The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley, Derbyshire
Heritage Impact Assessment
Project Reference: 21-020
Produced for Robert Winter August 2021
WWW.LOCUSCONSULTING.CO.UK
Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5
INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 Project Background ...... 6 1.2 The Site ...... 6 1.3 Proposed Works ...... 8 1.4 Scope of Study ...... 9 1.5 Planning Context ...... 10 1.6 Planning History ...... 11
SITE CONTEXT ...... 12 2.1 Historical Development ...... 12 2.3 LiDAR Analysis ...... 22
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 23 3.1 Scope of Assessment ...... 23 3.2 Direct Impacts ...... 23 3.3 Indirect Impacts ...... 42
CONCLUSIONS & POSITION ...... 44
REFERENCES ...... 46
APPENDIXES...... 48 Appendix 1: Assessment Methodology ...... 48 Appendix 2: Planning Policy ...... 50 Appendix 3: Historic Environment Resource ...... 57
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This survey was commissioned by Robert Winter and thanks are due in this regard. The report was written by Brixie Payne, Thomas Linington and Adam Partington and verified by Adam Partington of Locus Consulting Ltd.
2 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 1: Approximate Site location...... 6 Figure 2: Proposed Site block plan ...... 8 Figure 3: Floor plans for stable conversion ...... 9 Figure 4 Linear earthworks associated with a former trackway looking south ...... 14 Figure 5: Extract from Ordnance Survey (OS) map Derbyshire XXXVIII.SW (Ashbourne; Fenny Bentley; Mapleton; Okeover) published 1900 ...... 15 Figure 6: Photograph showing the decorative date stone set into the gable of the farmhouse ...... 16 Figure 7: Extract from Tithe map of 1841 showing Ashes Farm in red with outfarm to the west ...... 17 Figure 8: Extract from Ordnance Survey (OS) map Derbyshire XXXVIII 9 (Fenny Bentley; Mapleton; Okeover; Thorpe) published 1880 ...... 18 Figure 9: Extract from Ordnance Survey (OS) map Derbyshire XXXVIII 9 (Fenny Bentley; Mapleton; Okeover; Thorpe) published 1900 ...... 19 Figure 10: Photograph showing The Ashes Farm in the 1930s © http://www.fennybentley.org.uk/fenny-bentley-places/4591849873 ...... 19 Figure 11: Photograph showing The Ashes Farm in 1957 © http://www.fennybentley.org.uk/fenny- bentley-places/4591849873 ...... 20 Figure 12: 2020 Satellite imagery © Google Earth, approximate Site location in red ...... 21 Figure 13: Lidar data showing ridge and furrow within a network of small enclosures (examples indicated in yellow) to the north and east of the farm and the route of a trackway (blue) ...... 22 Figure 14 Southern frontage of combination barn ...... 25 Figure 15 Primary southern elevation of the farmhouse ...... 26 Figure 16 Western elevation of the farmhouse at The Ashes Farm ...... 27 Figure 17 Eastern eleavtion of the U-shaped courtyard range...... 28 Figure 18 View of thr U-shaped courtyard range from the southwest ...... 28 Figure 19 Southern end of the western stable range with reconfigured front and stabling in active use (left) ...... 29 Figure 20 Example interior of stable with modern roof structure, rubber matting to floor and modern built up wall to south (left) ...... 29 Figure 21: Aerial photograph showing the original roof on northern range, May 1965 (Source: Matthew Montague Architects)) ...... 30 Figure 22 Northern elevation of U-shaped courtyard range ...... 31 Figure 23 Massive masonry in the western end of the combination barn ...... 32 Figure 24 Limestone and pink granite sets to floor ...... 32 Figure 25 Westernmost room of the combination barn looking west...... 33 Figure 26 Westernmost room of the combination barn looking east ...... 33 Figure 27 Northern (left) and southern (right) entrances into and out of the courtyard at The Ashes Farm ...... 34 Figure 28 Hatch in floor to archway ...... 34 Figure 29 Eastern room to combination barn looking southeast ...... 35 Figure 30 Easternmost corner room of the combination barn ...... 35 Figure 31 Courtyard elevation of the eastern range ...... 36 Figure 32 View up towards the eastern elevation of the U shaped range from the east ...... 37 Figure 33 Principal southern elevation of The Ashes Farm ...... 37
3 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 34: Map of Heritage Assets considered for assessment ...... 43 Figure 35: Designated Heritage Assets ...... 58 Figure 36: Monuments ...... 66 Figure 37: Events ...... 68
4 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In June 2021 Locus Consulting Ltd. were commissioned to compile a Heritage Impact Assessment to accompany an application for planning permission for the development of a site at The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley, Derbyshire. This assessment considers the known and potential historic environment resources within the Site and its environs and any potential impacts which may be imposed upon it by the proposed development. The Site lies within the Peak District National Park and forms part of The Ashes Farm, a non-designated heritage asset. The Site. The Site does not comprise or form part of any other designated or other non- designated heritage assets. The Site is not subject to an Article 4 Direction. Accounting for the evidence available, the overall archaeological potential of the Site is low to at most moderate. If present, remains within the Site are most likely associated with transient farming practices from the Medieval period onwards. Evidence for such activity would be of local to at most regional archaeological significance. The proposed development will bring about both positive, neutral and negative impacts upon the architectural and historical interest of The Ashes Farm, a non-designated heritage asset. The proposed manége is well located and will help sustain a traditional use of stables at The Ashes Farm. The facility will have little if any discernible impact upon the setting of the steading. Restoration and sustainable re-use of the northern outbuilding at The Ashes Farm will have a significant positive impact upon its architectural and historical interest. Works to existing openings are well-conceived and will ensure a consistency in the outbuilding’s aesthetic is sustained. Continuing use of the northern range for stables sustains a traditional use which is optimal. The change of use for the remainder of the range, associated with the main house is also optimal. All rooms are currently vacant or fulfil marginal uses and, due to changes in farming and animal welfare practices, are unlikely to ever return to their original functions. The new uses impact little on the external aesthetic of the building and are therefore considered optimal and in accordance with Policy DMC10 of the Peak District National Park Development Management Policies (adopted 2019). The addition of solar panels to the inner roof slope of the northern range will marginally diminish the benefits brought about by its re-roofing, however the net impact of the works will remain positive and justified by the environmental benefits of the panels. As such, the works align with Policy CC2 of the Peak District National Park Authority Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document. The proposed tennis court is found to be well located, but a very minor degree of harm may be incurred to the immediate setting of The Ashes Farm through the erection of permitter fencing. Accounting for the lightweight nature of the material and the limited number of glimpse views it may appear in, the impact upon the setting of the non-designated heritage asset is very low. In bringing about an overall degree of enhancement to the non-designated heritage asset of The Ashes Farm, the application for planning permission is due a positive weight in the planning balance in accordance with Paragraph 203 of the NPPF and Polices L3 of the Peak District National Park Authority Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document and DMC5 of the Peak District National Park Development Management Policies.
5 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND In June 2021 Locus Consulting Ltd. were commissioned to compile a Heritage Impact Assessment to accompany an application for planning permission for the development of a site at The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley, Derbyshire, DE6 1LD, at National Grid Reference SK17204 49797, henceforth referred to as “the Site” (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Approximate Site location
This assessment considers the known and potential historic environment resources within the Site and its environs and any potential impacts which may be imposed upon it by the proposed development. For a full assessment methodology, please see Appendix 1: Assessment Methodology. 1.2 THE SITE
LOCATION
The Site is located to the south-west of the village of Fenny Bentley, approximately 3.2km north of the market town of Ashbourne. It sits at the end of Ashes Lane which joins the A515 which runs north south, bisecting Fenny Bentley. Ashes Lane is the only access to the Site. The size of the Site is approximately 0.9 hectares.
6 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
The Site lies within the Derbyshire Dales and in the southern-most area of the Peak District National Park. In 1996 the village of Fenny Bentley was designated a Conservation Area. The Site does not lie within this area, sitting to the south-west of the boundary (Peak District National Park, 1996). The farmstead currently comprises a detached double pile farmhouse with extensions, a U- shaped range of outbuildings forming a central yard, with additional modern barn and rectangular concrete surface. The development Site includes the northern range of the U-shaped outbuilding to the rear of the farmhouse, a small paddock to the west of the U-shaped range, and the south-east corner of the adjacent field to the west. Both the farmstead and surrounding earthworks are considered to be non-designated heritage assets by virtue of their architectural and historical interest and archaeological interest respectively.1 The Site is surrounded by open fields on all four sides and is near to the watercourses of Wash Brook and Bentley Brook. No neighbouring properties lie adjacent the Site, with the closest being Ashes Barn on Ashes Lane to the north. The village of Fenny Bentley is small in size and notable local buildings include St Edmund’s Church and the 15th century Bentley Hall, now known as Cherry Orchard Farm, both Grade II* listed.
GEOLOGY
The bedrock geology of the Site consists of Widmerpool Formation – Limestone and Mudstone Interbedded, sedimentary bedrock formed approximately 329 to 337 million years ago in the Carboniferous period, in a local environment previously dominated by sub-aqueous slopes. There are no superficial deposits recorded (British Geological Society, 2014).
