Heritage Impact Assessment and Statement Of

HERITAGE IMPACT

ASSESSMENT AND MPD Built Environment STATEMENT OF Consultants SIGNIFICANCE Limited

182 Chester Road, Childer Thornton,Cheshire. (Formerly Land to the rear of 184 Chester Road) 1. INTRODUCTION

This Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared to support the planning application for the approval of reserved matters for the construction of a two-storey dormer dwelling within the garden of No.184 Chester Road, Childer Thornton. Outline Planning Permission th was granted under 20/00942/OUT on 30 June 2020 subject to conditions. The outline consent included details of access with all other matters reserved for approval. This application seeks approval for the outstanding details.

A Heritage Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the supporting documentation for the Outline Planning Permission (20/00942/OUT), this Statement will build on the earlier submission in terms of explaining approach to the design ethos in relation to the new build and its impacts on the surrounding heritage assets and their settings as well as their significance, having regard to the outstanding reserved matters for which approval is being sought.

The Heritage Impact Assessment which accompanied the outline application addressed the effects of the access arrangements only on the heritage assets and as the consent has been granted for this detail this statement will not elaborate on this element further as it is not for consideration as part of this application.

This Heritage Impact Statement will therefore concentrate on addressing the outstanding reserved matters details (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) and how these impact on the significance of the adjoining heritage assets and their setting.

2. SITE HISTORY

20/00942/OUT – Outline Planning Permission - Erection of one dwelling utilising existing access. Granted 30/07/2020.

P/2008/105/WT/475 – Listed Building Consent – Replacement of existing UPVC windows with timber framed windows. Granted 25/09/2008.

P/2004/101/WT/308 – Full Planning Permission - Single Storey Rear Extension. Granted 01/06/2004.

P/2004/105/WT/309 – Listed Building Consent - Single Storey Rear Extension. Granted 01/06/2004.

P/2001/105/WT/858 – Listed Building Consent – Changing of existing square crown pots to round flat top pots on chimney stack. Refused18/01/2002.

PH/3/11.763 – Outline Planning Application- Erection of a bungalow (No.180). Refused 24/05/1989.

PH/3/10.112 – Listed Building Consent – Kitchen Extension. Granted 01/04/1987.

PH/3/10.113 – Listed Building Consent – Kitchen Extension. Granted 01/04/1987.

PH/3/0.7996 – Full Planning Permission – Bay Window. Granted 14/12/1983

PH/3/0.7783 – Listed Building Consent – Garage and Porch. Granted 24/08/1983.

PH/3/0.7749 – Historic Record – Garage, Porch and Revised Access. Granted24/08/1983.

PH/3/0.6453 – Listed Building Consent – Garage and Improvements. Granted15/07/1981.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

The Development Plan for Cheshire West and Cheshire consists of The Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies which was adopted 29 January 2015 and the Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies adopted on 18 July 2019, all policies from the former district and county Local Plans have been deleted and replaced either by a new policy within the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Parts One and Two), or by the NPPF.

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)

Section 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Proposals affecting heritage assets

189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

191. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.

192. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Considering potential impacts

193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

195. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

197. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

198. Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.

199. Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

200. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

200. Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 195 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 196, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.

201. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.

Local Planning Policy

The Strategic Policy within Part One of the Local Plan relating to the Historic Environment is Policy ENV5.

The Local Plan will protect the borough's unique and significant heritage assets through the protection and identification of designated and non-designated heritage assets* and their settings.

Development should safeguard or enhance both designated and non-designated heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged significance. The degree of protection afforded to a heritage asset will reflect its position within the hierarchy of designations.

Development will be required to respect and respond positively to designated heritage assets and their settings, avoiding loss or harm to their significance. Proposals that involve securing a viable future use or improvement to an asset on the Heritage at Risk register will be supported. ______*Heritage assets are defined as a building, monument, site, place, structure, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage assets include designated heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets identified in the Cheshire Historic Environment Record, including local assets

Development which is likely to have a significant adverse impact on designated heritage assets and their settings which cannot be avoided or where the heritage asset cannot be preserved in situ will not be permitted.

Where fully justified and assessed, the Council may consent to the minimal level of enabling Development consistent with securing a building’s future in an appropriate viable use.

Development in Chester should ensure the city's unique archaeological and historic character is protected or enhanced.

Explanation

8.42 Cheshire West and Chester has a unique and significant historic legacy which is recognised throughout the policies of the Local Plan. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource which must be protected, conserved, managed and enhanced. To secure the future of such assets, the Council will encourage the retention of their existing uses, considering favourably appropriate new uses that do not harm the assets significance.

8.43 The historic environment adds value to regeneration and attracts businesses to the borough, acting as a stimulus for local economic growth. The borough’s heritage also strengthens local distinctiveness and sense of place for the borough's residents and provides enjoyment for visitors.

