works in the Semington/Whaddon area, whereas Cotswold Archaeology’s assessment focused on the pillbox on the appeal site.

 Seven Type 28A pillboxes are said to be extant near Semington in the DOB Defence Area 27 study (see Figure 6 of that document) indicating that this is a relatively common monument type in the locality.

 Wiltshire Council was correct in treating the pillbox as a non- designated heritage asset when determining the planning application. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF applies in this instance. Paragraph 139 does not apply. Paragraph 040 of NPPG assists in the proper application of paragraph 139 of the NPPF.

4.26 While it is important not to underestimate the historic significance of the defence of Britain during the Second World War, it is also important to keep a sense of proportion when dealing with the physical remains of that

7 Exact numbers of designated pillboxes are difficult to determine because the search engines on the National Heritage List do not seem to bring up consistent results. Appendix 26 contains information from Images of England which, although incomplete and out of date, provides a general picture. At any rate, it is clear that a number of pillboxes were listed in 1990 and 1991, about 50 years after the threat of invasion.

Heritage Proof of Land North of St On behalf of Oxford Law May 2017 © 19 Evidence George’s Lane, Limited Semington

HeritageCollective

national effort. The pillbox on the appeal site is not a designated heritage asset, and as an individual monument it is not equivalent to a scheduled monument

Setting of the Type 28A pillbox

4.27 Like all pillboxes, the example on the appeal site was located in a specific position for specific strategic reasons, and its position relates to the other defensive structures (tank traps, ditches and pillboxes) that were built as part of the same project, many of which no longer survive. This strategic reasoning is of historic interest, and it is relatively well documented and recorded in a variety of sources, including the visible physical structure of the pillbox itself. While the main purpose of this pillbox would have been to fire at tanks in a broadly westerly direction, and while there is a strategic relationship between this pillbox and the Kennet and Avon canal and its bridges, it should not be regarded as being associated with a single line of fire or defence.

4.28 The pillbox is on private land to which there is at present no public access. It is surrounded on three sides (north, south and particularly the west) by a grassed field, and there is a public footpath and housing to the east. The setting of the pillbox has changed since it was erected in 1940 as a result of the housing that has been built to the south of Pound Lane.

4.29 The setting of the pillbox contributes to its significance as a non-designated heritage asset.

Overall assessment of significance

4.30 The overall assessment of significance can be summarised as follows:

 The Kennet and Avon canal is a non-designated heritage asset, but Semington aqueduct is a designated heritage asset, listed grade II, and of special architectural and historic interest.

 St George’s is a designated heritage asset, listed grade II, and of special architectural and historic interest.

HeritageCollective

 The Type 28A pillbox is a non-designated heritage asset. It is not of national importance and it is not demonstrably equivalent in significance to a scheduled monument.

HeritageCollective

5.0 EFFECT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

Introduction

5.1 In this chapter I address the effect of the two appeal proposals on the setting and significance of the heritage assets described in my proof of evidence, thus:

 The Oxford Law appeal proposal which, as amended, is for the erection of 50 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping, as appears indicatively in Appendix 28.

 The Richborough Estates appeal proposal, which is for the erection of 75 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping, as appears indicatively in Appendix 29.

Oxford Law Appeal: Effect on the significance of St George’s

Change within the setting of St George’s

5.2 A new vehicular access will be formed on the north side of St George’s Road, about 45m to the west of the listed building, and new houses will be constructed on the west side of that access. The indicative layout shows 20 houses here (in 17 independent structures, since some are semi-detached) at distances between roughly 70m and 170m from the listed building. The relationship of the appeal development to the listed building will be more distant than the existing relationship with the buildings in St George’s Place. It will also be more distant than the permitted but as yet unbuilt housing shown indicatively in the Hannick Homes scheme to the east of St George’s, which was approved by Wiltshire Council on 4 November 2016 (16/01768/OUT).

