December 2011

Proposed New Vicarage, Christchurch Priory, Dorset Planning Supporting Statement

Proposed New Vicarage, Christchurch Priory

Planning Supporting Statement incorporating Design & Access and Heritage Statements

Contents

Section One - Introduction and purpose 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The proposal 1.2 Methodology 1.3 Site and Situation

Section Two – The process 2.0 Development background 2.1 Diocese requirements 2.2 The Green Book 2.3 Pre-application planning context 2.4 Relevant Appeals 2.5 Conversion/Extension/Sub-division of existing vicarage 2.6 Alternative premises in the Parish 2.7 Consultation 2.8 List of planning application requirements

Section Three – Key material considerations 3.0 Planning policy background 3.1 Community engagement 3.2 Access 3.3 Parking 3.4 Trees 3.5 Archaeology

Section Four – Analysis 4.0 Site description and sustainability considerations 4.1 Opportunities and constraints 4.2 Heritage Statement 4.3 Archaeology 4.4 Design principles 4.5 Use 4.6 Amount/Density 4.7 Scale 4.8 Appearance 4.9 Access 4.10 Sustainability/Code for Sustainable Homes 4.11 Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment 4.12 Accessibility/DDA 4.13 Conditions and Contributions

Section Five – Conclusion

Appendices Appendix 1 Christchurch Borough Council’s pre-application comments Appendix 2 Community Engagement Feedback Report Appendix 3 Architects drawing P4 Appendix 4 Tree Report Appendix 5 Archaeological Assessment Appendix 6 Townscape and Visual Assessment

Proposed New Vicarage, Christchurch Priory

Planning Supporting Statement incorporating Design & Access and Heritage Statements

Section one - Introduction and purpose

1.0 Introduction

1.0.1 The Diocese of Winchester is submitting an application for planning permission and listed building consent to Christchurch Borough Council for the erection of a new vicarage fronting Church Street (Photo 1). The application is accompanied by architect’s drawings, a location site plan, a planning fee and this supporting statement.

Photo 1. Site from Church Street 1.0.2 The Diocese has commissioned Savills Planning to coordinate the preparation and submission of the application. Columba Cook Architects have produced the design. They are based in Christchurch and specialise in church design and building conservation. Columba Cook is a Christchurch based chartered architect with an intimate knowledge of the town. He has a Masters degree in Building Conservation and is on the AABC Register (Architects Accredited in Building Conservation). Columba Cook has been surveyor to the fabric of Christchurch Priory since 1998. Hilary Martin, Chartered Landscape Architects have

advised on landscape and townscape matters, Barrell Tree Consultancy have advised on tree matters and Michael Heaton Heritage Consultants on archaeology.

1.0.3 The purpose of this statement is to provide the required supporting information for the application, specifically in respect of planning, design & access and heritage. Within the document background is also provided, as additional information, on such matters as landscape and tree impact, access and parking and community engagement.

1.1 The Proposal

1.1.1 The formal description of development is:

· The erection of new vicarage fronting Church Street, to rear of existing vicarage; · The demolition of part of listed wall fronting Church Street to create pedestrian / disabled persons’ access to the front of the new vicarage; · The erection of double garage and the laying out of shared parking court to the side of existing vicarage; · The demolition of garage to side of existing vicarage, together with altered vehicular and pedestrian access to Quay Road, to provide access to parking court and new garage; · Felling of selected trees to facilitate the development; and · Landscaping of the site. 1.1.2 The proposed new vicarage would be two storeys in height and of Georgian design. It would have four bedrooms. The garage would be capable of garaging 2 cars. These would be specifically for the new vicarage. Four car parking spaces would be provided for the existing vicarage.

1.1.3 Vehicular access to the parking court and garage would be from an amended access on to Quay Road. The main pedestrian access to the new vicarage would be from Church Street. This access would also be sufficient to allow a disabled person’s vehicle to approach the front.

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 Planning applications such as this require to be accompanied by a design and access statement and a heritage statement. These are incorporated into this document together with other supporting information.

1.2.2 In line with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 38 (6):

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

This proposal has been considered against planning policy in Section 3.0 following.

1.2.3 In respect of the requirements for this application, there are generally two levels of requirements, national and local:

National requirements are listed in the guidance notes accompanying the application forms. Due regard has been taken of these including the need for the submission of a Tree Report (See Section 3.4), a Planning Statement (See Section 3.0), a Heritage Statement (See Section 4.2), an Archaeology Statement (Section 4.3) and a Design & Access Statement (See Sections 4.4 – 4.11).

1.2.4 Paragraph 60 of Circular 1/2006 advises that:

A design and access statement is a short report accompanying and supporting a planning application to illustrate the process that has led to the development proposal, and to explain and justify the proposal in a structured way.

1.2.5 Paragraph 62 states that:

The level of detail required in a design and access statement will depend on the scale and complexity of the application, and the length of the statement will vary accordingly. Statements must be proportionate to the complexity of the application, but need not be long.

1.2.6 The CABE document on Design & Access statements that accompanies the Circular, suggests the following structure:

Use What buildings and spaces will be used for Amount How much would be built on the site Layout How the buildings and public and private spaces will be arranged on the site, and the relationship between them and the buildings and spaces around the site. How big the buildings and spaces would be (their height, width and length). Landscaping How open spaces will be treated to enhance and protect the character of a place. Appearance What the building and spaces will look like, for example, building materials and architectural details.

1.2.7 As well as matters on the national list the Council also requested landscape proposals, a shadow diagram and draft heads of terms for a unilateral undertaking.

1.3 Site and situation

1.3.1 Site context

Christchurch is a historic town which grew up around its priory and castle. The existing vicarage with its large curtilage, where the new vicarage is proposed, is situated adjacent to the Priory, a grade I listed building. The existing vicarage itself is grade II listed, as are the properties forming the neighbouring terrace on Church Street. A fine Georgian building faces the site on Church Street which is grade II* listed. The whole of this area is in the Christchurch Central Conservation Area. Photos of the above properties are given over.

1.3.2 Site Analysis

The application site primarily comprises the rear half of the existing vicarage’s curtilage, together with its garage and outbuilding. The garage would be demolished in order to provide vehicular and pedestrian access together with parking. Both the existing vicarage and the new would have their owned defined rear gardens, together with an area of shared parking and access, albeit parking would be allocated. The site of the new vicarage currently has numerous trees sited upon it. These are described later. The site is also bounded by existing listed boundary walls where it adjoins the Priory grounds and Church Street. Again these are described later.

Photo 2. Church Hatch a Grade II* Listed Building opposite the site in Church Street

Photo 3. Christchurch Priory

Photo 4. The existing vicarage fronting Quay Road a Grade II Listed Building

Photo 5. Neighbouring properties in Church Street

Photo 6. Listed wall adjacent to the Priory grounds

Section two - The process

2.0 Development background

2.1 Diocese requirements

2.1.1 At the time that the existing vicarage at Christchurch Priory became vacant in April 2010, the Diocesan Property Committee, responsible for overseeing the maintenance and management of Parsonage Houses, considered the issue of the suitability of the property to house the next Incumbent. The existing Parsonage is a substantial listed building on 3 floors, which has reached the point in its life where major refurbishment is again required. The original house was constructed in the 17th century and extended on the road frontage under the 2 gable roofs at some point, the southern being reported as rebuilt in 1957. In the 1850’s the northern wing was extended and is effectively a separate unit with its own staircase, loft and basement, linked to the original with 2 corridors and connecting doorways at ground and first floor level. The property was refurbished and re-roofed in the early 1960s. At this time consideration was given to its replacement based on the costs of continuing to maintain and run such a large house.

2.1.2 The property has a gross internal floor area of over 500 sq.m (over two and a half times the 190 sq.m recommended in the Church Commissioners’ Parsonages Guide) providing an 8/9 bedroom house with 3 receptions, dining, kitchen, utility, g/f wc, 2 bathrooms and a box room. The PCC currently has use of part of the ground floor of the building as the Parish Office on a 10 year lease from 2005. There is currently no level or ramped access to the accommodation and this would be difficult to achieve from the street. The property sits on a plot of some 0.42 acre, with frontages onto Quay Road and Church Street and its size and substantial garden have been a challenge for most clergy, in terms of running costs and in terms of maintenance.

2.1.3 In the light of the above, and following a meeting with the Archdeacon, Chairman of the Property Committee, the Church Wardens and Verger and a tour of the house and grounds, the Committee resolved that in its existing form the current accommodation was wholly disproportionate to what is now considered appropriate for a minister in the established church, as reflected in the Church Commissioners’ design guidance. It was therefore agreed that the property was unsuitable for reoccupation, as to live in such a home, with over twice the floorspace now recommended, would impose unrealistic demands upon the modest stipend of an incumbent and a disproportionate financial burden in relation to the Diocese’s maintenance cost. From this decision the following options and their implications, as outlined by the Church Commissioners Parsonages and Glebe Diocesan Manual for addressing the issue of unsuitable Parsonage Houses, were considered:

· To buy a replacement. This relies on the ability to find a suitable house that can be recommended to the Bishop and PCC, in the parish within reasonable distance of the Priory, capable of conversion to meet the standards recommended in the Parsonages Guide. The Committee were mindful of the fact that this option would abandon the close relationship between the Vicarage and the Priory that has existed for centuries and is valued by the Parish and post holders. The location of the Priory Church, at one end of the Parish, and the nature of housing within easy walking distance of the Priory within the Parish has not revealed any suitable properties.

· To convert the existing Vicarage. This option can be authorised by the Diocesan Bishop and would address the issue of retaining the close relationship of the Vicarage to the Priory. However the Church Commissioners Diocesan Manual notes that ‘this is often not an ideal solution as it tends to have the corresponding disadvantages: a) houses suitable for division are often older properties where the part remaining as a parsonage may still have large rooms and high ceilings which are expensive to heat and where maintenance costs may remain relatively high. b) there will be less privacy for the Incumbent (and family) if the divided off part is in separate occupation and there may be disturbance from the other occupier. A draft scheme was considered by the committee based on the constraints of converting this listed Parsonage. The conclusion being that one of the units would still be significantly in excess of the Parsonages Guide and would have the disadvantages highlighted above by the Church Commissioners, in relation to room sizes, running and maintenance costs; and the other would be of insufficient size, without extending the building, producing limited privacy and amenity for the Incumbent (and family), bearing in mind the need to retain off road parking for both units.