8.44 Cheshire West and Chester has a rich and diverse archaeological and built heritage, including prehistoric burial sites and hill forts, well preserved medieval agricultural landscapes with moated sites and motte and bailey castles, the distinctive 'black and white' architecture and industrial heritage of Northwich, the historic waterway environment and the wealth of Georgian and Victorian buildings and high-quality modern development.

8.45 A key priority of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy is valuing and promoting West Cheshire’s unique and diverse natural and built environments, and supporting the development of rich cultural opportunities. The vision emphasises the importance of the historic environment of Cheshire West and Chester, stating 'everybody will be proud of our varied and unique local distinctiveness, culture and heritage, with a strong sense of civic pride'.

8.46 The policy outlines the importance of managing development with respect to all heritage assets. This is in accordance with national planning policy and best practice advice from Government advisory bodies such as English Heritage and the Design Council, which seek to ensure that protection and restoration of historic areas is seen as a key contribution to sustainable regeneration.

8.47 The Council is committed to the protection and enhancement of historic assets. Only in exceptional circumstances where a developer can demonstrate that the need for the development clearly outweighs the need to retain a particular feature and where appropriate mitigation and/or compensatory measures can be provided will permission be granted.

The most relevant Local Plan part 2 policy to this statement is DM 47 — Listed Buildings, which reads:

In line with Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV5 development proposals or works, including alterations, extensions and changes of use shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Where relevant, development proposals or works will only be supported which would:

1. Conserve the significance of a listed building and its setting, securing its optimum viable use;

2. Preserve or enhance a listed building or structure, any curtilage listed structures or features of special architectural or historic landscape interest.

Development proposals or works within or affecting the setting of listed buildings will be expected to achieve a high quality of design, making a positive relationship between the proposed and existing context by taking account of:

3. topography, landscape setting and natural features;

4. existing townscapes, local landmarks, views and skylines;

5. the architecture of surrounding buildings;

6. the need to retain trees;

7. the quality and nature of materials, both traditional and modern;

8. established layout and spatial character;

9. the scale, height, bulk and massing of adjacent townscape;

10. architectural, historical and archaeological features and their settings; and

11. the need to retain historic boundary and surface treatments

In the rare event that permission for demolition is granted, conditions will be attached to ensure no demolition shall take place until a scheme for redevelopment has been approved and a contract for the works has been made. This will also apply any curtilage buildings of the listed building or structures.

All applications for development proposals or works to listed buildings must be accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment which clearly identifies, as a minimum, the significance of the building; the proposed works of alteration; any loss of historic fabric; and the effect on the character and appearance which the proposed works will have. A copy of this statement should also be submitted to the Local Authority’s Historic Environment Record.

Explanation

17.8 Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV 5 seeks to ensure that development proposals or works protect, preserve and wherever possible enhance designated listed buildings. Development proposals or works will be required to respect and respond positively to designated heritage assets and their setting, avoiding loss or harm to their significance.

17.9 Heritage assets are irreplaceable. All development proposals or works should therefore have regard to the effect on heritage assets and their setting. The setting of a listed building will often include adjacent development and the wider surroundings. This may relate to landscaping, trees, open spaces and other features which add to the significance of the site or structure.

17.10 Alterations to improve disabled accessibility to properties may be allowed where they are located and designed to minimise impacts on features of historic or architectural interest.

4. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Sections 16 and 66 of the Act require authorities considering applications for planning permission or listed building consent for works which affect a listed building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building. The setting is often an essential part of the building's character, especially if a garden or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or function. Also, the economic viability as well as the character of historic buildings may suffer and they can be robbed of much of their interest, and of the contribution they make to townscape or the countryside, if they become isolated from their surroundings, e.g. by new traffic routes, car parks, or other development.

Local planning authorities are required under section 67 of the Act to publish a notice of all applications they receive for planning permission for any development which, in their opinion, affects the setting of a listed building. This provision should not be interpreted too narrowly: the setting of a building may be limited to obviously ancillary land, but may often include land some distance from it. Even where a building has no ancillary land - for example in a crowded urban street - the setting may encompass a number of other properties. The setting of individual listed buildings very often owes its character to the harmony produced by a particular grouping of buildings (not necessarily all of great individual merit) and to the quality of the spaces created between them. Such areas require careful appraisal when proposals for development are under consideration, even if the redevelopment would only replace a building which is neither itself listed nor immediately adjacent to a listed building. Where a listed building forms an important visual element in a street, it would probably be right to regard any development in the street as being within the setting of the building. A proposed high or bulky building might also affect the setting of a listed building some distance away, or alter views of a historic skyline. In some cases, setting can only be defined by a historical assessment of a building's surroundings. If there is doubt about the precise extent of a building's setting, it is better to publish a notice.

