Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10 CULTURAL HERITAGE
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 This chapter considers the local historic environment surrounding and including the
Chippenham Riverside site [Figure 10.1]. It does not assess the below ground archaeological
resource of the site - this has already been considered in Chapter 9. This chapter represents
the culmination of a protracted and detailed set of specialist studies and surveys.
10.1.2 The primary objectives of the assessment are as follows:
. To identify statutory and non-statutory historic environment and cultural heritage
constraints (including planning constraints) within and in the wider environs of the
site;
. To gather information on the previously recorded heritage assets; and,
. To bring together additional information from evaluation of the site and its environs.
10.1.3 These objectives provide an assessment of baseline conditions for the site. This data is then
used to:
. Assess the heritage value or significance of designated and non-designated heritage
assets (to use NPPF terminology) in the locality;
. Identify impacts resulting from the application proposals and to quantify their
magnitude and significance;
. Identify appropriate mitigation measures for any significant adverse effects on these
heritage assets; and
. Predict residual impacts of the proposed development on heritage assets in the
locality of the site, taking into account proposed mitigation, and to assess the
significance of the effects.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 1 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.2 Scope and Methodology
10.2.1 Built heritage within the local historic environment that may be influenced by the
development proposals for the site includes:
. A listed building within the site;
. The setting of three character areas within the designated Chippenham
Conservation Area and the setting of the Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area; and
. Neighbouring listed and non-designated buildings and other heritage assets and
their settings within the wider vicinity of the site.
10.2.2 As noted above, this chapter of the Environmental Statement provides:
. An assessment of the significance of each of these potential receptor assets and
the contribution made to that significance by setting; and
. An assessment of the likely impact of the development on these heritage assets
that lie within the zone of influence of the proposals, including the impact of the
loss and gain of built form and spaces involved in the proposals, as well as
reflections on the community value of such buildings and spaces.
10.2.3 Archaeological and historic environment issues are dealt with in this and the preceding
chapter. However, these assessments have adopted the same methodology, represent an
integrated approach to the area’s cultural heritage values, and should be regarded as a
single composite analysis.
10.2.4 The combined archaeological and historic environment assessment has been guided: by the
NPPF; Appendix 10 of the Good Practice Guide for the preparation of Environmental
MO.4579 Page 10 - 2 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Statements issued by the former Department of the Environment (DoE 1995); Environmental
Impact Assessment: a Guide to Procedures issued by the former DETR and the National
Assembly for Wales (2000). The assessment of effects has followed the methodology set
out in Chapter 3.02 above.
10.2.5 Heritage assets are defined in the NPPF as being a building, monument, site, place, area or
landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning
decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage assets are a valued component of the
historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and non-designated assets
which may be identified by the local planning authority during the process of decision-
making or through the plan making process (including local listing). The significance of a
heritage asset is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations
because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or
historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also
from its setting.
10.2.6 The assessments of significance and impact assessments contained in this chapter have
relied upon:
. Site visits made during the summer of 2014;
. Various published and unpublished evaluations of Chippenham and its historic
environment, including conservation area documentation published by Wiltshire
Council;
. Various original and modern documentary sources available for inspection in
Wiltshire Record Office, the local library, and as data from the HER;
. Historical maps and plans of the area;
. Historical documents available on line;
MO.4579 Page 10 - 3 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
. 19th century census returns through www.findmypast.com;
. Other website information, including the National Heritage List for England and
sources available through for example www.heritagegateway.org.uk; and
. The cultural heritage assessment criteria set out in the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges jointly published the Highways Agency, Transport Scotland, the Welsh
Assembly Government, and the Department for Regional Development Northern
Ireland in 2013.
10.2.7 In defining the methodology to be adopted throughout this Environmental Statement, in
chapter 3.2.12, it is noted that the value of identified receptors of impacts will be described
using the terminology:
. High sensitivity / importance
. Medium sensitivity / importance
. Low sensitivity / importance
. Negligible sensitivity / importance
In respect to the built heritage within the historic environment, this hierarchy of value can
be further defined as:
Value of Description Receptor Asset High Scheduled Monuments and non-designated assets of Schedulable quality and importance; Grade I and II* listed buildings; Other listed buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or associations not adequately reflected in their listing grade; Conservation Areas containing very important buildings; Non-designated structures of clear national importance;
MO.4579 Page 10 - 4 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Designated and non-designated historic landscapes of outstanding historic interest (including Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens); non-designated landscapes of high quality and importance of demonstrable national value; and well preserved historic landscapes exhibiting considerable coherence, time depth or other critical factor(s); Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives. Medium Designated or non-designated assets that contribute to regional research objectives; Grade II listed buildings; Non-designated buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical association; Conservation Areas containing important buildings that contribute significantly to their historic character; Historic townscapes or built up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (for example including street furniture or other structures); Designated landscapes of special historic interest (including Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens); non-designated landscapes that would justify such a designation; averagely well preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time depth or other critical factor(s); landscapes of regional value. Low Designated and non-designated assets of local importance including those compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations; Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives; Locally listed buildings and non-designated buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association; Historic townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings or built settings (for example including street furniture or other structures); Robust non-designated historic landscapes; historic landscapes with importance to local interest groups; and historic landscapes whose value is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest;
MO.4579 Page 10 - 5 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Buildings of little architectural or historical note; Landscapes with little significant historical interest.
10.2.8 In defining the methodology to be adopted throughout this Environmental Statement, in
chapter 3.2.16, it is noted that the magnitude of impacts on receptor heritage assets will be
assessed against the following scale:
Major Considerable impact (by extent, duration or magnitude) of more than local significance or in breach of recognised acceptability, legislation, policy or standards.
Moderate Limited impact (by extent, duration or magnitude) which may nonetheless be considered significant in the context of the site and / or surrounding area.
Minor Slight, very short term or highly localised impact of no significant consequence.
Negligible An impact on a resource / receptor of insufficient magnitude to affect the use / integrity.
In respect to the built heritage within the historic environment, such magnitudes of impact
can be further defined as:
Major Change to key built elements or fabric, such that the asset is totally
altered
Comprehensive change to the setting of the asset
Moderate Change to many key built elements or fabric, such that the asset is
significantly modified
Changes to the setting of the asset, such that it is significantly modified
Minor Changes to some key built elements or fabric, such that the asset is
slightly different
MO.4579 Page 10 - 6 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Changes to the setting of the asset, such that it is noticeably different
Negligible Slight changes to built elements or fabric and/ or the setting of the asset,
which hardly affect it
10.2.9 As set out in Chapter 3, where significant adverse effects are predicted during the EIA and
drafting of the ES, mitigation measures have been identified for incorporation into the
proposal for development. The impact assessments presented in the ES have been made
against a ‘mitigated’ scheme (i.e. taking the proposed mitigation measures into account).
The following matrix will be used to determine the significance level of the environmental
effect:
Importance of the Resource
High Medium Low Negligible
Major Major Moderate Minor Minor adverse significant significant significant significant effect effect effect effect
Moderat Moderate Moderate Minor No significant e significant significant significant effect adverse effect effect effect
Minor Minor Minor No significant No significant adverse significant significant effect effect
Magnitude of Impact effect effect
Negligibl No significant No significant No significant No significant e effect effect effect effect
Minor Minor Minor No significant No significant beneficial significant significant effect effect effect effect
MO.4579 Page 10 - 7 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Moderat Moderate Moderate Minor No significant e significant significant significant effect beneficial effect effect effect
Major Major Moderate Minor Minor beneficial significant significant significant significant effect effect effect effect
10.3 Baseline Conditions
Historical development within the locality
10.3.1 The historical development of Chippenham in general and the immediate vicinity of the
site in particular has been set out in Chapter 9 and will not be reassessed here.
Heritage assets
10.3.2 The following analysis excludes below ground scheduled monuments and other
archaeological resources. These have been covered in Chapter 9.
10.3.3 Once its definitions are drawn together, the NPPF identifies heritage assets as being
components of the historic environment that can be positively identified as having a
degree of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic interest meriting consideration
in planning decisions. Simply being old, being part of an ensemble or area that is - as an
assemblage - recognisable as a heritage asset, having a history of use, bearing a similarity
to components in the locality that are heritage assets, or conversely being physically
distinctive within its setting or wider context does not per se transform a built (or other
ordinary) asset into a heritage asset. Building on the definition of ‘heritage’ set out in
English Heritage’s ‘Conservation Principles’ (2008) (being ‘all inherited resources which
people value for reasons beyond mere utility’), heritage assets can be distinguished from
MO.4579 Page 10 - 8 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
other components of the environment by the meaning for society that a heritage asset
holds over and above its functional utility. So to be regarded as a heritage asset, a
building or structure must have some meaningful archaeological, architectural, artistic or
historical interest that gives it a value to society transcending its functional utility.
10.3.4 From a heritage perspective, built and other assets in the environment are either heritage
assets or ordinary assets. Those that are classified as heritage assets may be designated
(for example, a listed building or conservation area) or non‐designated. Like Planning
Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) before it, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines
‘designated’ heritage assets (being World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed
Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or
Conservation Areas), but not non-designated heritage assets. However, in defining the
term ‘heritage asset’, it does by implication determine that those assets which are non-
designated are ‘assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)’.
The PPS5 Practice Guide, which remains in force at the time of writing until newly‐drafted
NPPF historic environment guidance is ready to be published, reinforces the point that:
‘Some non-designated assets, such as buildings of good local character or sites of
archaeological interest, are of heritage significance but not at a level that would pass the
threshold for national designation. Such assets can, singularly and collectively, make an
important, positive contribution to the environment. The desirability of conserving them
and the contribution their setting may make to their significance is a material
consideration, but individually less of a priority than for designated assets or their
equivalents’.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 9 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Designated heritage assets within the site
Harden’s Farm
10.3.5 Harden’s Farm [Figures 10.2, 10.3], also known historically as Harden Farm and listed as
Harden’s Farmhouse, is a Grade II listed building lying within and on the western flank
site, south of the centre line on its north-south axis.