LANDSCAPING
The Site lies in the north portion of the Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands National Character Area (NCA Profile 68), as defined by Natural England. The following section is extracted from the NCA profile (Natural England, 2012). The general character of the area is one of rolling countryside, broadly divided by the wide, shallow valley of the River Dove, which also defines the Staffordshire and Derbyshire county boundary within the area. To the north of the Dove the landscape is gently rolling, comprising small to medium-sized irregular fields surrounded by hedgerows with boundary trees and occasional small woodlands, particularly on steep slopes. The land is mainly used for pasture and dairying predominates, with localised arable farming. Historic parks with wood pasture and veteran trees are a common feature of the landscape, and often form the setting for country houses such as Sudbury Hall and Kedleston Hall, and offer recreational and access opportunities. The villages lie within the many shallow valleys, and although those nearest Derby have been substantially enlarged by post-war development, much of the area remains
1 Natalie Ward, Senior Conservation Archaeologist, Peak District National Park, pers. comm., 25.05.21.
7 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
deeply rural. Patches of ridge and furrow and the earthworks of deserted settlements are evidence of a once village-based pattern of settlement in the medieval period. The overall settlement pattern of the NCA is dispersed and the majority of the area sparsely populated. Larger towns and villages, such as Uttoxeter and Ashbourne, are found around the perimeter in the river valleys. 1.3 PROPOSED WORKS Proposed works include the refurbishment and conversion of the northern building of a U- shaped range of outbuildings into an apartment, library, gymnasium and workspace; the construction of a manège to the east of the Site with associated fencing; and the installation of a fenced tennis court to the west. Plans also include the installation of solar panels to the south facing elevations of both the stable building and modern barn to the immediate north. For full details of the proposed development, please refer to the application submission documents.
Figure 2: Proposed Site block plan
8 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 3: Floor plans for stable conversion
1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of this study is proportionate to the proposed works and does not constitute a comprehensive statement of significance for heritage assets that may be directly or indirectly impacted upon by the proposed development. The objectives of this study are to:
• Assess the potential for the survival of archaeological remains within the proposed development Site, including their likely condition, extent and significance; • Identify designated and non-designated heritage assets that might be directly or indirectly impacted upon by the proposed development; • Describe the heritage significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets that might be directly or indirectly impacted upon by the proposed development; • Assess the degree of impact of the proposed development upon the significance of heritage assets; • Review the impact of the proposed development in respect of the prevailing framework of policy and legislation. Research sources consulted for this study comprise published references and maps, including the National Character Area Profile 52 White Peak (Natural England, 2014), the National Character Area Profile 68 Needwood and South Derbyshire Claylands (Natural England, 2012), the Peak District National Park Farmsteads Character Statement (Historic England, 2017) and a survey of the Derbyshire Archives catalogue.
9 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Accounting for the restrictions imposed by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and inherent practicalities of travel and other considerations, a greater degree of diligence was afforded to online resources, supplementing HER and NHLE searches. Online resources were consulted where available and included (but were not limited to):
• National Heritage List for England, an up to date list of Designated Heritage Assets, excluding Conservation Areas (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/)
• Britain from Above (https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/) for aerial photograph coverage
• The National Library of Scotland (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/) and Old-Maps (www.old- maps.com) for a range of maps from 1851 to the present day
• Historic England Archives Image and Book Collection (https://historicengland.org.uk/images- books/)
• Open Domesday, a free online copy of the Domesday Book (https://opendomesday.org/)
• Key to English Placenames, an up-to-date guide to the interpretation of the names of England's cities, towns and village held by the University of Nottingham (http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk/)
• Trade and Business Directories held by the University of Leicester (http://specialcollections.le.ac.uk/digital/collection/p16445coll4)
• Census records accessed online via Genealogist.co.uk • LiDAR Data held by the Environment Agency Materials were only reproduced where copyright allowed, with full reference to online or other resources provided where applicable. For a complete list of references and sources consulted, please see Section 5 and Appendix 1. A Site visit was undertaken on 15th June 2021. The weather was fine.
1.5 PLANNING CONTEXT
LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL POLICY
There is national policy and guidance relating to the protection and treatment of the historic environment within the development process. These identify the historic environment as a non-renewable, fragile, and finite resource and place priority upon its conservation. This includes the setting out of appropriate assessment to ensure damage or loss to the resource is permitted only where it is justified. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in2012 and revised in 2021,, sets out the UK Government’s requirements for the protection and enhancement of the historic environment, and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). The national policy relevant to this assessment is detailed in Appendix 2.
10 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
Local planning authorities are responsible for implementing the requirements articulated by legislation and the NPPF as regards the protection of the historic environment on a local level, and the formulation of policies to support this obligation. The Site and its environs are located within Peak District National Park Authority jurisdiction, which is currently subject to polices set out within Appendix 2. 1.6 PLANNING HISTORY Review of the Peak District National Park Authority planning database shows 5 planning applications submitted for the Site since 1990. Details of the planning applications are noted in the table below. Planning refence Proposed works Date Decision NP/DDD/0208/0134 Single storey extensions/replacement to 08.04.2008 Granted west elevation to form utility room, Conditionally breakfast room and enlarged family/garden room. To storey replacement structure to north elevation to form bedrooms, hall and storage. NP/DDD/0207/0133 Alterations and extensions to dwelling – 31.10.2007 Refused replacement 2 storey structure and entrance hall. Two storey extension to west elevation and enlargement of single storey garden room. WED11195436 Use of vacant agricultural building as a 12.01.1996 Granted brewery Conditionally WED0292055 Conversion of redundant farm buildings to 14.05.1992 Refused 3 holiday cottages WED0890423 Stable 23.10.1990 Granted Conditionally
11 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
SITE CONTEXT 2.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT A brief historical background is given here to provide an immediate context to the Site.
PREHISTORIC
The Prehistoric Period encompasses the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. Later Prehistoric remains are well-represented across the wider region, however settlement activity is predominantly focused on the floodplains of the rivers Dove and Trent to the south of the uplands (Natural England, 2012), an area in which the Site is located. Partial woodland clearance had likely taken place across the region and the uplands of the Peak District are well known for ritual prehistoric remains, such as the Arbor Low Henge (ca. 13km north of the Site), one of the most important sites in the Midlands (Natural England, 2014). In closer proximity to the Site, the Bassett Wood bowl barrow (ca. 1.2 km northeast of the Site) and the collection of barrows around Newton Grange (ca. 3.6km north of the Site) are further evidence of the ritual landscape of the Peak District, established from the Neolithic period onwards. Within the study area, the DHER records 7 entries relating to Prehistoric activity, 6 of which are related to 3 barrows (Map Ref 7 & 35 ca. 500m southeast of the Site, Map Ref 76, 77, 78 ca. 460m southeast of the Site and Map Ref 16 ca. 680m northeast of the Site), and a further findspot of a Late Bronze Age spearhead. The growing evidence base attests to funerary activity being predominantly focused on the higher reaches of Peak District uplands, which include the Site. Remains associated with sedentary activity and land exploitation appear to become increasingly likely on lower lying ground and the floodplains of the Trent and Dove to the south and east.
ROMAN
Following the Roman conquest in the 1st century AD, land use within the Peak District shifted from a funerary/ritual landscape to more active exploitation for farming and natural resources. To facilitate the more intense land use, new settlements were established, such as at Buxton (ca. 25km to the north of the Site), as well as roads to enable both the conquest of the region and its subsequent administration. Beyond the limits of the larger settlements, such as Buxton, the uplands were farmed, with evidence of stock pounds, farmsteads and smaller settlements recorded across the Peak District (Natural England, 2014). No evidence of Roman remains are recorded by the DHER within the study area, however undated ‘ancient coins’ (Map Ref 37, ca. 400m northeast of the Site) were recovered at Cherry Orchard Farm between 1800 and 1874, and the Victoria County Histories recorded the discovery of Roman urns and coins at Fenny Bentley in 1712 (Riden & Page, 1905).
12 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL
Placename evidence suggests an Early Medieval origin to Fenny Bentley. The name derives from Old English words ‘fennig’, meaning muddy or marshy; ‘beonet’, meaning bent grass; and lēah, meaning a forest, glade, clearing or pasture (University of Nottingham, 2017). [Fenny] Bentley was recorded in the Domesday Book with a population of 4.9 households, putting it within the smallest 20% of recorded settlements (Powell-Smith, 2014). The wider region is characterised by historic landscapes which display the remnants of Medieval field systems, and both ridge and furrow and settlement related earthworks (Natural England, 2014). The majority of Medieval village earthworks attest to deserted or shrunken settlements, a testament to the significant changes in land use and settlement in the 14th – 17th centuries (Natural England, 2012). The core of the Medieval and Post-Medieval settlement at Fenny Bentley was likely focused around the church (Map Ref 1 & 6 ca. 240m north of the Site) and moated manor house (Map Ref 12, ca. 260m northeast of the Site) at the base of the valley. The church has 14th century origins, however a Norman doorway on the southern façade may attest to an earlier church on the location or nearby. Of the manor house, only slight remains of the moat and a tower (now incorporated in Cherry Orchard Farm House Map Ref 3 &5) survive. The tower may represent the remains of a gateway, which, alongside the remains of a fishpond with dam and sluice, may attest to a relatively wealthy local lord. The manor was held by the Bentley family from the 13th to 15th centuries, before passing to the Beresford family, and then in the early 17th century to the Stanhope family. It is assumed that, following the acquisition of the manor by the Stanhopes, the old building was demolished and the new manor (now called Cherry Orchard Farmhouse) was established (Map Ref 3 & 5, ca. 350m northeast of the Site). Fenny Bentley likely sustained a largely agricultural economy throughout the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods. Evidence of Medieval and Post-Medieval farming is well preserved across the study area both in the form of ridge and furrow earthworks (Map Ref 9, 17 & 20- 25) and in preserved relict field boundaries. Village activity included the exploitation of local resources, requiring, amongst other activities, the extraction of raw materials such as stone and clay. Inspection of the field to the north of The Ashes Farm shows an amorphous series of depressions and low level landforms consistent with small-scale open cast extraction. Later Ordnance Survey mapping (2nd Edition) records an ‘Old Quarry’ in the field. To the east, running broadly north/south is a linear earthwork comprising two parallel earth banks identifying a trackway of an early date. Aerial photographs identified crops marks of linear boundaries on the north-western edge of the village (Map Ref 8 ca. 290m north of the Site), possible evidence of a contraction of the settlement during the Medieval or Post-Medieval periods. Within the Site itself, the DHER holds no records of Medieval or Post-Medieval activity. Although the farmhouse and datestone observed during the site visit, suggests that The Ashes Farm was established in the late 17th century (discussed further below).