The setting of a listed building is afforded statutory protection by primary legislation, namely S. 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to wit:

”In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” (emphasis added)

In 1] 29 of the Barnwell Manor judgement, Lang] found that:

” Parliament’s intention in enacting section 66(1) was that decision-makers should give

”considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings... ” (emphasis added)

Paragraph 184 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:

” Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. " (emphasis added)

NPPF paragraph 190 states:

” Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal."

On page 71, the National Planning Policy Guidance defines “setting” and “significance”, thus:

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

Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest.

5. ASSESSMENT

General Introduction

The purpose of a Statement of Heritage Significance is to meet the relevant guidance given in the NPPF. This outlines the need to inform the planning decisions when considering proposals that have the potential to have some impact on the character or setting of a heritage asset. It is not concerned with other planning issues.

The nature of the heritage assets and the potential impact upon them through development are both very varied. The heritage assets include both designated heritage assets – such as listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and conservation area – and non-designated heritage assets, a rather uncomfortable and sometimes subjective category that includes locally listed buildings, field systems, buried archaeological remains and views.

The degree of impact a proposed development could have on such assets is variable and can sometimes be positive rather than negative. The wide range of possible impacts can include loss of historic fabric, loss of historic character, damage to historic setting, and damage to significant views.

The proposed new dwelling will sit between two Grade II listed buildings (180 and 184 Chester Road) with a further Grade II listed building (Thornton Hall) and its grounds abutting the southern boundary of the site.

Paragraph 9 of The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition), published by Historic England in December 2017 (SHA), advises that the importance of setting: “lies in what contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or to the ability to appreciate that significance.”

SHA paragraph 19 sets out five steps for the proportionate assessment of the significance of heritage assets.

Step 1: Identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected

Step2: Assess the degree to which these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated

Step 3: Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance or on the ability to appreciate it

Step 4: Explore ways to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm

Step 5: Make and document the decision and monitor outcomes

Step 1.Identity

Listing Descriptions

184, Chester Road

A Grade II Listed Building in Childer Thornton, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire West and Chester

Latitude: 53.2922 /53°17'32"N Longitude: -2.9529 / 2°57'10"W OS Eastings:336577 OS Northings: 377676 OS Grid:SJ365776 Mapcode National: GBR 7ZTC.HJ Mapcode Global: WH87T.MH1Y Plus Code:9C5V72RW+VR Entry Name: 184, Chester Road Listing Date: 26 September 1963 Grade: II Source: Historic England Source ID: 1130334 English Heritage Legacy ID: 56265 Location: Cheshire West and Chester, CH66 County: Cheshire West and Chester Electoral Ward/Division: Willaston and Thornton Built-Up Area: Ellesmere Port Traditional County: Cheshire Lieutenancy Area (Ceremonial County): Cheshire Church of England Parish: Hooton Church of England Diocese: Chester

Listing Text

ELLESMERE PORT & NESTON CHESTER ROAD SJ 37NE (west side) 2/4 No 184 26.9.63 -II 1746 2-storey 2-window pebbledash cottage with smooth rendered margins at angles and openings and as bands at first floor. Slate roofs with gable stacks. Recessed original 12 pane double-hung sashes (8 panes in lower sashes) to ground floor front rooms; replacement 12 pane top-hung casements to first floor front rooms; original 8 pane horizontal sliding sash, central, to attic. Replacement front door; added gabled porch. Datestone 'MB RB 1746'. INTERIOR: Not inspected fully. Inglenook fireplace with hood beam in south room and fire place on splay in north room now altered. Exposed beams in both rooms.

Listing NGR: SJ3657777676

180, Chester Road

A Grade II Listed Building in Childer Thornton, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire West and Chester

Latitude: 53.292 / 53°17'31"N Longitude: -2.9537 / 2°57'13"W OS Eastings:336522 OS Northings: 377649 OS Grid:SJ365776 Mapcode National: GBR 7ZTC.BM Mapcode Global: WH87T.LJN4 Plus Code:9C5V72RW+QG Entry Name: 180, Chester Road Listing Date: 26 September 1963 Grade:II Source: Historic England Source ID: 1320401 English Heritage Legacy ID: 56264 Location: Cheshire West and Chester, CH66 County: Cheshire West and Chester Electoral Ward/Division: Willaston and Thornton Built-Up Area: Ellesmere Port Traditional County: Cheshire Lieutenancy Area (Ceremonial County): Cheshire Church of England Parish: Hooton St Paul Church of England Diocese: Chester

Listing Text

ELLESMERE PORT & NESTON CHESTER ROAD SJ 37NE (west side) 2/3 No 180 26.9.63 GVII Early C18 with minor alterations, 2-storey and attics 2-window cottage; brick with stone plinth painted with bands at floors; slate roof, stone ridge; 2 chimneys. Entrance door with 6 fielded panels. Inglenook in north front room with oak beam decorated with original applied mouldings; some oak beams, two original oak cupboards in chimney corners of north bedroom. Georgian built-in cupboard with semi-circular arched head in south bedroom. Replacement boarded doors.

