12.4 Pegasus (Heritage)

Pegasus Group

LAND SOUTH OF ROTHLEY

HERITAGE DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT

PREPARED BY PEGASUS GROUP ON BEHALF OF ROTHLEY TEMPLE ESTATES LIMITED

P17-1201 | MARCH 2020 March 2020 | RG | P17-1201

Document Management

Version Date Author Checked/approved by: Reason for revision Rebecca Gilbey Gail Stoten 3 13.03.2020 Finalisation of masterplan Senior Heritage Consultant Senior Director (Heritage)

Pegasus Group

©Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited. March 2020 | RG | P17-1201

HERITAGE DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT

LAND SOUTH OF ROTHLEY

ON BEHALF OF: ROTHLEY TEMPLE ESTATES LIMITED

Prepared by: Rebecca Gilbey, Senior Heritage Consultant

Pegasus Group

©Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited.

CONTENTS:

INTRODUCTION 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY 3 METHODOLOGY 6 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 13 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 22 SETTING ASSESSMENT 35 CONCLUSIONS 56

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE DATA APPENDIX 2: DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIX 3: FIGURES

FIGURES:

FIGURE 1: DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS FIGURE 2: LEICESTERSHIRE HER EVENT DATA FIGURE 3: LEICESTERSHIRE HER MONUMENT DATA

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

PLATES:

PLATE 1: SITE LOCATION PLAN 1 PLATE 2: VIEW SOUTH FROM THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY ACROSS THE SITE 3 PLATE 3: VIEW EAST WITHIN THE SITE ACROSS THE AREA OF SCRUBLAND/GRASSLAND IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN EXTENT OF THE SITE 3 PLATE 4: VIEW SOUTH FROM ROTHLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL (NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE) ACROSS THE SITE WHICH INCLUDES THE SCHOOL GROUNDS 4 PLATE 5: EXTRACT FROM THE PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ROTHLEY AND THE EXTRA-PAROCHIAL LIBERTY OF ROTHLEY TEMPLE OF 1780 27 PLATE 6: EXTRACT FROM THE PLAN OF AN ESTATE IN THE PARISH OF ROTHLEY IN THE EXTRA-PAROCHIAL PLACE OF ROTHLEY TEMPLE OF 1842 28 PLATE 7: EXTRACT FROM THE FIRST EDITION ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP OF 1885 28 PLATE 8: EXTRACT FROM LARGER SCALE MAPPING SHOWING THE ROUTE FROM THE TEMPLE TO THE LODGE WEST OF LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD, WHICH PASSES ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN SITE BOUNDARY 29 PLATE 9: EXTRACT FROM THE SECOND EDITION ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP OF 1903 29 PLATE 10: EXTRACT FROM THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP OF 1929 30 PLATE 11: EXTRACT FROM THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP OF 1950 30 PLATE 12: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE FROM 1999 31 PLATE 13: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE FROM 2011 31 PLATE 14: MODERN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE 32 PLATE 15: VIEW WEST FROM TOWN GREEN SHOWING NUMBERS 80, 84, 86 AND 89 TOWN GREEN STREET 36 PLATE 16: 91 TOWN GREEN STREET AND WESTERN FAÇADE OF 89 TOWN GREEN STREET 37 PLATE 17: 81 TOWN GREEN STREET AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS 37 PLATE 18: VIEW SOUTH FROM TOWN GREEN STREET IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE, MODERN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE ALSO VISIBLE 38 PLATE 19: VIEW NORTH FROM THE SOUTHERN SITE BOUNDARY TOWARDS TOWN GREEN 38 PLATE 20: ZOOMED IN VERSION OF PLATE 18 SHOWING DEVELOPMENT AT TOWN GREEN STREET VISIBLE FROM WITHIN THE SITE 38

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

PLATE 21: THE GRADE II* LISTED CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST 40 PLATE 22: GROUND-LEVEL VIEW SOUTH FROM THE CHURCHYARD TOWARDS THE SITE (NO INTERVISIBILITY) 40 PLATE 23: VIEW NORTH FROM THE SOUTH-EASTERN EXTENT OF THE SITE TOWARDS THE CHURCH TOWER, SEEN IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SCHOOL BUILDING, OTHER BUILT FORM AND INTERVENING VEGETATION 41 PLATE 24: VIEW EAST FROM WITHIN THE NORTH-WESTERN EXTENT OF THE SITE TOWARDS THE CHURCH TOWER 41 PLATE 25: VIEW NORTH-EAST FROM THE TREE-LINED AVENUE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE TOWARDS THE CHURCH TOWER, MODERN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FOREGROUND 42 PLATE 26: VIEW EAST FROM CHURCH STREET SHOWING THE ‘FRAMED VIEW’ OF THE CHURCH 42 PLATE 27: VIEW NORTH FROM HALLFIELDS LANE ACROSS THE MEADOWS SHOWING ‘PARTICULARLY GOOD VIEWS’ OF THE CHURCH 43 PLATE 28: VIEW EAST TOWARDS THE CHURCH TOWER FROM THE PROW ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE 43 PLATE 29: VIEW EAST TOWARDS THE CHURCH TOWER FROM THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROW ALONG THE WESTERN SITE BOUNDARY 44 PLATE 30: VIEW SOUTH FROM WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA TOWN GREEN TOWARDS THE SITE 46 PLATE 31: VIEW NORTH FROM WITHIN THE SITE INTO THE CONSERVATION AREA AT TOWN GREEN 46 PLATE 32: VIEW SOUTH FROM THE ROTHLEY PLAY PARK IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE, WITH GLIMPSED VIEWS, INCLUDING MODERN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE 47 PLATE 33: ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL AND ATTACHED CHAPEL 48 PLATE 34: VIEW NORTH-WEST FROM THE SOUTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE IN THE DIRECTION OF ROTHLEY TEMPLE, NO INTERVISIBILITY 49 PLATE 35: LAND UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ROTHLEY ESTATE (TURQUOISE SHADING), INCLUDING THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND WITHIN THE SITE; THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL AND CHAPEL 49 PLATE 36: VIEW SOUTH FROM THE EASTERN EXTENT OF ROTHLEY RIDGEWAY CONSERVATION AREA TOWARDS THE SITE (UPPER ELEMENTS VISIBLE IN ASSOCIATION WITH INTERVENING BUILT FORM) 51 PLATE 37: VIEW SOUTH-EAST FROM WESTFIELD LANE TOWARDS THE LAND WITHIN THE SITE, GLIMPSED VIEWS POSSIBLE 52 PLATE 38: VIEW EAST ALONG LORD MACAULAY'S WALK, TREES FORMING THE SOUTHERN SITE BOUNDARY DEPICTED TO THE LEFT OF THE DRIVE 53 PLATE 39: VIEW WEST FROM THE LINE OF THE DRIVEWAY SHOWING A SMALL NUMBER OF TREES 54

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

Introduction

Pegasus Group have been commissioned by Rothley Temple Rothley Church of England Academy in its eastern extent. The Estates Limited to prepare a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment site includes an area extending the existing site drop off to the to consider the proposed mixed development at Land south of west. Rothley as shown on the Site Location Plan provided at Plate 1. This Heritage Desk-Based Assessment provides information with regards to the significance of the historic environment and archaeological resource to fulfil the requirement given in paragraph 189 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF1) which requires:

“an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.”2

In order to inform an assessment of the acceptability of the scheme in relation to impacts to the historic environment and archaeological resource, following paragraphs 193 to 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), any harm to the historic environment resulting from the proposed development is also described, including impacts to significance through

changes to setting. Plate 1: Site Location Plan As required by paragraph 189 of the NPPF, the detail and The site is approximately 7.02 ha in area and comprises an assessment in this Report is considered to be “proportionate to arable field, an area of grassland and part of the grounds of

1 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), National 2 MHCLG, NPPF, paragraph 189. Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (London, February 2019).

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 1

the asset’s importance”3. materially changed for the general area with the permitting and construction of the development to the north and, thirdly, that Pre-application advice has been received from Charnwood the Inspector identified a neutral impact on the character and District Council, in a letter dated 25th February 2020. This letter appearance of the Conservation Area. Hence the automatic identified less than substantial harm to St Mary’s Church and identification of harm to two assets for the current proposals on the Conservation Area. This harm was on the basis of harm the basis of the Inspector’s decision is not considered to be identified as resulting from the construction of the development sound. Any contribution of the site to the significance of these to the north in the Inspector’s Decision for that site. However, it assets is considered in full below, through appropriate site- is important to note that, firstly, each scheme should be judged specific assessment. on its own merits, secondly, that the baseline conditions have

3 MHCLG, NPPF, paragraph 189.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 2

Site Description and Planning History

The site is approximately 7.02 ha in area and comprises an arable field, an area of scrubland/grassland and part of the grounds of Rothley Church of England Academy in its eastern extent, on the eastern side of the track Farmers Way (Plates 2- 4).

Plate 3: View east within the site across the area of scrubland/grassland in the south-eastern extent of the site

Plate 2: View south from the northern boundary across the site

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 3

Planning History

No planning history for the site was identified within recent planning history records held online by Charnwood Borough Council.

Land to the north of the site was the subject of previous planning application (P/10/1886/2) for Land at Brookfield Farm for residential development with associated access, landscaping and open space. This was refused by Charnwood Borough Council for four reasons, one of which was regarding heritage assets. A subsequent appeal was allowed in March 2012.

A subsequent planning application (P/12/1741/2) was submitted to Charnwood Borough Council for Land at Brookfield Farm for the erection of 180 dwellings and erection of school with creation

Plate 4: View south from Rothley Church of England Academyl of associated sports pitches, changing facilities and access roads (northern boundary of the site) across the site which includes from Loughborough Road and Hallfields Lane. This was the school grounds approved in July 2013. The site is bounded by a mixture of agricultural land, the Rothley Proposed Development Brook, open space, residential development and Rothley Church of England Academy to the north; residential development to Development proposals comprise the construction of residential the east; a mixture of agricultural land and allotment gardens development and the provision for the expansion of Rothley to the south; and agricultural land and Rothley Park Golf Course Church of England Academy located to the north of the eastern to the west. extent of the site. This will comprise a School Hall and classrooms, staff parking and a relocated multi-use games area The boundaries of the site comprise a mixture of mature (MUGA). vegetation and hedgerows and wooden fencing. Open space is proposed in the northern extent of the site which will retain a view to the tower of the Church of St Mary the Virgin

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 4

and St John the Baptist. drop off car park in order to create an extension to this.