· Build a replacement on the area fronting Church Street. The replacement of the Vicarage on the site has been considered in the past and the Property Committee concluded that it now provides the preferred solution. It offers the best option for providing a manageable home for the Incumbent of the Parish which will maintain the historic and close relationship between the Vicarage and the Priory Church it serves.

2.1.4 The current edition of the Church Commissioners’ Parsonages Design Guide provides advice for the planning of new parsonages to ensure that they are of a high quality and capable of meeting the changing needs of the clergy, providing comfortable and convenient homes for them and their families, as well as suitable places from which to do their work. It notes that funds are always limited but the clergy need a standard of housing which will enable them to carry out their ministry effectively. The guide acknowledges that not every older house is unsuitable. An older house may relate conveniently to the church and population, be of moderate size, and capable of being repaired, improved or adapted at reasonable cost, perhaps with some financial help from the parish. But where the continued upkeep of a particular house imposes a disproportionate burden on a diocese’s financial resources and perhaps is prohibitively expensive for the parson to furnish, decorate, heat, light and clean, it will be right to consider replacing it. The means of replacement will depend on whether a house which is or can be brought up to standard is available for purchase or a building plot where planning permission can be obtained.

2.1.5 In seeking to pursue the potential of the building plot fronting Church Street, the Property Committee has been made aware that in 1997 legal advice taken by the Department of the Environment established that Church of England Canon Law, which imposes a legal duty on a Bishop to provide a place of worship and a dwelling for the Vicar or Rector in every parish in his Diocese, can be a material planning consideration. This consideration has been successfully employed elsewhere within the planning system, accepting that is in the public interest for institutions such as the Church of England, which exists as a witness of faith and to promote social responsibility, to be given sympathetic consideration when considering proposals relating to the obligation placed on a Bishop to provide appropriate housing to enable the Vicar or Rector to operate efficiently and effectively.

2.1.6 On this basis, and from their consideration of the alternative options available to them, the Committee believe that the particular circumstances in the Parish of Christchurch provide significant weight for arguing for the development of the new Vicarage, to the Church Commissioners guidelines, on a part of the Vicarage site that has a street frontage, historically contained buildings, and is within in the urban form of the town.

2.2 The Green Book

2.2.1 The ‘Green Book’ is the colloquial name for the Church Commissioner’s publication entitled ‘Parsonages– A Design Guide’. This document was first produced in 1953 and is now in its sixth edition. The guide is a 55 page brief to architects engaged in designing new parsonage houses. The intention of the brief is “...to ensure that, when new parsonages are planned, they are of high quality and capable of meeting the changing needs of the clergy, providing comfortable and convenient homes for them and their families as well as suitable places from which to do their work”. (Parsonages – A Design Guide, p 2).

2.2.2 The document, as the title suggests, is ‘a guide’ not a ‘blueprint’; however, it provides a useful, detailed brief for new parsonages and a comprehensive yardstick with which to assess the suitability of any property intended for use as a parsonage.

Figure 1. The Green Book

2.2.3 The Green Book has been used in several ways in connection with this planning application. Firstly, it has been used as a straightforward brief for the proposed new building; secondly, it has been used to inform the design portion of the study which considered the feasibility of providing a suitable parsonage within the existing vicarage building; and thirdly, it has been used to assess the suitability for vicarage use of other houses currently on the market in the area.

2.3 Pre-application planning context 2.3.1. Prior to submission of a planning application, it was considered important to engage with important stakeholders - officers and members of Christchurch Borough Council and the local community.

2.3.2 An early meeting with relevant officers of was held on 14th April 2011 to discuss initial proposals. Valuable feedback was given verbally, followed by a detailed letter dated 27 th May. (Appendix 1).

2.3.3 Various scheme amendments took place as a result of this feedback and on Saturday 17 th September 2011 a Community Engagement Event was held in the Priory Church between 10am and 2pm, where the applicant’s representatives were present. The exhibition was left displayed at the Priory until the morning of Thursday 22 nd September. Details of the event are given later.

2.3.4 A separate event was organised for members and officers of the Council on 20th October between 12pm and 2pm at the existing vicarage, where once again the exhibition was displayed, the applicant’s representatives were available to discuss the scheme and attendees had the opportunity to see the existing vicarage.

2.3.5 Feedback from stakeholders has helped shape the final scheme submitted for planning approval.

2.4 RelevantyAppeals

2.4.1 There is a significant appeal decision concerning a proposal for a new vicarage on part of the garden of the existing vicarage at Romsey Abbey, Hampshire (Ref T/APP/CIT60/A/85/32740). This involved four different schemes. The main issue was considered to be whether a new dwelling would serve to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and, if it would not, whether there are sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify allowing any of these appeals. 2.4.2 The Inspector’s main conclusions were as follows:

In my consideration of this case I attach importance to protecting the physical fabric of a Conservation Area and fully share the views of the Council and others that the sites of all 4 proposals are in varying degrees most sensitive locations. It seems to me that the immediate area is still very attractive and that the attractiveness is particularly derived from the monumental scale of the Abbey Church and from the natural beauty of trees and open space. I am greatly concerned that the character of this part of the Conservation Area shall not be eroded, and I consider that any dwelling within the plot of the existing vicarage is going to inflict some harm. The penetration of vehicles across and beyond the triangular space is not in the interests of conservation. The felling of even the 2 chestnuts is to be regretted. The Vicarage and ‘Abbey Meads’ respond to the scale of the Abbey Church, and there is almost bound to be visual conflict, not to mention loss of residential amenity, if a third detached building is somehow interposed. The first conclusion I reach is that a new dwelling would not serve to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

I now direct my attention to the exceptional circumstances, and the one I single out is the need that the proposed dwelling is intended to satisfy. It is in the public interest that most institutions shall operate efficiently and effectively, but it seems to me particularly desirable that a church which exists as a witness of faith and to promote social responsibility shall be enabled to do so. I therefore regard a church as deserving of sympathetic consideration, but in the case of the Church of England at Romsey the consideration ought to be more than just sympathetic. That is because

the atmosphere and beauty of the Conservation Area at Romsey owes so much to the Abbey Church and what it stands for, and I think it right that the institution which has the duty of looking after Abbey Church and of maintaining the services there shall not be unduly impeded by the exercise of policies of restraint, however well-founded those policies may be. Having inspected the existing vicarage and having heard the evidence presented at the inquiry, I am convinced that the Church of England’s capacity to operate efficiently and effectively at Romsey is dependent upon the erection of a new vicarage within the plot of the existing one. No other solution is practicable or goes far enough to meet the exacting requirements. At the same time I am concerned that any harm inflicted by the erection of a new vicarage shall be as little as possible. It seems to me that either Scheme D or Scheme C is acceptable and would conform to the Council’s policies. The dwelling of Scheme D could be a high standard of design, whilst that of Scheme C would be unobtrusive. On the other hand the driveways of Schemes A and B have alignments and are unacceptably brutal. The second conclusion I reach is that there are sufficiently exception circumstances to justify allowing the appeals relating to Schemes D and C.

2.4.3 There are two other appeal decisions of note where Canon Law was seen as a significant material consideration and led to appeals being allowed The Rectory, Penshurst, Kent (Ref. APP/G2245/A/01/1073644) and the Vicarage, Curry Rivel, Somerset (Ref. APP/R3325/A/01/1076761).

2.5 Conversion / Extension / Sub-division of existing vicarage

2.5.1 As an alternative to constructing a new vicarage, the applicant has considered the alternatives of converting, extending and sub-dividing the existing vicarage to provide a ‘Green Book’ standard dwelling. Architect’s drawing P4 (appendix 3) shows how such a conversion might physically be achieved. The plan shows a vertical sub-division. This would be the most economical to achieve in practice. Vertical sub-divisions of buildings such as this are cheaper than horizontal sub-divisions because of the additional expense otherwise incurred in fire- proofing and sound-proofing floors between properties in different occupancy.

2.5.2 As with all conversions, there would inevitably be inadequacies and compromises in design to be carefully considered. In this case, examples of such compromises include the following:

· The existing room sizes are large and cannot be easily sub-divided to provide rooms that meet the Green Book standards. This results in an overall internal floor area of 350 sqm. The Green Book standard is 181 – 190 sqm. Consequently, the conversion would be approximately 54% larger than the recommended maximum size. This would have knock-on effects in terms of running costs incurred by the incumbent. · The existing main entrance is directly off the road; there is no pavement between the road and the building. As the existing ground floor is four steps up from the road, there is no possibility of providing disabled access via the main entrance. Previous vicars have had to live with this situation but, by current standards, it is unacceptable. It would be possible to provide ramped access into the study via a rear entrance through the private garden but this would be less than satisfactory. · As it is essential to have the waiting and study areas on the ground floor, the vicarage lounge would need to be located on the first floor and in close proximity to bedrooms. This is undesirable especially considering the amount of entertaining and hospitality expected of vicars. The alternative of providing a ground floor lounge would severely restrict and de-value the portion of the property left for sale and result in an undesirable ‘overhanging freehold’ situation. 2.5.3 In addition to the deficiencies in layout and design resulting from a conversion outlined above, the Diocese as a charity has addressed the question of economic viability. The existing Vicarage has reached a point in its life where it needs major refurbishment and the Diocesan Parsonage Board does not have the resources available for this refurbishment or sub-division. The Parochail Church Council has no legal interest in the property nor does it

have funds that could be put towards such an enterprise. If a new vicarage is to be created from a sub-division of the property, the cost of the works would need to be financed from the sale of the residual portion of that property.

2.5.4 Savills building surveyors have assessed the likely cost of the works required to refurbish and sub-divide the property based on the conversion scheme shown on drawing P4 (see Appendix 4). The cost of the conversion is estimated to be in the region of £800,000. The Diocesan Parsonage Board have been advised that value the residual property would not be sufficient to meet these costs even if the conversion scheme provided appropriate accommodation..The Diocesan Parsonage Board are not is a position to borrow money for the conversion as vicarages are provided free of charge to and maintained for their incumbents and there would therefore be no income with which to repay a mortgage.