Listing NGR:SJ3652277649

Thornton Hall

A Grade II Listed Building in Childer Thornton, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire West and Chester

Latitude: 53.2916 /53°17'29"N Longitude: -2.9536 / 2°57'12"W OS Eastings:336532 OS Northings: 377609 OS Grid:SJ365776 Mapcode National: GBR 7ZTC.CR Mapcode Global: WH87T.LJRF Plus Code:9C5V72RW+MH Entry Name: Thorton Hall Listing Date: 17 May 1985 Grade: II Source: Historic England Source ID: 1330388 English Heritage Legacy ID: 56266 Location: Cheshire West and Chester, CH66 County: Cheshire West and Chester Electoral Ward/Division: Willaston and Thornton Parish: Non Civil Parish Built-Up Area: Ellesmere Port Traditional County: Cheshire Lieutenancy Area (Ceremonial County): Cheshire Church of England Parish: Hooton St Paul Church of England Diocese: Chester

Listing Text

SJ 37 NE 2/5

ELLESMERE PORT & NESTON CHESTERROAD (west side)

Thornton Hall

GVII

C18 brown brick 2 storey + attics classical Hall. Largely rebuilt c1840 after major fire. 2 pane double hung sashes. Main (south) door replaced. No internal features predate rebuilding. Some 6 panel doors with fields formed by planted moulds. 1840 drawing room with moulded plaster ceiling with geometric sunken panels (rather coarse). Substantial early C20 internal refurbishment includes good open well staircase with simple, well-proportioned arched balustrade, timber arcaded stair hall and some replacement doors.

Listing NGR: SJ 3653277609

Cheshire Historic Environment Record

The site and its surroundings are not located within a designated conservation area and the Cheshire Historic Environment Record contains no further information in relation to the locality than the listing descriptions of the three listed structures adjoining the site.

Outline History

"Thornton-Childer, a township in the parish of Eastham... 5 miles (E) from Great Neston, containing 361 inhabitants...... " [From Samuel Lewis A Topographical Dictionary of England( 1848)]

• Childer Thornton was a township in Eastham ancient parish, Wirral hundred (SJ 3677), which became a civil parish in1866. • In 1950 the civil parish was abolished to become part of Ellesmere Port. • It included the hamlet of Thornton Heath. • The population was 112 in 1801, 319 in 1851, and 685 in 1901.ChilderThornton

Childer Thornton is a village on the Wirral Peninsula, in the unitary authority Cheshire West and Chester and the ceremonial county of Cheshire, England, located in the town of Ellesmere Port between Hooton and Little Sutton

Step 2. Assessing Significance of Setting

Definition of Setting

Setting, as a concept, was clearly defined in PPS5 and was then restated in the NPPF which describe it as:

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

The latest Historic England guidance on what constitutes setting is virtually identical to the English Heritage guidance it superseded in March 2015: ‘Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated (see Designed Settings below). Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset. This depends on a wide range of physical elements within, as well as perceptual and associational attributes pertaining to, the heritage asset’s surroundings.’

The new Historic England guidance also re-states the earlier guidance that setting is not confined entirely to visible elements and views but includes other aspects including environmental considerations and historical relationships between assets:

‘The contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or

15 dynamic, including a variety of views of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the asset, and may intersect with, and incorporate the settings of numerous heritage assets’.

It is clear from both Listing descriptions that the significance of the two vernacular buildings lies in their interpretative value to an appreciation of the design, materials of construction, internal and external detailing of vernacular residential buildings of the early and mid- eighteenth century.

It is likely that such vernacular buildings would sit within a small curtilage and be surrounded by fields and yards where animals would be kept. The 1:2500 scale Ordnance Survey plan of 1899 (below) suggests that both buildings were part of the Thornton Hall estate, (parcel number 74 comprising 4.8 acres).

The curtilage of no.184 comprised only a small yard with an outbuilding. The curtilage of no.180 was a little larger at this time, with a greater accretion of outbuildings. No.184 now includes within its curtilage some of the land that was braced as part of land and probably related to the extent of the Thornton Hall estate on this map sheet.

By the time the 1:1250 scale Ordnance Survey plan of 1956 (below) was published, the Burleydam Nurseries had been established. The curtilage of no.180 had shrunk but there had been no change to that of no.184 and the cartographic evidence suggests that there was no significant change to the setting of either building between 1956 and 1980.

Both buildings were Listed in 1963, so it is these curtilages that would have contributed to the setting of each of the buildings at the time they were Listed

There were significant changes to the curtilage of no.184 during the 1980s and, by the time the 1:10,000 scale Ordnance Survey map of 1992 (below) was published, the current boundaries between nos.180, 184 and the former Thornton Hall (by this time a hotel) had been established.

The planning history of the site shows that, at no.184, the council granted a number of listed building consent and full planning permission applications for extensions and a new building (a domestic garage). There is no indication from the publicly available documents that the effect of this development upon the setting of these two Listed buildings was a matter of concern to the council.