The site also includes an area to the west of the existing school

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 5

Methodology

The aims of this Heritage Desk-Based Assessment are to assess held at the Historic England Archives, Swindon; and the significance of the heritage resource within the site, to assess any contribution that the site makes to the heritage • Online resources including Ordnance Survey significance of the surrounding heritage assets, and to identify Open Source data; geological data available from the British Geological Survey and any harm or benefit to them which may result from the Cranfield University’s Soilscapes Viewer; implementation of the development proposals, along with the Google Earth satellite imagery; and LiDAR data from the Environment Agency. level of any harm caused, if relevant. This assessment considers the archaeological resource, built heritage and the historic For digital datasets, information was sourced for a 1km study landscape. area measured from the boundaries of the site. Following analysis of this data, the study area was reduced to 500m. Sources of information and study area Information gathered is discussed within the text where it is of The following key sources have been consulted as part of this relevance to the potential heritage resource of the site. A assessment: gazetteer of recorded sites and findspots is included as Appendix 1 and maps illustrating the resource and study area are included • The National Heritage List for England for information on designated heritage assets; as Appendix 3.

• The Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Historic cartographic sources and aerial photographs were Environment Record (HER) for information on reviewed for the site, and beyond this where professional the recorded heritage resource and previous archaeological works; judgement deemed necessary.

• The Rothley Conservation Area Appraisal as Heritage assets in the wider area were assessed as deemed prepared by Charnwood Borough Council; appropriate (see Section 6). • Archival sources, including historic maps, held Site Visit at the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Record Office; A site visit was undertaken by a Senior Heritage Consultant from

• Aerial photographs and documentary sources Pegasus Group on Thursday 21st November 2019, during which

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 6

the site and its surrounds were assessed. Selected heritage significance of a heritage asset. assets were assessed from publicly accessible areas. In order to do this, GPA 2 also advocates considering the four The visibility on this day was clear. Surrounding vegetation was types of heritage value an asset may hold, as identified in not fully in leaf at the time of the site visit and thus a clear English Heritage’s Conservation Principles.6 These essentially indication as to potential intervisibility between the site and the cover the heritage ‘interests’ given in the glossary of the surrounding areas could be established. NPPF7and the online Planning Practice Guidance on the Historic Environment8 (hereafter ‘PPG’) which are archaeological, Assessment of significance architectural and artistic and historic. In the NPPF, heritage significance is defined as: The PPG provides further information on the interests it “The value of a heritage asset to this and future identifies: generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic • Archaeological interest: “As defined in the or historic. Significance derives not only from a Glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework, heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its there will be archaeological interest in a heritage setting. For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value asset if it holds, or potentially holds, evidence of past described within each site’s Statement of human activity worthy of expert investigation at Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its some point.” significance.”4 • Architectural and artistic interest: “These are Historic England’s Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in interests in the design and general aesthetics of a the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Good Practice place. They can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way the heritage asset has Advice in Planning: 25 (hereafter GPA 2) gives advice on the evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an assessment of significance as part of the application process. It interest in the art or science of the design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of advises understanding the nature, extent, and level of buildings and structures of all types. Artistic interest

4 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 71. heritage values are identified as being ‘aesthetic’, ‘communal’, ‘historical’ and ‘evidential’, see idem pp. 28–32. 5 Historic England, Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2 (2nd 7 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 71. edition, Swindon, July 2015). 8 Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Planning 6 English Heritage, Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Practice Guidance: Historic Environment (PPG) (revised edition, 23rd July 2019), Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (London, April 2008). These https://www.gov.uk/guidance/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic- environment.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 7

is an interest in other human creative skills, like Setting and significance sculpture.” As defined in the NPPF: • Historic interest: “An interest in past lives and events (including pre-historic). Heritage assets can “Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets physical presence, but also from its setting.”11 with historic interest not only provide a material record of our nation’s history, but can also provide Setting is defined as: meaning for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is wider values such as faith and cultural identity.”9 experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of Significance results from a combination of any, some or all of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may the interests described above. affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”12 The most-recently issued guidance on assessing heritage significance, Historic England’s Statements of Heritage Therefore, setting can contribute to, affect an appreciation of Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets, Historic significance, or be neutral with regards to heritage values. England Advice Note 12,10 advises using the terminology of the Assessing change through alteration to setting NPPF and PPG, and thus it is that terminology which is used in this Report. How setting might contribute to these values has been assessed within this Report with reference to The Setting of Heritage Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas are generally Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning designated for their special architectural and historic interest. Note 313 (henceforth referred to as ‘GPA 3’), particularly the Scheduling is predominantly, although not exclusively, checklist given on page 11. This advocates the clear articulation associated with archaeological interest. of “what matters and why”.14

In GPA 3, a stepped approach is recommended, of which Step 1

9 MHCLG, PPG, paragraph 006, reference ID: 18a-006-20190723. 12 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 71. 10 Historic England, Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance 13 Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good in Heritage Assets, Historic England Advice Note 12 (Swindon, October 2019). Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (2nd edition, Swindon, December 2017). 11 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 71. 14 Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (2nd edition, Swindon, December 2017), p. 8.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 8

is to identify which heritage assets and their settings are of some kind between the two – a visual relationship which is more than remote or ephemeral, and which affected. Step 2 is to assess whether, how and to what degree in some way bears on one’s experience of the listed settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage building in its surrounding landscape or townscape” (paragraph 56)”. asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated. The guidance includes a (non-exhaustive) checklist of elements of the physical Paragraph 26 – “This does not mean, however, that surroundings of an asset that might be considered when factors other than the visual and physical must be ignored when a decision-maker is considering the undertaking the assessment including, among other things: extent of a listed building’s setting. Generally, of topography, other heritage assets, green space, functional course, the decision-maker will be concentrating on visual and physical considerations, as in Williams relationships and degree of change over time. It also lists (see also, for example, the first instance judgment in aspects associated with the experience of the asset which might R. (on the application of Miller) v North Yorkshire County Council [2009] EWHC 2172 (Admin), at be considered, including: views, intentional intervisibility, paragraph 89). But it is clear from the relevant tranquillity, sense of enclosure, accessibility, rarity and land use. national policy and guidance to which I have referred, in particular the guidance in paragraph 18a-013- 20140306 of the PPG, that the Government Step 3 is to assess the effect of the proposed development on recognizes the potential relevance of other the significance of the asset(s). Step 4 is to explore ways to considerations – economic, social and historical. These other considerations may include, for example, maximise enhancement and minimise harm. Step 5 is to make “the historic relationship between places”. Historic and document the decision and monitor outcomes. England’s advice in GPA3 was broadly to the same effect.” A Court of Appeal judgement has confirmed that whilst issues of visibility are important when assessing setting, visibility does Levels of significance

not necessarily confer a contribution to significance and also that Descriptions of significance will naturally anticipate the ways in factors other than visibility should also be considered, with which impacts will be considered. Hence descriptions of the Lindblom LJ stating at paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgement significance of Conservation Areas will make reference to their (referring to an earlier Court of Appeal judgement)15: special interest and character and appearance, and the

Paragraph 25 – “But – again in the particular context significance of Listed Buildings will be discussed with reference of visual effects – I said that if “a proposed to the building, its setting and any features of special development is to affect the setting of a listed building there must be a distinct visual relationship

15 Catesby Estates Ltd. V. Steer [2018] EWCA Civ 1697, para. 25 and 26.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 9

architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Assessment of harm

In accordance with the levels of significance articulated in the Assessment of any harm will be articulated in terms of the policy NPPF and the PPG, three levels of significance are identified: and law that the proposed development will be assessed against, such as whether a proposed development preserves or enhances • Designated heritage assets of the highest significance, as identified in paragraph 194 of the the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, and NPPF, comprising Grade I and II* Listed buildings, articulating the scale of any harm in order to inform a balanced Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, World judgement/weighing exercise as required by the NPPF. Heritage Sites and Registered Battlefields (and also including some Conservation Areas) and non- In order to relate to key policy, the following levels of harm may designated heritage assets of archaeological interest potentially be identified for designated heritage assets: which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to Scheduled Monuments, as identified in footnote 63 of • Substantial harm or total loss. It has been the NPPF; clarified in a High Court Judgement of 2013 that this would be harm that would ”have such a serious • Designated heritage assets of less than the impact on the significance of the asset that its highest significance, as identified in paragraph 194 significance was either vitiated altogether or very of the NPPF, comprising Grade II Listed buildings and much reduced”;17 and Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens (and also some Conservation Areas); and • Less than substantial harm. Harm of a lesser level than that defined above. • Non-designated heritage assets. Non-designated heritage assets are defined within the PPG as With regards to these two categories, the PPG states: “buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of significance meriting “Within each category of harm (which category consideration in planning decisions, but which do not applies should be explicitly identified), the extent of meet the criteria for designated heritage assets”.16 the harm may vary and should be clearly articulated.”18 Additionally, it is of course possible that sites, buildings or areas Hence, for example, harm that is less than substantial would be have no heritage significance. further described with reference to where it lies on that

16 MHCLG, PPG, paragraph 039, reference ID: 18a-039-20190723. 18 MHCLG, PPG, paragraph 018, reference ID: 18a-018-20190723. 17 Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin), para. 25.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 10

spectrum or scale of harm, for example low end, middle of the As part of this, setting may be a key consideration. For an spectrum and upper end of the less than substantial harm scale. evaluation of any harm to significance through changes to setting, this assessment follows the methodology given in GPA With regards to non-designated heritage assets, there is no 3, described above. Again, fundamental to the methodology set basis in policy for describing harm to them as substantial or less out in this document is stating “what matters and why”. Of than substantial, rather the NPPF requires that the scale of any particular relevance is the checklist given on page 13 of GPA 3. harm or loss is articulated. As such, harm to such assets is articulated as a level of harm to their overall significance, with It should be noted that this key document also states that: levels such as negligible, minor, moderate and major harm “Setting is not itself a heritage asset, nor a heritage identified. designation…”21

It is also possible that development proposals will cause no Hence any impacts are described in terms of how they affect the harm or preserve the significance of heritage assets. A High significance of a heritage asset, and heritage values that Court Judgement of 2014 is relevant to this. This concluded that contribute to this significance, through changes to setting. with regard to preserving the setting of a Listed building or With regards to changes in setting, GPA 3 states that: preserving the character and appearance of a Conservation Area, ‘preserving’ means doing ‘no harm’.19 “Conserving or enhancing heritage assets by taking their settings into account need not prevent 22 Preservation does not mean no change; it specifically means no change”.

harm. GPA 2 states that “Change to heritage assets is inevitable Additionally, it is also important to note that, as clarified in the 20 but it is only harmful when significance is damaged”. Thus, Court of Appeal, whilst the statutory duty requires that special change is accepted in Historic England’s guidance as part of the regard should be paid to the desirability of not harming the evolution of the landscape and environment. It is whether such setting of a Listed Building, that cannot mean that any harm, change is neutral, harmful or beneficial to the significance of an however minor, would necessarily require Planning Permission asset that matters. to be refused.23