2.5.5 In their pre-planning advice dated 27 May 2011, CBC suggests that the applicant also explore the possibility of extending the existing vicarage in a northwest direction along Quay Road. The aim of this would be to create further development for sale which might fund the creation of a new vicarage within the existing building. Such a scheme would bring with it its own set of planning, design and finance problems. It is reasonable to suggest that if a straightforward conversion is not viable it would be even less viable to consider the additional expense of an extension. 2.6 Alternative premises in the Parish

2.6.1 Under Canon Law, the Diocesan Bishop has a duty to appoint priests to serve each benefice and to ensure that there is suitable accommodation for the priest within the parish boundaries. In an urban situation the accommodation should be within two miles of the church, however, in practice ten minutes walk is considered the maximum.

2.6.2 The Vicar of Christchurch is required to attend regularly scheduled morning and evening services each day at the Priory Church as well as any unscheduled services which may arise such as funerals. As part of their national environmental campaign, Shrinking the Footprint, the Church of England is actively seeking to reduce its carbon footprint; one means of doing this is to reduce the number of car journeys made by clergy in carrying out their pastoral duties. For this reason, the search for alternative premises has been limited to those areas within a one mile radius of the Priory Church and within the parish boundaries. See Parish map over.

2.6.3 The Priory Church is situated at the southern end of the parish in the town centre some distance from the residential areas of Christchurch. The parish is bounded to the west by the River Stour and to the east by Stanpit and, as a result, the residential areas of Tuckton, Wick and Mudeford lie outside of the parish.

2.6.4 Searches of available properties within the limits defined above carried out over a period of six months have revealed very limited opportunities for purchasing accommodation within the defined area. The estimated cost of £400,000 to £600,000 for constructing a new vicarage has been used as a guide price in searching. A recent search found seven properties available with four or more bedrooms; none of these properties could be altered/extended to provide a ground floor study with wheelchair accessible WC separate from the family dwelling as required by the Green Guide.

2.6.5 There is a centuries old relationship between the Priory Church and the vicarage site. It is the wish of the parish and the diocese to maintain this relationship in the future. The applicant is aware that Church Hatch is currently on the market for £1.7 million. This house is not a viable alternative as it is too large, too expensive and would have many of the same problems with maintenance and running costs as the old vicarage. The house was owned until 2001 by Priory House Trust at which time they were forced to sell the freehold. Hence, the preferred option is to construct a new vicarage on the site facing Church Street.

Figure 2: Parish Map

Proposed New Vicarage, Christchurch Priory, Dorset December 2011

2.7 Consultation

As well as planning officers, consultations on the scheme have been undertaken with: English Heritage Dorset County Archaeology

2.8 List of planning application requirements

2.8.1 Further pre-application discussion with planning officers following the original meeting revealed the information they would wish to see accompany a planning application: Design and Access Statement Heritage Statement Arboricultural Method Statement Planning Statement (to also address access, parking and green belt openness issue) Archaeology Statement Landscape proposals A shadow diagram Draft Heads of Terms for a Unilateral Undertaking in respect of Heathlands and Transport mitigation

2.8.2 Planning officers also confirmed that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) would not need to accompany the application as the site is in Flood Risk Zone 1, where an FRA is not required.

Section three - Key material considerations

3.0 Planning policy background

3.0.1 In their pre-application letter of 27 May 2011, the Council set out a list of planning policy guidance that needed to be taken into account in framing the planning application: National PPS1 (Sustainable Development), PPG2 (Green Belts) and PPS5 (Heritage) Structure Plan Environment Policies H (Design), Q (Heritage)

Local Plan Policies: H12, BE4, BE14, BE15, BE16, T18, ENV21, P6

With regards to PPS5, special attention has been paid to the Development Management policies HE6 – HE10. A Heritage Statement as required by policy HE6 forms part of this Statement as Section 4.2.

3.0.2 In considering the planning policy context prime consideration has been given to compliance with relevant local planning policies as these generally set out the detailed requirements of the Council having had regard to government planning guidance and the Structure Plan.

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Central Christchurch Conservation Area Appraisal

3.0.3 This document was formally adopted as supplementary planning guidance by the Council in September 2005 and is a material consideration when determining planning applications. It aims to ensure that the essential character of Christchurch town centre is suitably protected and that future development is appropriate and sustainable. The Supplementary Planning

Guidance is referred to both in the Heritage Section and the Townscape and Landscape Visual Impact Assessment following. 3.0.4 One issue not covered by the local planning policies highlighted by the Council is impact on the green belt which is adjacent to the site and flagged as an issue.

3.0.5 PPG2 Green Belts is the prime guidance on this matter.

3.0.6 Paragraph 3.15 states that:

The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of the siting, materials or design.

3.0.7 This matter has been addressed in the accompanying Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment where it is concluded that the new vicarage proposals: would not introduce an alien element and would not detrimentally impact on the setting of the Priory nor would it have any effect on the openness of the Green Belt in which the Priory sits.

Borough of Christchurch Local Policy 2001

3.0.8 The Borough of Christchurch Local Plan (BCLP) was adopted in March 2001. In a decision dated 26th September 2007 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government directed the further extension of saved policies from the Local Plan, until a detailed review of the Development Control Policies is completed.

3.0.9 Whilst there are approximately 100 policies in the Christchurch Borough Local Plan, many of these relate to individual parts of the Borough or to specific forms of development and only a small proportion are of relevance to the current proposal. The saved policies of relevance to determination of the planning application include: ENV21 – Landscaping in new development BE4 – New development or extensions in conservation areas BE14 – Alterations and extensions to listed buildings BE15 – Setting of listed buildings BE16 – Protection of importance of views and vistas BE20 – Development involving Scheduled Ancient Monuments H12 – Criteria for residential development T18 – Development affecting road safety P6 – Provision of cycle and car parking

Natural Environment

3.0.10 The policies contained in Chapter 3 of the BCLP set out the arrangements that the Council have put in place to conserve and enhance the natural qualities within the Borough, and ultimately how it can encourage biodiversity. These policies identify that the area contains a number of habitats of national and international importance, and recognises the need to strike a balance between land use pressures and the need to protect environmental resources.

3.0.11 Of the natural environment policies, policy ENV21 is of particular relevance to this application. This relates to the landscaping of new developments, and seeks to ensure that opportunities are taken to both retain existing landscape features and introduce new landscaping. Specifically it states that:

In assessing schemes for either new development or redevelopment the council will give a high priority to both the amount and quality of landscaping in the interest of amenity, landscape and wildlife. Wherever possible existing landscape features

should be retained. Native species should be used where appropriate in landscaping schemes.

3.0.12 It is recognised that the development site, located in the Christchurch Central Conservation Area, contains a number of import natural and historic features which contribute to the attractive street scene. These include the presence of a Grade II listed wall, which forms the southern and eastern boundary of the site, behind which are a number of mature trees and shrubs, some of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders and others by virtue of being in the conservation area.

3.0.13 To reduce the visual impact of the development a number of measures have been included in the scheme, designed to reflect and complement the existing street scene of Church Street. The proposal seeks to retain the existing listed brick wall in-situ, with access to the new development gained through a relatively small new opening constructed on the eastern boundary wall. This opening will contain a black wrought iron gates, in keeping with the Priory gates and those outside Church Hatch, opposite.

3.0.14 Behind the boundary wall it a proposed that a series of pleached Lime trees would be planted, trained and pruned to create a formal, high hedge. This would recreate the current views towards the site which are characterised by vegetation and greenery given off by the current vegetation. A detailed landscaping scheme accompanies the application.

3.0.15 It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with this policy. The retention of the southern and eastern boundary wall will ensure the street scene is not adversely altered by the development, and provides some screening of the new development from the Church Street. Planting a series of pleached Lime trees together with other landscaping in the scheme will reflect the existing greenery and vegetated nature that the site currently has.

Built Environment

3.0.16 This chapter identifies that the term “environment” should be considered in its widest definition, covering not only natural features but also the built form. It recognises that historic buildings, monuments and areas are a valuable resource that once lost are irreplaceable. The policies highlight the fact that it is not always possible to preserve such features unchanged, however, they seek to assess the impact of proposed developments on this environment.

3.0.17 Given the historic nature of the surrounding townscape, characterised by its narrow streets and attractive, high quality buildings, the development site and surrounding area contain a number of important, protected features, including; The Conservation Area Listed Buildings Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology

3.0.18 As such there are a number of policies from this section of the local plan which are particularly relevant to the determination of this application. These include policies: BE4: New development or extensions in conservation areas BE14: Alterations and extensions to listed buildings BE15: Setting of listed buildings BE16: Protection of importance of views and vistas BE20: Development involving Scheduled Ancient Monuments

BE4 – New development or extensions in conservation areas

3.0.19 This policy sets out a number of criteria that new development proposals, located within conservation areas, will be assessed against. It states that all of the following criteria should be met if a development is to be considered acceptable within such protected areas. These are:

1. The siting, design, scale, form and materials respect and complement those of existing buildings and spaces. 2. Historically significant boundaries or other features contributing to the established pattern of development in the area are retained. 3. Open spaces important to the character or historic value of the area are protected. 4. Important views within and out of the area are maintained. 5. The level of activity, traffic, parking, services or noise generated by the proposal do not detract from the character or appearance of the area.

3.0.20 The proposed development has been designed to reflect and complement the existing developments along Church Street and in the surrounding Conservation Area. Specifically, the new Vicarage has taken a strong design cue from Church Hatch, opposite the site, which is often mistaken for the Vicarage.

3.0.21 At present the site’s southern and eastern boundaries are formed by a “listed” wall. This wall forms a screen around the development, restricting views into and out of the site. Behind the wall there are a number of a trees and shrubs, which at the present time are unkempt and give the site an untidy appearance. Whilst the vegetation on site is overgrown, it is recognised that this provides an important green back drop to the site, and provides a positive contribution to the street scene, and contributes to an important view towards the Priory.

3.0.22 The proposed development seeks to retain the listed wall in situ, due to its heritage and amenity value, thus retain the existing screening of the site and minimising the impact of the building on the existing street scene. Where access to the site is required, it is proposed that this will be through a minor new opening off Church Street. This will be secured by a wrought iron gates and painted black, in keeping with the surrounding gates of the Priory and Church Hatch. Where the development would require the felling of a number of trees at the front of the development, a series of pleached lime trees would be planted, providing a high level green feature. This would continue to provide a green back drop to Church Street.