10.3.6 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Farmhouse, dated 1781, squared rubble stone with hipped concrete tile roof and rear
stacks. Two storeys, four-window range of cyma-moulded flush mullion windows, 2-light
above, 2-light, 3-light, door and 2-light below. Ground floor windows have dripstones,
door is in flush moulded surround with stone hood on brackets. Date plaque ' E 1781 '
above. One window range of similar windows to east end wall and stack at former north
end. Rendered brick extension to north with ridge stack. West end has original rear wing
with north end stack and two-window range of similar windows to west. Single storey
range to north. Original casements mostly replaced with C20 glazing.’
10.3.7 The modern setting of this 18th century farmhouse still comprises the entirety of its historic
pasture land and runs from the River Marden in the north to the edge of modern housing
on Harden’s Mead, formerly Harden’s Copse, to the south.
10.3.8 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Harden’s Farm is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of medium
significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a considerable contribution to that
significance.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 10 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Non-designated assets within the site
New Leaze Farm
10.3.9 New Leaze Farm [Figures 10.4, 10.5], lying within the northern half of the site, is unlisted.
10.3.10 Documentary evidence suggests that it may pre-date by a few decades the current built
complex at Harden’s Farm. It is architecturally undistinguished, but, reflecting the nature
of rural historic settlement to the east of the town, is considered to be of some passing
historical interest and modest character. This assessment accords with the findings of the
Wiltshire and Swindon Farmsteads and Landscape Project for English Heritage and
Wiltshire Buildings Record (2014) that:
. Across the County, those farmsteads where partial loss of traditional buildings
amounting to less than 50% of the original whole are more significant (see
‘Understanding Significance’ in ‘Wiltshire & Swindon Farmsteads Guidance:
Farmsteads Assessment Framework’, published by Wiltshire Council and English
Heritage in 2014). This is the case at New Leaze Farm (HER ref. no. MWI66315,
where the partial loss is defined as ‘less than 50%’); but, conversely,
. Linear and L-shaped farmsteads will have more significance than standard courtyard
farmsteads, unless the latter are of very early date (17th century or earlier and with
a small-scale courtyard) or exhibit the use of late 19th century industrial building
techniques and tramways. New Leaze Farm is of standard non-industrialised
courtyard form and dates from the mid to late 18th century.
10.3.11 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, New Leaze Farm is assessed, accordingly, as being a non-designated heritage
MO.4579 Page 10 - 11 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
asset of low significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a valuable contribution to
that significance.
Designated heritage assets in the wider setting of the site
Entrance walls and piers, Chippenham Cemetery
10.3.12 The cemetery’s entrance walls and piers constitute a single Grade II listed structure, lying
to the south of the site on the south side of London Road.
10.3.13 The list description identifies the asset as:
‘Walls and piers to cemetery. c1854. Limestone rubble with ashlar coping and piers. The
walls, approx 2m high with chamfered coping and foliate stops to the outer edge, cant
forward for approx 8m to meet tall gabled piers, they then extend approx 50m to the right
with simpler chamfered capping, and 60m to the left where it steps back after approx
30m. The wall to the right extends back for approx 140m and turns to form the rear wall
for approx 30m. It once enclosed the graveyard but part has been demolished to form a
new rear entrance’.
10.3.14 Beyond its positioning at the entrance to the cemetery, alongside the main road into the
town, the nature of the wider setting of these entrance walls and piers is of little relevance
to their significance.
10.3.15 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the listed structure is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of
medium to low significance. The asset’s wider setting makes only a limited contribution
to that significance.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 12 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Two chapels and gateway, Chippenham Cemetery
10.3.16 The cemetery’s two chapels and gateway [Figure 10.6] constitute a single Grade II listed
structure, lying to the south of the site and on the southern side of London Road.
10.3.17 The list description identifies them as:
‘Pair of cemetery chapels and gateway. 1854. Squared coursed limestone rubble with ashlar
dressings, 3 steeply-pitched slate roofs with ashlar coping and moulded kneelers, bellcote,
angled buttresses and low chamfered plinth. STYLE: Gothic Revival. PLAN: both chapels T-
shaped. EXTERIOR: single-storey. A steeply gabled bellcote with a cast-iron finial crowns
the central gable; below it is an empty niche with an angel-head plinth over a floating
cornice with lion stops; the stilted pointed entrance arch and the 3-light pointed-arched
windows with geometric tracery to flanking gables have head stops to the hoodmoulds.
The entrances to the chapels are under the arch. The rear is similar, with steeply weathered
buttresses to the chapels and doors in the rear of the lower side wings, the gable over
the arch is set back with a diagonally-set square opening to the apex; similar chapel
windows. INTERIOR: originally separate Church of England and Nonconformist chapels,
that to the left is now a store and is said to be identical to that to the right now in use,
which is virtually unchanged. Timber-framed roof with scissor brace on stone corbels to
the rear, pointed arch and steps up to the apse, ashlar floor to the main block and arcading
with foliate caps, door planked to the exterior and latticed inside with original lock. Original
lectern reflecting the architectural style, simple pews and bier remain. SUBSIDIARY
FEATURES: linking the right-hand chapel to the caretaker's cottage (qv) is an elaborate
crow-stepped arch approx 5m high flanked by approx 1m of wall with pierced trefoil
coping. The steps are steeply coped with a medieval-style stone finial over a small shield
in a niche. The wrought-iron gate and the double gates to the chapels have long/short
MO.4579 Page 10 - 13 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
railings with spikes to the tall ones, fleur-de-lis finials to the short ones and scrolls to the
outer frame. A cast plaque states that they were made by HGP Hipps, engineer,
Chippenham’.
10.3.18 Beyond their positioning at the heart of the cemetery, alongside the main road into the
town, the nature of the wider setting of these structures is of little relevance to their
significance.
10.3.19 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the two chapels and gateway are assessed as being a designated heritage
asset of medium significance. Their wider setting makes only a limited contribution to that
significance.
Caretaker's cottage, Chippenham Cemetery
10.3.20 The cemetery caretaker’s cottage is a Grade II listed building, lying within the curtilage of
the cemetery to the south of the site and on the southern side of London Road.
10.3.21 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Cemetery keeper's cottage, now his office. c1854. Squared and coursed limestone rubble,
ashlar dressings and ridge stacks, slate roof. T-shaped plan with a lean-to in the rear angle.
Gothic Revival style. EXTERIOR: single story; 2-window range. Lower but similarly gabled
and roofed to the cemetery chapels (qv), i.e. steeply-pitched with coped gable ends. The
entrance is in the left return. A forward facing gable to the left has a small lancet over a
2-light splayed bay with a hipped stone roof and quatrefoils to diagonally square tracery.
To the right is a 2-light window with trefoil heads. The heavy stack to the centre ridge is
offset below 2 octagonal shafts with moulded tops; a similar single-shafted stack is to the
rear. The gable to the rear right has a quatrefoil to an oculus over a large shallow pointed-
MO.4579 Page 10 - 14 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
arched stone-mullioned 3-light window. INTERIOR: altered but original fireplaces are said
to remain behind boarding’.
10.3.22 Beyond its location within the cemetery complex, alongside the main road into the town,
the nature of the wider setting of this building is of little relevance to its significance.
10.3.23 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the two chapels and gateway are assessed as being a designated heritage
asset of medium significance. Its wider setting makes only a limited contribution to that
significance.
Gate Farmhouse
10.3.24 Gate Farmhouse [Figures 10.7, 10.8], also referred to in some documentation as Old
Turnpike Farm, is a Grade II listed building, lying within a small area of land to the east of
Stanley Lane and immediately alongside the application’s proposed junction of the new
distributor road with London Road.
10.3.25 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Former turnpike house on London Road, c1830-40, extended as farmhouse mid to late
C19, red brick with ashlar dressings and slate roofs. One and two storeys. Original turnpike
house is single storey with ashlar three-sided canted front, the centre door now blocked,
a sash window with hoodmould each side. Stack on roof hip. North side wall is red brick
with three similar sashes in stone surrounds with hoodmoulds, south side has two similar
windows, one with original 12-pane sash, and a lean-to. Two-storey rear range with hipped
slate roof and ridge stack at original south end. Red brick with ashlar dressings, stretcher-
bond brickwork, an unusually early example of cavity-wall construction. North side one-
window range of 16-pane sashes in ashlar surrounds with hoodmoulds, 4-panel door to
MO.4579 Page 10 - 15 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
right in ashlar surround with cornice on consoles. East end has similar one-window range
to right, then straight joint and one-window range of similar 12-pane sashes’.
10.3.26 The setting of this 19th century turnpike building/dispersed planform farmstead on the
very fringe of the urban area alongside the main road into the town from the east is an
important attribute of its historical significance. Due to its dispersed form, many of its
traditional farmstead buildings once lay in a group to the south of London Road, but as
the Wiltshire Farmsteads Mapping Project Data records (HER ref. no. MWI71335) only the
farmhouse still survives, along with a secondary outfarm to the north east. This latter
small group of traditional structures, hidden from view behind a tall hedge on Stanley
Lane, is unlikely to be curtilage listed, despite its ancillary function to the principal listed
Gate Farm, and so is covered below as a non-designated heritage asset.
10.3.27 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Gate Farmhouse is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of medium
significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
Milestone about 25 metres south east of Gate Farmhouse
10.3.28 The milestone south east of Gate Farmhouse is a Grade II listed structure.
10.3.29 The list description identifies the asset as:
‘Milestone, possibly C18 with early C19 cast-iron plate affixed, inscribed 'TO BATH 14’’.