19 R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895 21 Historic England, GPA 3, p. 4. (Admin). 22 Historic England, GPA 3., p. 8. 20 Historic England, GPA 2, p. 9. 23 Palmer v Herefordshire Council & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1061.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 11

Benefits

Proposed development may also result in benefits to heritage assets, and these are articulated in terms of how they enhance

the heritage values and hence the significance of the assets concerned.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 12

Planning Policy Framework

This section of the Report sets out the legislation and planning In the 2014 Court of Appeal judgement in relation to the policy considerations and guidance contained within both Barnwell Manor case, Sullivan LJ held that: national and local planning guidance which specifically relate to “Parliament in enacting section 66(1) did intend that the site, with a focus on those policies relating to the protection the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings should not simply be given careful of the historic environment. consideration by the decision-maker for the purpose of deciding whether there would be some harm, but Legislation should be given “considerable importance and weight” when the decision-maker carries out the Legislation relating to the built historic environment is primarily balancing exercise.”26 set out within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation A judgement in the Court of Appeal (‘Mordue’) has clarified that, Areas) Act 1990,24 which provides statutory protection for Listed with regards to the setting of Listed Buildings, where the Buildings and Conservation Areas. principles of the NPPF are applied (in particular paragraph 134 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation of the 2012 draft of the NPPF, the requirements of which are Areas) Act 1990 states that: now given in paragraph 196 of the revised NPPF, see below), “In considering whether to grant planning permission this is in keeping with the requirements of the 1990 Act.27 [or permission in principle] for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local In addition to the statutory obligations set out within the planning authority or, as the case may be, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Area) Act 1990, Secretary of State, shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act any features of special architectural or historic 2004 requires that all planning applications, including those for interest which it possesses.”25 Listed Building Consent, are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate

24 UK Public General Acts, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 26 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v (1) East Northamptonshire DC & Others 1990. [2014] EWCA Civ 137. para. 24. 25 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 66(1). 27 Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 13

otherwise.28 other policies of the NPPF. Its purpose is to send a strong signal to all those involved in the planning process about the need to National Planning Policy Guidance plan positively for appropriate new development; so that both The National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) plan-making and development management are proactive and

National policy and guidance is set out in the Government’s driven by a search for opportunities to deliver sustainable National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in development, rather than barriers. Conserving historic assets in February 2019. This replaced and updated the previous NPPF a manner appropriate to their significance forms part of this 2018 which in turn had amended and superseded the 2012 drive towards sustainable development. version. The NPPF needs to be read as a whole and is intended The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the to promote the concept of delivering sustainable development. achievement of sustainable development and the NPPF sets out

The NPPF sets out the Government’s economic, environmental three ‘objectives’ to facilitate sustainable development: an and social planning policies for England. Taken together, these economic objective, a social objective, and an environmental policies articulate the Government’s vision of sustainable objective. The presumption is key to delivering these objectives, development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to by creating a positive pro-development framework which is meet local aspirations. The NPPF continues to recognise that the underpinned by the wider economic, environmental and social planning system is plan-led and that therefore Local Plans, provisions of the NPPF. The presumption is set out in full at incorporating Neighbourhood Plans, where relevant, are the paragraph 11 of the NPPF and reads as follows:

starting point for the determination of any planning application, “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in including those which relate to the historic environment. favour of sustainable development.

The overarching policy change applicable to the proposed For plan-making this means that: development is the presumption in favour of sustainable a. plans should positively seek opportunities to development. This presumption in favour of sustainable meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid development (the ‘presumption’) sets out the tone of the change; Government’s overall stance and operates with and through the

28 UK Public General Acts, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 38(6).

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 14

b. strategic policies should, as a minimum, ii. any adverse impacts of doing so provide for objectively assessed needs for would significantly and demonstrably housing and other uses, as well as any needs outweigh the benefits, when that cannot be met within neighbouring assessed against the policies in this areas, unless: Framework taken as a whole.”29

i. the application of policies in this However, it is important to note that footnote 6 of the NPPF Framework that protect areas or applies in relation to the final bullet of paragraph 11. This assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for provides a context for paragraph 11 and reads as follows: restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the “The policies referred to are those in this Framework plan area; or (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph ii. any adverse impacts of doing so 176) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific would significantly and demonstrably Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green outweigh the benefits, when Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a assessed against the policies in this National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or Framework taken as a whole. defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage For decision-taking this means: assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 63); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal 30 a. approving development proposals that change.” (our emphasis) accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or The NPPF continues to recognise that the planning system is plan-led and that therefore, Local Plans, incorporating b. where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most Neighbourhood Plans, where relevant, are the starting point for important for determining the application are the determination of any planning application. out-of-date, granting permission unless: Heritage Assets are defined in the NPPF as: i. the application policies in this Framework that protect areas or “A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape assets of particular importance identified as having a degree of significance meriting provides a clear reason for refusing consideration in planning decisions, because of its the development proposed; or heritage interest. It includes designated heritage

29 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 11. 30 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 11, fn. 6.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 15

assets and assets identified by the local planning between the heritage asset’s conservation and any authority (including local listing).”31 aspect of the proposal.”34

The NPPF goes on to define a Designated Heritage Asset as a: Paragraph 192 goes on to state that:

“World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed “In determining planning applications, local planning Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and authorities should take account of: Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under relevant legislation.”32 (our a. the desirability of sustaining and enhancing emphasis) the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with As set out above, significance is also defined as: their conservation;

“The value of a heritage asset to this and future b. the positive contribution that conservation of generations because of its heritage interest. The heritage assets can make to sustainable interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic communities including their economic or historic. Significance derives not only from a vitality; and heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value c. the desirability of new development making described within each site’s Statement of a positive contribution to local character and Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its distinctiveness.”35 significance.”33 With regard to the impact of proposals on the significance of a Section 16 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the heritage asset, paragraphs 193 and 194 are relevant and read historic environment’ and states at paragraph 190 that: as follows: “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that “When considering the impact of a proposed may be affected by a proposal (including by development on the significance of a designated development affecting the setting of a heritage heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset) taking account of the available evidence and asset’s conservation (and the more important the any necessary expertise. They should take this into asset, the greater the weight should be). This is account when considering the impact of a proposal irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict

31 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 67. 34 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 190. 32 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 66. 35 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 192. 33 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 71.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 16

to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated harm to its significance.”36 that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a harm or loss, or all of the following apply: designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), a. the nature of the heritage asset prevents all should require clear and convincing justification. reasonable uses of the site; and Substantial harm to or loss of: b. no viable use of the heritage asset itself can a. grade II listed buildings, or grade II be found in the medium term through registered parks or gardens, should be appropriate marketing that will enable its exceptional; conservation; and

b. assets of the highest significance, notably c. conservation by grant-funding or some form scheduled monuments, protected wreck of not for profit, charitable or public sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* ownership is demonstrably not possible; and listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, d. the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit should be wholly exceptional.”37 of bringing the site back into use.”38

Section b) of paragraph 194, which describes assets of the Paragraph 196 goes on to state: highest significance, also includes footnote 63 of the NPPF, “Where a development proposal will lead to less than which states that non-designated heritage assets of substantial harm to the significance of a designated archaeological interest which are demonstrably of equivalent heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where significance to Scheduled Monuments should be considered appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”39 subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. With regards to non-designated heritage assets, paragraph 197 In the context of the above, it should be noted that paragraph of NPPF states that: 195 reads as follows: “The effect of an application on the significance of a “Where a proposed development will lead to non-designated heritage asset should be taken into substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a account in determining the application. In weighing designated heritage asset, local planning authorities applications that directly or indirectly affect non- designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement

36 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 193. 38 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 195. 37 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 194. 39 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 196.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 17

will be required having regard to the scale of any (PPG) which comprised a full and consolidated review of harm or loss and the significance of the heritage planning practice guidance documents to be read alongside the asset.”40 NPPF. Footnote 62 of the NPPF clarifies that non-designated assets of The PPG has a discrete section on the subject of the Historic archaeological interest which are demonstrably of equivalent Environment, which confirms that the consideration of significance to a Scheduled Monument will be subject to the ‘significance’ in decision taking is important and states: policies for designated heritage assets. “Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical Overall, the NPPF confirms that the primary objective of change or by change in their setting. Being able to development management is to foster the delivery of properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent it. Local contribution of its setting, is very important to Planning Authorities should approach development understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals.”41 management decisions positively, looking for solutions rather than problems so that applications can be approved wherever it In terms of assessment of substantial harm, the PPG confirms is practical to do so. Additionally, securing the optimum viable that whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a use of sites and achieving public benefits are also key material judgement for the individual decision taker having regard to the considerations for application proposals. individual circumstances and the policy set out within the NPPF. It goes on to state: National Planning Practice Guidance “In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so The then Department for Communities and Local Government it may not arise in many cases. For example, in (now the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important Government (MHCLG)) launched the planning practice guidance consideration would be whether the adverse impact web-based resource in March 2014, accompanied by a seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of ministerial statement which confirmed that a number of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale previous planning practice guidance documents were cancelled. of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from This also introduced the national Planning Practice Guidance development within its setting.