13 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 4 Linear earthworks associated with a former trackway looking south
EARLY MODERN – PRESENT DAY
During the Early Modern period, the agricultural economy of the Peak District was primarily pastoral, although more fertile lower-lying and flatter areas of valleys were likely used for cultivation. Throughout the 19th century Peak District farmers benefitted from the growth of industrial centres and important markets to both west and east. Farmsteads in the Peak District at this time were largely remote and small scale, something typical of upland areas in England (Historic England, 2017). Fenny Bentley was no exception, with numerous farms (including The Ashes Farm within the Site) and outfarms recorded by the DHER across the
14 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
study area. However, pastoral farming was complemented by orchards, as shown on the 2nd Edition 25’’ to the mile Ordnance Survey map of 1900.
Figure 5: Extract from Ordnance Survey (OS) map Derbyshire XXXVIII.SW (Ashbourne; Fenny Bentley; Mapleton; Okeover) published 1900
Throughout this period, although there remained many farming families in the village, Census records show that some villagers were increasingly employed in industrial trades. The Tattersell Cotton Mill which opened in 1784 in the nearby hamlet of Woodeaves, employing around 100 people from the village, working mainly for the Nottingham lace and cotton industry (Peak District Online, 2020).
The Thorpe Cloud railway station opened in 1899 between the villages of Thorpe and Fenny Bentley. This station was a stop on the Ashbourne Line which ran from Buxton to Uttoxeter via Ashbourne, operated by the London and Northwestern Railway company.
The Ashes Farm (Map Ref 55) is of at least 17th century in date. The Site visit conducted in June 2021 observed a decorative date stone on the gable end of the main house. Although the date is not full legible, the number ‘16’ is visible, possibly followed by ‘70’. A mid to late 17th century date would correspond well with the architectural style of the principal range of the dwelling house.
15 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 6: Photograph showing the decorative date stone set into the gable of the farmhouse
The Tithe map of 1841 shows William Hunt as the owner of the farm including the house, outbuildings, yard, gardens and orchard, as well as multiple surrounding pastures and arable fields. Hunt also owned an outfarm which lay approximately 100m north-west of the main farmhouse (Map Ref 57 & 58) which is now lost/ruinous. The principal farmstead comprised two opposing linear ranges, centred around a loose courtyard, a typical farmstead layout of this period in the White Peak area (Historic England, 2017). The northern range is the house with the southern range likely outbuildings. The Tithe Apportionment of 1841 lists William Thornley as occupier and in the 1851 Census Thornley is listed as still living at the Site with 2 house servants and 3 farm servants/labourers. Thornley’s occupation is listed as a farmer of 124 acres. The property does not appear on the Census again until the 1939 Register.
16 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 7: Extract from Tithe map of 1841 showing Ashes Farm in red with outfarm to the west
The First Edition Ordnance Survey (OS) map of 1880 records the farm and shows the same configuration of buildings and yards, but the two ranges are now possibly connected. Various outbuildings lie to the south and west and a pump is recorded to the south of the main house. The farmstead is bounded by a garden or possible orchard to the north and west and tracks lead from both eastern side of the main building as well as the outfarm to the west into Fenny Bentley. The Site is now recorded as Ashes Farm.
The 2nd Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1900 records a defining progression in the nature of farming operations at The Ashes Farm. Farming operations were condensed and rationalised into a single purpose-built U-shaped courtyard to the immediate north of the farmhouse. As part of the process, the linear range of outbuildings previously observed to the south of the house were demolished and cleared for garden space. Operations at the small outfarm to the west were likely reduced and eventually abandoned, re-located to the new U-shaped range
17 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 8: Extract from Ordnance Survey (OS) map Derbyshire XXXVIII 9 (Fenny Bentley; Mapleton; Okeover; Thorpe) published 1880
The new U-shaped range encloses a courtyard on three sides and open to the south. The planned layout of a medium to large-scale regular U plan courtyard in far less common in the Peak District than in surrounding lowland landscapes (Historic England, 2017) and is indicative of dairy or mixed farming practices common to the High Farming period of the Agricultural Revolution.
The 2nd Edition Ordnance Survey mapping shows the northern range is extended to the south and north with shelter sheds for cattle. The practice of enclosing and extending yards to house cattle became increasingly common over the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries, with valuable manure protected from rain, facilitating the process of fertilising surrounding fields. The late 19th century layout is therefore indicative of a mixed farming regime involving cattle. The scale is modest, likely reflecting the more challenging environment of the area in comparison to lower-lying parts of England which supported expansive mixed farming operations at this time.
A covered passageway in the northern range leads from a rear access track and possible stacking yard into the courtyard. This 1900 map also shows the continuing existence of the western outfarm as well as an additional small outfarm to the south.
18 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 9: Extract from Ordnance Survey (OS) map Derbyshire XXXVIII 9 (Fenny Bentley; Mapleton; Okeover; Thorpe) published 1900
Throughout the first half of 20th century, few changes occurred to the layout of the farmstead and it remained in use as a farm as both photographic and Census records show. The 1939 Register shows that the Site was being used as a dairy farm and stables by the White family.
Figure 10: Photograph showing The Ashes Farm in the 1930s © http://www.fennybentley.org.uk/fenny-bentley-places/4591849873
19 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 11: Photograph showing The Ashes Farm in 1957 © http://www.fennybentley.org.uk/fenny-bentley-places/4591849873
The 1978 Ordnance Survey (OS) map shows the farmstead remaining unchanged with the layout still consisting of the farmhouse with crew yard and U-shape building behind.2
At some point between 1978 and 2000, when satellite imagery becomes available, a large prefabricated barn was added to the north of the farmstead to the rear of the U-shape building. By this time, the outfarm to the west has fallen into disrepair.
2 Map not reproduced for copyright reasons, can be found at https://www.old- maps.co.uk/#/Map/417500/350500/10/101322
20 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 12: 2020 Satellite imagery © Google Earth, approximate Site location in red
21 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
2.3 LIDAR ANALYSIS Lidar data obtained from the environment agency further illustrates well-preserved ridge and furrow earthworks, field boundaries (examples highlighted in yellow on Figure 13) and the route of an old footpath/trackway linking the farm to Fenny Bentley (example highlighted in blue on Figure 13), within the Site. Further examples of ridge and furrow earthworks, no longer extant field boundaries, as well as other amorphous features can also be observed in the fields surrounding the Site.
Figure 13: Lidar data showing ridge and furrow within a network of small enclosures (examples indicated in yellow) to the north and east of the farm and the route of a trackway (blue)
22 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT This section considers the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed development upon the significance of known and potential designated and non-designated heritage assets. The scope of assessment gives due respect to Paragraph 194 of the NPPF in efforts to undertake a sufficiently diligent and proportionate approach: “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.”
3.2 DIRECT IMPACTS At the time of writing, no designated heritage assets were recorded within the boundaries of the Site. The Ashes Farm, which lies partially within the Site is considered as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset by the Peak District National Park Authority. Building works are the main source of direct impacts from a proposed development. Such works can cause direct impacts upon the architectural and historical interest of designated heritage assets, and through the removal or truncation of any below-ground archaeological deposits that may exist within the Site. Works that sustain, maintain, preserve or enhance the architectural and historical interest of designated heritage assets are beneficial, bringing about a degree of public benefit that, commensurate with the works and significance of the asset are due a positive material consideration in the planning balance. Should a programme of works present an optimal re- use of a designated heritage asset and/or secure its ongoing use, they also weigh positively within the planning balance. Works that erode those elements of a heritage asset that have heritage significance are detrimental and are due a negative weight in the planning balance. In the majority of developments, both positive and negative impacts occur, and as such a balance should be struck to ensure that the overall impact is positive or neutral, or that the degree of harmful impact is outweighed by the public benefits of other elements of an application for planning permission.