3.0.23 It is anticipated that the main vehicle access would be provided to the rear of the site, off Quay Road. This would require that the existing garage to be demolished, allowing access to be gained to the north western corner of the site. A new parking courtyard would be created, serving both the new Vicarage, as well as the future occupants of the current building. In order to maintain the existing appearance of Quay Road, the existing front wall of the garages would be retained, with the current garage door openings blocked up. Access to the courtyard would be gained through the installation of an automatic iron gate. The creation of this new courtyard would have the additional benefit of resolving the current conflicts between pedestrians and vehicle traffic entering and exiting the site, improving highway safety.

BE14 – Development related to listed buildings

3.0.24 This policy recognises that alterations or extensions to Listed Buildings can easily destroy the character for which it has been designated. It seeks as far as possible to retain unaltered any architectural or historic features, which play an important role in the character of a building. Where repair or replacement works need to be conducted it seeks to ensure that the use of materials are sympathetic and reflect those already used. Specifically policy BE14 states that:

The council will not permit development involving alterations or extensions to Listed Buildings which would adversely affect their architectural character or historical interest.

3.0.25 It is anticipated that the proposed development would require the alteration of the Grade II Victorian boundary wall. This work involves the construction of a new access along Church Street and essential repairs to the wall.

3.0.26 It is considered that the construction of the new access to the site, gained through an opening in the wall would be acceptable, as it would not cause significant harm to its architectural character. This opening would not be excessively large, and would be secured by a wrought iron gate. This would be in keeping with the existing gates outside the Priory and Church Hatch, reflecting the architectural character of the surrounding area.

3.0.27 The development would also include a series of essential repairs to the wall, helping to preserve its listed status. Any restoration work would be conducted using materials that are of a sympathetic nature and reflect those originally used in the walls’ construction.

BE15 – Setting of listed buildings

3.0.28 BE15 discusses the importance of protecting historical buildings within the District. It highlights that the visual amenity of old buildings can be as easily damaged by the indirect impacts of surrounding buildings as it can by a direct physical changes. It identifies that in proposals for developments which are visually linked to buildings of historical and architectural interest, consideration will be given to the effect that the development would have on the on the buildings and their settings. In such situations the setting of listed buildings should be studied and taken into account during design process. The policy specifically indicates that:

The setting of Listed Buildings shall not be adversely affected by development and wherever possible the preservation of the setting shall be achieved.

3.0.29 The settings of the Christchurch Central Conservation Area and numerous listed buildings surrounding the site have been taken into account from an early stage of this project and the design of the proposed Vicarage has taken these into careful consideration.

3.0.30 There are a large number of listed buildings located near the application site, which include Christchurch Priory, a grade 1 listed building, the grade II* listed Church Hatch, directly opposite the site of the existing vicarage, a grade II existing building and No. 14 Church Street, a grade II listed building, adjoining the site to the north. In addition to the numerous, prominent listed buildings in the vicinity, there are also a series of smaller features which are listed due to their important historical value and contribution to the Conservation Area. These include the railings outside Church Hatch, considered a grade II* feature, the grade II* gateway to Christchurch Graveyard and the boundary wall of the site, a grade II feature.

3.0.31 In order to minimise the impact of the proposed building it has taken a strong design cue from the surrounding buildings, particularly from Church Hatch. This will ensure that the building would blend in with the existing area, and would complement its surroundings.

3.0.32 The council contend that the eastern boundary wall constitutes a positive, aesthetically pleasing demarcation within the street scene, and provides a positive contribution to the building line along the length of Church Street. This is very debatable. One only has to look at the photographs included in this statement. As the proposed building is set back it will have no impact on the wall. It is however, necessary to provide access to the front of the development which would be achieved through an opening created in this boundary wall. This opening would not be excessively large and would be secured with wrought iron gates, in keeping with the surroundings.

3.0.33 It is considered that this development would help to improve the street scene. At the present time the site itself is unkempt, with a number of unmanaged trees and shrubs visible from Church Street. The proposed development would see these removed and the site tidied up. It is considered that that landscaping arrangements included as part of the application would ensure that the green feel currently experienced is maintained through the planting of a series of pleached Lime trees. These would provide a high level green feature, and reflect the current street scene to Church Street. Additional landscaping would be provided also.

BE16 – Protects importance of views and vistas

3.0.34 This policy examines the important role of views and vistas towards listed buildings, and seeks to ensure that such views are maintained. It also allows for the provision of enhancement of views or the creation of new vistas. The policy states that:

Proposals for new development must ensure that existing views of important buildings or attractive vistas are maintained and not obstructed. The possibility of creating new vistas shall also be explored.

3.0.35 A Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment accompanies the application and demonstrates that the proposal complies with this policy.

BE20 – Development involving Scheduled Ancient Monuments

3.0.36 Within the Borough of Christchurch there are 12 Scheduled Monuments (SMs) of which two, the Priory and the Castle are located within the Christchurch Central Conservation Area. Policy BE20 recognises that such areas make an important contribution to the visual quality of the area, adding to the unique character of the area, as well as providing historical value. The policy also recognises that Christchurch has a number of archaeological sites and discusses that these areas are important for their historical interest and, like SAMs, need protecting from inappropriate development. Specifically the policy states that:

There is a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Nationally Important Archaeological Sites and of their settings. The monuments and sites are marked on the proposals map. In order to protect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Nationally Important Archaeological Sites from inappropriate development, planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect monuments or sites, involve significant alternations to them or would have a significant impact on their setting.

3.0.37 The site is located within close proximity to The Priory Scheduled Monument (SM). Due to the close proximity to this SM the Borough Council has deemed it necessary to classify the area as a National Important Archaeological Site.

3.0.38 Once again the Townscape Assessment demonstrates compliance with this policy.

3.0.39 An archaeological investigation was conducted in April 2011. The report concluded that this development would not have a deleterious impact on any significant, interpretable in situ archaeological remains.

Housing

3.0.40 Chapter 5 of the Local Plan contains policies that the Council has put into place to control housing developments throughout the Borough. It contains a number of housing targets set out through the Structure Plan and identifies the means to deliver these. It recognises that there are a variety of housing types and styles throughout the area, a result of Christchurch expanding around the historic town centre. It contains measures to ensure that development or redevelopment of an area for residential purposes does not damage the character or amenity of the Borough.

3.0.41 Of the policies contained in the housing chapter policy H12 is of particular relevance to this application. This sets out the general development considerations for residential developments. Specifically it contains a number of criteria that need to be met in order for a development on either an allocated or non allocated site to be considered acceptable. The criteria are:

i) They are appropriate in character, scale, design and materials to the immediate

locality. ii) The residential amenities of existing and future occupiers of dwellings are not adversely affected by noise or disturbance or by the loss of light or privacy iii) They do not result in the loss of an important landscape or other environmental feature, such as open space or trees, which is part of the character of the area. iv) They include where appropriate an adequate provision of open space.

3.0.42 Following sections on Townscape, Heritage, Design and Access demonstrate that this proposal complies with this policy.

Transport

3.0.43 The transportation chapter of the Local Plan sets out a number of measures to improve the strategic and non strategic highways network within the plan area. It contains a number of traffic management measures and improvements to car parking facilities within the Borough, along with policies relating to cyclist and pedestrian safety. It highlights that modest highway improvements, a better public transport system and traffic calming measures can contribute to a reduction in congestion.

3.0.44 It is considered that two of the policies contained in this chapter of the local plan are of particular relevance to this application. These are:

T18: Development affecting road safety P6 : Provision of cycle and car parking

T18 – Development affecting road safety

3.0.45 It is widely recognised that new developments are likely to generate additional traffic. Policy T18 seeks to control this additional traffic and ensure that proposals will not generate any issues which would materially affect road safety or the ability of the existing transport infrastructure to accommodate such changes unless adequate remedial measures are included. It sets a provision that requires a developer to make a contribution towards such measures, achieved through planning conditions or obligations. Such remedial measures include:

i) Off-site highways improvements ii) Traffic management measures iii) Cycling and pedestrian facilities iv) Improvement to public transport services v) Taxi stands vi) New or improved access and service facilities

3.0.46 The proposed development is of a small scale nature and provides appropriate access and parking.

3.0.47 A draft unilateral undertaking accompanies the application. A financial contribution towards improvements mentioned in the policy if the Council demonstrates they are appropriate.

P6 – Provision of cycle and car parking

3.0.48 Whilst the local plan does not contain information on the number of car parking spaces required for a new development it sets out the general principles for developments to follow. The policy states that:

All development s will be required to provide the following: i) The minimum vehicle and cycle parking provision necessary to serve the development, and prevent additional on-street parking ii) Safe vehicular access to and from the development

iii) Servicing facilities that will not cause highway congestion or danger to highways users.

3.0.49 It is considered that the current application is in accordance with the criteria set out in this policy as demonstrated by the plans submitted. Emerging Planning Policy

3.0.50 The government is currently consulting on its draft National Planning Policy Framework. The Planning Inspectorate has said this can be a material planning consideration.

3.0.51 The NPPF has the following statements which the applicant would ask the Council to have due regard to:

· That decision-makers ‘should assume that the default answer to development proposals is “yes”’ (paragraph19); · That there is ‘no necessary contradiction between increased levels of development and protecting and enhancing the environment, as long as development is planned and undertaken responsibly’ (paragraph11); · A requirement to ‘increase significantly the delivery of new homes’ (paragraph 107) · That there is ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’ (paragraph 14); · That authorities should ‘approve all individual proposals wherever possible’ (paragraph 14);

3.1 Community Engagement

At the exhibition on 17th September and for the remainder of the time the boards were left in the Priory, feedback forms were available for attendees to complete. 80 completed forms were returned. These were analysed and a report produced (appendix 2 ). 15 questions were asked. Responses were generally supportive of the proposals. Of the questions, perhaps question 12 was the critical one:

Do you consider that the proposed new vicarage would blend into the street scene and preserve the Conservation Area and adjacent listed buildings? 94% of respondents thought it would.

3.2 Access

Vehicular and pedestrian access for those living in the new vicarage would be from Quay Road, in the vicinity of the doors to the garage of the existing vicarage. There would also be a pedestrian access from Church Street, which would involve demolishing a small part of the existing listed wall. This access would also be designed to be sufficient to allow a disabled person’s car to draw up to the front door.

3.3 Parking

The access from Quay Road would lead to a parking court. A garage for two cars would be provided for the new vicarage and four spaces for the existing vicarage.