40 MHCLG, NPPF, para. 197. 41 MHCLG, PPG, paragraph 007, reference ID: 18a-007-20190723.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 18

While the impact of total destruction is obvious, • working with our partners to prepare partial destruction is likely to have a considerable Conservation Area Character Statements, impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may Landscape Character Assessments and still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not Village Design Statements; harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which • supporting developments which have been harm their significance. Similarly, works that are informed by and reflect Conservation Area moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less Character Appraisals, Landscape Character than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, Appraisals and Village Design Statements; even minor works have the potential to cause 42 substantial harm.” (our emphasis) • supporting developments which incorporate Charnwood’s distinctive local building Local Planning Policy materials and architectural details;

Planning applications within Rothley are currently considered • supporting the viable and sustainable use of against the policy and guidance set out within the Charnwood heritage assets at risk of neglect or loss, providing such development is consistent Local Plan 2011 to 2028 Core Strategy (adopted November with the significance of the heritage asset, 2015). This contains the following policy: especially where this supports tourism or business development; Policy CS 14 – Heritage • securing improvements to the following ‘at We will conserve and enhance our historic assets for risk’ heritage assets through our major their own value and the community, environmental developments: and economic contribution they make. We will do this by: a) - the Temple of Venus, Garendon Park, Ashby Road, Loughborough • requiring development proposals to protect heritage assets and their setting; b) the Triumphal Arch, Garendon Park, Ashby Road, Loughborough • supporting development which prioritises the refurbishment and re-use of disused or under c) Roman villa north of Hamilton Grounds Farm, used buildings of historic or architectural Barkby Thorpe merit or incorporates them sensitively into regeneration schemes; d) Garendon Park, Ashby Road, Loughborough

42 MHCLG, PPG, paragraph 018, reference ID: 18a-018-20190723.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 19

e) Shepshed Conservation Area Since the above policy does not allow for a balanced judgement to be undertaken by the decision maker, the policy is not f) Taylor’s Bell Foundry, Freehold Street, Loughborough considered to reflect the guidance within the NPPF and therefore considered to be out of date. Thus, the weight which can be Local Plan Policies with regards to the NPPF and the 1990 Act attached to it in the decision-making process is limited. With regard to Local Plan policies, paragraph 213 of NPPF states Emerging Policy that: Charnwood Borough Council is currently working on the draft “…existing policies should not be considered out-of- date simply because they were adopted or made Charnwood Local Plan 2019-2036. A consultation draft was prior to the publication of this Framework. Due available at the time of writing this assessment. This contained weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the close the following draft policy with regards to the historic the policies in the plan to the policies in the environment: Framework, the greater the weight that may be 43 given).” Draft Policy LP 24 – Heritage

In this context, where local plan policy was adopted well before We will conserve and enhance our heritage assets the NPPF, and does not allow for the weighing of harm against and the wider historic environment for their own value and the contribution they make to the public benefit for designated heritage assets (as set out within community, environment and economy. We will do paragraph 196 of the NPPF) or a balanced judgement with this by: regards to harm to non-designated heritage assets (see NPPF • requiring development proposals to protect paragraph 197) then local planning policies would be considered and enhance heritage assets, including non- designated heritage assets, and their to be overly restrictive compared to the NPPF, thus limiting the significance and setting; weight they may be given in the decision-making process. • supporting developments which incorporate In this case, although Policy CS 14 is of relevance, it was Charnwood’s distinctive local building materials and architectural details to make a adopted prior to the inception of the NPPF, and as so the weight positive contribution to the character and which can be attributed to it will be determined by its appearance of the area; consistency with the policy guidance set out within the NPPF.

43 MHCLG, NPPF, p. 213.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 20

• supporting developments which have been • no viable use can be found through informed by our Conservation Area Character marketing that will enable its conservation; Appraisals, Landscape Character Appraisals and Village Design Statements; • conservation by grant funding or public/charitable ownership is demonstrably • supporting the sympathetic reuse of not possible; and buildings of archaeological or historic importance, which make a positive • the proposed development demonstrates contribution to the historic environment, and that the substantial harm or total loss is which reinforce local distinctiveness and necessary to achieve substantial benefits sense of place; and that outweigh the harm or loss.

• encouraging the conservation, protection Where the proposed development would lead to less and enhancement of heritage assets at risk than substantial harm to the significance of the through neglect, decay or other threats. designated heritage asset or its setting, this harm will be weighed against the public benefits of the Where development would lead to substantial harm proposal including, where appropriate, securing its to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated optimum public use. heritage asset or its setting, planning permission will not be granted unless: Where there is a clear and convincing justification for the loss or partial loss of a heritage asset we will seek • the nature of the asset prevents all public benefits by requiring developers to investigate reasonable uses of the site; and record the features affected and provide publicly accessible interpretation which is appropriate to the scale and level of interest of the heritage asset.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 21

The Historic Environment

This section provides a review of the recorded heritage resource • Archaeological excavation to the west of Loughborough Road c. 55m east of the site in 2015- within the site and its vicinity in order to identify any extant 16 (HER ref. ELE 10579); heritage assets within the site and to assess the potential for • below-ground archaeological remains. An archaeological and aerial photograph assessment and geophysical survey at Bentley’s Nurseries c. 160- 460m south of the site (HER ref. ELE 7033, 7036, Designated heritage assets are referenced using their seven- 332); digit NHLE number, HER ‘event’ numbers have the prefix ELE • and HER ‘monument’ numbers have the prefix MLE. A desk-based assessment, geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation at the Broadnook Garden Suburb c. 160-430m south of the site in 2013-14 and A gazetteer of relevant heritage data is included as Appendix 1. 2017 (HER ref. ELE 10644, 10646, 10643); Designated heritage assets and HER records are illustrated on Figures 1-3 in Appendix 3. • Test pit evaluation during a community dig c. 255m north of the site in 2016 (HER ref. ELE 10571) and Previous Archaeological Works • Fieldwalking north of the sewage works c. 345m The site and land to the east was previously assessed as part of south-east of the site in 1983 (HER ref. ELE 8151).

an archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical Further previous archaeological works, located more than 350m survey in 2009-2010 for the previous planning application ref. from the site, comprise archaeological desk-based assessments, P/10/1886/2 (HER ref. ELE 7342). field walking, watching briefs, geophysical survey, test pitting,

Previous archaeological works in the study area are depicted on trial trench evaluation and excavation. These are described in Figure 2 and comprised the following: the ‘HER Events’ table in Appendix 1 and are depicted on Figure 2. • Trial trenching was undertaken at Brookfield Farm to the east of the site in 2013 (HER ref. ELE 9159); The results of these works are discussed below, where relevant

• Two archaeological desk-based assessments, an to the potential archaeological resource of the site. evaluation and excavation c. 20m east of the site at Temple Grange in 2007-8 and 2010 (HER ref. ELE Topography and geology and the palaeoenvironment 4981, 7324, 7603); The topography of the site varies from approximately 50m aOD

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 22

at its northern extent nearest the Rothley Brook, to were recorded to the south of the barrow. By the earlier Bronze approximately 70m aOD in the south-eastern extent. Age the barrow had been abandoned, but the ring ditch was recut at this time. The solid geology of the site is mapped as Edwalton Member comprising mudstone formed between 237 and 228.4 million An extensive amount of archaeological activity was recorded years ago during the Triassic period. The superficial geology during previous archaeological works to the east of the site at within the southern extent comprises Thrussington Member Temple Grange. An early Neolithic settlement was recorded c. Diamicton formed between 480 and 423 thousand years ago 85m east of the site which comprised a sunken-feature dwelling during the Quaternary period. A small band of Bytham Sand and in the centre with six large, shallow pits to the south and west Gravel Formation comprising sand and gravel is also mapped as (HER ref. MLE 19773, ELE 7603). Finds included a very large extending within the eastern extent of the site, formed between quantity of early Neolithic pottery and flints within the bases of 2.588 million and 11.8 thousand years ago during the the pits, potentially representing purposeful deposition. The site Quaternary period. No superficial geology is mapped in the also comprised hollows and at least four sunken post-built northern extent of the site. structures which were slightly later in date.

A potential palaeochannel of the Rothley Brook was recorded to A late Neolithic settlement was also noted c. 95m east of the the north-west of the site during the geophysical survey. site (HER ref. MLE 19772, ELE 7603). This comprised a circular Palaeochannels comprise deposits of unconsolidated sediments post-built structure indicated by 49 features including postholes or, in older examples, semi-consolidated sedimentary rocks and pits. Dating of these features suggested that they were in deposited in ancient, inactive river and stream channels. use for a short period of time. Late Neolithic pottery sherds were Palaeochannels may indicate earlier drainage patterns which are recorded. distinct from current ones. Bronze Age (c. 2500 BC – c. 700 BC) Archaeological Baseline A posthole was recorded c. 120m east of the site during previous Neolithic (c. 4000 BC – c. 2500 BC) archaeological works (HER ref. MLE 19768, ELE 7603). The posthole contained a single sherd of Bronze Age beaker pottery. A cropmark of a ring ditch was noted in 1970 c. 75m east of the Another sherd was recorded in the vicinity although it was site which was excavated in 2015 and shown to be the remains unstratified. of a Neolithic round barrow (HER ref. MLE 885, ELE 10579). Three cremation pit burials, one within an urn and two without, A pit recorded c. 210m east of the site contained the remains of

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 23

a collared urn (HER ref. MLE 19774, ELE 7603). in this area. A group of linear features were recorded c.390m south-east of the site, which are considered to potentially form Iron Age (c. 700 BC – AD 43) a field system associated with the prehistoric site to the north Three phases of Iron Age activity were recorded c. 35m east of (HER ref. MLE 9530, ELE 7035). the site during trial trench evaluation (HER ref. MLE 10301, ELE No anomalies suggestive of prehistoric features were identified 10579). The earliest Iron Age features were two ditches which within the site during the geophysical survey. contained mid-late Iron Age pottery sherds and worked flint. After the western ditch went out of use a large enclosure was Prehistoric Findspots constructed over the former Neolithic round barrow. Two pits A number of findspots of prehistoric date were recorded within were located within the enclosure, potentially comprising the study area of prehistoric date. These comprise the following: cremation pits. Within the north-west corner of the enclosure • were a number of pits containing an assortment of artefacts. Upper Palaeolithic to early Mesolithic flint blade and a Mesolithic flint blade c. 105m east of the site (HER During the Iron Age to Roman transition period, the enclosure ref. MLE 23696); was replaced by a shallower, ditched enclosure. Inhumation • Neolithic and Bronze Age flint c. 55m north of the site burials were located within the ditches and to the east. There is (HER ref. MLE 21648); no evidence to suggest that this activity extends into the site. • Neolithic to Bronze Age flints c. 480m south-east of An Iron Age field system was recorded c. 205m east of the site the site (HER ref. MLE 1102);

which comprised a number of gullies and ditches (HER ref. MLE • Bronze Age flints c. 210m east of the site (HER ref. 19769, ELE 7603). A pit was also recorded which contained four MLE 19774); and saddle querns which has been interpreted as an act of deliberate • Iron Age pottery c. 55m north of the site (HER ref. deposition. A large quantity of pottery sherds were also recorded MLE 21649). from this area. Romano-British (AD 43 - 410) A potential site of late prehistoric date was recorded during a No Romano-British finds or features are recorded within the site, watching brief c. 365m south-east of the site (HER ref. MLE and no anomalies indicative of Roman activity were identified 9528, ELE 7035). The site was characterised by clusters of pits during the geophysical survey within the site. and postholes, delimited to the north and south by linear A large double ditch of Roman date was recorded c. 95m east of features. A small scatter of prehistoric flint finds were recorded