23 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
ARCHAEOLOGY
Significance of Human Activity within the Site The growing evidence base indicates the higher reaches of the Peak District, which include the Site formed part of a far-reaching funerary landscape during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Funerary monuments have been recorded within the study area, however none have been recorded within the Site to date. With no evidence of sedentary or funerary remains within the Site to date, activity was likely limited to transient groups moving across the wider area. Consequently, should they exist, remains are most likely restricted to stray finds of discarded or lost materials, which if encountered are considered to be of local to at most regional archaeological interest. Known evidence of Romano-British activity within the study area is very limited and restricted to unsubstantiated antiquarian reports. During the Roman-British period, the uplands of the Peak District were under varying agricultural regimes serving the larger settlement centres of the region. Should the Site have been actively used during this period, it was likely under an agricultural regime, and associated remains would be considered to be of local to at most regional archaeological interest. During the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods, the Site appears to have been located within the rural hinterland of Fenny Bentley, which lies at the base of the valley to the immediate north. Relict ridge and furrow, relict field boundaries and small-scale quarrying across the study area attest to its agricultural past, and are corroborated by LiDAR data. Remains associated with rural land management practices and farming practices are considered to be of no more than local archaeological interest. The potential for evidence for sedentary activity is low, although there is elevated potential for remains of previous small scale industrial activity. Such remains would be of a local level of archaeological interest. From as early as the 17th century, and throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Site formed part of a working farm and its associated gardens and yards, whilst outlying areas continued under agricultural land management. Associated surviving archaeological remains are of local archaeological interest. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the Site continued to form part of a farm and the outlying areas were under agricultural land management regimes. 20th and 21st century archaeological remains within the Site hold no notable archaeological interest. Survival Within the outlying parts of the Site, which do not form part of the active farm yard, survival of archaeological remains, if present, should be expected to be high. Within the farmyard area a degree of truncation to pre-17th century archaeological remains should be expected due to the establishment of yards and construction of farm buildings. The level of any potential disturbance is currently unknown. Site Potential and Impact Groundworks associated with the proposed development have the ability to impact upon any surviving archaeological remains within the Site.
24 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Accounting for the evidence available, the overall archaeological potential of the Site is low to at most moderate. If present, remains within the Site are most likely associated with transient farming practices from the Medieval period onwards. Evidence for such activity would be of local to at most regional archaeological significance.
THE ASHES FARM
Figure 14 Southern frontage of combination barn Architectural and Historical Interest The Ashes Farm dates to the mid to late 17th century, with the principal elevation of the house believed to be constructed c.1670. To the north is a late 19th century U-shaped range of outbuildings enclosing a courtyard. Whilst the main house, which lies beyond Site’s red line boundary, has undergone a considerable degree of adaptation and extension, the 19th century U shaped range to the rear survives with a high degree of integrity externally. Main House The main house takes a double pile form, with principal elevation facing south. Two-storey, coursed stone rubble with stone quoins. Gabled tile roof with low parapets and stone coping and ball finials to front 18th century range. Two brick stacks through the ridgeline. Principal elevation is four bays with off-centre doorway below bracketed stone porch. Vertical window openings to ground and top floor with stone surrounds and square stone bosses to corners in a loose Regency style, possibly suggesting the frontage was re-worked in the early to mid 19th
25 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
century. This is corroborated by four light 2 ‘o’ 2 timber sash windows to all openings which are set in reveal. Stone mullion high-level window to western gable end.
Figure 15 Primary southern elevation of the farmhouse
According to historic mapping, the rear element of the two pile range was added at some point in the mid to late 19th century, possibly alongside the reworking of the front façade as the two phases share the same style of window openings. Two storey, stone rubble of a marginally narrower depth the principal range. Over the course of the 19th century farmsteads were often aggrandised though the addition of a new domestic range, reflecting changing fashions and improved living standards. Typically this would take the form of a new frontage as a larger single pile extension, often in a polite architectural style, using the former dwelling as ancillary range. The Ashes Farm is remarkable as the original range is maintained and a rear pile added to increase the accommodation. A square single storey building was added to the western façade in the late 19th century, and was likely an external kitchen. Again, stone rubble with stone quoins and plain tile gabled roof with chimney to southern façade. The attached building has undergone a high degree of adaptation for modern living accommodation. During the 20th century, when the farm underwent a significant phase of restoration and redevelopment, a two storey outrigger was added to the rear of the property and a single storey glazed building to the western elevation. Both are built of coursed stone rubble with gabled tile roofs.
26 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
The assemblage of domestic budlings at The Ashes Farm now combine to form an extensive farm house with pleasing elements of both traditional and modern architectural character that reflect the building’s long genesis as a rural dwelling.
Figure 16 Western elevation of the farmhouse at The Ashes Farm
Outbuildings The U-shaped range of barns to the north of the farmhouse has a single phase of construction dating to the late 19th century when farming practices at The Ashes Farm were rationalised and upgraded in a conscious step to improve the efficiency of the steading by embracing then- modern farming techniques already well-established by the High Farming period of the Agricultural Revolution. Key was the ability to introduce mixed farming techniques, combining arable with pastoral, to enable more productive and intensive exploitation of the land by fertilising it with manure. The courtyard form of the U-shaped range, with internal shelter shed extending off the southern elevation, was specifically constructed to this end. The construction of the courtyard range on open ground likely came at some expense and was a measured investment, intended to modernise The Ashes farm to ensure it was a viable, completive and profitable agricultural enterprise. Although utilitarian, the construction was also an embellishment and expression of status. The two square bastions or turrets to the range’s eastern elevation are testament to this. Their almost military form is no doubt drawn from the character of ‘Model Farms’ that had been promoting modern farming techniques for some decades. They do not appear to have any specific function but are instead decorative, conveying a sense of status and competence that reflected the more regimented and efficient practices of farming.
27 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 17 Eastern eleavtion of the U-shaped courtyard range
Construction of the U-shaped range likely required significant groundworks and levelling, resulting a clear platform presenting itself to the north of the house, where earth and rock excavated in the west was deposited to the east, now observed from the south and west as a earthen bank (see Figure 32).
Figure 18 View of thr U-shaped courtyard range from the southwest
28 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Consequently, the western range is narrow and set into the hillslope. The range, which is closest to the house, will have fulfilled both agricultural and domestic roles. The southern end of the range has since been adapted, but may have once been a trap house with stables to the east. The garage style opening to the south with oak lintel is modern, but those to the north are original and were stables. Each have recessed door openings to allow stable doors with strap hinges mounted on pintols to sit flush with the façade. The range’s historic use continues, with the timber split stable and strap hinges of more recent date, but the mounted pintols likely original.
Figure 19 Southern end of the western stable range with reconfigured front and stabling in active use (left)
Visual inspection of the range’s interior (which will not be impacted upon by the proposed development) was limited due to the tabling being in active use. Nonetheless, cursory inspection showed plain modern concrete floors and white rendered walls, with no traditional fixtures or fittings observed. Finishes were again mainly modern, although floors may be potentially concealed beneath rubber stable matting. The roof structure appears modern, with internal divisions built up in modern blockwork.
Figure 20 Example interior of stable with modern roof structure, rubber matting to floor and modern built up wall to south (left)
29 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Main northern two storey range is a combination barn, with a series of cattle sheds beneath granary floor and hayloft. Second floor was not accessed due to the poor condition of most floors and no fixed stair. The original roof was hipped in form with a steep pitch, as aerial photographs from 1965 show. However, in the 1970s (exact date is unknown), the roof of the northern range was destroyed by a fire. Subsequently, it was replaced with a modern asbestos gabled and low-pitched roof.
Figure 21: Aerial photograph showing the original roof on northern range, May 1965 (Source: Matthew Montague Architects))
Northern front has single coach style entranceway with robust ashlar stone arch. Above and to left are two rectangular pitching holes at first floor, both with wooden likely modern coverings. Pedestrian door openings to either side of the arch give access to cow sheds and stabling internally. Both doors are modern. Mid-20th century single storey blockwork extension the eastern end of no interest.
30 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 22 Northern elevation of U-shaped courtyard range
Southern elevation has three stable bays to the left of the arched entranceway and single stable to east plus corner room accessed from eastern outbuilding of courtyard range. All single openings at ground floor have plain stone lintels with recessed openings to allow doors to sit flush. Window openings, one at ground and two at first floor, have plain stone lintels and cills, with pairs of timber casement windows, likely mid to late 20th century. The building is built of stone rubble and is set into the hillslope to the west enabling access through a first floor doorway. Gabled corrugated asbestos roofwith modern steel frame superstructure supporting modern timber purlins, put in after 1970s fire. Elements of the western wall are massive, likely reflecting stone quarried during the creation of a courtyard platform, but also stone re-used from the demolished earlier 17th century buildings that once existed to the south of the farmhouse.
31 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 23 Massive masonry in the western end of the combination barn
Western room is a large stable which originally functioned as a cow shed and/or dairy. Mid-20th century stalls to the eastern side of the room show it was used as a dairy at this time if not before. Some cobbled flooring survives. Remainder of fixed fabric is modern and piecemeal with no notable architectural interest.
Figure 24 Limestone and pink granite sets to floor
32 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 25 Westernmost room of the combination barn looking west.
Figure 26 Westernmost room of the combination barn looking east
Room to east is single stable with red brick internal walls and modern floor. Small high-level window/vent to north elevation, otherwise unremarkable. East again is again a similar stable,
33 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
although step to eastern side of floor and opposing doorway to north suggests it may have been used as a dairy from at least the mid 20th century. Doorway has modern steel lintel. Adjacent the eastern stable is a coach style entranceway for access to the yard. Primary use for animal and farm traffic, with the driveway to the west used for the house. The passageway has handmade brick walls, with the northern entrance marked by heavy segmental ashlar opening with pitching hole above, which creates an imposing feature when approaching the steading from the north. Interior courtyard arch is blue engineering brick and red brick above.
Figure 27 Northern (left) and southern (right) entrances into and out of the courtyard at The Ashes Farm
The 19th century floor to the archway opening is intact and comprises a series of heavy timber joists and boarding above. To the centre is a small hatch where the joists have been cut away, enabling grain and other sacked produce to be lowered directly into a cart or waggon.
Figure 28 Hatch in floor to archway
34 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Room to east or archway is used as a storeroom. Likely a stabled or cow shed originally. Narrow door to north with heavy timber lintel, brick floor, possibly originally or early 20th century. Eastern wall is stone rubble and has broad doorway, now blocked, to easternmost room, likely for animals. Ceiling has access to first floor and original removable stairs remain.