10.3.30 Beyond its positioning alongside the main road into the town from the east (and, to a
lesser degree, its relationship to the former turnpike house), the nature of the wider setting
of the milestone is of little relevance to its significance.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 16 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.3.31 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the milestone is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of low
significance. Its immediate setting makes a moderate contribution to that significance,
but its extended setting makes little or no contribution to it.
Hither Farm Cottage (and Associated Farmstead), Stanley Lane
10.3.32 Hither Farm Cottage is a Grade II listed building of 17th century origin, lying close to
Stanley Lane, approximately 300 metres to the east of the site and its new distributor road.
10.3.33 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Cottage, early C17, rubble stone with stone slate roof and north end stack. l 1/2 storey
and attic, two-room and centre cross passage plan. West front has door with casement
pair to left and casement to right. South gable has C20 window each floor. East front has
ground floor door and casement pair, eaves hipped dormer above, set to right
Interior: two collar trusses with curved principals, one ground floor chamfered and stopped
beam in north room, which has winding stair in angle by fireplace. Plank doors’.
10.3.34 The modern setting of this cottage comprises the historic, albeit altered, farm complex
surrounded by its agricultural land. The 19th century farm buildings that complete the
farmstead, and of which there has been a partial loss of ‘less than 50%’, are of loose
courtyard form (HER ref no. MWI66317).
10.3.35 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Hither Farm Cottage is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of
medium significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 17 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Middle Farmhouse, Stanley Lane
10.3.36 Middle Farmhouse, also referred to in some documentation as Stanley Common
Farmhouse, is a Grade II listed building of late 17th century origin, lying close to Stanley
Lane, approximately 500 metres to the east of the site and its new distributor road.
10.3.37 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Farmhouse, late C17 and early C19, rubble stone with stone slate and slate roofs. Earliest
section is at west end, 2 storeys and attic with stone slate roof and west stack. Cyma-
moulded recessed mullion windows, one 3-light with hoodmould to ground floor and 2-
light above, on both north and south fronts. West end has first floor 2-light and
hoodmould. Attic light above. Range to east, apparently early C19, possibly on earlier core,
is L-plan with lower pitched slate roof, hipped at north east angle, ridge stack and south
end stack to rear wing. Casement windows with brick cambered heads. North front has
three first floor casement pairs and ground floor C20 window to left, triple casement to
centre and casement pair replacing a door to right. Rear and rear wing have similar
windows, east front of wing is painted’.
10.3.38 The farmhouse forms the centrepiece of a loose farmstead cluster, with the main historic
farm complex, which is of regular courtyard form, dispersed across a number of distinct
yards (HER ref no. MWI66370). The farmstead is surrounded by its agricultural land.
10.3.39 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Hither Farm Cottage is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of
medium significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 18 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Scott’s Mill Farmhouse
10.3.40 Scott’s Mill Farmhouse is a Grade II listed building, lying approximately 400 metres east
north eastern corner of the site, close to the River Marden.
10.3.41 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Farmhouse, C17, altered in C18, timber-frame, rubble stone and red brick with stone slate
roofs. Two storeys, L-plan main range with end stacks to cross wing. Cross wing refronted
in red brick in late C18 with beaded stone mullion windows, three-light each side of door
in C20 lean-to porch, 2-light each side above and small centre sash. Brickwork has straight
joint to left of first floor centre and exposed post to right. Left end gable is rubble stone
original chimney gable. Right gable is timber-framed with inserted stack, framing exposed
in gable, wall-posts only below. Gable loading doors. Rear wall is rendered. Range to right
of timber-framed gable has red brick front but one angle post exposed, ground floor door
in gabled brick porch and window to right. Rear is rendered. Lower addition to right has
end stack, rendered walls, front C20 brick extension and rear hipped eaves dormer and
C20 windows. Interior: cross wing timber-lintel fireplace with ashlar sides, chamfered
beams and tie-beam and collar roof trusses altered in C18 or early C19 with tie-beams cut
and reset lower with queen posts, and inserted trusses between originals. Scott's Mill was
part of the estates of Stanley Abbey before the C16, let to H. Goldney, clothier, 1526 and
to J. Scott 1554. A house of 3 bays is recorded in early C17. Held by Scott family to 1744
and by Palmer family to early C19. The mill building stood on opposite side of the Marden
until demolished in 1987’.
10.3.42 The farmhouse (HER ref no. MWI66368) and related built complex are surrounded by
agricultural land and tree belts in a largely undisturbed rural setting .
MO.4579 Page 10 - 19 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.3.43 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Scott’s Mill Farmhouse is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of
medium significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
Bridge over River Marden
10.3.44 The bridge over the River Marden at NGR ST946738 is a Grade II listed structure, lying
approximately 15 metres east of the north eastern corner of the site.
10.3.45 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Bridge over river. C18. Coursed limestone with dressed stone arch-rings and piers. 3-span
bridge, centre span wider, with segmental arches on stone piers, the bases of the piers
are stone rubble with narrower ashlar piers above with small cutwaters and imposts. There
are no parapets. Graffiti with inscribed dates 1774, 1776 and 1784. The bridge spans the
River Marden, a tributary of the River Avon’.
10.3.46 Historically, the bridge provided a river crossing for a minor footpath that cut across
agricultural land between Hither Farm and neighbouring properties on Stanley Lane and
Tytherton Lucas to the north. Today, it remains in an unaltered setting surrounded by
agricultural land.
10.3.47 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the bridge over the River Marden is assessed as being a designated heritage
asset of medium significance. Its setting makes a moderate contribution to that
significance.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 20 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Cogswell, Tytherton Lucas
10.3.48 Cogswell is a Grade II listed building, lying approximately 550 metres north of the site,
within the heart of the village of Tytherton Lucas.
10.3.49 The list description identifies the building as:
‘House, C16 and C17, rubble stone and timber-frame with stone slate roof, end stacks and
rear stacks. Two storeys and attic, three hipped dormers, two with C18 leaded lights. Four-
window front, main part timber-framed with rubble stone plinth and east end wall, the
right end bay, possibly added in C17, wholly rubble stone. Late C18 sashes, 16-pane and
two 12-pane sashes to first floor of main part and paired 12-pane sashes each side of
door in rendered stone slated porch. Right bay has 16-pane above and paired 12-pane
sashes below. Framing has heavy wall-posts and one angle brace. East end outside stack
and ground floor hollow-moulded mullion window. Rear has three gabled additions
behind main range, C20 flat roofed extension behind right bay and to south west a one-
room plan formerly detached cottage with south stack and hipped eaves dormer to west
and east sides. Link between cottage and west end of house has a reset C16 or C17
studded plank door. Three gabled additions are early C18 to east with cyma-moulded
recessed 2-light mullion window to first floor east and south, the south window altered to
12-pane sash; C17 to centre with hollow-moulded mullion windows, 2-light each floor and
single light to attic and late C18 to right in red brick. Interior: hall has rear wall stone
chamfered Tudor-arched fireplace and east room has Tudor-arched fireplace with renewed
timber lintel. Chamfered and stopped beams. Winding stair to rear with some plank
panelling. Early C18 bolection fireplace in south east rear wing and another similar in first
floor west room. Five-bay tie-beam and collar truss roof, the west two bays possibly added.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 21 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
An inventory of Thomas Cogswell of 1616 records a hall, buttery and kitchen with rooms
above the hall and buttery. Owned by the Crook family in C18’.
10.3.50 The house lies within the centre of the settlement, surrounded by gardens and other
residential properties of a historic nature. The recently updated Historic Environment
Record (HER ref no. MWI66314) notes in a rather better way than the listing description
that Cogswell is a partially surviving medieval farmstead of loose courtyard plan form, with
three of the courtyard’s sides being formed of working agricultural buildings. The extant
traditional farm buildings in the group are most likely covered through curtilage listing
under the principal listed building, Cogswell.
10.3.51 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Cogswell is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of medium
significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
Stable at Cogswell
10.3.52 The stable at Cogswell is listed separately for its group value, although again at Grade II.
It lies within the built Cogswell complex, within the heart of the village of Tytherton Lucas,
some 550 metres north of the site.
10.3.53 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Stable, late C18, rubble stone with Bridgwater tile half-hipped roof and weatherboarded
end gables. Projecting gabled north side entry with weatherboard in gable, two north side
stable doors and one south door. C20 east end outside stairs to loft door. Included for
group value.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 22 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.3.54 The stable forms part of the built complex at Cogswell and, therefore, like the main house,
lies within the centre of the settlement, surrounded by gardens and residential properties
of a historic nature.
10.3.55 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the stable at Cogswell is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of
medium significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
Manor Farmhouse, Tytherton Lucas
10.3.56 Manor Farmhouse is a Grade II* listed building, lying approximately 600 metres north of
the site, within the village of Tytherton Lucas.