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 24

the site (HER ref. MLE 19770, ELE 7603). The ditches contained An Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemetery site were recorded c. pottery, tile and wall plaster, indicating that a villa was 55m east of the site (HER ref. MLE 23633, ELE 10579). A potentially located nearby. The ditches appear to have enclosed cemetery of 13 inhumation graves of men, women and children, something to the north. including one high status male warrior, were located around the remains of the former Neolithic ring ditch and Iron Age A Romano-British settlement site was recorded c. 430m north enclosures. Settlement in this area was indicated by two of the site during previous archaeological works at The Grange grubenhauser, sunken feature dwellings and scattered pits (HER ref. MLE 16109, ELE 4499, 5641). A number of postholes, containing pottery sherds of Anglo-Saxon date. Some metal pits and ditches were recorded, with an extensive spread of roof artefacts were recorded as grave goods alongside the tile and mortar, presumably the result of the collapse, inhumations including a small knife, iron buckle, brooch and pin. demolition or robbing of a nearby building. The remains of a metaled surface was also recorded. It is likely that the site forms An oval shaped feature containing Anglo-Saxon pottery was part of a former villa complex. recorded with two postholes c. 325m north-east of the site (HER ref. MLE 19771, ELE 7603). The form of these features indicate Various findspots of Roman date were recorded in the study area that this may have been a grubenhaus. and comprised the following: Another Anglo-Saxon cemetery was recorded c. 410m north of • Pottery sherds c. 55m north of the site (HER ref. MLE 21649); the site at Rothley Grange (HER ref. MLE 16054, ELE 4483, 4499, 5641). The remains of up to 149 individuals were • Pottery sherds c. 120m east of the site (HER ref. MLE 23697); recorded which were still at least partially in situ, with large quantities of red-deposited or disarticulated remains. The site • Fragments of mosaic c. 380m north of the site (HER th th th ref. MLE 16767); and was used from the late 7 or early-mid 8 century to the 10 century. No burials contained grave goods; the only find was a • Coin c. 480m north of the site (HER ref. MLE 7775). worked bone point. Human remains were also recorded c. 440m Early medieval (410 AD – 1066) north of the site during a watching brief (HER ref. MLE 21364, ELE 9043). Although these remains are undated, it is presumed No early medieval finds or features are recorded within the site that they were associated with the Anglo-Saxon cemetery. and no anomalies indicative of early medieval activity were identified during the geophysical survey within the site.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 25

Medieval (1066 – 1539) probable boundary ditches (HER ref. MLE 21647, ELE 9159). Two sherds of 12th- to early 13th-century pottery sherds were The site was historically located in the parish of Rothley and recorded indicating that domestic activity was taking place most likely formed part of the agricultural hinterland to the nearby. The ditches were aligned in a broadly north-east to settlement, which was located to the north of the site (HER ref. south-west direction, but were located over 280m north-east of MLE 910). Below-ground remains of furrows were recorded the site on their projected alignment. The posthole feature was during the geophysical survey within the site and relating to the identified in the south-western extent of Trench 3, which lies ridge and furrow agricultural technique. At the time of the site immediately north of the site. Although not recorded by the visit, no extant earthworks were visible. The below-ground geophysical survey, similar features may be present within the remains of these furrows are not considered to be of heritage site. interest. Medieval activity comprising pits, postholes and gullies was There is documentary evidence referring to a medieval deer park recorded at Rothley Grange c. 440m north of the site which post- at Rothley Park in 1322 c. 420m north-west of the site, which is dated the Anglo-Saxon cemetery (HER ref. MLE 17208, ELE likely to have surrounded the preceptory of the Knights Templar 5641). Although the last burials were interred during the 10th over 500m west of the site (HER ref. MLE 906, 898). The century, this area appears to have been left undisturbed until preceptory of the Knights Templar was constructed in 1231 and the 12th century. Pits were created during the 13th and 14th passed to the Hospitallers in 1333. Following the dissolution, the centuries and contained medieval pottery sherds and metal building was turned into the manor house of the Babingtons. objects. The chapel is part of the preceptory and was also incorporated into the later house (HER ref. MLE 13287). This is currently a A cellar of potential 15th- or 16th-century date was recorded c. hotel (HER ref. MLE 13286). 390m north of the site (HER ref. MLE 8459). This was not considered to correlate with the 19th-century brick building The Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist lies c. above it. 380m north of the site where the eastern extent of the settlement at Rothley was focused, which was constructed from The findspot of a spindle whorl of medieval date was recorded the 13th century onwards (HER ref. MLE 13258, 895). c. 325m west of the site (HER ref. MLE 6672), and the findspot of a brooch of medieval date was recorded c. 380m east of the Medieval activity was recorded during the trial trench evaluation site (HER ref. MLE 22281). to the north of the site comprising a pit, posthole and two

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 26

A number of buildings within the study area originated during Post-medieval (1540 – 1800) and Modern (1801 – present) the medieval period at Rothley and comprised the following: The site is depicted on the Plan of the township of Rothley and • 89 Town Green, a cruck house, c. 120m west of the the Extra-parochial Liberty of Rothley Temple in 1780 (Plate 5). site (HER ref. MLE 13280); The site comprised part of four land parcels which were under • 91 Town Green, a cruck house, c. 120m west of the various ownerships comprising T. Babington Esquire, I. Paget site (HER ref. MLE 13281); and J. Newbold. Rothley Temple, located to the west of the site

• Keepers Cottage, a cruck house, c. 140m west of the was also under the ownership of T. Babington Esquire. site (HER ref. MLE 13282);

• Nos. 1-11 North Street, cruck houses, c. 370m north of the site (HER ref. MLE 887);

• April Cottage, a cruck house, c. 395m north of the site (HER ref. MLE 13257); and

• 13 Fowke Street, a box-frame cruck house, c. 445m north of the site (HER ref. MLE 13265).

Plate 5: Extract from the Plan of the township of Rothley and the Extra-parochial Liberty of Rothley Temple of 1780

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 27

The site is depicted on the Plan of an Estate in the parish of The site is depicted on the First Edition Ordnance Survey Map of Rothley in the Extra-Parochial Place of Rothley Temple of 1842 1885 (Plate 7). The internal boundaries of the site are depicted (Plate 6). The site comprised part of three land parcels. A as tree-lined. The site contains some scattered trees, giving it a trackway is depicted to the south of the southern site boundary parkland-type character, associated with Rothley Temple to the which connected Rothley Temple to the west with Loughborough west. Trees are also shown along the trackway which formed Road and an adjacent lodge to the east. This track was identified the southern boundary of the site in the south-western extent. by the geophysical survey and is referred to as ‘Lord Macaulay’s Walk’ or ‘Thomas Babington’s Carriageway’ as it is documented that his carriage used this route to reach the road during the 19th century. The land within the site was under the ownership of Thomas Babington Esquire, Lucy Paget and John Lea. Brookfield Farm and woodland/orchard planting are depicted to the north of the site.

Plate 7: Extract from the First Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1885

Plate 6: Extract from the Plan of an Estate in the parish of Rothley in the Extra-Parochial Place of Rothley Temple of 1842

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 28

A larger scale map of 1884 shows the entire route from The The site is depicted on the Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map Temple to the Lodge west of Loughborough Road (Plate 8). of 1903 (Plate 9). Part of the site is depicted as shaded, which Scattered trees appear to have been established either side of is representative of parkland. A line of trees is depicted to the this route, giving aesthetic treatment to the approach to the north of the trackway, probably on the boundary of the central Temple from this direction, along the Lord Macaulay’s Walk. southern and south-eastern extents of the site, which were not depicted on previous mapping, although the previously depicted trees to immediate south-west of the site are not shown here. The previously mentioned Lodge west of Loughborough Road was no longer depicted on this map and appears to have been demolished by this time.

Plate 8: Extract from larger scale mapping showing the route from The Temple to the Lodge west of Loughborough Road, which passes adjacent to the southern site boundary

Plate 9: Extract from the Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1903

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 29

No major changes are depicted on the Ordnance Survey Map of The site is depicted on the Ordnance Survey Map of 1950 (Plate 1929 (Plate 10). Part of the land within the site remains shaded 11). No major changes are depicted within the site. An area of as part of the parkland associated with Rothley Temple. orchard to the north of the site has decreased in size.

Plate 10: Extract from the Ordnance Survey Map of 1929 Plate 11: Extract from the Ordnance Survey Map of 1950

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 30

The site is shown on an aerial photograph from 1999 (Plate 12). The site is shown on an aerial photograph from 2011 (Plate 13). A field boundary in the western extent of the site had been No major changes are depicted within the site. Brookfield Farm removed. Lord Macaulay’s Walk to the south of the site appears to the north has expanded in size once again. Allotments are to have fallen into disuse as a vehicular route, with trees south shown to the east beyond the PRoW. Residential development is of the eastern extent of the site having been removed, although under construction to the north-east of the site. more appear to have been planted adjacent to and forming the south-western site boundary. Brookfield Farm to the north of the site has expanded in size.

Plate 13: Aerial photograph of the site from 2011

Plate 12: Aerial photograph of the site from 1999

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 31

The site is shown on the modern aerial photograph (Plate 14). either the 18th or 19th century. Brookfield Farm has been demolished and residential Lord Macaulay’s Walk development and the school have been constructed to the north, which formed the current layout of the site and its surrounds. With regards to Lord Macaulay’s Walk, there is no longer vehicular access on this route from Loughborough Road to The Temple. Part of the former route is still followed by a path, although parts of the path have been diverted, specifically to the east of the site where the school has been constructed. A path lies on the historic alignment immediately to the south of the site, but this is not a public right of way. As part of the original consent for residential development to the north of the site, a public footpath is to be provided along Lord Macaulay’s Walk.

The trees to the north of part of the path following the Walk form the southern site boundary. With regards to the areas of former parkland flanking the former route, few trees remain, and the area no longer reads as former parkland. No other extant parkland features are located within the site itself.

The surviving elements of the route which formerly connected Plate 14: Modern aerial photograph of the site Rothley Temple with Loughborough Road, the trackway to the

Anomalies most likely representing modern features were south of the site are considered to be a non-designated heritage recorded during the geophysical survey of the extension to the asset, but the former parkland that flanked the route within the school drop-off car park. These below-ground remains are not site is no longer legible and not considered to be an asset (within considered to be heritage assets. the site).