Figure 29 Eastern room to combination barn looking southeast
Easternmost room is currently used as a store. Stone rubble walls and modern concrete ceiling. Modern fibreboard ceiling. Narrow pedestrian door to north is ledged and braced, but does not appear to be original. No other features of note.
Figure 30 Easternmost corner room of the combination barn
35 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
The first floor across all rooms in the combination barn is generally poor with loss of the majority of floor surfaces and joists in many places. The western areas are damaged from the 1970s fire, while the eastern areas are in relatively improved condition. The eastern range to the courtyard is built of stone rubble with ashlar quoins. Gabled tile roof with hip to southern end. Internally, it has been renovated, with no historic features of note observed. The courtyard elevation is divisible into three regular bays comprising a single doorway and square window, likely originally a vent, to the south. Each are likely cow sheds but may equally have functioned as stables. Modern glazed doors with stable doors pinned open, and modern glazed windows. Southern elevation has modern patio doors.
Figure 31 Courtyard elevation of the eastern range
Eastern elevation is solid and has two projecting hipped wings that give the impression of a bastion or turret. Their eastern elevations have small vents. The rooms appear to have been added for stylistic reasons rather than fulfilling any specific function. Setting The wider setting of the farmstead is set out in Chapters 1 and 2 of this report. The Ashes Farm is set on the mid slopes of a low into a promontory within the local topography with ground rising quickly to the west and north. This, coupled with established mature tree cover, nestles the steading into the landscape and allows plan views onto the roofscape, illustrating the phased development of the house, steading and the planned form of the courtyard.
36 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Land falls to the south and east, offering good prosects from the plot over lower lying land and on to the opposing side of the valley. The courtyard and house’s principal elevation are open to the more clement aspect although the latter blocks views from the yard area. Views from the east are more restricted due to established tree cover and the more limited number of openings to the elevations.
Figure 32 View up towards the eastern elevation of the U shaped range from the east
Figure 33 Principal southern elevation of The Ashes Farm
37 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Reciprocal views towards the farm from low lying ground include the main house and eastern range of outbuildings. These are most open and apparent from the south where the principal elevation of the house can be appreciated from its garden plot and beyond. From the east views of the house’s eastern gables can be observed, however views of the eastern outbuildings are obscured by mature tree cover and their location set back on the artificial platform. Within distant views, especially from high ground to the east, the farm is observable as a built agricultural feature within a wide rural landscape still characterised by Medieval enclosures, emphasising its long-standing utilitarian role within it.
Overall Overall, The Ashes Farm is a complex phased farmstead which has continued to grow and adapt over the course of five consecutive centuries. Dating to the 17th century, the main house is of the highest architectural and historical interest. Its main frontage has high aesthetic design value, and subsequent extension and adaptation have created a complex of domestic buildings that possess a pleasing fortuitous aesthetic. Construction of the purpose-built U-shaped range of outbuildings in the late 19th century was a deliberate investment in the farmstead aimed at improving farming practices, inspired by Model Farms. Elements, such as the coach style opening and the bastions to the eastern elevation, are consciously designed to evoke as sense of robust capability and status, and these are of relatively higher interest. The form and configuration of buildings have been retained to a high degree, creating a clear sense of integrity. Beyond its vernacular structural construction, traditional fixtures and fittings, both externally and internally, are highly limited due to replacement and loss. The steading enjoys a pleasant rural setting which is open to the south and east and more intimate where ground rises to the north and west. The rural landscape has a legible character of Medieval enclosures with later piecemeal amalgamation and adaptation, enabling appreciation of the steading’s longstanding historical role.
Discussion and Impact Existing uses of stabling to the ground floor of the northern range will be sustained, bringing about a degree of benefit in planning terms. Works to the northern outbuilding Proposals include the conversion of the eastern end of the northern building for domestic use, the creation of an apartment at first floor in the western end of the building, and the retention and consolidation of existing stabling to the ground floor of the western half of the building. Associated works include the construction of a new tile hipped roof, following the designs of the hipped roof destroyed by fire. Glazed doors and windows are proposed to existing
38 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
openings with stable and pitching doors pinned open. A new tall opening is proposed to the eastern gable end of the northern range. Treatment of existing openings is well-considered and positive precedent can be found within the internal elevation of the courtyard. Consistency of approach across the single phased U- shaped courtyard range is key to its designed aesthetic. The re-use of openings to maximise light also avoids the need for excessive numbers of new openings and the overall approach is therefore positive. Replacement of the asbestos roof and reconstruction of the original hipped roof is restorative and highly beneficial to the historic and architectural interest of the U-shaped range in both form and material. The works will create a clearer architectural relationship with the other ranges of outbuildings that reinforce the designed aesthetic of the planned courtyard farmstead. The works will reaffirm the northern combination barn as the main and principal building in the U-shaped courtyard range, re-instilling a sense of functional hierarchy affirmed by the relative scale of buildings. The works will bring wider benefits for the appearance of the farm within the wider National Park in terms of its form and material treatment, allowing the courtyard range to be read as one cohesive unit. The use of Staffordshire blue plain clay roofing tiles to match the existing roofs on surrounding buildings will further reinforce the vernacular aesthetic. The proposed new window to the gable end of the northern range is a notable addition to the elevation. In its current form the elevation has a high-level pitching hole and a later off-centre square opening beneath. The proposed window will amalgamate and rationalise the arrangement into a single decorative opening, affording light into the internal space. Accounting for the robust character of the projecting bastions on the same elevation to the south, the outward face of the building is able to accommodate a robust and decorative opening in principle. Loosely of a, Old English Revival style, the opening would be a notable feature on the building’s primary elevation, assimilating well with the barn’s statement designed aesthetic. Consequently, the proposed reconfiguration of the gable end is well- conceived and acceptable. Internally, a limited amount of traditional fabric associated with renewing the floors will likely be lost. Of note, internal works do not fall within the definition of development described under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore, although the building is a non-designated heritage asset, are not subject to planning controls. As such, the impact of internal works carries no weight in the planning balance. Tennis court The proposed location of the tennis court is on open ground to the west of the U-shaped courtyard range. The plot forms part of the immediate setting of the buildings and its role is liminal; part extended garden, part paddock in appearance. In principle, groundworks and resurfacing works will not impact upon the setting of the farmhouse or outbuildings. As with the buildings, the surface will be nestled into the hillslope and will not be a conspicuous feature due to the gabled roof of the western range of the courtyard building and the location and scale of the main house and its modern extensions.
39 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
The process of recessing the court into the hillslope will reduce the need for perimeter netting to the west and north, although the boundary treatment will be required to the east and south. The 3m tall fencing will be apparent in some views from the house’s garden plot and possibly from the courtyard, but its permeable lightweight character, which is ostensibly domestic, is unlikely to become conspicuous or dominating to any degree that will detract from the architectural and historical interest of The Ashes Farm. Manége The proposed location of the manége is an area of low-lying land to the east of the farm Existing vegetation to the east and south will help screen the feature, itself low lying, from many parts of the surrounding area. Importantly, due to its location, the manage will not feature in any key views towards or from The Ashes Farm. Proposed boundary treatments are rural in character, and the facility is rural in use, assimilating well with the prevailing use and character of the surrounding landscape. Importantly, the manége will help sustain traditional uses for the stables still in active use within the U-shaped courtyard range at The Ashes Farm. The continuity of traditional uses of historic farm buildings is increasingly rare and is therefore considered optimal and much welcomed. Solar Panels Proposed solar voltaic panels to the modern agricultural shed are welcomed, offering little change in its character and clear environmental benefits. Additional panels to the internal south facing roofscape of the northern building in the U-shaped courtyard range will similarly offer considerable environmental benefits. Accounting for the current character of the low pitch gabled asbestos roof, the proposed features would have little, if any, detrimental impact. Their placement on the newly tiled roof will acceptably promote them as more elevated and conspicuous features and may detract from the form and character of the newly tiled roof. However, in considering the overall impact of the roof treatment, the solar panels would only serve to marginally reduce the enhancement offered by the new tiled roof, with the overall character of the building improved. Accounting for the roof’s aspect, the location of the main dwelling, and existing planting, the negative impact would be localised. As such, the proposed panels are considered to be well-located and, accounting for their environmental benefits, justified. Overall Overall, the proposed development will bring about a notable degree of enhancement through the redevelopment of the northern range of the courtyard at The Ashes Farm. Enhancement is brought about by the restoration of traditional fabric and sustaining existing rural uses of the stables. The proposed window to the gable end of the northern building will have a neutral impact and is justified by the quality of its design which assimilates well with the expressive eastern elevation of the range.
40 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Treatments of existing openings assimilate well with precedent, ensuring a regular aesthetic is maintained throughout the U-shaped range. The treatment sustains the functional form of the building and reduces the need for additional openings. The re-roofing of the northern range will significantly enhance the designed aesthetic of the courtyard of outbuildings, allowing them to be read as a planned addition to the agricultural landscape of National Park landscape in the 19th century. The addition of solar panels to the northern range will marginally diminish the benefits brought about by its re-roofing, but the net impact of the works will remain positive, and the associated harm is justified by the environmental benefits of the panels. The proposed tennis court is found to be well located, but a degree of harm may be incurred to the immediate setting of The Ashes Farm through the erection of permitter fencing. Accounting for the lightweight nature of the material and the limited number of glimpse views it may appear in, the impact upon the setting of the non-designated heritage asset is very low. The proposed manége is well-located, using existing vegetation to mitigate its appearance in the surrounding landscape. The feature will help sustain traditional uses of stables at The Ashes Farm, and will have little, if any, impact upon the setting of the steading.
