Built Heritage Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Built Heritage Assessment In respect of Land at Parkview Farm Old Wokingham Road Bracknell RG40 3BX On behalf of Berkeley Strategic Land RPS CgMs Ref: JCH00121 March 2017, updated March 2018 rpsgroup.com/uk | cgms.co.uk CONTENTS CONTENTS Pages Prepared by: 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Legislative and Planning Policy Framework Victoria Brocksopp BA (Hons) MA 2.1 Legislation and National Planning Policy 4 2.2 National Planning Guidance 5 2.3 Local Planning Policy and Guidance 7 3.0 Architectural and Historical Appraisal Authorised by: 3.1 Historical Development 8 3.2 Historic Map Progression 9 Duncan Hawkins BA (Hons), MSc, FSA, MCIfA 4.0 Assessment of Significance 4.1 Site Assessment 12 4.2 Statutorily Listed Buildings 13 Report Status: 5.0 Summary of Findings 17 FINAL Appendices Appendix A: Statutory List Description RPS CgMs Ref: Appendix B: References JCH00121 Issue Date: March 2017, updated March 2018 COPYRIGHT © RPS CgMs The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Berkeley Homes and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of RPS CgMs. © Ordnance Survey maps have been reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 rpsgroup.com/uk | cgms.co.uk 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Built Heritage Assessment has been researched and prepared by CgMs, part of the RPS Group, on behalf of Berkeley Strategic Land. It is intended to provide an overview of built heritage assets that could potentially be affected by development on this site, located at Parkview Farm, and henceforth referred to within this report as the ‘Site’ (Figure 1). It is further intended to assist Bracknell Forest Council through the provision of a detailed assessment of the Site, to inform their decision making process with regard to the Site’s potential allocation for development as part of emerging Local Plan (ref: BRA1). The Site (Figures 2 and 3) comprises a series of irregularly shaped fields in agricultural use and under pasture, bounded by established hedgerows and trees. The western boundary partly follows the line of Old Wokingham Road, with a small section of the eastern boundary abutting the driveway of Easthampstead Park (Grade II). The rest of the boundary following various irregular field boundaries. This Built Heritage Assessment provides an initial assessment of the built heritage assets within a 500m radius of the Site boundary, an area deemed Figure 1: Red line boundary of Site at Parkview Farm. Figure 3: View taken from the access road to Parkview Farm, looking to the north of the Site. to be of a proportionate scale considering the local landscape topography and nature of the emerging proposals for a residential scheme (no undue noise, vibration, odour etc). The Site itself contains no designated built heritage assets. The study area contains 7 listed buildings. These heritage assets have all been assessed in detail, including their heritage significance and respective settings, with a further evaluation of any contribution made by the Site to that significance. A Site visit was undertaken in March 2017 to inform this assessment. This report makes reference to the relevant legislative framework contained within the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as well as national and local planning policy. In addition, relevant Historic England guidance has been consulted to inform the judgements made. It is further based upon the findings of detailed historical research, site visit, map studies and application of professional judgement. Figure 2: View looking southwest from the bridleway that crosses the Site, as it enters the Site Figure 4: The Site lies near to Easthampstead Park, a Grade II listed building dating to c.1860. from the east. rpsgroup.com/uk | cgms.co.uk 3 2.0 LEGISLATIVE & PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 LEGISLATION & NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY The current national policy system identifies, through the National Planning that is expected to run through the plan-making and decision-making conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, Policy Framework (NPPF), that applications should consider the potential process. Nonetheless, NPPF Paragraph 14 states that the presumption in including their economic vitality. impact of development upon ‘heritage assets’. This term includes: favour of sustainable development is applied unless certain specific policies In order to determine applications, NPPF Paragraph 128 states that LPAs designated heritage assets, which possess a statutory designation (for indicate that such development should be restricted; these include policies should require applicants to demonstrate the significance of any heritage example Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, and Registered Parks and protecting sites identified as: designated heritage assets; Areas of assets likely to be affected by development proposals, including the Gardens); and non-designated heritage assets, typically compiled by Local Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs); Sites of Special Scientific Interest contribution made to their setting. The level of detail provided should be Planning Authorities (LPAs) and incorporated into a Local List. (SSSIs); and the Green Belt. proportionate to each heritage assets’ significance and sufficient to The NPPF defines a heritage asset as: “A building, monument, site, place, understand what impact will be caused upon their significance. This is area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting supported by NPPF Paragraph 129, which requires LPAs to take this Legislation consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest”. The assessment into account when considering applications. definition of a heritage asset includes ‘designated’ heritage assets: “A Where any development may affect designated heritage assets, there is a NPPF Paragraphs 132-136 consider the impact of development proposals World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected legislative framework to ensure proposed works are developed and upon the significance of a heritage asset. NPPF Paragraph 132 Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or considered with due regard for their impact on the historic environment. emphasises the need for proportionality in decision-making and identifies Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation”. In addition, This extends from primary legislation under the Planning (Listed Buildings that, when a development is proposed, the weight given to the conservation other ‘non-designated’ heritage assets identified by LPAs are included in a and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The relevant legislation in this case of a heritage asset should be proportionate to its significance, with greater Local List. extends from Section 66 which states that special regard must be given by weight given to those assets of higher significance. NPPF Paragraph 134 the authority in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of Section 7 Requiring Good Design reinforces the importance of good design states that, where less than substantial harm will be caused to a preserving or enhancing listed buildings and their setting. A particularly in achieving sustainable development, by ensuring the creation of inclusive designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public appropriate example of upholding S66 is in the case of West Coast and high quality places. NPPF Paragraph 58 affirms the need for new benefits of the development proposals, which include securing the heritage Energy’s proposal for five wind turbines to be installed within the setting of design to: function well and add to the quality of the area in which it is built; asset’s viable optimum use. establish a strong sense of place; and respond to local character and the Grade I listed Barnwell Manor, Northamptonshire. The National Trust advocated that the proposals would have an adverse impact upon the history, reflecting the built identity of the surrounding area. heritage asset’s setting and, reinforced by local opposition, the proposal Section 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment contains was rejected by East Northamptonshire District Council in 2010. The NPPF Paragraphs 126-141, which relate to development proposals that developers won an appeal for four turbines, however, this was overturned have an effect upon the historic environment. Such policies provide the at the High Court. A subsequent Appeal to overturn the High Court ruling framework that LPAs need to refer to when setting out a strategy for the was dismissed in February 2014. conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their Local Plans. The NPPF advises LPAs to take into account the following points when National Planning Policy drawing up strategies for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department of environment: Communities and Local Government (DCLG), March 2012) The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of A revised draft of the NPPF is currently out for consultation. The proposed heritage assets and preserving them in a viable use consistent with revisions to policies affecting built heritage are minimal, however, and their conservation; would not materially affect the findings of this report. the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that The NPPF is