The land within the site is characterised through Historic Lord Macaulay’s Walk is assessed in further detail in the Setting Landscape Characterisation (HLC) as ‘Fields and Enclosed Land’, Assessment below. specifically ‘Planned Enclosure’ which is likely to have dated from

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 32

The wider area within the site of Romano-British date within the site is considered to be low. The London to Manchester turnpike road, which includes the Loughborough to Leicester branch lies c. 215m east of the site There is some evidence for early medieval activity in the study (HER ref. MLE 20648). This was the second turnpike area, although none recorded within the site during the construction in Leicestershire, now the modern A6. geophysical survey. An Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemetery site were recorded c. 55m east of the site in an area which had A large number of buildings and structures were constructed been the focus of prehistoric activity. Anglo-Saxon settlement during the post-medieval to modern periods in the study area, activity was also recorded c. 325m north-east and c. 410m north predominantly focused to the north and north-west of the site of the site. On this basis, and due to Anglo-Saxon features at Rothley. These are described in the table in Appendix 1 and sometimes not showing clearly on geophysical surveys, the are depicted on Figure 3. potential for significant archaeological remains within the site of Statement of Archaeological Potential and Significance early medieval date is considered to be low to moderate. There is a very large amount of evidence for prehistoric activity The site was historically located in the agricultural hinterland of recorded in the study area, although none was indicated within the settlement at Rothley. The geophysical survey recorded the the site by anomalies during the geophysical survey which below-ground remains of ridge and furrow earthworks. These covered the entire site and land to the east. Activity was are not considered to be heritage assets. Trial trenching recorded in close proximity to the east of the site and comprised immediately north of the site identified a pit, posthole and two Neolithic settlements, a barrow and cremation pits; a Bronze probable boundary ditches containing 12th to early 13th-century Age pit and flints; and Iron Age enclosures, burials, a field pottery sherds. The posthole was recorded immediately to the system and a pit. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that north of the site. On this basis, the potential for significant this activity extends west into the site. On this basis, the archaeological remains of medieval date within the site is potential for significant archaeological remains of prehistoric considered to be moderate. date within the site is considered to be low to moderate. The land within the site has historically been used for There is a large amount of evidence for Romano-British activity agricultural purposes and as parkland associated with Rothley recorded within the study area, although no evidence was Temple. A former tree-lined drive known as Lord Macaulay’s recorded within the as anomalies during the geophysical survey. Walk which connected Rothley Temple to Loughborough Road On this basis, the potential for significant archaeological remains

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 33

lay to south of the southern boundary of the site, first depicted expansion was focused to the north of the site. On this basis, on mid-19th century mapping and identified during the the potential for significant archaeological remains of post- geophysical survey. The surviving elements of the route which medieval to modern date within the site is considered to be low. formerly connected Rothley Temple with Loughborough Road, Designated Heritage Assets the trackway to the south of the site are considered to be a non- designated heritage asset, but the former parkland that flanked No designated heritage assets lie within the site.

the route within the site is no longer legible and not considered Rothley Conservation Area lies c. 35m north of the site to be an asset (within the site). boundary. The Conservation Area contains one Scheduled Monument and 24 Listed Buildings; one of which is Grade II* As part of the development proposals, the trees along the Walk are to be retained, and new planting is proposed in a similar Listed and the remainder are Grade II Listed Buildings.

alignment. The previous consent for residential development to Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area lies c. 185m north-west of the north of the site included a new pedestrian route along Lord the site. The Conservation Area contains one Scheduled Macaulay’s Walk, creating a publicly accessible route outside of Monument and six Listed Buildings, one of which is Grade I the site boundary. The changes to the setting of this non- Listed, and the remainder are Grade II Listed Buildings. designated heritage asset are considered further below. Designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the site are Modern features identified in the extension to the school drop considered in further detail in the Setting Assessment Section off car park during the geophysical survey are not considered to below. be a heritage asset. Post-medieval and modern settlement

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 34

Setting Assessment

Step 1 of the methodology recommended by the Historic • The Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist c. 395m north of the site (NHLE England guidance GPA 3 see Methodology above) is to identify ref. 1230285). which heritage assets might be affected by a proposed development. The Grade I Listed Rothley Court Hotel and the Chapel lies c. 595m west of the site (NHLE ref. 1278606). This asset has also Development proposals may adversely impact heritage assets been assessed due to the historical, functional association where they remove a feature that contributes to the significance between the land within the site and the asset. of a heritage asset or where they interfere with an element of a heritage asset’s setting that contributes to its significance, such Lord Macaulay’s Walk, a historic driveway located to the south as interrupting a key relationship or a designed view. of the site is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. This will be assessed further below. Consideration was made as to whether any of the heritage assets present within or beyond the study area include the site Other assets within the wider area, excluded on the basis of as part of their setting, and therefore may potentially be affected distance, and/or a lack of intervisibility, a lack of historical by the proposed development. functional association, and the nature of the development which will comprise an extension of existing built at Rothley are listed Step 1 in the table in Appendix 1. Assets in the vicinity identified for further assessment on the Designated heritage assets within the Rothley Conservation basis of distance and intervisibility comprise: Area will be assessed first, followed by an assessment of the • Rothley Conservation Area c. 35m north of the site; Conservation Area as a whole. Designated heritage assets within the Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area will be assessed first, • Group of five Grade II Listed Buildings at Town Green Street, the nearest being c. 170m north of the site followed by an assessment of the Conservation Area as a whole. (NHLE ref. 1230418-21, 1278604); Finally, the non-designated Lord Macaulay’s Walk will be

• Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area which lies c. assessed below. 185m north-west of the site; and

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 35

Step 2 tile roof (Plates 15-16).

Group of five Listed Buildings at Town Green Street 91 Town Green Street comprises a two-storey cottage which was constructed during the 16th century with c. 1800 alterations out A group of five Grade II Listed Buildings are located at Town of a cruck frame, painted brick with a rubble stone plinth and a Green Street which surround the Green. These comprise 80 Welsh slate roof with stacks (Plate 16). Town Green Street c. 170m north of the site (NHLE ref. 1230420); 84 and 86 Town Green Street c. 190m north of the 81 Town Green Street and its attached outbuildings were site (NHLE ref. 1230421); Number 81 and attached outbuildings constructed during the 17th century out of a timber frame with c. 195m north of the site (NHLE ref. 1230418); 89 Town Green whitewashed brick, a granite rubble stone plinth and a 20th- Street c. 210m north of the site (NHLE ref. 1278604); and 91 century Roman tile roof (Plate 17). Town Green Street c. 215m north of the site (NHLE ref. 1230419). As Grade II Listed Buildings, these are considered to be designated heritage assets of less than the highest significance.

80 Town Green Street comprises a two-storey cottage which was constructed during the late 16th to early 17th century out of timber framing with whitewashed brick noggin, granite rubble stone plinth and a Welsh slate roof with a brick central ridge stack (Plate 15).

84 and 86 Town Green Street comprises a range of two two- 84 and 86 th 80 Town Green 89 Town storey cottages which were constructed during the early 19 Town Green Street Green Street century out of whitewashed render with brick dentilled eaves, a Street Swithland slate roof with a rendered central ridge and end stacks (Plate 15). Plate 15: View west from Town Green showing numbers 80, 84, 89 Town Green Street comprises a two-storey house 86 and 89 Town Green Street constructed in the 16th and 18th centuries with a cruck frame, painted brick with a rubble stone plinth and 20th-century Roman

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 36

Plate 16: 91 Town Green Street and western façade of 89 Town Plate 17: 81 Town Green Street and attached outbuildings Green Street These assets are all located within their associated garden plots and have been purposefully positioned around the green at Town Green Street, within the Rothley Conservation Area.

The historic setting of 81 Town Green Street has been altered in recent times due to the development of the land to the north from outbuildings to residential development.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 37

There are ground-level views from the publicly accessible Town located. Green Street and the green in views south towards the site, due to the topography of the site which rises on a slope from the Rothley Brook (Plate 18).

Plate 19: View north from the southern site boundary towards Town Green

Plate 18: View south from Town Green Street in the direction of the site, modern residential development to the north of the site also visible

These views are reciprocal in views north from within the site towards Town Green, part of the Rothley Conservation Area (Plates 19-20). These views from within the site are not

considered to be key views towards these Grade II Listed Plate 20: Zoomed in version of Plate 18 showing development Buildings. They are best appreciated from their associated at Town Green Street visible from within the site garden plots and from Town Green where they were specifically

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 38

The five Grade II Listed Buildings located around Town Green proposed in line with the existing modern development to the principally derive their significance from the architectural, east in the eastern extent and is more recessed in the western artistic and historical value of their historic fabric as houses and extent of the site. The views towards the Listed Buildings from cottages which were constructed from the 16th century onwards. within the site are not considered to be key views. A new PRoW of way is proposed along the northern site boundary, which will As well as this, these assets also derive a small amount of allow new views of the Listed Buildings to be seen, from an area significance through setting. The main element of the setting of which was not previously publicly accessible. these dwellings comprise their associated garden plots, their position around the green at Town Green and views from Town The land within the site forms part of the backdrop to Town Green Street from where they are best appreciated. Green in views south and is therefore visible from the Listed Buildings at Town Green, particularly those that front onto the The land within the site forms part of the backdrop to Town green including nos. 81, 89 and 91 Town Green Street, and co- Green in views south and is therefore visible from the Listed visible with the others in views from the green. Therefore, the Buildings at Town Green, including those that front onto the land within the site, may be considered to make a small green comprising nos. 81, 89 and 91 Town Green Street, and contribution to the heritage significance of the Listed Buildings co-visible with the others in views from the green. On this basis at Town Green. On this basis, the proposed development will the land within the site, may be considered to make a small result in less than substantial harm, at the lower end of the contribution to the heritage significance of the Listed Buildings spectrum to the heritage significance of numbers 80, 81 and at Town Green. outbuildings, 84, 86, 89 and 90 Town Green Street, with regards The proposed development will result in the construction of to setting. modern built form to the south of the Listed Buildings, and the Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist character of the land will be altered from agricultural, grassland/scrubland and school development, to residential The Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John development, open space and school development. Open space the Baptist lies c. 395m north of the site, and c. 185m north of is proposed in the northern extent of the site, in closest the extension to the school drop off part of the site (NHLE ref. proximity to the assets, with open space and planting also 1230285). As a Grade II* Listed Building, this is a designated proposed in the southern extent of the site, where the heritage asset of the highest significance. topography of the site rises. The development within the site is The church was originally constructed between the 13th and 15th

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 39

centuries out of granite rubble stone with stone dressings and a The church is located within an associated churchyard which part battlemented, part Swithland slate roof (Plate 21). The surrounds the asset and includes the Grade II Listed Hunt church was restored and the chancel rebuilt in 1878. Headstone at Churchyard of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist. The current surrounds of the asset are predominantly residential with associated gardens. The church was the focus for the development of the eastern extent of Rothley settlement during the medieval period.

There are no ground-level views from the churchyard due to the presence of intervening built form (Plate 22).

Plate 21: The Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist

Plate 22: Ground-level view south from the churchyard towards the site (no intervisibility)

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 40

Due to the topography of the site and the wider landscape, the church tower is visible from a number of locations within the site (Plates 23-25). The church tower is seen in association with intervening built form, including the modern residential development to the north of the site, and vegetation.

Plate 24: View east from within the north-western extent of the site towards the church tower

Plate 23: View north from the south-eastern extent of the site towards the church tower, seen in association with the school building, other built form and intervening vegetation

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 41

The church is better appreciated from elsewhere in the landscape, particularly from the historic settlement where it is seen in association with other historic buildings. The Rothley Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that there is a framed view of the church from the western end of Church Street and that due to the landmark-nature of the church tower, there are ‘particularly good views’ of the asset across the meadows from Hallfields Lane (Plates 26-27).