41 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
3.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS The NPPF definition of the setting of a heritage asset is ‘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.’ Indirect impacts of development upon a heritage asset have a palpable effect, for better or worse, upon the ability to the experience its significance from within its setting. Impacts can be associated with all sensory experiences of an asset, but are typically associated with views. Merely appearing in conjunction with a heritage asset within a view may not necessarily bring about a harmful impact to its experience. New development must in some way either enhance an experience or detract from it in order to bring about an indirect impact. Impact that makes no material change to the experience of an asset’s significance is neutral. A search area of 1000m centred on the Site was considered. The nature, level and extent of the significance of heritage assets within the initial study area was then established through desk-based research and a Site visit. The initial review demonstrated that a total of 4 designated heritage assets and 1 non- designated heritage assets were within the search area, with the ability to be indirectly impacted upon by the proposed development as set out in the table below. Summaries of architectural, historical, artistic and/or archaeological interest include extracts from descriptions held within the National Heritage List for England (https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/) and local authority resources at the time of producing the report. These were subsequently expanded upon using archival and other resources, alongside the results of the Site survey, where necessary and proportionate.
42 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 34: Map of Heritage Assets considered for assessment
Map National/HER Name Record Grade Detailed setting Reference Reference Type assessment? 1 1335262 CHURCH OF ST EDMUND LB II* No 2 1335243 MILE POST OPPOSITE LB II No BENTLEY BROOK HOTEL AT NGR 176 496 3 1109314 CHERRY ORCHARD LB II* No FARMHOUSE AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS 4 N/A Fenny Betley Conservation CA N/A No Area 55 MDR20970 The Ashes Farm, Fenny NDHA N/A Yes (see above) Bentley
43 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
CONCLUSIONS & POSITION
CONCLUSIONS
The Site forms part of The Ashes Farm, a non-designated heritage asset, and its immediate setting. The site lies within the Peak District National Park. The site does not comprise or form part of any other designated or other non-designated heritage assets. Nor is the Site subject to an Article 4 Direction. The proposed development will bring about both positive, neutral and negative impacts upon the architectural and historical interest of The Ashes Farm, a non-designated heritage asset. Accounting for the evidence available, the overall archaeological potential of the Site is low to at most moderate. If present, remains within the Site are most likely associated with transient farming practices from the Medieval period onwards. Evidence for such activity would be of local to at most regional archaeological significance. The proposed manége is well located and will help sustain a traditional use of stables at The Ashes Farm. The facility will have little if any discernible impact upon the setting of the steading. Restoration and sustainable re-use of the northern outbuilding at The Ashes Farm will have a positive impact upon its architectural and historical interest. Works to existing openings are well-conceived and will ensure a consistency in the outbuilding’s aesthetic is sustained. Continuing use of the northern range for stables sustains a traditional use which is considered optimal. The change of use for the remainder of the range, associated with the main house is considered optimal. All rooms are currently vacant or fulfil marginal uses and, due to changes in farming and animal welfare practices, are unlikely to ever return to their original functions. The new uses impact little on the external aesthetic of the building and are therefore considered optimal. Restoration of the traditional hipped roof to the combination barn will have a significant positive impact on the non-designated heritage asset of The Ashes Farm and bring wider benefits to the landscape character of the national park. The addition of solar panels to the northern range will marginally diminish the benefits brought about by its re-roofing, but the net impact of the works will be positive and the associated harm is justified by the environmental benefits of the panels. The proposed window to the gable end of the northern building will have a neutral impact and is justified by the quality of its design which assimilates well with the expressive eastern elevation of the range. The proposed tennis court is found to be well located, but a degree of harm may be incurred to the immediate setting of The Ashes Farm through the erection of permitter fencing. Accounting for the lightweight nature of the material and the limited number of glimpse views it may appear in, the impact upon the setting of the non-designated heritage asset is very low.
44 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
POSITION
In bringing about an overall degree of enhancement to the non-designated heritage asset of The Ashes Farm, the application for planning permission is due a positive weight in the planning balance in accordance with Paragraph 203 of the NPPF and Polices L3 of the Peak District National Park Authority Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011) and DMC5 of the Peak District National Park Development Management Policies (adopted 2019). In accordance with Policy CC2 of the Peak District National Park Authority Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011) the proposals for solar panels can be accommodated without adversely affecting the character of The Ashes Farm of the landscape surrounding it and therefore should be encouraged. Review of the proposed development demonstrates that the combination barn at The Ashes Farm is capable of re-use without changes that adversely affect its character or that of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy DMC10 of the Peak District National Park Development Management Policies (adopted 2019).
45 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
REFERENCES Bibliography British Geological Society, 2014. Geology of Britain Viewer. [Online] Available at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [Accessed 2021]. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Standards and guidance for historic environment desk- based assessment, Reading: CIfA. Derbyshire Heritage, 2021. Fenny Betley Hall. [Online] Available at: https://derbyshireheritage.co.uk/buildings/halls/fenny-bentley-hall/ [Accessed 2021]. Derbyshire Historic Environment Record, 2021. Monument Record MDR14275. [Online] Available at: https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR14275 [Accessed 2021]. English Heritage, 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, s.l.: English Heritage. Heritage Gateway, 2012. Historic England Research Records: Monument Number 1367065. [Online] Available at: https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=359c6b30- 4e13-4503-bb6b-40867d6c11bc&resourceID=19191 [Accessed 2021]. Historic England, 2015. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment, s.l.: Historic England. Historic England, 2015. Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2 , s.l.: Historic England. Historic England, 2017. Peak District National Park Farmsteads Character Report, York: Historic England. Historic England, 2017. The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3, s.l.: Historic England. Historic England, 2021. Listed Building 1109314: Cherry Orchard Farmhouse and Attached Outbuildings. [Online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1109314 [Accessed 2021]. Historic England, 2021. Listed Building 1335262: Church of St Edmund. [Online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1335262 [Accessed 2021]. Natural England, 2012. National Character Area 68: Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands, York: Natural England. Natural England, 2014. National Character Area 52: White Peak, York: Natural England.
46 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Peak District National Park, 1996. Conservation Area 191. [Online] Available at: https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/17/MTkx [Accessed 2021]. Peak District Online, 2020. Fenney Bentley. [Online] Available at: https://www.peakdistrictonline.co.uk/fenny-bentley/ [Accessed 2021]. Powell-Smith, A., 2014. Open Domesday. [Online] Available at: https://opendomesday.org/ [Accessed 2021]. Riden, P. & Page, W., 1905. The Victoria history of the county of Derby, Volume one. s.l.:s.n. University of Nottingham, 2017. Key to English place-names. [Online] Available at: http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk [Accessed 2021].
Mapping Range of Historic Ordnance Survey mapping, available through the National Library of Scotland https://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=16&lat=53.04781&lon=- 1.74032&layers=102&b=1&z=0&point=0,0 and Old Maps services https://www.old- maps.co.uk/#/Map/417500/350500/10/101322
47 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Aims and Scope The aim of this assessment is to assess the magnitude of any potential impacts which may be imposed upon the historic environment resource by the proposed development. GPA 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England, 2015), provides information to assist local authorities, planning and other consultants, owners, applicants and other interested parties in implementing historic environment policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the related guidance given in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). These include; assessing the significance of heritage assets, using appropriate expertise, historic environment records, recording and furthering understanding, neglect and unauthorised works, marketing and design and distinctiveness. For the purposes of assessing potential impact on the setting of heritage assets, the procedures laid out within the Historic England document Historic England Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2017) have been followed. Advice set out within the Historic England documents Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage, 2008), Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MoRPHE Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England, 2015), and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ (CIfA) Standard and Guidance: historic environment desk-based assessment (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014) have been followed. The Heritage Resource The heritage resource is divided into two broad categories, designated heritage assets and non- designated heritage assets. Designated heritage assets are considered to be of national and regional importance, whilst non-designated heritage assets are considered to be of local importance. Designated heritage assets consist of: • World Heritage Sites
• Scheduled Monuments
• Listed Buildings
• Registered Parks and Gardens
• Registered Battlefields
• Protected Wreck Sites
• Conservation areas (for the purposes of this assessment, Conservation areas will be included as designated heritage assets)
The various elements of the heritage resource have been taken into account, and the potential development impacts upon them considered.
48 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Sources The following sources of heritage and planning data and information were consulted as a minimum: Designated Heritage Asset data These datasets are available from Historic England and contain data on all recorded designated heritage assets in England, i.e., World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Protected Wreck Sites. The data were consulted in June 2021. Cartographic Sources Historic mapping was obtained online. Information from historic maps, other than tracing the above- ground development of a Site or place, can assist in the assessment of archaeological potential by highlighting previously unrecorded features, enabling an understanding of how the land has been managed in the recent past and identifying areas where development is likely to have removed or truncated below-ground archaeological deposits. All maps consulted are listed in the References of the main report. National Legislation and Planning Documents The treatment of the historic environment within a development and planning context is governed by legislation and national policy set out by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which itself dictates local authority planning policy. All relevant national and local planning policy documents were consulted in July 2021, and are detailed in Appendix 2. Assumptions and Limitations Much of the information used by this assessment consists of secondary information compiled from a variety of sources. The assumption is made that this information is sufficiently accurate. The local Historic Environment Record is a record of known archaeological and historic environment features. It is not an exhaustive record of all surviving historic environment features and it does not preclude the existence of further features which are unknown at present.