3.4 Trees

3.4.1 Barrell Tree Consultancy was commissioned to provide an Arboricultural report to accompany the application. This is provided at appendix 4.

3.4.2 Section 1 of the report is an Arboricultural Impact Appraisal. This assesses the impact on trees, and the impact on visual amenity of the removal of trees; it discusses proposals to mitigate any impact, protection of retained trees and proposals for new tree planting. It then assesses overall impact on visual amenity.

3.4.3 Section 2 is an Arboricultural Method Statement, which describes trees to be protected and managed during the development.

3.4.4 The report concludes with the impact on trees and local character:

The majority of trees to be lost because of this proposal are low category because of their poor condition or small size. Some high category trees will also be lost but they are either well within the site or close to retained trees that will buffer the initial impact and their loss will have no significant impact on the present character of the area. There is plenty of space for tree planting and a comprehensive new landscape scheme using semi-mature and extra heavy standard tree stock is included as part of the proposal. The size of these new trees and their future growth will significantly enhance the contribution of this site to the local amenity and more than compensate for the loss of existing trees. The proposed changes may affect further trees if appropriate protective measures are not taken. However, if adequate precautions to protect the retained trees are specified and implemented through the arboritcultural method statement included in this report, the development proposal will have no significant impact on the contribution of trees to local amenity or character. Indeed, the new sustainable planting proposals will increase the potential of the site to contribute to local amenity in perpetuity.

3.5 Archaeology

3.5.1 An archaeological evaluation was commissioned in April 2011 from Michael Heaton Heritage Consultants (Appendix 5). The summary from the report is as follows:

Investigations within a machine-excavated trial trench equating to c. 8% of the floor area of a proposed new Vicarage at the rear of the existing Vicarage gardens, revealed a roughly metalled path formed of demolition rubble of 18th – 19th century formation and ash deposits of a probably similar date at depths of c. 700mm below ground level. These are probably the remains of buildings shown standing on this site between c. 1843 and c. 1871 on historic maps. No artefacts,deposits or features of medieval or earlier formation were revealed.

3.5.2 The applicant would be happy to accept a watching brief condition on a planning permission.

Section four – Analysis

4.0 Site description and sustainability considerations

4.0.1 The existing vicarage fronts Quay Road and has a long garden extending to Church Street. It is situated within the Christchurch Central Conservation Area. The application site comprises the rear part of the garden with access back to Quay Road. The application site is bounded on all sides by listed buildings as described in 1.3.1. It is also bounded by listed walls where it adjoins the Priory grounds and Church Street. There are numerous trees within the site as described in the Arboricultural report and the Landscape and Visual Appraisal.

4.0.2 The site is in a very sustainable location close to the Priory Church, adjacent to the town centre with its shops, restaurants etc. It is also within easy walking distance of bus routes and with a bit longer walk, Christchurch Railway Station. It is ideally located for the Incumbent

in terms of his work within the Priory and getting around the Parish. It is also a very central location for Parishioners to visit.

4.1 Opportunities and Constraints

4.1.1 The opportunities of the scheme might be summarised as follows:

· Parking: To improve car parking for the existing vicarage building by creating a parking court. To resolve conflict between pedestrian and vehicular traffic when entering and exiting the site. Presently, cars have to back into garage or out onto road.

· Street scene: To restore a missing building in a vacant plot, filling a gap and completing the urban street scene. To create an additional, high quality, town centre residence in a sustainable location.

· Unkempt plot: To tidy an unkempt plot and to ensure that its appearance is properly managed into the future in keeping with the character of the urban Conservation Area. To carry out necessary maintenance to trees on site.

· Visual Interest: To create additional visual interest at the south end of Church Street.

· Prominence of vicarage: To improve the prominence of the vicarage in the town centre and to create a better visual link between the Priory Church and the priest’s residence. (Being on the main pedestrian thoroughfare, Church Hatch is often mistaken for the vicarage).

· Views of the Priory: To frame views of the Priory Church from Church Street, in particular the tower and clock, by removing three large sycamores which obstruct the view and replacing them with more appropriate formal landscaping in keeping with the Georgian architecture of the street.

· Views of Church Street: To enhance views of Church Street as seen from the Priory churchyard, replacing unkempt trees with an appropriate form of architecture and urban landscape.

· Improve neighbour’s courtyard: To increase natural daylight into the courtyard of 14 Church Street and to remove the nuisance caused by the trees overhanging that property.

· Architectural progression To complete the existing architectural progression of buildings on approach to the Priory Church and to complement Church Hatch, which is arguably one of the finest Georgian buildings in the town centre.

· Future of old vicarage: To ensure a sustainable future for the old vicarage, which is in need of major repair and refurbishment, by passing it on to an owner with the means to properly maintain such a large building.

Figure 3: Constraints and Opportunities

Proposed New Vicarage, Christchurch Priory, Dorset December 2011

· Repairs to listed walls: To carry out essential repair and maintenance work to listed Georgian and Victorian boundary walls. 4.1.2. The constraints of the scheme might be summarised as follows:

· Trees on and off site: Presence of a number of large mature trees on site including three with Tree Preservation Orders. Presence of mature trees adjacent to site.

· Listed walls: Existence of Grade II listed walls to east and south boundary of site.

· Listed Building on and off site: Grade II listed vicarage on site. Grade II* listed house opposite site. Grade I listed church adjoining site.

· Archaeology: Site adjoins Scheduled Monument and is considered an area of high archaeological potential.

· Views: Site forms part of important views towards the Priory and from the churchyard towards the town centre.

· Quality of urban environment: The south end of Church Street contains a collection of high quality historic buildings dictating the required standards of any new development.

· Neighbouring properties: Any development needs to respect neighbours’ requirements for light and privacy. Need to maintain an appropriate distance from the front elevation of Church Hatch and minimize mutual overlooking.

· Ecological: Potential for protected species on site.

· Green Belt: Southern site boundary defines extent of Green Belt.

· Conservation Area Site lies with the Christchurch Central Conservation Area.

· Parking: No existing parking to the frontages on Church Street.

4.2 Heritage Statement

The Heritage Assets 4.2.1. The proposed development site lies within the High Street, Church Street and Castle Street Character Area of the Christchurch Central Conservation Area. The site contains the Grade II

listed Christchurch Vicarage. In addition, the east and south boundary walls of the site are Grade II listed. The site adjoins, on its south side, Scheduled Monument SM22962: Pre- Conquest monastery, early Christian cemetery, Augustinian priory and a motte and bailey castle at Christchurch. The scheduled monument site contains the Grade I listed Priory Church, Castle ruin and Norman Constable’s House; the Grade II* listed Priory Cottage and the Grade II listed Priory House together with several Grade II listed boundary walls. The proposed development site lies opposite the Grade II* listed Church Hatch in Church Street and adjacent to the Grade II listed No. 14 Church Street.

Figure 4. Plan of heritage assets

4.2.2 The proposal is to subdivide the existing vicarage garden to create a site for construction of a new vicarage facing Church Street. The proposals include partial demolition of the Grade II listed wall to form an access to the new vicarage at the east end of the site. In addition, the proposals will impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings and the scheduled monument. This section of the planning statement will assess the impact of the proposals on these heritage assets.

History of the Site

4.2.3 The earliest record of the site is a reference to a quit-claim (transfer of claim) by Hawisa de Weston to the Convent of Christchurch in the 12th century. In the Middle Ages the site contained a large building which was used as the Priory Manor Courthouse. In its time this building would have been an important visible link between the monastery and the inhabitants of Christchurch. The proposed development will reinstate an important visible link between the site and the Priory Church.

4.2.4 At the dissolution of the monastery in 1539, the Priory Church and its churchyard were granted to the inhabitants and churchwardens of Christchurch in perpetuity and the remaining lands were dispersed including the courthouse site.

4.2.5 Historically, the existing vicarage site was divided into two separate plots as shown on 1843 OS plan. The proposals will reinstate this division. The size of the resulting plots will be in keeping with those surrounding the site and will respect the tight urban grain of the conservation area.

Figure 5. OS Plan from 1843

4.2.6 Sketches and photographs from the mid 19th C held in the Red House Museum collection show a building on the Church Street site set slightly back from the adjoining properties with a large chimney at back of pavement on the front elevation.

© Red House Museum and Gardens

Figure 6. Photograph c1860 and mid 19th C engraving of Church Street

4.2.7 In 1866, the land facing Church Street, the subject of this application, was acquired by the parish from the Merrick Estate. An 1873 conveyance between the Reverend Zachary Nash, Vicar of Christchurch, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England formally extended the vicarage garden to include this land.

From the records of the Winchester Diocesan Property Office Figure 7. 1873 Conveyance and plan

The conveyance refers to a “messuage (dwelling) used as two messuages (3878 and 3879) on the site and recently pulled down”. Photographs of Church Street dating from the late 19 th C confirm that the buildings on the site had been demolished.

4.2.8 The land added to the vicarage garden by the 1873 conveyance has not been maintained for the most of the latter part of the 20th C and is overgrown with self seeded plants such as brambles, stinging nettles and sycamore trees. There is a large dead tree in the middle of the site. In its current state, this land makes a negative contribution to the setting of the surrounding listed buildings.

Figure 8. East end of vicarage garden

4.2.9 The exact date of construction of the current vicarage is not known. The core of the house is believed to be 18th C but it has been significantly altered throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. A photograph (figure 9) taken shortly after the Reverend Zachary Nash was appointed in 1871 shows the east elevation of the building without the central bay and with a single storey wing at the north end. A mortgage for rebuilding the vicarage was obtained in 1874 by Reverend Nash. Plans for the proposed rebuilding are held in the Hampshire Records Office.

Copyright: Red House Museum and Gardens Figure 9. Vicarage garden c1871 with Rev Zachary Nash and family

A photograph (figure 10) of the same elevation in the mid 20 th C shows dormer windows in the bay prior to their removal during major refurbishment works in the 1960s. French doors have been inserted in the ground floor providing access to the garden from the dining room.