Plate 25: View north-east from the tree-lined avenue along the southern boundary of the site towards the church tower, modern residential development in the foreground

Plate 26: View east from Church Street showing the ‘framed view’ of the church

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 42

The church tower is also visible from the PRoWs to the west of the site (Plates 28-29). In these views, the tower is seen in association with the modern residential development to the north of the site, and existing vegetation along the western boundary which is be to retained as part of the proposals. This area in the north-western extent of the site is to be kept as open space.

Plate 27: View north from Hallfields Lane across the meadows showing ‘particularly good views’ of the church

Plate 28: View east towards the church tower from the PRoW along the western boundary of the site

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 43

they church can be appreciated also contribute to the significance of the church as part of its historic rural setting. Views from within the site towards the church are not considered to be key views, and there is a large amount of intervening built form between the two, including the modern residential development to the north of the site which has set a precedent for development in this area. The land within the site is not considered to contribute to the heritage significance of the church.

As mentioned above, heritage assets were a reason for refusal of the development site to the north and were mentioned during the subsequent appeal. With regards to the development of the land to the north, the Inspector stated that when viewed from the site, the church, which is a key landmark building, would Plate 29: View east towards the church tower from the ‘remain prominent within the landscape, and its dominance and continuation of the PRoW along the western site boundary setting on the eastern side of the village would be unaffected by There is no known historical functional association between the the development’. land within the site and the church. The proposed development within the site will result in the The Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist construction of modern built form to the south of the church, principally derives its significance from the architectural, and the character of this land will be altered from agricultural, archaeological, artistic and historic interest of its historic built scrubland/grassland and school development to residential form and as an example of a church which originated during the development, open space and school development. Views 13th century. As well as this, the church also derives a small towards the church from within the site are not considered to be amount of its significance from its setting. The setting of the key views. The retention of open space in the northern extent of church primarily comprises its associated churchyard and the the site will allow views from the existing PRoWs in the vicinity settlement at Rothley which it serves, which contribute to the to be retained, and the proposed new PRoW along the northern significance of the asset. The meadows to the south-west where site boundary will introduce new views to the church tower from

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 44

land which was not previously publicly accessible. The land Borough Council and adopted in March 2008. Conservation within the site is not considered to contribute to the heritage Areas are designated for their special architectural or historic significance of the church. On this basis, the proposed interest. The Conservation Area Character Appraisal highlights a development within the site will result in no harm to the heritage number of areas as key to the special interest of the significance of the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin Conservation Area, including the value of its historical, aesthetic and St John the Baptist through changes to setting. and architectural character.

The church tower is also visible from the existing school drop off The Conservation Area includes the majority of the historic core car park, and will be visible from the proposed extension to the of the settlement and focuses on two distinct areas: Town Green west. The proposed development will result in an extension to at the western extent of the settlement; and the area focused the existing modern car park to the south of the church, on land around the Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John the Baptist which is not considered to contribute to the heritage significance in the eastern extent of the village. Rothley lies on the northern of the church. On this basis, the proposed extension to the slope of the Rothley Valley, with the area around Town Green school drop off car park will result in no harm to the heritage located on low-lying land adjacent to the Rothley Brook, which significance of the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin passes to the south and east sides of the village within a low- and St John the Baptist through changes to setting. lying flood plain.

Rothley Conservation Area The Conservation Area is bounded by a mixture of residential development, agricultural land, a recreation ground, a cricket Rothley Conservation Area lies c. 35m north of the site. The pavilion and Rothley Park. The western boundary of the Rothley Conservation Area contains one Scheduled Monument and 24 Conservation Area lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Listed Buildings; one of which is Grade II* Listed and the Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area. remainder are Grade II Listed Buildings. As a Conservation Area which contains a Scheduled Monument and a Grade II* Listed Key views and vistas of the Conservation Area are noted in the Building, this is a designated heritage asset of the highest appraisal as predominantly internal and focus on views towards significance. the settlement from the Rothley Brook and from the medieval parts of the village. No key views or vistas are identified from The Conservation Area for Rothley was first designated in the Conservation Area out to the wider landscape. December 1972 and was extended in 1997. A Conservation Area Character Appraisal for Rothley was produced by Charnwood Due to the topography of site there is intervisibility between the

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 45

land within the site and the Rothley Conservation Area, including between the site and the Town Green area, as discussed above (Plates 30-31).

Plate 31: View north from within the site into the Conservation Area at Town Green

Plate 30: View south from within the Conservation Area Town Green towards the site

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 46

Other than from the area around Town Green, there are not degree of change in recent times due to the construction of many clear views from the Conservation Area towards the site. modern built form to the north of the site. There are glimpsed views towards the site from the Rothley Play The site is located adjacent to the approach to the Conservation Park, which predominantly comprise the modern residential Area along the PRoW to the west. development to the north of the site (Plate 32). Rothley Conservation Area principally derives its significance from the architectural, archaeological and historic interest of its associated Scheduled Monument, Listed Buildings and other historic (non-designated) buildings. As well as this, the Conservation Area also derives some significance from its setting. Agricultural land immediately adjacent to the Conservation Area, including the land within the site, may be considered to make a small contribution to its significance, as part of its historic rural setting. This includes the land within the site.

The proposed development within the site would extend existing modern built form to the south of Rothley Conservation Area. Open space is proposed in the north-western extent of the site, in closest proximity to the Conservation Area, and open and

space and planting are proposed along the southern extent of Plate 32: View south from the Rothley Play Park in the direction the site where the ground level rises. Agricultural land between of the site, with glimpsed views, including modern residential development to the north of the site the land within the site and the Conservation Area will be retained as unchanged. The site is not the focus of key views There are no key views identified in the Conservation Area out of the Conservation Area, although there is intervisibility Character Appraisal from within the Conservation Area towards between the land within the site and the Conservation Area, the site. particularly the Town Green area. The development within the The approach to the Conservation Area from the south-east is site will result in a change of views to the historic rural environs along Hallfields Lane. This approach has experienced a large

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 47

of the Conservation Area. In this context, the development of the site is considered to result in less than substantial harm at the lower end of the spectrum to the heritage significance of the Rothley Conservation Area, through alteration to setting.

Rothley Court Hotel and the Chapel

The Grade I Listed Rothley Court Hotel and the Chapel, also known as Rothley Temple, lies c. 595m west of the site within the Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area (NHLE ref. 1278606). As a Grade I Listed Building, this is a designated heritage of the

highest significance. Plate 33: Rothley Court Hotel and attached chapel The former two-and-a-half -storey building and attached chapel The asset lies within associated grounds which include Rothley were constructed out of granite rubble stone and red brick, with Court Mews to the north-east. The wider surrounds comprise stone dressings and a Swithland slate roof during the 13th parkland and the cricket ground to the east. century, with 17th and 18th century additions and alterations (Plate 33). The mansion has since been converted into a hotel At the time of the site visit, there were no clear views between with the entrance porch comprising a projected gable at either the land within the site and Rothley Temple due to intervening end with stone buttresses. The mansion was a preceptory of the vegetation (Plate 34). There are also no clear views from Knights Templar, to whom the manor was given by Henry III. ground-level in the vicinity of Rothley Court Hotel. Following the dissolution, it became a private house and the seat of the Babington Family.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 48

parkland associated with Rothley Court. The northern line of trees associated with Lord Macaulay’s Walk form the southern site boundary. Some of the trees associated with the driveway have been removed, in particular along the south-eastern boundary of the site and to the south, although remnants of the route can be seen due to the retained planting particularly to the south-west of the site. The former parkland character of parts of the site is no longer legible. The majority of the site, with the exception of the school land in the eastern extent of the site, remains under the ownership of the Rothley Temple Estate (Plate 35).

Plate 34: View north-west from the south-eastern boundary of the site in the direction of Rothley Temple, no intervisibility

Lord Macaulay’s Walk formerly connected Rothley Temple with Loughborough Road and passed to the south of the southern site boundary. This drive from Rothley Temple led to a former lodge which was demolished at end of the 19th century. The surviving elements of the route are considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. This route is no longer used as an approach to

Rothley Temple and none of the driveway is currently publicly Plate 35: Land under the control of the Rothley Estate (turquoise accessible. shading), including the majority of the land within the site; this does not include the Rothley Court Hotel and Chapel As shown on historic mapping, there was a historical functional association between some of the land within the site and the The historical functional association between the land within the asset, as the majority of the site was shown as part of the site has been diminished due to the conversion of the asset to a

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 49

hotel with no functional association with its former wider the former Lord Macaulay’s Walk lying on the southern site agricultural landholding. boundary make a very minor contribution to the heritage significance of the asset. As part of the development proposals, Rothley Court Hotel principally derives its significance from the the planting along the southern site boundary is to be retained, architectural, archaeological, artistic and historic interest of its and particularly in the central southern extent, this will be historic built form as an example 13th-century building with later strengthened. Scattered planting in the open space between the additions and alterations. As well as this, the asset also derives development and the southern site boundary will restore a a small amount of its significance from its setting. The setting of parkland type character adjacent to the non-designated Lord the Rothley Court Hotel and Chapel primarily comprises its Macaulay’s Walk. The proposals also include a new pedestrian associated grounds and buildings within it. Agricultural land in route along the Lord Macaulay’s Walk, allowing public access to the immediate vicinity and the Rothley Park Cricket Ground also an element of this former drive. On this basis, the proposed contribute to the heritage significance of the asset as part of its development within the site is not considered to harm the historic rural setting. Some of the northern line of planting along heritage significance of the Grade I Listed Rothley Court Hotel Lord Macaulay’s Walk survive on the southern site boundary and Chapel, through changes to setting. which lined the former routeway between Rothley Temple and Loughborough Road. These trees along Lord Macaulay’s Walk Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area make a very minor contribution to the heritage significance of Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area lies c. 185m north-west of Rothley Court Hotel and Chapel. the site. The Conservation Area includes one Scheduled The proposed development within the site will result in the Monument and six Listed Buildings, one of which is Grade I construction of modern built form to the south-east of Rothley Listed, and the remainder are Grade II Listed Buildings. As a Court Hotel and the Chapel, and the character of this land will Conservation Are which includes a Scheduled Monument and a be altered from agricultural, scrubland/grassland and school Grade I Listed Building, this is a designated heritage asset of the development to residential development, open space and school highest significance. development. There is no clear intervisibility between the land The Conservation Area Character Appraisal for Rothley within the site and the asset. The historical functional Ridgeway was produced by Charnwood Borough Council and association between the land within the site has been severed adopted in January 2010. Conservation Areas are designated for due to the conversion of the asset to a hotel with no association their special architectural or historic interest. The Conservation with its former wider agricultural landholding. The trees flanking

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 50

Area Character Appraisal highlights a number of areas as key to the special interest of the Conservation Area, including the value of its historical, aesthetic and architectural character.