10.3.57 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Manor house, C16 to C17 altered c1700, rubble stone, formerly roughcast, with ashlar
dressings and hipped Bridgwater tile roof. Some timber-framing. Two storeys and attic,
with two ridge stacks to front range and large north west chimney gable. Dormers formerly
in roof, now removed. Main front is 7-window with coved eaves cornice, the three bays to
right of close-spaced 2-light mullion-and-transom windows, recessed chamfer moulded,
with hoodmould over ground floor. Four bays to left are wider spaced with ashlar flush
band under cornice and stone mullion windows, cyma/hollow moulded, 3-light except for
2-light in right bay over moulded 4-centred arched doorway with carved spandrels and
cornice. Above is set finely carved arms dated 1702, said to be of Stokes and Barret
families. Doorway opens into porch with moulded oak frame to inner door, re-used or
raised up. Hoodmoulds to ground floor windows. West end and rear have similar cornice
and cyma/hollow moulded windows with hoodmoulds. West end has 4-light above and
3-light below. Rear has, to left of projecting chimney gable, two 3-lights to first floor, and
MO.4579 Page 10 - 23 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
ground floor door and 3-light in C20 lean-to verandah. To left, a 2-storey hipped stair
tower with similar windows, 3-light each floor to north and 2- light to first floor west. To
left projects north east rear wing with outside north stack and timber-framing in north
gable. Wing has west side casements and east side first floor hollow-moulded 2-light
window over triple casement. A lower wing projects from east end of front range and in
angle to rear wing is fine 3-sided stair tower with small round-headed loop on north east
face and single light each floor on east face. Lower wing is rubble stone with timber-frame
and red brick to first floor of north side, cement render on south side. Ridge stack and
coped east gable with saddlestone. North side has ground floor chamfered single light
and casement pair. East end has apex single light (former dove- entry) and first floor pair
of hollow-moulded 2-lights with unusual shallow Gothic panels between. South side has
C20 verandah. Interior: ground floor hall and west end room have chamfered beams with
stepped run-out stops. Stair in main stair tower is renewed except at attic landing which
has turned balusters of early to mid C17 type. C17 panelling in room to east of hall, also
bolection moulded fireplace of c1700 type. Attic has tie-beam and collar truss roofs, rear
wing roof of 5-bays with straight wind bracing apparently earlier than large 4-bay main
roof. An internal timber-framed gable suggests that main stair tower is added. Over lower
east wing is 2-bay roof completely lined with timber nesting boxes. Small stair tower has
fine oak winding stair. Evidence would suggest that rear wing, right side of main front and
lower east wing date from c1600 and that major part to left was rebuilt with new stair
tower in mid to later C17. Manor Farm belonged to the Stokes family in C17 and C18,
Edward Stokes died 1667, Abjohn Stokes died 1712 and Abjohn Stokes II, died 1725’.
10.3.58 The house lies towards the north western edge of the settlement, surrounded by farmland
beyond and gardens and other residential properties of a historic nature within the village
core. Manor Farmhouse is a partially surviving medieval farmstead of regular courtyard
MO.4579 Page 10 - 24 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
plan form (HER ref no. MWI66311). Although the house is set slightly away from the other
buildings forming the farmstead, it remains likely that the extant traditional farm buildings
in the group are covered through curtilage listing under the principal listed building,
Manor Farmhouse.
10.3.59 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Manor Farmhouse is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of high
significance. Its setting makes a considerable contribution to that significance.
Church of St Nicholas, Tytherton Lucas
10.3.60 St Nicholas Church is a Grade II* listed building, lying approximately 500 metres north of
the site, on the western edge of Tytherton Lucas.
10.3.61 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Anglican parish church, C13 rebuilt 1802 and mid C19, rubble stone original masonry,
squared rubble stone to later work, stone slate roofs with coped gables. Nave, chancel,
north aisle. Paired west gables of square rubble stone with plinth. Nave has small bellcote
and 3-light window with Tudor-arched heads to lights, possibly C16, aisle has larger
bellcote and 2-light Y-traceried window of C13 type with hoodmould, possibly original.
Aisle north wall is also of squared rubble but moulded trefoil-cusped doorway seems
original, as also Y-traceried 2-light to left. East wall of aisle has original masonry and 3-
light window with intersecting tracery. Gable has crocketed saddlestone. Nave south wall
is rebuilt with plinth and two 2-light flat-headed C16 style windows. East end saddlestone
and finial to gable. Chancel has original masonry to south, three C19 lancets, one over
blocked low door, rebuilt east wall with basket-arched window and hood, possibly C15
with C19 tracery. North wall has old masonry and three C19 lancets. Interior: plastered
MO.4579 Page 10 - 25 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
nave and aisle roofs with large coves each side, thin 3-bay arcade of round chamfered
arches on slim octagonal piers with sparse still-leaf to caps, C13, heavily restored. C19
chancel arch, pointed on heavy chamfered piers. Tri-lobe opening in wall to left. Chancel
has plain C19 roof. Fittings: fine c1200 tub-shaped font with raised arcading, band of
gables over and fluting below. In north aisle good wall monument to Abjohn Stokes, died
1725 and plaque to T. Crook, died 1821, recording that he had church rebuilt in 1802.
Aisle east window has glass of c1915 by Mayer of Munich. Nave has west window of c1893
and south wall plaque to L. Crook died 1822, with urn. Chancel has north wall plaque to
H. Barret died 1627 and east wall plaque to A. Jacob died 1653. two lancets have stained
glass of 1869’.
10.3.62 The church lies on the western edge of the settlement, surrounded by farmland and a
handful of residential properties, in a largely undisturbed historic setting.
10.3.63 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the Church of St Nicholas is assessed as being a designated heritage asset
of high significance. Its setting makes a moderate contribution to that significance.
Three monuments in churchyard about 13m south of south west angle of Church of
St Nicholas
10.3.64 The group of three monuments roughly 13m south of the church’s south west angle
together constitute a single Grade II listed structure, lying within the churchyard some 475
metres to the north of the site.
10.3.65 The list description identifies them as:
‘Three chest tombs, C18 to C19, ashlar. From north: a) Unidentified monument, mid C18,
with two octagonal plaques each side, fielded angle piers and rosette decoration to centre
MO.4579 Page 10 - 26 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
pier each side. Moulded cornice. Monument is half buried. b) Unidentified monument
about 4m south east of a), mid C18 with two octagonal plaques each side, fielded angle
piers and floral decoration to centre pier each side. Moulded capstone, moulding broken
forward over piers. c) C. Awdry monument about lm west of b), earlier C19, with rounded
reeded angles, framed plaque to north and ridged capstone. Inscription to the Rev Charles
Awdry’.
10.3.66 The three monuments lie within the undisturbed historic setting of the churchyard of St
Nicholas.
10.3.67 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the ensemble is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of medium
to low significance. Beyond the immediate churchyard, the wider setting of the
monuments makes no real contribution to that significance.
Five Crook monuments in churchyard south of south west angle of Church of St
Nicholas
10.3.68 The group of five monuments to the members of the Crook family to the south of the
church’s south west angle together constitute a single Grade II listed structure, lying within
the churchyard some 475 metres to the north of the site.
10.3.69 The list description identifies them as:
‘Group of five chest tombs, late C18 to early C19, ashlar. From north: a) Mary Crook
monument, late C18, with moulded base and cornice, rounded angles with husk drop,
raised centre with fielded plaque in egg-and-dart border and with fielded panels flanking.
Inscription to Mary Crook died (?)1797. b,c,d & e) Group of four near-identical monuments
to members of Crook family with baluster angles, moulded bases and cornices, raised
MO.4579 Page 10 - 27 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
centres with fielded rectangular plaques and framed strips flanking. Inscription to Alice
Crook died 1789 on b), c) and d) have eroded lettering and e) has inscription to Walter
Crook, died 1827’.
10.3.70 The five monuments lie within the undisturbed historic setting of the churchyard of St
Nicholas.
10.3.71 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the ensemble is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of medium
to low significance. Beyond the immediate churchyard, the wider setting of the
monuments makes no real contribution to that significance.
Crook monument in churchyard about 4m west south west of south west angle of
Church of St Nicholas
10.3.72 The single chest tomb of John Crook to the south west of the church’s south west angle
is a Grade II listed structure, lying within the churchyard some 475 metres to the north of
the site.
10.3.73 The list description identifies the monument as:
‘Chest tomb, earlier C19, ashlar with moulded base and cornice, lyre ends with husk drop
and two oval north side plaques. Low relief ornament in spandrels. Plain framed south
plaque with framed strips each side. Inscription to John Crook died 1834’.
10.3.74 The monument lies within the undisturbed historic setting of the churchyard of St Nicholas.
10.3.75 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the single Crook monument is assessed as being a designated heritage asset
MO.4579 Page 10 - 28 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
of medium to low significance. Beyond the immediate churchyard, the wider setting of
the monuments makes no real contribution to that significance.
Unidentified monument in churchyard about 3m south of chancel of Church of St
Nicholas
10.3.76 The single unidentified chest tomb to the south of the church’s chancel is a Grade II listed
structure, lying within the churchyard some 475 metres to the north of the site.
10.3.77 The list description identifies the monument as:
‘Chest tomb, mid C18, ashlar with large oval plaques each side, decorated spandrels,
fielded angle piers and moulded capstone, moulding broken forward over piers’.
10.3.78 The monument lies within the undisturbed historic setting of the churchyard of St Nicholas.
10.3.79 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the unidentified chest tomb is assessed as being a designated heritage asset
of medium to low significance. Beyond the immediate churchyard, the wider setting of
the monuments makes no real contribution to that significance.
Two monuments in churchyard about 2m south east of chancel of Church of St
Nicholas
10.3.80 The two monuments roughly 2m south east of the church’s chancel together constitute a
single Grade II listed structure, lying within the churchyard some 475 metres to the north
of the site.
10.3.81 The list description identifies them as:
MO.4579 Page 10 - 29 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
‘Two chest tombs, mid C18, ashlar. From north: a) Ann Hicks monument, with two shield
plaques each side, fielded panelled angle piers and decorated centre pier. Moulded base
and cornice broken forward over piers. North side inscription to Ann Hicks. b) Unidentified
monument, with two octagonal plaques each side, fielded panelled angle piers and
decorated centre pier. Moulded base and cornice. Round-headed end plaques’.
10.3.82 The two monuments lie within the undisturbed historic setting of the churchyard of St
Nicholas.
10.3.83 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the ensemble is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of medium
to low significance. Beyond the immediate churchyard, the wider setting of the
monuments makes no real contribution to that significance.
Rawlings Farmhouse, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham
10.3.84 Rawlings Farmhouse is a Grade II listed building, lying approximately 600 metres west of
the north western corner of the site.