49 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
APPENDIX 2: PLANNING POLICY
Table 1: National Legislation relevant to the proposed development.
Planning (Listed The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 covers Buildings and the registration of Listed Buildings (that is those buildings that are seen Conservation Areas) to be of special architectural or historic interest) and the designation of Conservation Areas (areas of special architectural or historic interest, Act (1990) the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance).
A Listed Building may not be demolished or altered or extended in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest without Listed Building Consent being granted.
There are three grades of listed building (in descending order): Grade I: buildings of exceptional interest; Grade II*: particularly important buildings of more than special interest; and Grade II: buildings of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.
When making a decision on all listed building consent applications or any decision on a planning application for development that affects a listed building or its setting, a local planning authority must 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. Preservation in this context means not harming the interest in the building, as opposed to keeping it utterly unchanged.
The Act requires local planning authorities to pay special attention throughout the planning process to desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.
Table 2: National Policy relevant to the proposed development
Title Content
NPPF Chapter 16, Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to Paragraph 189 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. NPPF Chapter 16, Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and Paragraph 190 enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most
50 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. NPPF Chapter 16, In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an Paragraph 194 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. NPPF Chapter 16, Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular Paragraph 195 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. NPPF Chapter 16, In determining applications, local planning authorities should take Paragraph 197 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.
51 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
NPPF Chapter 16, When considering the impact of a proposed development on the Paragraph 199 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. NPPF Chapter 16, Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset Paragraph 200 (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. NPPF Chapter 16, Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total Paragraph 201 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. NPPF Chapter 16, Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm Paragraph 202 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. NPPF Chapter 16, The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated Paragraph 203 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
52 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. NPPF Chapter 16, Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or Paragraph 204 part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. NPPF Chapter 16, Local planning authorities should require developers to record and Paragraph 205 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 accessible69. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. NPPF Chapter 16, Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new Paragraph 206 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. NPPF Chapter 16, Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are Footnote 68 demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.
Table 3: Policies extracted from the Peak District National Park Authority Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011) relevant to the proposed development and the historic environment Title Content
L1 Landscape Character and Valued Characteristics A. Development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character, as identified in the Landscape Strategy and Action Plan, and other valued characteristics. B. Other than in exceptional circumstances, proposals for development in the Natural Zone will not be permitted. L3 Cultural Heritage Assets of Archeological, Architectural, artistic or Historic Significance A. Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic assets and their settings, including statutory designations and other heritage assets of international, national, regional or local importance or special interest; B. Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance or its setting, including statutory designations or
53 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
other heritage assets of international, national, regional or local importance or special interest; C. Proposals for development will be expected to meet the objectives of any strategy, wholly or partly covering the National Park, that has, as an objective, the conservation and where possible the enhancement of cultural heritage assets. This includes, but is not exclusive to, the Cultural Heritage Strategy for the Peak District National Park and any successor strategy. CC2 Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Development A. Proposals for low carbon and renewable energy development will be encouraged provided they can be accommodated without adversely affecting landscape character, cultural heritage assets, other valued characteristics, or other established uses of the area; B. Cumulative impacts of low carbon and renewable energy development within the National Park and visible beyond its boundary must be taken into account; C. Where proposals do not compromise the valued characteristics of the National Park the Authority will also take into account the economic, social and wider environmental benefits of renewable and low carbon development.
Table 4: Policies extracted from the Peak District National Park Development Management Policies (adopted 2019) relevant to the proposed development and the historic environment Title Content
DMC5 Assessing the Impact of Development on Designated and Non- Designated Heritage assets and their Settings A. Planning applications for development affecting a heritage asset, including its setting must clearly demonstrate: (i) its significance including how any identified features of value will be conserved and where possible enhanced; and (ii) why the proposed development and related works are desirable or necessary. B. The supporting evidence must be proportionate to the significance of the asset. It may be included as part of a Heritage Statement or Design and Access Statement where relevant. C. Proposals likely to affect heritage assets with archaeological and potential archaeological interest should be supported by appropriate information that identifies the impacts or a programme of archaeological works to a methodology approved by the Authority. D. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest demonstrably of equivalent significance to Scheduled Monuments will be considered in accordance with policies for designated heritage assets. E. If applicants fail to provide adequate or accurate detailed information to show the effect of the development on the significance, character and appearance of the heritage asset and its setting, the application will be refused.
54 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
F. Development of a designated or non-designated heritage asset will not be permitted if it would result in any harm to, or loss of, the significance, character and appearance of a heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), unless: (i) for designated heritage assets, clear and convincing justification is provided, to the satisfaction of the Authority, that the: a) substantial harm or loss of significance is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; or b) in the case of less than substantial harm to its significance, the harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. (ii) for non-designated heritage assets, the development is considered by the Authority to be acceptable following a balanced judgement that takes into account the significance of the heritage asset DMC10 Conversion of a Heritage Asset A. Conversion of a heritage asset will be permitted provided that: (i) it can accommodate the new use without changes that adversely affect its character (such changes include enlargement, subdivision or other alterations to form and mass, inappropriate new window openings or doorways and major rebuilding); and (ii) the building is capable of conversion, the extent of which would not compromise the significance and character of the building; and (iii) the changes brought about by the new use, and any associated infrastructure (such as access and services), conserves or enhances the heritage significance of the asset, its setting (in accordance with policy DMC5), any valued landscape character, and any valued built environment; and (iv) the new use of the building or any curtilage created would not be visually intrusive in its landscape or have an adverse impact on tranquility, dark skies or other valued characteristics. B. Proposals under Core Strategy policy HC1CI will only be permitted where: (i) the building is a designated heritage asset; or (ii) based on the evidence, the National Park Authority has identified the building as a non-designated heritage asset; and (iii) it can be demonstrated that conversion to a market dwelling is required in order to achieve the conservation and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the significance of the heritage asset and the contribution of its setting. C. In all cases attention will be paid to the impact of domestication and urbanisation brought about by the use on landscape character and the built environment including: (i) the supply of utility and infrastructure services, including electricity, water and waste disposal to support residential use;
55 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
(ii) the provision of safe vehicular access; (iii) the provision of adequate amenity space and parking; (iv) the introduction of a domestic curtilage; (v) the alteration of agricultural land and field walls; (vi) any other engineering operation associated with the development
Supplementary Planning Documents:
• Peak District National Park – Alterations & Extensions Detailed Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2014) • Peak District National Park – Climate Change and Sustainable Building Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2013) • Peak District National Park – Conservation of Historic Buildings Supplementary Planning Document (approved for public consultation at Planning Committee April 2021, due to be formally consulted on in public Summer 2021) Additional Planning Documents:
• Peak District National Park Authority – Cultural Heritage Strategy for the Peak District National Park • Peak District National Park Authority, Peak District National Park Management Plan 2018-23 (adopted 2018)
56 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
APPENDIX 3: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE This Appendix provides illustration and tabulation of known designated and heritage features within 1000m of the Site. The information is sourced from the Historic England National Heritage List for England (Designated Heritage Assets), and the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record (heritage features and monuments). Map Reference National Reference Name Record Type Grade
1 1335262 CHURCH OF ST EDMUND LB II* 2 1335243 MILE POST OPPOSITE BENTLEY BROOK HOTEL AT NGR 176 496 LB II 3 1109314 CHERRY ORCHARD FARMHOUSE AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS LB II* 4 N/A Fenny Betley Conservation Area CA N/A