From the records of the Winchester Diocesan Property Office Figure 10. Rear of vicarage c 1960

The Grade II listed eastern boundary wall 4.2.10 The listed wall is built in Flemish garden wall bond of red bricks bedded in lime mortar. The face of the wall is set back from the elevation of No. 14. The wall is in a poor state of repair. Areas have been re-pointed using an inappropriate cement mortar. Some of the brickwork is decaying as a result of the loss of the brick fire skins. There are isolated areas of

replacement brickwork of varying quality giving the wall a patchwork appearance. A section at the south end of the wall has been poorly rebuilt using a modern machine made brick. No care was taken to match the brick coursing. The owner of No.14 Church Street recalls a lorry demolishing this section of the wall during World War II.

Figure 11. East boundary wall

4.2.11 The southern boundary wall is listed separately. This wall is constructed also in Flemish garden wall bond. Changes in the materials indicate three distinct phases construction of the wall.

Figure 12. Phasing of construction of boundary wall

There is a change in brick size across a straight joint on the eastern edge of the first buttress. There is also a change in brick size across a second straight joint at the eastern edge of the sixth buttress with much thinner Georgian bricks to the west and Victorian brickwork to the east (figure 13). The height of the western portion of the wall has also been raised by the addition of two courses of Victorian bricks.

Figure 13. Joints between phases of construction of boundary wall

Significance 4.2.12 The significance of the wall derives mainly from the sense of enclosure it provides on the approach to the Priory Church. The widening of the street at this point as well as the setting back of the wall form part of the progression from tight urban street scene to open churchyard.

4.2.13 The statutory listing description dates the wall to the 18 th C. It is more likely that the wall was constructed in the late 19th C after the demolition of the buildings on the site recorded in the 1873 conveyance. There is no evidence in the form of blocked openings or straight joints to indicate that this wall formed part of the front elevation of a building. As such it is of little historical significance.

4.2.14 Being of late 19th C date, the wall is of low archaeological significance. The numerous poorly executed repairs and poor condition of the overall fabric detracts from its aesthetic significance. In its current condition the wall makes a neutral contribution to the conservation area.

4.2.15 The current proposals include partial demolition of the wall to form an access to the new vicarage. Wrought iron gates will be installed in the opening to allow a view through to the new vicarage. Repairs to the wall including re-pointing with lime mortar, replacement of damaged bricks and rebuilding the section damaged during the war in bricks to match the existing will improve the condition of the fabric and its aesthetic appearance while retaining its significance as an enclosing element. The view through to the new vicarage will create interest in the street scene. The proposed planting behind the wall will serve to the focus the view towards the Grade I listed Priory while providing a green back-drop to the listed wall. As a result, the proposed alterations will preserve the listed structure and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Setting of the Grade II listed Vicarage 4.2.16 The proposals call for demolition of the modern garage behind the 18th C garden wall and construction of a new garage set within a shared parking court to the north of the current vicarage. Currently, only the double entrance to the garage is visible from Quay Road. The southern door was inserted and that portion of the wall rebuilt when the garage was extended in 2003.

4.2.17 Two phases of construction can be identified in the west boundary wall. The lower section is built in Flemish bond with burnt headers finished with a row of headers which slope up

towards the house. The upper section, probably coeval with the outbuildings behind, raised the wall to its current height.

Figure 14. Vicarage garage

4.2.18 The existing openings have neutral impact on the setting of the vicarage in Quay Road. The proposed removal of the existing garage doors and creation of a single gated entrance will improve the appearance of the wall and thereby improving the setting of the listed vicarage and the surrounding conservation area. As only glimpses of the new garage will be visible through the gate from Quay Road, the proposals will have minimal impact on the setting of the listed building and conservation area when viewed from the public highway.

4.2.19 The existing modern garage with its concrete block walls and low pitched felt roof is incongruous within the curtilage of the listed vicarage. The northwest corner of the garden adjoining the kitchen and scullery has historically contained a range of outbuildings serving the main house. The former laundry and coal shed will be retained and used for storage. Siting the new parking court and garage in this area of the garden is in keeping with its past use. The new garage will not be visible from the main rooms of the house which have an outlook to the east. It is proposed to construct the garage of red brick to match the house with a slate roof. For these reasons, the impact of the proposed garage and parking court on the setting of the listed building will be minimal.

Impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of Church Street and the Priory Quarter 4.2.20 The Christchurch Central Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAA) identifies the importance of views of the Priory Church to the town’s identity and its historic character. Distant views of the Priory Church can be gained over the roofs of the town centre from the east and the north. From within the conservation area views of the tower and north porch can be seen framed by the built environment along the length of the High Street and Church Street. The CAA notes that the appreciation of the church is dependent upon “the character of surrounding areas that provide a wider setting or foreground to important views of the Priory.” Any proposals for development within the conservation area should preserve or enhance important views of the Priory Church.

4.2.21 The character of the conservation area changes as it moves from the tight urban grain of the commercial High Street along Church Street to the open space of the historic churchyard which provides the setting for the Grade I listed Priory Church. Church Street contains 8 Grade II listed buildings, 6 of which are clustered around the proposed development site, and the Grade II* listed Church Hatch. The quality of the built form becomes grander as it approaches the Grade II* listed gates to the churchyard and scheduled monument culminating with the elegant Georgian elevation of Church Hatch. The use of header bond,

which is rare due to its cost21in the front elevations in Church Street confirms their high status. These buildings frame the view of the Grade 1 listed church which opens out as Church Street widens at its southern end.

Figure 15. Church Hatch

4.2.22 The poor condition of the east boundary wall of the vicarage site together with the overgrown state of the east end of the vicarage garden detract from the character and appearance of this end of Church Street. The proposed repairs to the boundary wall and introduction of formal planting behind the wall will enhance the character of the street and frame views of the Priory Church from Church Street and from the churchyard towards the High Street. The proposal to set the new vicarage back behind the existing boundary wall will preserve the setting of Church Hatch when viewed both from the junction with Church Lane and from the Priory churchyard. The new vicarage will only come into view when nearly opposite the site. The proposed Georgian style and use of traditional materials will preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.

4.3 Archaeology

4.3.1. The proposed site lies adjacent to Scheduled Monument number SM22962: Pre-Conquest monastery, early Christian cemetery, Augustinian Priory and a motte and bailey castle at Christchurch. For this reason, the site has been designated as an area of high archaeological potential. In accordance with recommendations from the local authority conservation officer and the county archaeologist, an archaeological evaluation of the proposed site of the new vicarage was undertaken by Michael Heaton Heritage Consultants on 15 April 2011. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the potential material impact of the proposals on material archaeological remains on the site. A copy of the archaeological evaluation together with the approved written scheme of investigations is contained in appendix 7.

2 Clifton-Taylor, Alec (1987) The Pattern of English Building, London: Faber and Faber p 250.

Figure 16. Archaeological Evaluation

4.3.2 The evaluation is based on the excavation of a single trench located within the footprint of the proposed vicarage and equating to roughly 8% of the area of the development area. The excavations revealed a roughly metalled path formed of 18th – 19th century demolition rubble (probably the remains of the buildings shown on the 1843 and 1871 OS maps) and ash deposits. No artefacts, deposits or features of medieval or earlier formation were revealed. The report concluded that the proposed development would not have a deleterious impact on significant, interpretable in situ archaeological remains.

4.4 Design principles

The following design principles are derived from planning policies pertaining to the development site and its environment and from the specific advice of Christchurch Borough Council as set out in their response to the applicant’s pre-application planning enquiry dated 27 May 2011 :-

4.4.1 The siting, design, scale, form and materials should respect and complement those of existing buildings and spaces.

4.4.2 Historically significant boundaries and other features contributing to the established pattern of development in the area should, as far as possible, be retained.

4.4.3 Open spaces important to the character or historic value of the area should be protected.

4.4.4 Important views within and out of the area should be maintained. Existing views of important buildings or attractive vistas should be maintained and not obstructed.

4.4.5 The level of activity, traffic, parking, services or noise generated by the proposal should not detract from the character or appearance of the area.

4.4.6 The setting of the listed buildings should not be adversely affected by the development and, wherever possible, the setting should be preserved or enhanced.

4.4.7 The settings of the Georgian buildings in Church Street should not be adversely affected.

4.4.8 The strong demarcation between public and private realms created by the wall between Church Street and the vicarage garden should be retained.

4.4.9 There can be no ‘substantial harm’ to or loss of any heritage assets. Insubstantial alterations to heritage assets should be justifiable and be outweighed by public benefit which might include the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

4.4.10 Vehicular parking to the front of any new development off Church Street should be avoided as it would not be in character with the street.

4.4.11 Any building on Church Street should be constructed either at back of pavement or set back slightly in keeping with other properties in the street.

4.4.12 The scale of the new building should not dominate adjacent buildings.

4.4.13 The design should not mimic Church Hatch to the extent that it diminishes its uniqueness or competes with this property.

4.4.14 The proposals should have no adverse affect on the Green Belt. They should preserve the special character of the historic town and assist in regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The proposals must preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

4.4.15 The residential accommodation should be appropriate in character, scale, design and materials to the immediate locality.

4.4.16 The design should ensure that the residential amenities of existing and future occupiers of dwellings should be protected from noise or disturbance or loss of light and privacy. In particular the amenities of No 14 Church Street should be protected and, if possible, improved.

4.4.17 The design should not result in any permanent loss of important landscape or other environmental features which form part of the character of the area.

4.4.18 The design should allow for adequate provision of open space for the occupants of the proposed development.

4.4.19 The development should be planned to respond positively to the presence of important trees on and off site. The internal planning of the property should minimize pressure to fell or unnecessary prune trees in the future.

4.4.20 The development should sit within a carefully designed and executed landscape which will promote the objectives of the design principles listed here.

4.4.21 The development must not materially affect road safety or the ability of the existing transport infrastructure to accommodate the additional traffic, unless appropriate remedial measures are undertaken.

4.4.22 The development must make the minimum required provision for vehicles and parking.

4.4.23 Safe vehicular access to and from the development should be provided.

4.5 Use

4.5.1. The development site, outlined in red on the application plans, and the adjacent land owned and controlled by the applicant, which is outlined in blue, is presently in residential use. The application proposes no change of use but, rather, a reasonable intensification of that use.

4.5.2. The justification, in terms of planning policy, for use of the site for residential purposes is provided in section 3.0 of this statement.

4.5.3. Historically, the land has been in residential use for several hundred years and possibly since the seventeenth century (c.f. Archaeologist’s report dated April 2011). The 1843 OS plan shows the present vicarage on a much smaller plot. The plan also shows two properties facing Church Street with a floor area of approximately 150sqm (see Figure 17).