Effect on the significance of St George’s

5.3 The change arising from the appeal development will not diminish or erode the significance of St George’s. Principal views of the building will be unaffected and views that are currently from private land will be made more accessible to the public, thereby better revealing the significance of the

HeritageCollective

listed building. This is demonstrated by comparing the indicative layout in Appendix 28 with the photographs in Appendices 10 to 21.

5.4 Wiltshire Council has commented on the setting of St George’s in paragraph 5.18 of its statement of case. These retrospective comments are not consistent with either (1) the absence of a heritage reason for refusal in the case of what is now the appeal proposal or (2) the Council’s approach in the Hannick Homes application immediately to the east of St George’s (16/01678/OUT, 4 November 2016) – see Appendix 27. It should be noted that the Hannick Homes development was carefully considered by Wiltshire Council in terms of the duty under section 66(1) of the Act, and the NPPF, and that the case officer’s report stated that the conservation officer did not object to the proposal. The application was supported by a Heritage Desk Based Assessment by Cotswold Archaeology that concluded in paragraph 6.13 that the proposed development would not harm the significance of St George’s, and the balanced conclusion of the Council was that the effect was acceptable. Some of the proposed development on the Hannick Homes site will be no more than 20m from the listed building, on immediately adjoining land (Appendices 22 and 27), whereas the present appeal development will be more than twice as far away, separated from the listed building by a road and what will become public open space (Appendix 28).

5.5 Finally, Wiltshire Council suggests in paragraph 5.18 of its statement of case that the former workhouse was “designed to be isolated from the village”. This is a flawed line of argument, following so soon after the same Council’s approval of the Hannick Homes scheme, which will connect the former workhouse with existing housing in The Knapps and The Hunt Close. It is also a misconception about the original design of the workhouse. While it would be true to say that the workhouse was intended to be self-contained, it was not necessarily “designed” to be isolated.

5.6 The effect of the appeal proposal on St George’s will be neutral, such that the setting and significance of the listed building will be preserved when the Inspector discharges the duty under section 66(1) of the Act.

HeritageCollective

Oxford Law Appeal: Effect on the significance of the Type FW3/28a pillbox

Change within the setting of the Type 28A pillbox

5.7 The Oxford Law appeal proposal will create public open space around the Type 28A pillbox, and a connection with the existing right of way will be formed adjacent to the monument. Instead of being a forgotten and isolated relic on private land, it will become a feature to be appreciated and interpreted by everyone. New housing to the north, north-west and south- west west will continue to change the surroundings of the pillbox, a process that has already started with the construction of post-war housing to the east of the monument, accessed from Pound Lane.

Effect on the significance of the Type 28A pillbox

5.8 The continued existence and preservation of the pillbox will be better secured by the implementation of the appeal development. The structure will be no less significant after the completion of the proposed development than it is today. Indeed, the appeal development allows the significance of the pillbox to be better interpreted and revealed.

Richborough Estates Appeal: effect on the Type 22 pillbox

Change within the setting of the Type 22 pillbox

5.9 The Richborough Estates appeal proposal will create open apace around the Type 22 pillbox, involving a broadly similar approach to that in the case of the Type 28A pillbox in the Oxford Law appeal.

Effect on the significance of the Type 22 pillbox

5.10 The effect of the Richborough Estates appeal on the significance of the Type 22 pillbox will be broadly similar to the effect of the Oxford Law appeal on the significance of the Type 28A pillbox.

HeritageCollective

Richborough Estates Appeal: Effect on the significance of Semington Aqueduct

Change within the setting of the canal and aqueduct

5.11 The illustrative masterplan for the Richborough Estates Appeal indicates that there will be housing within the northernmost parcel of the application site (Appendix 29). This housing will be within full view of the aqueduct embankment built by McIlquham and Porteous under the direction of John Rennie. It will not, as the report by CgMs (submitted with the planning application) suggests in paragraph 4.3.5, be “glimpsed”, and nor will it be sufficiently screened and at such a distance to give rise to a negligible impact.