There is nothing in the Listing descriptions for nos. 180 and 184 or in the historic planning record to suggest that their settings contribute meaningfully to their significance as heritage assets. The proposal to subdivide the plot and build a new dwelling was not considered to be harmful or to diminish the significance of the neighbouring listed buildings when outline planning permission was granted recently under 20/00942/OUT which included details of access arrangements.

SHA paragraph 17 indicates that the contribution made to significance by setting varies. There is nothing in any of listing descriptions to suggest the setting of any heritage asset should be considered to extend beyond their respective historic curtilages.

The ‘Zone of Visibility’ is shown at Appendix C. It includes views from Chester Road (red zone), Thornton Mews (blue zone) and Thornton Hall car park (yellow zone). These three zones were chosen because they are the locations within which the majority of people passing through the locality would have an opportunity to catch a view of the development site and its relationship with the surrounding heritage assets.

There are no significant topographical variations across the site that would impact views into the development site. However, there are significant foliage cover and boundary walls that restrict views in and out of the development site.

Red Zone: The Google Earth photograph below shows the view from Chester Road, directly opposite No.184. This demonstrates that the development site is extremely well screened from the main road which is likely to be the main public viewing point for passers-by from the red zone. The existing tree cover substantially screens the site from view and the existing garage to No.184 situated behind these trees’ further screens views of the development site. The likely visual impact of the development upon views of any of the heritage assets from the red zone is therefore considered to be minimal and will not detract from appreciation as heritage assets.

Yellow Zone: The Google Earth oblique aerial image below shows the current views towards the site from the entrance to the hotel car park (Thornton Hall). The trees in the car park at Thornton Hall are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. However, the Leylandii hedgerow along the boundary with the site are not protected and has been removed as it was casting significant shadow across the site and dominated the development site to its detriment.

The Leylandii hedgerow along the boundary with the Thornton Hall car park was extremely tall and dominated the application site and as such this had to be removed and will be replaced with a more sympathetic planting scheme which doesn’t overpower the site as the Leylandi hedgerow did. The new planting scheme will be lower and will include two additional native species trees in the south western corner, this will provide a visual screen along with the existing boundary wall between the car park at Thornton Hall and the development site ensuring that the site remains private, restricting views in from Thornton Hall without the overshadowing that the previous hedgerow cast across the site.

It is considered that any harm to the setting of the heritage assets resulting from the proposed development in the yellow zone could readily be mitigated by the use of condition to require an appropriate boundary treatment.

Blue Zone: The Google Earth oblique aerial image below shows the current views towards the development site from Thornton Mews. The party boundary between No. 180 and 184 is thickly planted with a beech hedge, this is in the ownership of No. 180 and the maintenance of this hedge is undertaken by the owners of this property. Further planting along the boundary with Thornton Mews could be secured by condition as part of the landscaping proposals for the site.

Any harm to the setting of the heritage assets resulting from the proposed development in the blue zone could be readily mitigated against via the use of an appropriate condition.

In Summary, 184 Chester Road is the most visible building and its setting is compromised from the principal elevation by the main road which runs in front of it. The building would originally have been presented in a rural settings, but the introduction of the road and the subsequent urbanisation of the surrounding area mean that the setting of the building has already been substantially compromised in terms of reading it as a rural estate workers cottage as it now sits in a much more urban environment than when it was constructed.

The new building will be situated in the rear garden of No. 184 but will to a large extent be obscured from the view of passing traffic on Chester Road by the existing house, the boundary wall fronting the footpath on Chester Road and the existing garage addition.

The listed building at No.180 is not visible from Chester Road and is only viewed once you enter the mews terrace. The new dwelling has the potential to impact views of this property from the mews road, however the listed building is set forward at No. 180, so it is possible to pull the new dwelling back to prevent it impacting on views of the listed building at No. 180.

Having regard to the above, it is considered extremely unlikely that there would be any harmful intervisibility between the proposed development and the settings of any of the identified heritage assets. If there were it is not considered that these would be anything more than less than significant harm and it is felt this could reasonably be mitigated against by the use of landscaping conditions and through careful design and siting of the proposed dwelling. These matters will be discussed more fully later in the report.

Step 3. Assessing Effects upon Significance

Definition of Significance

The glossary of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) to the NPPF defines significance as:

‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’.

The PPG also states:

‘Local planning authorities may identify non-designated heritage assets. These are buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which are not formally designated heritage assets. In some areas, local authorities identify some non-designated heritage assets as ‘locally listed’’. (9)

But cautions that:

‘A substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process’. (10)

There is no mention in the listing descriptions that that the setting of the three heritage assets contribute to their significance. SHA paragraph 9 indicates that the setting of an asset may affect the ability to appreciate the significance of a heritage asset. It is important that the elevations of the surrounding assets (particularly their principal elevations) are not obscured from view as this could lead to a partial but harmful impact on their significance. It is therefore important in developing the design of the new dwelling that care is taken to ensure that the principal elevations of the surrounding heritage assets are not unduly impacted and that views of them are preserved so that their significance can still be appreciated.