Figure 17. 1843 OS Plan Figure 18. 1870 OS Plan

4.5.4 By 1870, the vicarage had been extended slightly on the north side and had acquired adjacent land in Quay Road as well as the rear gardens of the two properties on Church Street. This is shown in greater detail on the larger scale 1870 OS plan (Figure 18). The original boundaries are shown in blue. By this time the footprint of the building on Church Street had been reduced to approximately 130sqm.

4.5.5 The development proposal restores, approximately, the former subdivision of land. The proposal is to use the land north of the blue line on Quay Road for parking purposes and the land originally used by the cottages on Church Street as the site for a new vicarage.

4.5.6 During the late Victorian era incumbents were able to employ a host of staff to manage and maintain their property. Housekeepers and gardeners were commonplace. The garden of the existing vicarage is too large for most modern incumbents to manage or maintain. Consequently, the extended garden has become overgrown and appears, to all intents and purposes, to be a vacant building plot at the edge of the urban centre.

4.5.7 The use of this land for a new dwelling meets the design and policy objective of regeneration by recycling derelict urban land. (Design Principles 4.4.14)

4.5.8 The 1843 OS plan shows a small building in a large plot of land immediately north of the vicarage. The original use of this building is unknown. Once the vicarage acquired this piece of land the building was demolished and some outbuildings were constructed comprising a laundry, coal shed, and external WC. In the twentieth century a garage was added in the northwest corner. It is proposed that this parcel of land will be used to provide a shared car parking and turning area for the old and new vicarage properties. The former outhouses would be converted for general, bicycle and refuse storage serving both properties.

4.5.9 It is intended that once the new vicarage is constructed the old vicarage will cease its use for that purpose and be sold on the open market. Thereafter the use of that building will be beyond the control of the applicant.

4.5.10 The use of the site for one additional dwelling is modest, wholly consistent with its historic and present use and fully in keeping with the use of other land in the immediate locality.

4.5.11 The level of activity, traffic, parking, services and noise generated by the proposals will not detract from the character or appearance of the area. (Design Principle 4.4.5)

4.6 Layout

4.6.1. There are two aspects to layout, the first is layout of the site, and the second is the interior layout of the proposed new buildings.

4.6.2. In their pre-application advice Christchurch Borough Council stated that any new building should be at back of pavement or slightly set back. Setting the building back has some historic precedent - although the original cottages were directly in line with the front of 14 Church Street (see figure 19). Since the cottages were demolished the road has been widened and the new boundary wall is set back almost 1m from the building line of No 14. This makes it impossible to place the front of the building in its exact former position.

Figure 19. (Current OS plan with position of former cottage dotted in)

4.6.3 After careful consideration, it was decided against building at back of pavement for the following reasons: - Setting the building back has other precedent in the street, not least Church Hatch which lies directly opposite the proposed development site. Mirroring the set back creates a sense of architectural balance and hierarchy to the south end of the street. - The listed boundary wall would be lost entirety by a back of pavement building. - A new building at back of pavement would impact significantly on views from Church Street into the Priory churchyard and from the churchyard into Church Street. To comply with the design principles relating to views and the setting of listed buildings it is felt that the views should be funnelled; this can only be achieve by setting the building back from the front boundary. - To comply with the Green Book and modern standards regarding ceiling heights etc, the new property would necessarily be relatively substantial in scale compared with the adjoining modest cottages. The new building would, therefore, dominate the cottages unless it is set back slightly within the site. - Day lighting into the small area between the front and back rooms of No 14 would be dramatically affected by a property constructed alongside. Setting the building back to the western edge of the area would improve natural day lighting into this amenity space. - Setting the building back provides better privacy and minimizes any mutual overlooking between the proposed vicarage and Church Hatch.

4.6.4 The proposed siting of the new vicarage permits many of the design principles to be achieved including 4.4:1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16.

Figure 20. Eye level perspective showing relationship of proposed vicarage to 14 Church Street

4.6.5 The proposed division of the site allows both the new and old vicarages to retain adequate open space as private gardens in line with Design Principle 4.4.18.

4.6.6 Providing garaging off Church Street for the new vicarage was considered at an early stage in the design process and it provided a number of advantages, not least in terms of convenience for the occupier and as a means of graduating the roof heights of the buildings along the street scene. However, this idea was discarded for a variety of reasons including the following: - Design advice from CBC. - To minimize openings in the listed boundary wall. - To comply more with the character of the street, which has only one garage. - To permit the front garden setting of the new vicarage to be more in keeping with the Georgian setting and character of the area. - To minimize danger caused by vehicles crossing a busy pedestrian footpath, and - To minimize noise and disturbance caused to No 14 by adjacent parking.

4.6.7 The decision was, therefore, taken to provide parking for the new building off Quay Road, in the area of the existing vicarage garage. The principal disadvantage of this is one of proximity, particularly in terms of disabled visitor parking and the ability to position a vehicle close to the front door of the dwelling for occasional, larger deliveries and workman’s vans. Following detailed consideration by the applicant and present vicar it is proposed that provision be made for occasional, informal parking of a single vehicle in front of the house. The opening required in the boundary wall would also be used as the main pedestrian access to the vicarage.

4.6.8 The proposed site layout includes a parking courtyard in the northwest corner of the site. There are a number of advantages to this proposal including: - It allows vehicles to turn on site, reducing the danger caused by vehicles having to back in or out of the existing garage. - It allows additional off street parking to be provided for the old vicarage as well as for visitor parking to both the old and new vicarages thereby reducing the number of vehicles likely to be parked on the street. - It allows the number of openings in the existing boundary wall on Quay Road to be reduced, thereby increasing the space available for on-street parking. - It provides a new use for the old outbuildings which will be converted into suitable bin and cycle storage facilities.

- Refuse collections from the new vicarage would take place from Quay Road, which is quieter and less sensitive than Church Street. - The proposed parking area is surrounded by high walls and by roads or drives on three sides. This provides good screening, maximizes the distance from nearby residences and minimizes the amount of noise and disturbance thereby generated. - The setting of the proposed garage block will have minimal impact on the setting and views of the listed vicarage.

4.6.9 The proposed siting and layout of the car parking permits many of the design principles to be achieved including 4.4: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 23.

4.6.10 The layout of the garden is described in detail in section 4.10.11 of this statement.

4.6.11 The internal layout of the proposed vicarage is largely determined by the provisions of the brief as set out in the ‘Green Book’. The lobby, WC and study provide a discrete area within the building in which the vicar can receive visitors without them having to enter the family area of the house. The dining room will be used for entertaining, as well as family use, leaving the more private accommodation at the rear of the property. The main living room of the house is positioned on the north side of the site, as far away as possible from the tall trees, to maximize available sunlight into the room and to minimize pressure to fell or unnecessarily prune trees in the future.

4.6.12 The layout makes provision for the staircase to be extended into the loft space for storage or for additional accommodation, should this ever be required, without having to consider extending the property, which would put pressure on established trees.

4.6.13 It is acknowledged that it is not possible to construct a building either at back of pavement or set back as proposed, without impacting upon some trees on site, including three sycamores facing Church Street. A report on the condition of these trees and an assessment of their contribution to the Conservation Area is included elsewhere in this statement. Measures to mitigate the impact of the tree loss have been carefully considered and include a detailed landscaping scheme and tree replacement proposals. It is the applicant’s contention the harm caused by the loss of trees is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. The replacement landscaping proposals will constitute a significant public benefit, be more in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area and restore important views of the Priory Tower and church clock from Church Street.

Figure 21. Eye level perspective of end of Church Street revealing presently obstructed views of tower and church clock.

4.6.14 The impact of the layout on retained trees along and beyond the southern boundary of the site will be minimized by constructing the building outside their root protection areas and by appropriately designed foundations and root barriers, as recommended in Barrell Tree Consultancy’s report, which is summarized in section 3.3 of this statement.

4.6.15 It is believed that these measures should satisfactorily address Design Principles 4.4: 9, 17, 19, and 20.

4.7 Amount / Density

4.7.1 The footprint of the proposed new vicarage is 139sqm. The footprint of the demolished cottages facing Church Street as shown on the historical OS maps was approximately 150sqm and 130sqm respectively. The boundaries of the original and proposed buildings are approximately identical. There is ample precedent for this amount of building on this part of the site. The density of dwellings is one more than presently exists and one less than formerly existed. Bearing in mind that, in former times, the vicarage housed curates and housekeepers as well as the vicar’s family and that the dwelling on Church Street would have housed two families the density of accommodation will be slightly more than exists presently but probably less than existed formerly.

4.7.2 The amount of accommodation in the proposed vicarage is driven by the requirements of the brief as set out in the Green Book. By locating the garage in the northwest corner of the site the amount of new building facing Church Street is minimized, allowing appropriate gaps between the new house, the boundaries, neighbouring properties and trees.

4.7.3 The density of development in terms of site area covered by the proposed development is consistent with other properties in the area. The rear garden of the existing vicarage would be in the region of 20m long and the rear garden of the proposed vicarage would be in the region of 17m long providing adequate garden space.

4.7.4. The amount of garaging shown on the site meets current planning norms and should provide for the reasonable present and future needs of both the new and old vicarages as long as they remain in residential use.

4.7.5. The amount and density of development is in compliance with Design Principles 4.5.18.

4.7.6. The amount of development facing Church Street will have no detrimental effects on the views into the Priory churchyard or out of the churchyard into Church Street.

Figure 22. Eye level perspective towards Priory from pavement on east side of Church Street.

4.7.7. From Church Street the new building will not intrude into views of the Grade 1 listed Priory Church or affect its setting. Similarly the setting of Church Hatch, opposite the development site, will not be affected by the proposed development. From the churchyard, the new building will have no detrimental effect upon the views of the flank wall of No 14. This is a blank gable wall and new formal, well maintained landscaping in front of the wall will soften and improve its setting. From the churchyard views of the south elevation of the proposed vicarage will be masked by the row of well established trees adjacent to the boundary wall. The proposals will have no effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

Figure 23. Eye level perspective towards Church Street from the churchyard.