10.3.85 The list description identifies the building as:
‘Farmhouse, dated 1691, rubble stone with stone slate roof and east end stack. Two storeys
and attic, 5-window range of ovolo-moulded 2-light mullion windows and centre door in
flush moulded doorcase, dated on lintel. Flush quoins, dripcourse over ground floor,
stepped over door and later gabled ashlar porch. Window to left of door is 3-light. One
centre hipped dormer. West end has similar 2-light window with hoodmould to each floor
and attic. East end has similar attic light and two-storey addition with end stack. Owned
by the Matthews family from the C18, mentioned in the diary of Francis Kilvert’.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 30 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.3.86 The farmhouse lies to the east of the currently developed edge of Chippenham,
surrounded by farmland and with a tree belt to its west.
10.3.87 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, Rawlings Farmhouse is assessed as being a designated heritage asset of
medium significance. Its current setting makes a considerable contribution to its
significance, although that setting is likely to change substantively in the foreseeable future
due to residential development proposals.
Non-designated heritage assets in the wider setting of the site
Outfarm north east of Gate Farm, Stanley Lane
10.3.88 The group of buildings forming a secondary outfarm to the historic 19th century farmstead
at Gate Farm lie a short distance north east of the listed Gate Farmhouse, alongside Stanley
Lane (and concealed from it by mature vegetation) and close to the application’s proposed
junction of the new distributor road with London Road.
10.3.89 The outfarm is almost certainly not covered through curtilage listing under the listing of
the principal farmhouse and accordingly is dealt with here as a non-designated heritage
asset. It is recorded on the recently updated Historic Environment Record (HER ref no.
MWI66319, which has been informed by the Wiltshire & Swindon Farmsteads and
Landscape Project, as a surviving 19th century farm grouping of loose courtyard form.
The HER also notes that the farmstead has retained ‘all components of its historic form,
with minimal apparent alteration’.
10.3.90 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the built group is assessed, accordingly, as being a non-designated heritage
MO.4579 Page 10 - 31 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
asset of low significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a valuable contribution to
that significance.
Roadside group of buildings at Home Cottage/The Laurels, Tytherton Lucas
10.3.91 The group of buildings comprising Home Cottage and The Laurels [Figure 10.9] lie on the
north side of the road approaching the village of Tytherton Lucas from the east,
approximately 550 metres north of the site. They lie within the Tytherton Lucas
Conservation Area close to its eastern boundary.
10.3.92 The buildings form a pleasing roadside composition at the very edge of the settlement,
being constructed of traditional local materials and making a positive contribution to the
character of the conservation area. They face onto agricultural land to the south.
10.3.93 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the built group is assessed, accordingly, as being a non-designated heritage
asset of low significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a valuable contribution to
that significance.
Near roadside group of buildings at Stokes Croft Cottages, Tytherton Lucas
10.3.94 The group of buildings known as Stokes Croft Cottages [Figure 10.10] lie close to the
south of the road approaching the village of Tytherton Lucas from the east, approximately
450 metres north of the site. They lie within the Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area and
on its southern edge.
10.3.95 The group forms a pleasing roadside composition at the very edge of the settlement,
being constructed of traditional local materials and making a positive contribution to the
character of the conservation area. They face onto agricultural land to the south. These
MO.4579 Page 10 - 32 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
buildings are not included on the recently updated Historic Environment Record, which
has been informed by the Wiltshire & Swindon Farmsteads and Landscape Project.
10.3.96 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the built group is assessed, accordingly, as being a non-designated heritage
asset of low significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a valuable contribution to
that significance.
Stokes Farm, Tytherton Lucas
10.3.97 The group of buildings known as Stokes Farm lie a little way to the west of Broom Corner
and to the north of the Church of St Nicholas, approximately 550 metres north of the site
and within the heart of the Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area. They are concealed from
the public highway by mature trees and other vegetation.
10.3.98 The Farm is recorded on the recently updated Historic Environment Record (HER ref no.
MWI66310, which has been informed by the Wiltshire & Swindon Farmsteads and
Landscape Project, as a partially surviving 19th century farmstead of regular courtyard
plan. It also notes there has been a partial loss of ‘less than 50%’ of its traditional farm
buildings.
10.3.99 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the built group is assessed, accordingly, as being a non-designated heritage
asset of low significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a valuable contribution to
that significance.
Lucas House and the roadside group of buildings at Broom Corner, Tytherton Lucas
MO.4579 Page 10 - 33 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.3.100 The group of buildings fronting onto the north side of the Tytherton Lucas village street
at Broom Corner and associated with Lucas House lie approximately 550 metres north of
the site and within the heart of the Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area.
10.3.101 The buildings, which are of mixed form and ridge height, provide an important built focal
point in the centre of the village. They are constructed of traditional local materials and
make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. They are
surrounded by gardens and other residential properties. These buildings are not included
on the recently updated Historic Environment Record, which has been informed by the
Wiltshire & Swindon Farmsteads and Landscape Project.
10.3.102 Using the table of receptor values set out in chapter 3 and further defined in chapter
10.2.7 above, the built group is assessed, accordingly, as being a non-designated heritage
asset of low significance. Its retained traditional setting makes a valuable contribution to
that significance.
10.4 Impact Assessment
10.4.1 The site contains one designated heritage asset, Harden’s Farm, and one non-designated
heritage asset, New Leaze Farm.
10.4.2 The site lies within the setting of the following designated heritage assets:
. Chippenham Conservation Area – Character Areas 11 (Monkton Park), 15 (St Mary
Street and the Butts) and 18 (London Road);
. Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area;
. Entrance walls and piers, Chippenham Cemetery;
MO.4579 Page 10 - 34 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
. Two chapels and gateway, Chippenham Cemetery;
. Caretaker's cottage, Chippenham Cemetery;
. Gate Farmhouse;
. Milestone about 25 metres south east of Gate Farmhouse;
. Hither Farm Cottage (and associated farmstead), Stanley Lane;
. Middle Farmhouse, Stanley Lane;
. Scott’s Mill Farmhouse;
. Bridge over River Marden;
. Cogswell, Tytherton Lucas;
. Stable at Cogswell;
. Manor Farmhouse, Tytherton Lucas;
. Church of St Nicholas, Tytherton Lucas;
. Three monuments in churchyard about 13m south of south west angle of Church
of St Nicholas;
. Five Crook monuments in churchyard south of south west angle of Church of St
Nicholas;
. Crook monument in churchyard about 4m west south west of south west angle of
Church of St Nicholas;
MO.4579 Page 10 - 35 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
. Unidentified monument in churchyard about 3m south of chancel of Church of St
Nicholas;
. Two monuments in churchyard about 2m south east of chancel of Church of St
Nicholas; and
. Rawlings Farmhouse, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham.
10.4.3 The site lies within the setting of the following non-designated heritage assets:
. Outfarm north east of Gate Farm, Stanley Lane
. Roadside group of buildings at Home Cottage/The Laurels, Tytherton Lucas;
. Group of buildings known as Stokes Croft Cottages, Tytherton Lucas;
. Stokes Farm, Tytherton Lucas; and
. Lucas House and the roadside group of buildings at Broom Corner, Tytherton
Lucas.
10.4.4 Together, the assets identified in 10.4.1, 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 represent the potential receptors
to change from the development of the site.
The contribution of the site to the settings of local heritage assets
10.4.5 Currently, the site represents a substantial block of agricultural land within a largely flat
rural and riverine landscape. Accordingly, it is, to a varying degree, a visible historical
component within views across the settings of the assets identified in 10.3.5 to 10.3.96.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 36 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Construction phase impacts
10.4.6 During the construction phase of the proposed development, visual impacts, noise and
increased traffic movements are likely to impact:
. The settings of Harden’s Farm and New Leaze Farm;
. Potentially, the settings of Gate Farmhouse and the outfarm to its north east; and
. Potentially, the setting of the Bridge over the River Marden.
The remaining receptors are unlikely to be affected.
10.4.7 The magnitude of impact during this phase, as defined in 10.2.8, is likely to range from
major adverse to minor, according to location of the asset and the construction phase,
but in all cases to be temporary.
10.4.8 The significance of effect during this phase, as defined in 10.2.9, is likely to be moderate
to nil, according to the asset and phase, but in all cases to be temporary.
10.4.9 Given that the impacts will be of a temporary nature only, no additional mitigation
measures are proposed beyond standard good practice for urban fringe construction sites.
Residual impacts are impacts remaining following the successful implementation of
mitigation measures. Given the nature of construction plant, such as tall cranes which
cannot be easily mitigated, demolition and construction impacts would remain as those
identified above.
Operational and residual impacts
(i) Harden’s Farm
MO.4579 Page 10 - 37 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.10 Harden’s Farm is a designated heritage asset of medium significance, lying within the site.
The development proposals, as set out in the master plan and the design and access
statement, allow for the retention of all traditional buildings forming the historic farmstead,
including the farmhouse, barn and walled garden. The farmhouse will be converted for a
use commensurate with the local centre, possibly as a pub. It is intended that the walled
garden will be used as a commercial market garden.
10.4.11 The converted farmhouse will act as a gateway to the proposed riverside park from new
medium and high density residential areas to its east and south east. A community
orchard will lie near at hand to its north.
10.4.12 The conversion of the farmhouse will result in direct physical impacts to its fabric. These
cannot be identified or safely quantified at present, but, on the basis of the approach
outlined in the design and access statement and the character of the interior of the
farmhouse, it must be assumed for the moment that they will be of moderate adverse
magnitude, as defined in 10.2.8, involving change to many key built elements and/or
fabric such that the asset is significantly modified.
10.4.13 The impact on the setting of the designated Harden’s Farm from the development
proposals is likely to be of major adverse magnitude, as asset out in 10.2.8.