Change over time

The 1875 Ordinance Survey Plan (over) shows that the land behind No.184 was wooded at the time. By 1899, this land had been cleared. By the 1980’s, this land had been incorporated into the gardens of No. 180 and 184. The gardens have since matured and are currently under grass with mature borders and boundary treatment and some hard landscaping.

There has been very little change to the curtilage of No.180. The size of the garden has changed over the years but there is no indication that this has impacted on its significance. At the time the property was listed, the garden in front of No.180 was much smaller than it had been 1875. The boundary treatments are not referenced in the listing description of the No.180 and therefore it can be inferred from this that they are not a significant factor in terms of its historical or architectural importance and are neutral in terms of how the building is appreciated and read as a heritage asset.

The use of surrounding buildings has changed over the years, with the former farm buildings being converted into mews style cottages during the 1980’s and 1990’s. There has also been a significant amount of other residential development in School Lane and across Childer Thornton as a whole, which is now classed as a local service centre.

The proposal to build a new dwelling must be considered against the backdrop of the historic development of Childer Thornton as a rural settlement. The new development will be designed in a manner that is consistent with the way that the village has grown, with increasingly dense residential and commercial development radiating out from Thornton Hall.

Cumulative Change

No. 184 was constructed around 1746. In 1875 the application was wooded. The woodland may well have been there in 1746 and its restoration may enhance the setting of the heritage asset.

That said, outline planning permission has been granted on the site for a new dwelling, therefore re-treeing the site is not practical or desirable given the impact mature trees can

22 have on a dwelling in terms of impact through leaf fall, loss of light etc; A well designed landscaping scheme which complements the new dwelling and the adjoining heritage assets is a much more preferable solution as this can incorporate appropriate native tree species.

Impact on Adjacent Heritage Assets

The access arrangements have already been approved under the outline planning permission for the new dwelling. The reserved matters application seeks detailed approval for the four outstanding reserved matters details namely siting, size, design and landscaping. Each element will be considered and assessed separately as part of this report.

The development site is situated within the curtilage of No.184. To the rear of the site is No. 180 and to the west is situated Thornton Hall. No’s 184 and 180 are domestic scale buildings which book end the site on either side. The development site is likely to have the greatest impact on these two heritage assets due to their proximity and relationship to the new dwelling.

Thornton Hall is a more grandiose building and is situated further away from the development site than the other two properties.

Siting

The new dwelling will be sited in the existing rear garden of No.184 between the rear elevation of 184 and the front elevation of 180. This area was formerly a wooded area which separated the two listed structures at 184 and 180. It is not known when this wooded area was cleared, but it was prior to the aerial photograph taken in 1945 and the current setting has been as existing for at least 80 years if not longer.

The new dwelling will sit between the two listed structures and will complement the cottage vernacular style of the development that has grown up around the listed structures. The site sits immediately behind No.184 Chester Road, so will not be visible to passers-by along Chester Road. The existing tree cover at Thornton Hall and the proposed new planting on the boundary separate the site from the adjoining site of Thornton Hall meaning that views of the new building from the Hall will be very limited as there is also the boundary wall which blocks out views under the tree canopy along the boundary.

The building will be set back from the access road which serves the current development and will be accessed off this road in accordance with details previously approved as part of the outline planning permission. Whilst, exact details of the siting are for agreement under these reserved matters application, the principle of a new dwelling on the rear lawned garden of No.184 has already been accepted through the granting outline planning permission. The hemmed in nature of the garden means that whilst the footprint of the building can be moved around on site, the siting is very much fixed by the parameters of the garden in terms of the proximity to the two adjacent listed structures and the garden wall to the boundary with Thornton Hall.

Size

The structures at 180 and 184 are example of Cheshire vernacular architecture and it is therefore important that the new dwelling takes account of this and takes a cue for its size from these adjoining heritage assets. The new dwelling will be subservient in terms of historic importance to the adjoining buildings and therefore this needs to be reflected in the structures size in terms of both its footprint and presence as well as its height. It cannot dominate its neighbours nor detract from their architectural or historic value. Having regard to the historic importance of its neighbours and not wishing to detract from their appreciation or understanding, the new building has been designed to be lower in height than both of the listed structures on either side of the site. The footprint of the new dwelling has also been carefully designed to minimise its size so as not to dominate either of these historic assets or their settings. The new build will appear as a wholly subservient structure to the listed buildings and their settings which are not given any special mention in the listing descriptions of these heritage assets.