4.8 Scale

4.8.1. Nos 14 to16 Church Street comprise a terrace of seventeenth century timber framed cottages refaced in brickwork during the Georgian era. The cottages are very small in scale even in relation to other properties in Church Street. The cottages have small floor plans, low ceiling heights and an eaves height of only 3.7m. Opposite the proposed development site is Church Hatch, a two-and-a-half storey Georgian residence with extensions on the north side. The terrace adjoining Church Hatch (Nos. 10 – 13) also contains two-and-a-half storey buildings with dormer windows facing the street.

4.8.2. The floor plan of the proposed vicarage is determined by the brief and is, necessarily, larger in scale than the adjacent cottages. Ceiling heights for a new building need to comply with modern regulations and user expectations. Consequently, the proposed building would be larger in scale than the adjacent cottages but comparable in scale to Church Hatch and the buildings on the east side of the street.

4.8.3. If the new building were to be constructed as an addition to the smaller cottages on the west side of the road, it would dominate the adjoining property and appear out of scale. To avoid this, it is proposed to set the building back into the site and move it away from the boundary. This reduces its apparent scale, prevents it from dominating the smaller cottages and creates a comfortable balance of built form at the south end of Church Street. It also maintains the setting of the Priory, the Central Conservation Area and the listed buildings within it.

4.8.4. The style of the proposed vicarage takes its design cue from the Georgian architecture of the street. Georgian buildings employ classical proportions such as the cube, double cube and golden section which affect the overall scale of the building. The style and proportions of Georgian window and door components necessitate higher internal ceiling heights than might

be necessary, say, for a modern estate house. Similarly, the scale and pitch of the roof needs to be typical of the style employed. The overall scale of any building and its component parts needs to be appropriate to its style or it will look odd. The scale of the house, as designed, is appropriate for the Georgian style employed.

4.8.5. The scale of the building will result in some overshadowing of No 14 Church Street, however, this will predominantly occur over the flat roofed single storey extension and will be more than compensated for by the removal of 15m high sycamore trees adjacent to the property and of trees up to 9m tall along the boundary which currently dominate and overshadow the property.

4.8.6. The garage building will be small in scale and will reduce in height with the natural slope of the ground. This building will have a low pitched slated roof, reflecting the adjacent outbuildings, and will be unobtrusive from all vantage points. The scale of the parking courtyard is appropriate for the garaging and adequately sized to permit vehicles turning on site.

4.8.7. The scale of the proposals accord with Design Principles 4.4: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20.

4.9 Appearance

4.9.1. There are, arguably, only two legitimate architectural ways to approach the design of a new building in this particular Conservation Area. The first is to design a completely modern building as a counterpoint to the predominant architectural style of the street. The second is to design something that fits in as seamlessly as possible. The modern approach was considered and dismissed for various reasons including the following: - There is no precedent for a modern infill in the street. - Where contemporary infill has previously been attempted in the town centre it has proved to be architecturally disastrous. - Christchurch residents tend to be predominantly conservative in their taste. A modern edifice, no matter how good, would undoubtedly attract considerable controversy and be more difficult to realize in practice.

4.9.2. Whilst the new vicarage employs a Georgian style it does not mimic Church Hatch. Church Hatch has low railings, a stone portico, stone plinth, rusticated brickwork quoins, a square headed door, chimneys on the front elevation and stone slates at eaves level; the design of the new vicarage employs none of these elements. The proposed vicarage, therefore, does not diminish the uniqueness of or compete with Church Hatch; nevertheless, it remains unmistakably Georgian in appearance.

4.9.3. Modern buildings which are constructed in an historic style are often let down by their lack of attention to authentic detailing and materials. For the final appearance to be successful it is necessary to employ consistently the architectural ‘vocabulary’ of the period and not mix it with that of a different style. For this reason, it is intended to use a suitable handmade, imperial clay brick, an appropriate brick bond, lime based mortar, timber sliding sash window with authentic Georgian joinery moulds, rubbed voussoirs, a Georgian stepped brick eaves detail, black cast iron rainwater goods, stone parapet copings and so on. The ultimate aim is not to dupe the passer-by as to the age of the building but, rather, to create a high quality building which fits seamlessly into the street scene and will last well. The choice of materials will be wholly appropriate to the character of the immediate locality.

4.9.4. The appearance of the street scene would not be adversely affected in any way. The listed wall fronting Church Street would be repaired and repointed. The opening in the wall would be as small as possible with brick pillars and carved stone caps. Black iron gates would be provided utilizing an authentic Georgian pattern. As part of the overall scheme, other boundary walls, listed and unlisted, would be repaired and repointed as necessary.

4.9.5. In all other respects the building would be modern. Sliding sash windows would be double glazed, level wheelchair access would be provided, wherever possible the provisions of ‘Secured by Design’ would be incorporated, modern entry systems would be employed and the energy performance of the building would exceed current building regulations standards.

4.9.6. The overall appearance of the building from Church Street would be further enhanced by a detailed landscaping scheme providing a formal period garden. The diurnal and seasonal appearance would remain largely unchanged and the quality of the building would ensure that it withstood the effects of time.

4.9.7. On Quay Road, the two garage entrances in the boundary wall would be replaced with a single entrance to a parking courtyard. The gates would be either black iron in a suitable Victorian pattern or solid, painted timber. The gates would be fitted with an automatic opening device. The appearance of the garage block would be modest and constructed in red, clay brickwork with a shallow slated roof and black cast iron rainwater goods. (The roof covering of the Grade II house appears, originally, to have been slate, and it is hoped that, eventually, the existing plain concrete tiles may be replaced with natural slate). The existing outbuildings are still covered with slate.

4.9.8. The appearance of the proposals accord with Design Principles 4.4: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20.

4.10 Access

Being a dwelling for the Incumbent, it needs to highly accessible to all members of the Parish. To this end, the dwelling has a primarily private access to Quay Road for use by the Incumbent. It also has an access at the front for use by parishioners and other members of the church. All accesses will be level to facilitate access by disabled people. The access at the front will also have the facility for a disabled person’s vehicle to be parked.

4.11 Sustainability / Code for Sustainable Homes 4.11.1. The Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code) is the national standard for the sustainable design and construction of new homes. The Code aims to reduce carbon emissions and create homes that are more sustainable. It applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

4.11.2. The Code is not a set of regulations. The Code goes further than the current building regulations, but is entirely voluntary for private sector housing, and is intended to help promote higher standards of sustainable design. The Code measures the sustainability of a new home against nine categories of sustainable design, rating the 'whole home' as a complete package. It covers energy/CO2, water, materials, surface water runoff (flooding and flood prevention), waste, pollution, health and well-being, management and ecology.

4.11.3 The Code uses a one to six star rating system to communicate the overall sustainability performance of a new home against these nine categories.

4.11.4 Achieving a particular level, such as Code Level 4, is not mandatory at national level, nor is it planned to be so. The confusion on this issue stems from the Buildings Regulations Part L, which addresses the conservation of fuel and power in dwellings and is used to calculate carbon efficiency. The present equivalent energy performance requirement under the building

regulations is Code 3 and it is expected that the energy performance requirements will be made equivalent to the existing Code Levels 4 and 6 in 2013 and 2016 respectively. Some people have taken this as meaning that the Code levels themselves will be mandatory but this is not the case, it is just the CO 2 emission requirements of each Code level that will effectively be made mandatory through the Buildings Regulations.

4.11.5 The ‘Green Book’ does not mandate compliance with any particular rating in the Code but makes a number of sustainability recommendations ranging from the need to use high quality and long-life materials in the construction process to the provision of high levels of insulation, flexible heating controls and the creative use of natural light and ventilation to reduce the use of electricity and gas. It also recommends careful thought be given to the design of the parsonage garden and, where appropriate, encourages the planting of low maintenance and drought tolerant plants and trees in order to conserve water.

4.11.5 It is anticipated that the new vicarage will achieve an equivalent rating of Code 4.

4.12 Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment

4.12.1 This has been prepared by Hilary Martin Landscape Architect. Paragraph 2b describes what the report seeks to achieve:

This townscape and visual impact assessment describes and evaluates the existing townscape and visual characteristics of the site and surrounding area, and assesses the likely effects of the proposed development on them. It describes the measures that have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development to avoid, or reduce, any significant adverse effects and to enhance beneficial effects.

4.12.2 The scope of the work has been based on English Heritage and Christchurch Borough Council consultation responses.

4.12.3 The conclusions are set out in Section 9 of the report. The overall conclusion, as set out in paragraph 9f is as follows:

The conclusion drawn from the assessment is that the proposals would be different from the existing, but not detrimental. The potentially adverse impact of losing trees from the site would be counter-balanced by improvements to the townscape structure and pattern. The proposals do result in a change to the existing situation both in townscape and visual terms, but over a limited area of influence and without adverse effects. The overall impact has been assessed as being low beneficial, providing preservation and enhancement of the townscape character and the character of the Christchurch Central Conservation Area. Based on this conclusion the assessment supports the proposals for a new vicarage as illustrated in the planning application.

4.12.4 The report is appended at Appendix 6.

4.13 Accessibility / DDA 4.13.1 The proposed vicarage will comply with Part M of the Building Regulations (Access and Use of Buildings) and be in accordance with BS 8300:2001 (Design of Buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice). Particular attention will be paid to car parking, setting down and garaging, access routes to and around the building, entering the building, horizontal circulation, vertical circulation, surfaces and communication aids, facilities in the building and individual rooms.

4.13.2 As stated in BS 8300: 2001 (p. 5) “...the provision of a setting down point on a level surface, close to the principal entrance of a building, is important.” This provides the main justification for the proposed provision of a single occasional parking place adjacent to the front door of the proposed vicarage.

4.14 Conditions and Contributions

The applicant would be happy for this application to be granted subject to conditions and to an agreed unilateral undertaking. With regard to proposed conditions the applicant would welcome dialogue with the local planning authority as they are drafted.

Section five - Conclusion

This planning application has been framed having had due regard to feedback from the Council and stakeholders. It is considered that the proposals accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations that would cause planning permission not to be forthcoming. One positive significant material considered the applicant would draw the Council’s attention to is the government’s direction of travel in respect of its draft NPPF (Para 3.0.51).

Appendices

Appendix 1 Christchurch Borough Council’s pre-application comments

Appendix 2 Community Engagement Feedback Report

Appendix 3 Architects drawing P4

Appendix 4 Tree Report

Appendix 5 Archaeological Assessment

Appendix 6 Townscape and Visual Assessment