10.4.14 For a heritage asset of medium significance, together these would equate to a moderate
negative permanent effect on the designated asset, as set out in 10.2.9.
10.4.15 The NPPF’s approach to negative impacts on heritage assets (referred to as ‘harm’) revolves
around an undefined threshold between ‘substantial’ and ‘less than substantial’ harm.
Although the term ‘substantial harm’ is neither defined in the NPPF nor in the recently
published Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning series (2015) from
MO.4579 Page 10 - 38 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Historic England, the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance for Conserving and
Enhancing the Historic Environment (2014) advises:
'In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For
example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an
important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key
element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the
asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The
harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting.
While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a
considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than
substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later
inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works
that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no
harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.'
10.4.16 This carefully worded guidance reflects in part the only case law to date that touched
upon the definition of substantial harm (Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, 2013). This related to a judicial review of a planning
appeal. Accordingly, its findings in terms of an absolute definition are to a degree
ambiguous, as that was not the issue at hand. The case was about process, not fact.
However, the judgement is of importance for the light it sheds on an acceptable approach
to defining 'substantial harm', which was summed up as follows:
'What the inspector was saying was that for harm to be substantial, the impact on
significance was required to be serious such that very much, if not all, of the significance
was drained away.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 39 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
‘Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or
destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to
the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick
was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious
impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether
or very much reduced.’
10.4.17 Subsequent case law has focused to a large part on addressing a slightly different issue -
the matter of achieving an appropriate balance between competing interests in
circumstances where the level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset is likely to
be less than substantial. It is fair to say that, at the time of writing, there is ambiguity
perhaps about where that balance is to be found. In what is known as the ‘Barnwell case’
(June 2014) an appeal decision found that ‘less than substantial harm does not equate to
a less than substantial planning objection’ and that ‘there is a need to give considerable
importance and weight to any harm…when carrying out the planning balance’. However,
since then, in a decision that is hard not to interpret as intentionally readdressing the
balance by fine adjustment of relative weightings, the ‘Razor's Farm’ recovered appeal
decision from the Secretary of State, implicitly alluding to ‘Barnwell’, has found that ‘an
adverse impact [on significance]...is one factor that attracts considerable importance and
weight in the balancing exercise. However, it is important to acknowledge that
considerable importance and weight is not synonymous with overriding importance and
weight' and goes on to emphasise that 'the provision of [housing] and the associated
economic activity are very weighty matters in economic and social terms'.
10.4.18 Applying the foregoing in this instance, it must be concluded that the predicted moderate
negative significance of effect of the development proposals on Harden’s Farm is unlikely
to result in a very substantial degree of its significance being ‘drained away’, ‘vitiated
MO.4579 Page 10 - 40 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
altogether or very much reduced’. The degree of harm arising from development of the
application site will surely fall some considerable way short of that high benchmark.
Although an absolute definition does not exist, this suggests that the harm resulting to
Harden’s Farm as a designated heritage asset will be ‘less than substantial’ in NPPF terms
in its extent.
(ii) New Leaze Farm
10.4.19 New Leaze Farm is a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, lying within the
site. The development proposals, as set out in the master plan and the design and access
statement, allow for the retention of the traditional buildings forming the principal historic
farmstead, along with immediate garden setting. The farmhouse is designated for reuse
as a residential care home and doctors’ surgery within the application.
10.4.20 The retained farmstead complex will sit within an area of medium density residential and
mixed use development.
10.4.21 It is assumed that conversion of the farmhouse will result in direct physical impacts to its
fabric, although these cannot be identified or safely quantified at present. For the moment,
on the basis of the approach outlined in the design and access statement and the character
of its interior, it must be assumed for the moment that they will be of moderate adverse
magnitude, as defined in 10.2.8, involving change to many key built elements and/or
fabric such that the asset is significantly modified.
10.4.22 The impact on the setting of the non-designated New Leaze Farm from the development
proposals is likely to be of major adverse magnitude, as asset out in 10.2.8.
10.4.23 For a heritage asset of low significance, together these would equate to a minor negative
permanent effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 41 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.24 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
(iii) Chippenham Conservation Area – Character Areas 11 (Monkton Park), 15 (St Mary
Street and the Butts) and 18 (London Road)
10.4.25 While arguably, the site lies in the extended setting of these three character areas of the
Chippenham Conservation Area, in reality it is distant from their boundaries and is to all
intents and purposes invisible from them.
10.4.26 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact on each of these character areas and on the
Conservation Area as a whole is considered to be nil, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.27 This would equate to no permanent significant effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
(iv) Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area
10.4.28 The site lies in the extended setting of the Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area. Long
section analysis shows that the northernmost segment of the development including the
immediate surroundings of New Leaze Farm will be distantly visible from various locations
in the public realm within the Conservation Area. The proposed landscaping of the new
development and its mitigating effects are described elsewhere in the application.
10.4.29 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the
Conservation Area as a whole is considered to be at most negligible, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.30 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 42 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(v) Entrance walls and piers, Chippenham Cemetery
10.4.31 The site arguably lies within the extended setting of the entrance walls and piers of
Chippenham Cemetery, although, with the possible exception of development around Gate
Farmhouse, they are not intervisible.
10.4.32 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the designated
asset and its setting is considered to be nil.
10.4.33 For a designated heritage asset of medium to low significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(vi) Two chapels and gateway, Chippenham Cemetery
10.4.34 The site arguably lies within the extended setting of the two chapels and gateway at
Chippenham Cemetery, although, with the exception of the proposed junction between
the new distributor road and London Road, they are not intervisible.
10.4.35 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the designated
asset and its setting is considered to be nil.
10.4.36 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(vii) Caretaker's cottage, Chippenham Cemetery
10.4.37 The site arguably lies within the extended setting of the caretaker’s cottage at Chippenham
Cemetery, although, with the exception of the proposed junction between the new
distributor road and London Road, they are not intervisible..
MO.4579 Page 10 - 43 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.38 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the designated
asset and its setting is considered to be nil.
10.4.39 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(viii) Gate Farmhouse
10.4.40 The projecting ‘toe’ of the site containing the southernmost end of the proposed
distributor road and its junction with London Road lies immediately alongside Gate
Farmhouse, occupying part of its immediate setting, which has been found to make a
considerable contribution to the asset’s significance.
10.4.41 The magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of Gate Farmhouse
is considered to be moderate adverse, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.42 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to a moderate
negative permanent significant effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
10.4.43 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
(ix) Milestone about 25 metres south east of Gate Farmhouse
10.4.44 The site lies close to the north east of the milestone, occupying part of its immediate and
extended setting. However, while its positioning alongside the main road into the town
from the east is important to its significance, other attributes of its wider setting are of
little relevance to it. This part of the site comprises the southernmost end of the proposed
distributor road and its junction with London Road.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 44 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.45 The magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of the milestone is
considered to be negligible adverse, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.46 For a designated heritage asset of low significance, this would equate to no permanent
significant effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
(x) Hither Farm Cottage (and associated farmstead), Stanley Lane
10.4.47 The site lies within the extended setting of Hither Farm Cottage and parts of the
development, including the perimeter distributor road and potentially a terminal tower
associated with undergrounding of overhead power lines, would be visible to the south
west, west and north west, either from the asset itself or its immediate setting, as well as
changing the character of the wider environment.
10.4.48 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be minor to moderate adverse, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.49 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to a minor to
moderate negative permanent significant effect, as defined in 10.2.9.
10.4.50 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
(xi) Middle Farmhouse, Stanley Lane
10.4.51 The site lies within the extended setting of Middle Farmhouse and parts of the
development would be distantly visible to the south west, west and north west, either
from the asset itself or its immediate setting, as well as changing the character of the
wider environment.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 45 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.52 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be minor tending to negligible adverse, as defined
in 10.2.8.
10.4.53 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to a minor to
negligible negative permanent significant effect, as defined in 10.2.9.
10.4.54 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
(xii) Scott’s Mill Farmhouse
10.4.55 The site lies within the extended setting of Scott’s Mill Farmhouse and the development
would be visible to the west and south west, either from the asset itself or its immediate
setting, as well as changing the character of the wider environment.
10.4.56 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be minor adverse, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.57 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to a minor
negative permanent significant effect, as defined in 10.2.9.
10.4.58 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
(xiii) Bridge over River Marden
MO.4579 Page 10 - 46 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.59 The north eastern corner of the application site lies immediately beside the bridge over
the River Marden, as well as occupying part of its extended setting. Overall, the setting
of the bridge is considered to make a moderate contribution to its significance. The
adjacent part of the site has been allocated to residential uses in the development
proposals.
10.4.60 The magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of the bridge is
considered to be moderate adverse, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.61 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to a moderate
negative permanent significant effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
10.4.62 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
(xiv) Cogswell, Tytherton Lucas
10.4.63 The site lies within the extended setting of Cogswell and the development including the
immediate surroundings of New Leaze Farm would be distantly visible to the south west
from the asset itself or from its immediate setting.
10.4.64 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.65 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(xv) Stable at Cogswell
MO.4579 Page 10 - 47 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.66 The site arguably might lie within the extended setting of the stable at Cogswell and it is
likely that the development would be distantly visible to the south west from its immediate
setting, although not from the asset itself.
10.4.67 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.68 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(xvi) Manor Farmhouse, Tytherton Lucas
10.4.69 The site lies within the extended setting of Manor Farmhouse and the development would
be distantly visible to the south west from parts of its setting, although not from the asset
itself, due to screening in between.
10.4.70 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.71 For a designated heritage asset of high significance, this would equate to no permanent
significant effect.
(xvii) Church of St Nicholas, Tytherton Lucas
10.4.72 The site lies within the extended setting of the Church of St Nicholas and the development
would be distantly visible to the south west from the church and from its immediate
setting.