That said it is important that the new build complements the listed structures on either side and does not appear out of place or as an alien feature in the landscape. The building therefore needs to be a modern-day interpretation of the local vernacular style blending elements of the history of the adjoining buildings and interpreting them in a modern style so that it is obvious that it is a building of its time which pays respect to the heritage assets which book end it on either side.

Design

The main cues for the design of the new dwelling have been taken from No.180 and 184 as these assets are considered to relate more closely to the site than the adjoining Thornton Hall. These listed structures are likely to be most impacted by this proposal and therefore it is important that care is taken to ensure that any harm to either buildings setting is

24 minimised through good design which acknowledges the architectural and historic importance of these assets as well as respecting their settings.

The intention is to construct the proposed dwelling from handmade Cheshire brick to provide a contrast with the white rendered listed structures either side of the site. However, this will be subject to being able to source a sufficient quantity of these materials as well as them being of a sufficient quality. It may therefore be necessary to investigate an alternative brick if supply becomes an issue and as such a condition requiring the agreement of materials prior to commencement would be acceptable to the applicant.

The new dwelling whilst taking on board the vernacular style of its surroundings will more reflect the red brick style of the mews rather than seeking to copy or disguise itself in white render. Considerable thought has been given to the material finish and after much thought it was decided that a contrasting finish was the most appropriate form that would enable the building to differentiate itself from the heritage assets whilst also complementing them in terms of style. This will provide an acknowledgement to the listed structure in a sympathetic manner without seeking to disguise the modern vernacular of the new dwelling as a pastiche copy. The use of the Cheshire brick or a suitable alternative provides a sympathetic link to Thornton Hall and the unlisted buildings across the mews and allows the new building to be interpreted as something of its own time.

The Cheshire brick will be the preferred finish and will be applied to the external envelope of the building up to the eaves. All windows will have stone sills to the windows. The roof will be welsh slate. The thought process behind this approach being that the building will take design aspects from the two listed cottages and combine this with the red brick finish of the adjacent mews and surrounding walls to provide a design solution which whilst sympathetic and in keeping with its surroundings does not seek to mimic them, but complements them in a contemporary manner blending their characteristics to produce a piece of architecture which blends in to its settings appearing as an organic development that complements its setting and surroundings, without impinging unnecessarily on the setting on the listed structures which sandwich the site between them.

The dwelling will be constructed using a Flemish bond with projecting ends at localized areas to acknowledge the Flemish bond brickwork style seen at the gable end of the adjacent mews. The setting of this feature is highlighted as the pale red area at the garage entrance, the rear gable (adjacent to the bay window) and a small area to the front as shown on the elevation illustrations in Appendix D.

The use of white render on part of the upper parts of the elevations was considered initially as a nod to the two rendered heritage assets, but as design work progressed it has moved away from this approach and the intention is now to use unstained cedar cladding which will give a smooth pale silver/grey appearance. The idea of this approach is to provide an acknowledgement to the smooth white render of the adjoining cottages without seeking to mimic it. The areas of cladding are shown as light grey on the elevation drawings in Appendix D.

Landscaping

The site was originally a wooded area which has been cleared and incorporated into the garden of No.184 as a lawned area. Aerial photography dating back to 1945 indicates that the site was cleared of trees before this time and the site has remained an open grassed area in the intervening 75 years.

There is a belt of trees beyond the site boundary in the curtilage of the adjoining Thornton Hall which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order, these are all mature specimens and provide a thick covering of foliage which screens the site from view from Thornton Hall.

There is also a substantial brick boundary wall which runs between the site of Thornton Hall and the development site. This provides a screen between the ground and the tree canopy which prevents views into the site from the Hall side of the development site. In addition, it is further proposed to introduce new native tree planting in the southern corner of the development site that will further screen views of the site from the part of the hall that is not already screened by the existing TPO trees on the car parking area.

The existing tree cover on the Thornton Hall site along with the existing boundary wall provide a significant impingement to views into the site from the Hall. The additional planting of new native species in the southern corner will further bolster the tree cover in the locality and screen the site further from the view of the hall. It is therefore considered that the site will remain well screened from view of the adjacent hall and the development will have a less than harmful impact in terms of the setting of Thornton Hall.

Archaeological Implications

There is nothing to suggest from the available evidence that the site of the proposed new dwelling has ever been the site of a previous building or structure in the past or subject to previous human habitation. It is therefore unlikely that finds of any archaeological significance will be discovered as a result of excavation works to the site.

Little in the way of significant groundworks are required for the scheme. The potential for the survival of significant buried archaeological remains that could be impacted by the new groundworks is considered to be limited.

Step 4. Enhancement/Minimise Harm

Definition of Harm

The NPPF and its accompanying PPG effectively distinguish between two degrees of harm to heritage assets – substantial and less than substantial. Substantial harm is considered to be a degree of harm so serious to the significance of the heritage asset, usually involving total or partial destruction of a listed building, for example, or radical changes to its setting.