5.12 Instead, the proposed Richborough Estates development will have a harmful effect on the canal corridor by sweeping the built development of Semington almost to the south-western extremity of Semington aqueduct – a distance of about 40m rather than the 140m stated in the CgMs report submitted with the planning application. The result will be that it will become more difficult to appreciate the rural surroundings of the canal, and as a result the significance of the canal will diminish. The aqueduct will no longer be a wholly rural place where the canal oversails the brook. It will become suburbanised and further divorced from the environment that it enjoyed when it was constructed in the mid-Georgian period. The effect of the Richborough Estates appeal proposal will impact on the area close to the canal corridor, where it exercises its fullest influence on its surroundings.8

5.13 There will be harm to the listed aqueduct arising from the Richborough Estates appeal development amounting to less than substantial harm within the meaning in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. This must be given considerable importance and weight in the planning balance when exercising the statutory duty under section 66(1) of the Act. Moreover, Wiltshire Council failed to

8 By way of contrast the Oxford Law appeal site is more than 175m from the canal at its closest point, and it is likely that any built development will be more than 200m from the canal and more than 350m from any part of the listed aqueduct. A buffer of fields north of Pound Lane will remain open, safeguarding the canal corridor. The extent of change arising from the Oxford Law appeal proposal within the setting of the canal will be small, and there will be no harm or loss of heritage significance.

HeritageCollective

exercise the section 66(1) duty when determining application 16/05783/OUT.

5.14 For the avoidance of doubt, the Oxford Law appeal proposal stands away from the canal corridor where it will not affect the significance of the canal or the aqueduct.

Effect on the significance of the canal and aqueduct

5.15 The Richborough Estates appeal proposal will have an invasive effect on the setting and surroundings of the canal corridor for the purposes of the canal being a non-designated heritage asset within the meaning in paragraph 135 of the NPPF. More specifically, it will encroach on the grade II listed aqueduct, and it will do so to a greater extent than was assessed by CgMs and Wiltshire Council at the time when the planning application was considered and determined. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF is engaged, and less than substantial harm is caused for the purposes of the Inspector’s duty under section 66(1) of the Act.

Summary of effects

5.16 The effect of the two appeal proposals can be summarised as follows:

 The Richborough Estates appeal scheme will cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of Semington aqueduct, which is listed grade II, and it will have an invasive effect on the setting and significance of the canal as a non-designated heritage asset.

 The Oxford Law appeal scheme will have no effect on the setting or significance of Semington aqueduct or the canal. It will not cause harm to the significance of St George’s, which is a grade II listed building, or to the significance of the Type 28A pillbox as a non- designated heritage asset.

HeritageCollective

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The Kennet and Avon canal is the earliest of the main heritage assets relevant to this appeal, and it is also the longest and largest, asserting an influence along a linear corridor that sliced through the agricultural landscape in the late 18th and early 20th centuries. Semington aqueduct, which is a grade II listed structure carrying the canal the 220m across the shallow valley of the Semington brook, is the work of the engineer James McIlquham who also constructed aqueducts at Avoncliff and Limpley Stoke.

6.2 St George’s, which was built as a workhouse for the Melksham Poor Law Union in the mid-late 1830s by the architect Henry Edward Kendall, appeared in the landscape about a quarter of a century after the canal. It is not an assertive building (save for the local influence of its consciously stern Classical facade), and it has had a more neutral influence on the agricultural surroundings and road layout than the canal. St George’s has a contained character to the south of what was once Knap Lane.

6.3 Finally, the Type FW3/28A pillbox within the Oxford Law appeal site was an anti-tank installation that was built as part of a complex of defences in the vicinity of Semington and Whaddon in 1940. There is no evidence to suggest that the example on the appeal site should be regarded as anything other than a non-designated heritage asset.

6.4 The Oxford Law appeal proposal will preserve the significance of all the designated and non-designated heritage assets described above. It will not engage paragraphs 133 or 134 of the NPPF, and it will preserve the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets for the purposes of section 66(1) of the Act. The Oxford Law appeal proposal will better reveal the significance of the Type 28A pillbox.

6.5 The Richborough Estates appeal proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the significance of Semington aqueduct, listed grade II, for the purposes of paragraph 134 of the NPPF and section 66(1) of the Act.