10.4.73 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be nil.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 48 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.74 For a designated heritage asset of high significance, this would equate to no permanent
significant effect.
(xviii) Three monuments in churchyard about 13m south of south west angle of Church
of St Nicholas;
(xix) Five Crook monuments in churchyard south of south west angle of Church of St
Nicholas;
(xx) Crook monument in churchyard about 4m west south west of south west angle of
Church of St Nicholas;
(xxi) Unidentified monument in churchyard about 3m south of chancel of Church of St
Nicholas; and
(xxii) Two monuments in churchyard about 2m south east of chancel of Church of St
Nicholas.
10.4.75 It might be argued that the site lies within the extended settings of the designated
monuments in the churchyard of the Church of St Nicholas and the development would
be distantly visible to the south west from either the monuments or their immediate
settings. However, beyond the immediate churchyard, the wider settings of these
monuments make no real contribution to their significance.
10.4.76 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the settings
of these designated assets is considered to be nil.
10.4.77 For a designated heritage assets of medium to low significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 49 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(xxiii) Rawlings Farmhouse, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham
10.4.78 The site lies within the extended setting of Rawlings Farmhouse and the development
would be distantly visible to the south east, either from the asset itself or its immediate
setting.
10.4.79 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the designated asset is considered to be negligible adverse to nil, as defined in 10.2.8.
The magnitude of impact would be nil, if the land immediately surrounding Rawlings
Farmhouse is also developed for residential and/or mixed use purposes.
10.4.80 For a designated heritage asset of medium significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect, as defined in 10.2.9.
(xxiv) Outfarm north east of Gate Farmhouse, Stanley Lane
10.4.81 The projecting ‘toe’ of the site containing the southernmost end of the proposed
distributor road and its junction with London Road lies reasonably close to the outfarm,
occupying part of its immediate setting, which has been found to make a considerable
contribution to the asset’s significance.
10.4.82 The magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of the outfarm north
east of Gate Farmhouse is considered to be moderate adverse, as defined in 10.2.8.
10.4.83 For a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, this would equate to a minor
negative permanent significant effect, as set out in 10.2.9.
10.4.84 In line with the discussion relating to Harden’s Farm set out in 10.4.15-10.4.18, this falls a
very long way short of the threshold test for ‘substantial harm’ and accordingly constitutes
‘less than substantial’ harm in NPPF terms.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 50 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(xxv) Roadside group of buildings at Home Cottage/The Laurels, Tytherton Lucas
10.4.85 The site lies within the extended setting of the roadside group of buildings at Home
Cottage/The Laurels and the development would be distantly visible to the south west
from the asset itself and from its immediate setting.
10.4.86 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the non-designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.87 For a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(xxvi) Stokes Croft Cottages, Tytherton Lucas
10.4.88 The site lies within the extended setting of the group of buildings known as Stokes Croft
Buildings and the development would be distantly visible to the south west from the asset
itself and from its immediate setting.
10.4.89 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the non-designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.90 For a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(xxvii) Stokes Farm, Tytherton Lucas
10.4.91 The site lies within the extended setting of the group of buildings known as Stokes Farm
and the development would be distantly visible to the south from the asset itself and from
its immediate setting.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 51 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.4.92 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the non-designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.93 For a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
(xxviii) Lucas House and the roadside group of buildings at Broom Corner, Tytherton
Lucas
10.4.94 The site lies within the extended setting of the roadside group of buildings at Broom
Corner and the development would be distantly visible to the south west from parts of its
setting, although not from the asset itself, due to screening in between.
10.4.95 The likely cumulative magnitude of impact of the development proposal on the setting of
the non-designated asset is considered to be nil.
10.4.96 For a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, this would equate to no
permanent significant effect.
10.5 Mitigation Measures
10.5.1 Mitigation measures for construction phases have been dealt with in the relevant sections
in the foregoing assessment. Measures for the completed development have been
considered as inherent to the scheme and included within each impact assessment.
10.6 Comparative heritage assessment of application against DPD allocation
10.6.1 This subsection of the chapter compares the assessed effects of the proposals contained
within the application with the observations and guidelines on heritage impacts provided
within the DPD allocation, as represented in Wiltshire Council’s Chippenham Site
MO.4579 Page 10 - 52 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Allocations Plan: Pre-Submission Draft Plan (P-SDP) and the supporting Site Selection
Report (SSR) - both dated February 2015).
10.6.2 In its Introduction, the Pre-Submission Draft Plan (P-SDP Section 1.2, pg 3) lists amongst
its other purposes that, in planning for the future growth of the town, it seeks to:
. ‘Protect, and where possible enhance, the natural, historic and built environment
within and surrounding the town whilst recognising development on the periphery
of the town is inevitable; and,
. Respect the individual identities of villages within the landscape setting of
Chippenham and their relationship to the town.’
10.6.3 This message is reinforced in considering ‘A Vision for Chippenham’ (P-SDP Section 3.3,
pg 15), re-adopting as part of the Site Allocations Plan the vision currently set out in the
draft Chippenham Central Area Masterplan, which includes the commitment that
‘Chippenham will recognise and build on its natural assets and its important heritage will
be cherished,’
10.6.4 The draft plan (P-SDP Sections 3.4-3.12, pgs 16-19) identifies objectives to guide the
provision of growth around the town flowing from the Council’s Core Policy 10. Objective
5 (P-SDP Sections 3.10-3.11, pg 18) ‘Minimising landscape impact and protecting the
natural, historic and built environment’ relates to heritage matters. In fact, as expressed
therein, there is little direct reference to objectives for heritage within the built
environment.
10.6.5 In ranking Core Policy 10 criteria, the supporting Site Selection Report observes (SSP,
Section 2.28, pg 12) about heritage impacts and effects (part of Criterion 5 0 landscape,
heritage and biodiversity) from development that ‘The town’s expansion into the
MO.4579 Page 10 - 53 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
countryside brings about a fundamental change in the character of an affected area, from
rural to urban.’ It goes on to state that ‘…strategic sites can be identified and developed
in a way that protects existing valued or sensitive…historic features or asset’ and it
concludes that:
. ‘Masterplanning sites and development management can realise open spaces that
can ensure large areas retain a rural sense and appearance; and
. A number of villages each with their individual character…all need to retain their
separate identity, their character and setting.’
10.6.6 The Site Selection Report then sets out specifics regarding this heritage criterion for Core
Policy 10 (SSP, Section 2.29, pg 13), observing:
‘There are notable features of such a scale and importance that they do play a significant
role in the selection of preferred strategic areas; such as:
. ‘Rowden Conservation Area and Birds Marsh Wood;
. There are views of Chippenham to consider, featuring the spires of St Paul’s and
St Andrew’s Churches; and
. There is also the need to prevent intervisibility between Chippenham and outlying
settlements; such as Tytherton Lucas and Langley Burrell, in order to protect their
separate identity and sense of rural remoteness.’
10.6.7 Finally, in regard to the weighting of Core Policy 10 criteria, it concludes that ‘Compared
to other criteria 1 [employment], 3 [transport- roads] and 6 [flood risk], criterion 5
[landscape, heritage and biodiversity] has less weight.’ This would seem to be an unsound
conclusion to have reached in the light of both legislation and case law. Section 66(1) of
MO.4579 Page 10 - 54 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“the Listed Buildings
Act”) states in relation to development affecting one or more listed buildings:
‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a
listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the
Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building
or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’
Section 72 of the Listed Buildings Act imposes a similar duty in relation to development
that may affect conservation areas:
‘In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any
functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special
attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of that area.’
Moreover, it is well established that the duty under section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act
requires “considerable importance and weight” to be accorded to any finding of a failure
to preserve a listed building or its setting: see East Northamptonshire DC. v. SSCLG [2015]
1 W.L.R. 45. By extension, the same principle applies to any finding of a failure to preserve
or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area. In either situation, a finding
of harm cannot simply be treated as a ‘normal’ material consideration.
10.6.8 In assessing the key characteristics of the various strategic areas identified with potential
for development, the Site Selection Report (SSR, Section 4.9. pg 22) says of Area C, which
correlates with the site:
‘A main distinguishing feature of Area C is its separation from the built up area by the
River Avon. Development in this area would…need to avoid extending the Town to a point
MO.4579 Page 10 - 55 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
that there are unacceptable impacts upon the character and setting to the villages of
Tytherton Lucas and East Tytherton.’
10.6.9 The report continues by declaring that, in regard to heritage matters (SSR, Section 4.10,
pg 22):
‘Compared to other areas, the following characteristics represent potential negative
impacts and constraints:
. ‘[…]
. Development in this Area has the potential to reduce separation between
Tytherton Lucas and Chippenham which would reduce its remote and tranquil
character. In addition development would be visually prominent from surrounding
high ground and could make this edge of Chippenham considerably more notable
in the surrounding countryside.
. […]’
10.6.10 Conversely, the report notes (SSR, Section 4.11, pg 22):
‘Compared to other areas, the following characteristics represent potential benefits and
positive impacts:
. ‘[…]
. The area can deliver significant areas of formal and informal open space for the
wider benefit of the town.
. […]’
MO.4579 Page 10 - 56 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.6.11 In its sustainability appraisal of the strategic areas identified for potential development,
the Site Selection Report (SSR Section 5.2, pg 26) finds that for its sixth objective, namely
to ‘protect, maintain and enhance the historic environment’, Area C should be rated as
having ‘Limited adverse impact - Sustainability issues; mitigation considered achievable’.
10.6.12 In identifying Area C as the 3rd preferred area, the report concludes (SSR Section 16.6, pg
49):
‘Development of this Area therefore has a number of challenges’.