As the term suggests, less than substantial harm is not as serious and varies in its impact – but it still is an important consideration in assessing planning applications. However, recent

High Court rulings have emphasised the primacy of the 1990 Planning Act – and the fact that it is up to the decision makers in the planning system to ‘have special regard to the desirability of preserving the [listed] building or its setting’. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that

‘Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals.’

As explained above great care has been taken in terms of the siting, scale and design of this new dwelling as well as the surrounding landscaping against which it will be experienced along with the existing heritage assets. The new dwelling has been designed to be a modern interpretation of the vernacular style of its older neighbours providing a subtle blend between the old and the new.

The building is a contemporary interpretation of the vernacular architecture of Cheshire but in manner which does not seek to replicate or impersonate, but reflect an influence. It is therefore a building very much of its time with echoes of the past taken from the surrounding structures.

The building therefore complements and is subordinate in that it does not detract from the surrounding heritage assets. It is therefore considered to have a neutral impact in terms of the historic buildings themselves and their settings.

The siting, size, design and landscaping along with the external construction materials have all been carefully considered to minimise the impact of the new dwelling on their surrounding and not detract from the way the heritage assets are experienced. It is considered that the proposals achieve this successfully and will not adversely impact the significance of any of the three heritage assets which adjoin the site.

The proposals are considered proportionate and well considered. The impact on historic fabric is very limited and the more significant elements of the overall character of the listed buildings on the site are respected and indeed complemented by the new addition.

Care has been taken to ensure that the design of the new building does not detract from the listed buildings themselves or their settings. The building will appear subservient to the two listed buildings and has been designed to provide a sympathetic and complementary addition which respects its surroundings in terms of its size, scale and massing.

The vernacular style of the building will resonate with its surroundings taking important cues from its surroundings yet incorporating a modern interpretation rather than mimicking the listed structures in the vicinity.

Step 5. Documentation and Monitoring

As there will be no loss of significance as a result of the development, there should be no need to amend the historic environment record as a result of this proposal being implemented. Details of the outline planning application and the reserved matters application, which both include heritage statements will be retained on the Council’s website as a permanent record and can be supplied to the Cheshire Archive and Records Office.

The applicant considers that any conditions attached to the reserved matters planning permission along with those attached to the outline consent to protect the significance of the heritage assets, their settings and the manner in which they are experienced, would be readily enforceable.

6. CONCLUSIONS

For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposed introduction of a new dwelling within the settings of the listed buildings at 184 and 180 will result in very little impact on their character, setting or significance.

In the recent past, planning guidance has recognised that change to historic buildings is part of their history and that buildings are not and should not be fossilised. The prospect of change, even to listed buildings and their settings, is anticipated in the government’s National Planning Policy Framework but was more clearly outlined in earlier guidance from 1996, Planning Policy Guideline No.15 (PPG 15), which stated – in relation to listed buildings that:

‘Many listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate continuing or new uses. Indeed, cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership are themselves an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, should not be discounted.’

The listing descriptions for the heritage assets do not contain any reference to their settings. Typically, vernacular buildings may be experienced as part a wider group of buildings in a farmstead but their setting tends to be less important due to their more humble roots. The setting of Thornton Hall on the other hand may have been more important in the past, but this has been eroded with cumulative changes over a period of time to a point to whether it is difficult to say with any certainty what the significance of that setting might have been.

In summary, the proposed development will have no detrimental impacts upon the heritage assets or their settings, nor will it detract from the significance of the heritage assets or how they are appreciated, which is dependent upon observation in close proximity rather than assessment of their siting within a wider landscape or their physical juxtaposition.

Sources of Information consulted:

• Cheshire Archive and Local Studies • Cheshire Records Office • Cheshire Historic Environment Record • The National Heritage List • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) o NPPF Planning Practice Guidance • The current local plan • Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment • Historic ordnance survey maps • Historic Aerial Photographs

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Photographic Record of Site and Surroundings

Appendix B – Historical Maps and Aerial Photographic Record

Appendix C – The Zones of Theoretical Visibility

Appendix D – Visuals of the Proposed New Dwelling

Appendix A – Photographic Record of Site and Surroundings

Appendix B – Historical Maps and Aerial Photographic

1836 – 51 Map

1875 Map

1885 – 1900 Map

1885 – 1903 Topographical Map

1888 – 1913 Map

1892 – 1914 Map

1897 – 1907 Map

1898 Map

1900’s Map

1910 Map

1920 – 1940 Map

1937 – 1961 Map

1940 -1947 Map

1944 – 1969 Aerial

1945 Aerial

1949 – 1969 Map

1955 – 1961 Map

1971 – 1973 Aerial

1999 – 2003 Aerial

2003 Aerial

2005 Aerial

2010 Aerial

2012 Aerial

2015 Aerial

2015 – 2017 Aerial

2018 Aerial

Latest OS Map

Appendix C – The Zones of Theoretical Visibility

Appendix D – Visuals of the Proposed New Dwelling