57 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 35: Designated Heritage Assets
58 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Map Reference HER Reference Name Monument Type Summary 5 MDR1117 Cherry Orchard Farm GATEHOUSE?; TOWER; FARMHOUSE Farmhouse which consists of a late medieval tower and House, (formerly an early 17th century range. Bentley Old Hall), Fenny Bentley 6 MDR1113 St Edmund's Church, CHURCH Originally a Norman church, the building was Ashes Lane, Fenny reconstructed in the early 14th century and underwent Bentley extensive repair and enlargement in 1850. 7 MDR866 Barrow (approximate BARROW; CROUCHED INHUMATION; One of two barrows located in this approximate area site of), Broadlow Ash, CREMATION and excavated in 1851, but now destroyed or lost. Thorpe 8 MDR1184 Crop marks of linear BOUNDARY Series of crop marks which indicate two linear boundaries, north- boundaries running east-west and north-south for a west of Firs Farm, short stretch Fenny Bentley 9 MDR1185 Ridge and furrow, RIDGE AND FURROW Ridge and furrow which runs south-east to north-west south of Fitzherbert School, Fenny Bentley 10 MDR1181 Possible linear BOUNDARY; ENCLOSURE Linear boundaries and a possible circular enclosure of boundaries and unknown date enclosure, south of Bentley Hall, Fenny Bentley 11 MDR1139 Paved ford, north- FORD Paved ford over Little Bentley Brook west of Cherry Orchard Farm, Fenny Bentley 12 MDR1121 Moated manor house MOAT; MANOR HOUSE Probable site of the medieval manor house of the (site of), Cherry Beresford family. Traces of the moat survive. Orchard Farm, Fenny Bentley 13 MDR1182 Enclosure and field ENCLOSURE; FIELD BOUNDARY Enclosure and field boundaries of an unknown date boundaries, north-east identified from aerial photography
59 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
of Cherry Orchard Farm, Fenny Bentley 14 MDR11847 Wesleyan Methodist WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL A former 19th century Wesleyan Methodist Chapel on Chapel, Buxton Road, Buxton Road, Fenny Bentley which is now a private Fenny Bentley residence. 15 MDR11291 London and North RAILWAY Route of the London and North Western Railway's Western Railway, branch line between Ashbourne and Buxton, built in Ashbourne and Buxton 1899. branch (route of), Derbyshire Dales 16 MDR12445 Possible barrow, east ROUND BARROW? A possible round barrow was identified during field of Bentley Hall, Fenny survey in 2003. Bentley 17 MDR1183 Ridge and furrow, RIDGE AND FURROW Faint earthwork evidence of ridge and furrow recorded south-east of Bentley on aerial photographs prior to 1989 Hall, Fenny Bentley 18 MDR1115 Medieval park, DEER PARK Medieval deer park recorded as early as 1330. Precise Tissington location unknown. 19 MDR14274 WWII searchlight SEARCHLIGHT BATTERY The remains of World War II allied searchlight batteries batteries (remains of), are visible as earthworks (now levelled) and structures west of Spend Lane, at this location. Thorpe 20 MDR14275 Ridge and furrow, RIDGE AND FURROW Medieval/post-medieval ridge and furrow is visible as west of Ashes Farm, earthworks in this area. Fenny Bentley 21 MDR14276 Narrow ridge and NARROW RIDGE AND FURROW Post-medieval narrow ridge and furrow is visible as furrow, north-east of earthworks in this area. Spendlane Farm, Thorpe 22 MDR14277 Ridge and furrow, RIDGE AND FURROW; LYNCHET; FIELD Medieval/post-medieval ridge and furrow, lynchets and lynchets and field BOUNDARY a field boundary are visible as earthworks (many now boundary, Hinchley levelled) in this area. Wood, Mapleton
60 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
23 MDR14278 Ridge and furrow, NARROW RIDGE AND FURROW Post-medieval ridge and furrow is visible as earthworks west of Spend Lane, at this location. Mapleton 24 MDR14273 Medieval/post- RIDGE AND FURROW; LYNCHET; Medieval/post-medieval field system comprising ridge medieval field system, PLOUGH HEADLAND; FIELD and furrow, lynchets, headlands, field boundaries and south-east of Thorpe BOUNDARY an hollow way are visible as earthworks in this area. 25 MDR868 Ridge and furrow and HOLLOW WAY; RIDGE AND FURROW Medieval/post-medieval earthworks, including an hollow way, north of hollow way and ridge and furrow. Cloud Lodge, Thorpe 26 MDR14851 Railway over-bridge, OVERBRIDGE A double span arched bridge constructed from blue Tissington Trail, Fenny engineering brick, with parapet above. Bentley 27 MDR14852 Railway under-bridge, UNDERBRIDGE Single span 7.5m bridge, with composite steel beams. Tissington Trail, Fenny Bentley 28 MDR14853 Long railway cutting RAILWAY EMBANKMENT; RAILWAY Long railway track feautre consisting of a cutting within and embankment CUTTING an embankment. feature, Washbrook Farm, Fenny Bentley 29 MDR14854 Railway Cutting, RAILWAY CUTTING A deep cutting with angled sides and a wide base, 5-6m Thorpe in width. 30 MDR14855 Railway Over-Bridge, OVERBRIDGE A single span arched bridge, 8m wide, with a five ring Broadlowash blue engineering brick arch barrel, supporting a brick parapet. 31 MDR14856 Railway Under-Bridge, UNDERBRIDGE A single 3.6m square span bridge, re-decked with pre- Spendlane Farm stressed concrete beams. 32 MDR14857 Railway Embankment RAILWAY EMBANKMENT; RAILWAY A long gently curved embankment incorporating a broad and Cutting, CUTTING curved cutting with angled sides and a wide base. Spendlane Farm 33 MDR14858 Railway Under-Bridge, UNDERBRIDGE A single 4.5m square span bridge, re-decked with pre- Mapleton stressed concrete beams. 34 MDR14859 Railway Embankment, EMBANKMENT A long linear embankment. Mapleton
61 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
35 MDR867 Large barrow BARROW The larger of two barrows in the approximate area of (approximate site of), this field, excavated in 1851 by Carrington. The barrow Broadlow Ash, Thorpe is now lost or destroyed. 36 MDR1112 Spearhead and two FINDSPOT Late Bronze Age spear-head and two bronze pins found pins, Ashbourne to during construction of the Ashbourne to Buxton railway Buxton railway line, line at Fenny Bentley. Findspot unknown. Fenny Bentley 37 MDR1122 'Ancient coins', near FINDSPOT Coins are recorded as having been found in the north- Cherry Orchard Farm, west corner of the orchard attached to the farm from c. Fenny Bentley 1800 until the early 19th century. Now built over. 38 MDR8731 Milepost, north-west MILEPOST Early 19th century cast-iron milepost showing distances of Bentley Brook Inn, to London, Derby, Buxton and Ashbourne Fenny Bentley 39 MDR12909 Milestone, Rose MILESTONE Former milestone, in use as a gatepost in September Cottage, Fenny 2005 Bentley 40 MDR20905 Spendlane Farm, FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Thorpe 41 MDR20906 Site of Outfarm, OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Thorpe 42 MDR20907 Site of Outfarm, OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Thorpe 43 MDR20912 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 44 MDR20958 Brookwood Farm, FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Tissington and Lea Hall 45 MDR20959 Outfarm, Tissington OUTFARM Partially extant 19th century outfarm. and Lea Hall 46 MDR20961 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 47 MDR20962 Bentley Hall, Fenny FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Bentley
62 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
48 MDR20963 Firs Farm, Fenny FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Bentley 49 MDR20964 Farmstead in Fenny FARMSTEAD Extant 19th century farmstead. Bentley, Fenny Bentley 50 MDR20965 Site of Farmstead in FARMSTEAD Demolished 19th century farmstead. Fenny Bentley, Fenny Bentley 51 MDR20966 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 52 MDR20967 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 53 MDR20968 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 54 MDR20969 Ashes Barn, Fenny OUTFARM Partially extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 55 MDR20970 The Ashes Farm, FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Fenny Bentley 56 MDR20971 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 57 MDR20972 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 58 MDR20973 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 59 MDR20974 Alders Farm, Fenny FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Bentley 60 MDR20975 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 61 MDR20976 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 62 MDR20977 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley
63 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
63 MDR20978 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 64 MDR20979 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 65 MDR20980 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 66 MDR20981 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 67 MDR20986 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 68 MDR20987 Site of Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Bentley 69 MDR20988 Bank Top, Fenny FARMSTEAD Partially extant 19th century farmstead. Bentley 70 MDR20989 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Redeveloped 19th century outfarm. Bentley 71 MDR20990 Cherry Orchard Farm, FARMSTEAD Partially extant medieval farmstead. Fenny Bentley 72 MDR20991 Outfarm, Fenny OUTFARM Extant 19th century outfarm. Bentley 73 MDR20993 Site of Outfarm, OUTFARM Demolished 19th century outfarm. Tissington and Lea Hall 74 MDR11641 Turnpike Road TOLL ROAD Amendment of 1777 to a section of the Ashbourne to diversion, Fenny Buxton turnpike road running through Fenny Bentley Bentley and and to the west of Tissington Tissington, Derbyshire Dales 75 MDR11609 Derby to Hurdlow (via TOLL ROAD One of the earliest turnpike roads in Derbyshire, Ashbourne) Turnpike sanctioned by an Act of 1738. Road, Derbyshire Dales, Amber Valley and Derby
64 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
76 MDR867 Large barrow BARROW The larger of two barrows in the approximate area of (approximate site of), this field, excavated in 1851 by Carrington. The barrow Broadlow Ash, Thorpe is now lost or destroyed. 77 MDR867 Large barrow BARROW The larger of two barrows in the approximate area of (approximate site of), this field, excavated in 1851 by Carrington. The barrow Broadlow Ash, Thorpe is now lost or destroyed. 78 MDR867 Large barrow BARROW The larger of two barrows in the approximate area of (approximate site of), this field, excavated in 1851 by Carrington. The barrow Broadlow Ash, Thorpe is now lost or destroyed.
65 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 36: Monuments
66 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Map Reference HER Reference Record Type Name 79 EDR3401 EVS Historic environment desk-based assessment and walkover survey, Tissington Trail, by JESSOP, in 2012 80 EDR4129 EVS Field survey, Bank Top Farm, Fenny Bentley, by PDNPA, in 2002 81 EDR3417 EVT Archaeological watching brief, Tissington, by TPAT, in 1993 82 EDR4123 EVS Field survey, Alders Farm, by PDNPA, in 2002 83 EDR4132 EVS Field survey, Bassett Wood Farm, by PDNPA, in 2002 84 EDR4140 EVS Field survey, Brookwood Farm, by PDNPA, in 2003 85 EDR4140 EVS Field survey, Brookwood Farm, by PDNPA, in 2003 86 EDR4182 EVS Field Survey, at Fenny House, by Heidi Taylor (PDNPA), in 2000 87 EDR4272 EVS Field Survey, at Pasture Tops Farm, by Heidi Taylor (PDNPA), in 2000 88 EDR4282 EVS Field Survey, at Sandybrook Cottage Farm, by Heidi Taylor (PDNPA), in 2000 89 EDR3850 EVS Aerial photograph analysis, Derbyshire Dales, by M Askey (DDDC), in 2004 90 EDR4129 EVS Field survey, Bank Top Farm, Fenny Bentley, by PDNPA, in 2002
67 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
Figure 37: Events
68 Heritage Impact Assessment – The Ashes Farm, Fenny Bentley Locus Consulting Ltd.
www.locusconsulting.co.uk
69