10.6.13 It expands on this conclusion in Section 16.7, pg 50:
‘Development in this Area would inevitably bring about a marked change to the setting
of the town. Landscape assessment evidence shows that whilst there are sensitive areas
east of Chippenham there are adequate amounts of land capable of providing for
development without unacceptable impacts. The town’s expansion could avoid inter-
visibility with Tytherton Lucas and in so doing preserve the setting and the character of
historic assets such as Hardens Farm and the Tytherton Lucas conservation area. However,
the landscape evidence does suggest areas that are much less sensitive and capable of
development generally to the south and east of the North Wiltshire Rivers Route compared
to areas north toward the Marden River where any development would need to be
carefully considered.’
10.6.14 In choosing a site in Area C from one of two options, the report notes (SSR Section 18.5,
pg 54) in terms of heritage that ‘Both options may involve adverse effects on the setting
of retained assets such as Harden’s Farm. This means that there would be significant
adverse effects against Sustainability Appraisal Objective 6, the historic environment.’
MO.4579 Page 10 - 57 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
10.6.15 Accordingly, the report proposes (Section 19.10, pg 55) that the chosen option should be
location C1, providing around 850 homes and with approximately 20ha of land for
employment development, a site for a two form entry primary school, local centre and
extensive riverside parkland, rather than the larger option C2, which the application adopts.
The choice of C1, not C2, in the Site Selection Report revolves around analysis of their
comparable performance against several criteria, but of these the strongest finding in its
Sections 19.1 to 19.9 is that ‘Option 1…clearly performs much better in terms of criterion
5 as regards landscape and heritage impacts’.
10.6.16 In its proposal promoting option C1, the report requires (Section 19.11, pg 56) ‘a design
and layout that preserves the setting and importance of listed buildings on the site.’
Section 20.5, pg 57, of the Site Selection Report concludes that this requirement demands,
a strategic landscape scheme that will:
. ‘Reinforce planting along the existing edges of Chippenham and adjacent to the
North Wiltshire Rivers Route to reduce the glimpses of the urban edge from the
wider countryside and especially in views from public rights of way close to
Tytherton Lucas to help reinforce its rural and remote character;
. […]
. Conserve and enhance the setting to the listed building at Harden’s Farm; and
. Conserve and enhance the setting (including mature trees) of New Leaze Farm
located on higher ground.’
10.6.17 The strategic landscape scheme set out in chapter 10.6.16 above is the sole heritage-
focused performance specification for this site that is required as part of the DPD
allocation.
MO.4579 Page 10 - 58 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
Discussion
10.6.18 Inevitably, as the Site Selection Report observes (see Chapter 10.6.5 above), the expansion
of Chippenham will bring about a fundamental change in the character of the chosen sites
from rural to urban. That is unavoidable and affects all expansion options as much as the
site. The development proposals within the application have been carefully designed to
‘realise open spaces that can ensure large areas retain a rural sense and appearance’, as
the report suggests. Extensive landscaping elements and open spaces are proposed within
the Masterplan, including a riverside park, a community orchard, a network of green
corridors, and widespread screening. This accords with the express requirement of the
Site Selection Report (see Chapter 10.6.10 above).
10.6.19 While the northern edge of the development will be distantly visible from neighbouring
outlying settlements (and more so than with a development based on option C1), the
heritage impact assessment provided in Chapter 10.4 above has found that
implementation of the development proposals contained in the application will have no
permanent significant effect on the Tytherton Lucas Conservation Area and individual
heritage assets within the village. By extension, the same will be true of the village of East
Tytherton which lies further away from the site. This fulfils the requirement of the Site
Selection Report that development within Area C should avoid ‘unacceptable impacts upon
the character and setting’ of these two settlements (see Chapter 10.6.8 above) and further
that it should protect ‘the remote and tranquil character’ of Tytherton Lucas (see Chapter
10.6.9 above). As has been emphasised in chapter 7 of this statement, which deals with
Landscape and Visual Impacts, landscape mitigation must also be taken into account.
10.6.20 The heritage impact assessment provided in Chapter 10.4 above has also found that
adverse effects on affected heritage assets from the application’s development proposals
MO.4579 Page 10 - 59 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
are restricted after mitigation to just those on the listed Harden’s Farm and the non-
designated New Leaze Farm within the site, the listed Gate Farmhouse, Hither Farm
Cottage, Middle Farmhouse, Scott’s Mill Farmhouse and the bridge over the River Marden
adjacent to the site, and the non-designated outfarm north east of Gate Farmhouse. This
accords with the sustainability appraisal of the strategic areas provided within the Site
Selection Report, which concluded that development with Area C would have ‘Limited
adverse impact - Sustainability issues; mitigation considered achievable’ (see Chapter
10.6.11 above).
10.6.21 The application preserve[s] the setting and the character of historic assets such as Hardens
Farm and the Tytherton Lucas conservation area. The setting of Harden’s Farm has been
carefully designed in the application, as already noted above, to provide open spaces and
landscaping that ensure it will to a large degree be softened and protected by greening.
10.6.22 Although the development proposals accord with Option C2, not the preferred Option C1,
the strategic landscaping scheme proposed within the application’s master plan delivers
the sole heritage-focused performance specification for option C1 within the DPD
allocation in that it:
. Reinforces planting along the existing edges of Chippenham and adjacent to the
North Wiltshire Rivers Route to reduce the glimpses of the urban edge from the
wider countryside and especially in views from public rights of way close to
Tytherton Lucas to help reinforce its rural and remote character; and
. As far as is possible within the constraint acknowledged by the Site Selection
Report that ‘The town’s expansion into the countryside [will bring] about a
fundamental change in the character of an affected area, from rural to urban’, it
introduces open spaces, the riverside park, the community orchard, a network of
MO.4579 Page 10 - 60 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
green corridors and general landscaping to conserve and enhance the setting to
the listed building at Harden’s Farm and that of the non-designated New Leaze
Farm.
10.6.23 In that light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to reflect that the master plan demonstrates
that, from a heritage perspective, the Site Selection Report is not correct in finding that
‘Option 1…clearly performs much better in terms of criterion 5 as regards landscape and
heritage impacts’ (see 10.6.15 above).
10.6.24 Accordingly, it is considered that the application meets the spirit and actual requirements
of Wiltshire Council’s DPD allocation in terms of its permanent effects upon the
significance of affected heritage assets.
10.7 Summary
10.7.1 Table 10.1 below provides a summary of significance of effects of impacts from the
proposed development in relation to heritage and the historic environment, excluding
below ground archaeology.
Table 10-1 Summary of Significance of effects of impacts from the proposed
development
Significance of effects
Heritage Asset Construction phase Operational phase
(i) Harden’s Farm Moderate temporary to nil Moderate negative
[designated] permanent
MO.4579 Page 10 - 61 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(ii) New Leaze Farm Moderate temporary to nil Minor negative permanent
[non-designated]
(iii) Chippenham Nil No permanent effect
Conservation Area –
Character Areas 11, 15 and
18 [designated]
(iv) Tytherton Lucas Nil No permanent effect
Conservation Area
[designated]
(v) Entrance walls and Nil No permanent effect
piers, Chippenham
Cemetery [designated]
(vi) Two chapels and Nil No permanent effect
gateway, Chippenham
Cemetery [designated]
(vii) Caretaker's cottage, Nil No permanent effect
Chippenham Cemetery
[designated]
(viii) Gate Farmhouse Moderate temporary to nil Moderate negative
[designated] permanent
(ix) Milestone about 25 Nil No permanent effect
metres south east of Gate
Farmhouse [designated]
(x) Hither Farm Nil Minor to moderate
Cottage (and associated negative permanent farmstead), Stanley Lane
[designated]
MO.4579 Page 10 - 62 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(xi) Middle Farmhouse, Nil Minor to negligible
Stanley Lane [designated] negative permanent
(xii) Scott’s Mill Nil Minor negative permanent
Farmhouse [designated]
(xiii) Bridge over River Nil Moderate negative
Marden [designated] permanent
(xiv) Cogswell, Tytherton Nil No permanent effect
Lucas [designated]
(xv) Stable at Cogswell Nil No permanent effect
[designated]
(xvi) Manor Farmhouse, Nil No permanent effect
Tytherton Lucas
[designated]
(xvii) Church of St Nil No permanent effect
Nicholas, Tytherton Lucas
[designated]
(xviii) Three monuments Nil No permanent effect
in churchyard about 13m
south of south west angle
of Church of St Nicholas
[designated]
(xix) Five Crook Nil No permanent effect
monuments in churchyard
south of south west angle
of Church of St Nicholas
[designated]
MO.4579 Page 10 - 63 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(xx) Crook monument in Nil No permanent effect
churchyard about 4m west
south west of south west
angle of Church of St
Nicholas [designated]
(xxi) Unidentified Nil No permanent effect
monument in churchyard
about 3m south of chancel
of Church of St Nicholas
[designated]
(xxii) Two monuments in Nil No permanent effect
churchyard about 2m south
east of chancel of Church
of St Nicholas [designated]
(xxiii) Rawlings Nil No permanent effect
Farmhouse, Cocklebury
Lane, Chippenham
[designated]
(xxiv) Outfarm north east of Moderate temporary to nil Minor negative permanent
Gate Farmhouse [non-
designated]
(xxv) Roadside group of Nil No permanent effect
buildings at Home
Cottage/The Laurels,
Tytherton Lucas [non-
designated]
(xxvi) Stokes Croft Nil No permanent effect
Cottages, Tytherton Lucas
[non-designated]
MO.4579 Page 10 - 64 - December 2015
Land East of Chippenham / Chippenham Riverside Environmental Statement Cultural Heritage
(xxvii) Stokes Farm, Nil No permanent effect
Tytherton Lucas [non-
designated]
(xxviii) Lucas House and Nil No permanent effect
the roadside group of
buildings at Broom Corner,
Tytherton Lucas [non-
designated]
MO.4579 Page 10 - 65 - December 2015