The Conservation Area comprises parkland, part of the Rothley Temple Estate and areas of Garden Suburb which were constructed to the north of the Temple Estate during the early 20th century.

The Conservation Area is bounded by predominantly agricultural land, woodland, residential development and the golf course at Rothley Park. The eastern boundary of the Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area lies adjacent to the western boundary of the Rothley Conservation Area.

The Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that ‘the Area

is well planted with trees and shrubs so that in general there are Plate 36: View south from the eastern extent of Rothley no open vistas either into or out of the area’. Therefore, the Ridgeway Conservation Area towards the site (upper elements visible in association with intervening built form) majority of the views of the Conservation Area are internal. The site is not the focus of key views out of the Rothley There is some intervisibility between the eastern extent of the Ridgeway Conservation Area. The appraisal states that ‘on Conservation Area and the land in the southern extent of the leaving Rothley village along Westfield Lane there are superb site, which is located on higher ground (Plate 36). vistas across the parkland of the cricket pitch and Rothley Court down to the valley of Rothley Brook’. The land within the site is glimpsed in the backdrop of these views as the ground level rises to the south of the Rothley Brook, particularly during the winter months (Plate 37).

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 51

the south-east, and the southern boundary of the site includes trees that flanked the approach. On this basis, the land within the site is considered to make a very minor contribution to the heritage significance of the asset.

The proposed development within the site would extend existing modern built form to the south-east of Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area. Overall, the setting of the Conservation Area will remain, as currently, a mixture of agricultural land, woodland, residential development and the golf course at Rothley Park. The site is not the focus of key views out the Conservation Area, although there is some intervisibility

between the land within the site and the eastern extent of the Plate 37: View south-east from Westfield Lane towards the land Conservation Area, and the site is glimpsed in the background within the site, glimpsed views possible of views across the cricket pitch and Rothley Court to the brook Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area principally derives its which is mentioned within the appraisal. The development will significance from the architectural, archaeological and historic give public access to part of the historic route of Lord Macaulay’s interest of its associated Scheduled Monument, Listed Buildings Walk from Rothley Temple to Loughborough Road, giving access and other historic (non-designated) buildings. As well as this, to a historic route within the landscape. In this context, the the Conservation Area also derives some significance from its development of the site is considered to result in less than setting. Agricultural land immediately adjacent to the substantial harm at the lowermost end of the spectrum to the Conservation Area, including the land within the site, may be heritage significance of the Rothley Ridgeway Conservation considered to make a small contribution to its significance, as Area, through alteration to setting. part of its historic rural setting. There are glimpsed views Lord Macaulay’s Walk towards the site from a view noted within the appraisal, which is possible during the winter months. Lord Macaulay’s Walk The route of the driveway of Lord Macaulay’s Way, also known along the southern site boundary formed an approach to Rothley as Thomas Babington’s Carriageway, lies to the south of the Temple and into the Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area from southern site boundary. The approach to Rothley Temple from a

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 52

Lodge adjacent to Loughborough Road was depicted on the Plan of an Estate in the parish of Rothley in the Extra-Parochial Place of Rothley Temple of 1842. Trees are first depicted alongside the trackway on the Ordnance Survey Map of 1884. Although throughout the history of the trackway a number of trees appear to have been planted and removed, the northern line of trees flanking the historic route currently forms the southern site boundary.

Lord Macaulay’s Walk was so named after Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay constructed the route during his retirement from his parliamentary career which enabled his home at Rothley Temple to access the then main road, Loughborough Road.

As shown on historic mapping, trees flanked the driveway as it Plate 38: View east along Lord Macaulay's Walk, trees forming passed to the south of the site and further east towards the southern site boundary depicted to the left of the drive Loughborough Road, where it was also flanked by areas of parkland. To the west of the site, the route continued to be tree- lined northwards until it reached Rothley Brook. On crossing Rothley Brook, the routeway passed through parkland in the immediate vicinity of Rothley Temple.

None of this route is currently publicly accessible and it no longer forms an approach to Rothley Court Hotel. It appears to have been severed to the east of the site by the construction of the school grounds.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 53

the wider landholding associated with Rothley Temple and was formerly parkland. No other extant parkland features are present within the site and its former parkland character is not now legible.

Lord Macaulay’s Walk principally derives its significance from the artistic, archaeological and historical value of the below-ground remains of the former carriageway and the trees which line the route of the drive. As well as this, the route also derives a very small amount of its significance from its setting; primarily the associated Grade I Listed Rothley Temple which the drive provided access to and the surviving elements of legible parkland the route was designed to pass through. As historically associated land in the vicinity of the Walk, the land within the

site is considered to make a very small contribution to the asset Plate 39: View west from the line of the driveway showing a as part of its historic rural setting. small number of trees The proposed development will result in the construction of The easternmost end of the route was marked by a lodge modern residential development to the north of a path which adjacent to Loughborough Road which was demolished during still follows the route within an area which is no longer legible the late 19th century. as having been former parkland. As part of the development To the west of the site, the former route has been altered by the proposals, the planting along the southern site boundary establishment of the golf course associated with Rothley Temple forming part of Lord Macaulay’s Walk will to be retained, and which is now a hotel. this will be strengthened particularly in the central southern extent. Scattered planting in the open space between the Due to the close proximity of the land within the site to Lord Macaulay’s Walk, there is intervisibility between the site and the development and the southern site boundary will restore a central part of the driveway. parkland type character to the north of the non-designated Lord Macaulay’s Walk. The previous consent for residential As stated above, some of the land within the site formed part of development to the north of the site included a new pedestrian

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 54

route along Lord Macaulay’s Walk, allowing public access to part site will result in no overall harm to the heritage significance of of this former carriageway, allowing it to be experienced and the non-designated Lord Macaulay’s Walk. understood. On this basis, the proposed development within the

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 55

Conclusions

Archaeological resource activity was also recorded c. 325m north-east and c. 410m north of the site. On this basis, and due to Anglo-Saxon features There is a very large amount of evidence for prehistoric activity sometimes not showing clearly on geophysical surveys, the recorded in the study area, although none was indicated within potential for significant archaeological remains within the site of the site by anomalies during the geophysical survey which early medieval date is considered to be low to moderate. covered the entire site and land to the east. Activity was recorded in close proximity to the east of the site and comprised The site was historically located in the agricultural hinterland of Neolithic settlements, a barrow and cremation pits; a Bronze the settlement at Rothley. The geophysical survey recorded the Age pit and flints; and Iron Age enclosures, burials, a field below-ground remains of ridge and furrow earthworks. These system and a pit. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that are not considered to be heritage assets. Trial trenching this activity extends west into the site. On this basis, the immediately north of the site identified a pit, posthole and two potential for significant archaeological remains of prehistoric probable boundary ditches containing 12th to early 13th-century date within the site is considered to be low to moderate. pottery sherds. The posthole was recorded immediately to the north of the site. On this basis, the potential for significant There is a large amount of evidence for Romano-British activity archaeological remains of medieval date within the site is recorded within the study area, although no evidence was considered to be moderate. recorded within the as anomalies during the geophysical survey. On this basis, the potential for significant archaeological remains The land within the site has historically been used for within the site of Romano-British date within the site is agricultural purposes and as parkland associated with Rothley considered to be low. Temple. A former tree-lined drive known as Lord Macaulay’s Walk, which connected Rothley Temple to Loughborough Road, There is some evidence for early medieval activity in the study formerly ran along the southern boundary of the site. On the area, although none recorded within the site during the southern boundary of the site, some trees survive to the north geophysical survey. An Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemetery of the drive. The previous consent for residential development site were recorded c. 55m east of the site in an area which had to the north of the site included a new pedestrian route along been the focus of prehistoric activity. Anglo-Saxon settlement the Walk to the south of the site, creating a publicly accessible

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 56

route. concluded that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm at the lower end of the spectrum to the Modern features identified in the extension to the school drop heritage significance of the five Grade II Listed Buildings at Town off car park during the geophysical survey are not considered to Green and the Rothley Conservation Area, and less than be a heritage asset. Post-medieval and modern settlement substantial harm at the lowermost end of the spectrum to the expansion was focused to the north of the site. On this basis, Rothley Ridgeway Conservation Area through changes to the potential for significant archaeological remains of post- setting. The assessment concluded that the proposed medieval to modern date within the site is considered to be low. development would result in no harm to the heritage significance Setting of the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin and St John

No designated heritage assets lie within the site. the Baptist and Grade I Listed Rothley Court Hotel and Chapel. The assessment concluded that the proposed development Following the assessment of the heritage significance of would result in no overall harm to the heritage significance of designated heritage assets in the surrounds of the site, it was the non-designated Lord Macaulay’s Walk.

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley 57

Sources

Legislation and Policy Guidance

English Heritage, Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (London, April 2008).

Historic England, Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2 (2nd edition, Swindon, July 2015).

Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (2nd edition, Swindon, December 2017).

Historic England, Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets, Historic England Advice Note 12 (Swindon, October 2019).

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (London, February 2019).

Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Planning Practice Guidance: Historic Environment (PPG) (revised edition, 23rd July 2019), https://www.gov.uk/guidance/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic-environment.

UK Public General Acts, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

UK Public General Acts, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

UK Public General Acts, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Court and Appeal Decisions

Catesby Estates Ltd. V. Steer [2018] EWCA Civ 1697.

Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin).

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin).

Palmer v Herefordshire Council & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1061.

Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v (1) East Northamptonshire DC & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 137.

Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243.

Cartographic Sources

1780 Plan of the Township of Rothley and the Extra-parochial Liberty of Rothley Temple

1842 Plan of an Estate in the parish of Rothley in the Extra-Parochial Place of Rothley Temple

1885 Ordnance Survey Map (1:2,500)

1887-8 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,560)

1903 Ordnance Survey Map (1:2,500)

1904 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,560)

1929 Ordnance Survey Map (1:2,500)

1930 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,560)

1938-52 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,560)

1955 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,560)

1956 Ordnance Survey Map (1:2,500)

1970 Ordnance Survey Map (1:2,500)

1971 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,560)

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

1985 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,000)

1996 Ordnance Survey Map (1:10,000)

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Heritage Data

Heritage Data

HER Event Data

EvUID Record Type Name Date ELE7574 EVS Project Gargoyle, St Mary's Church, Church Street, Rothley 2010-12 ELE10571 EVT 2016 community dig at Rothley, Charnwood Roots July 2016 ELE7034 EVP An archaeological desk-based assessment of the proposed Wanlip to Rothley pipeline March 1999 ELE7035 EVT Archaeological recording during groundworks for the Wanlip to Rothley Pipeline August 2002 ELE7178 EVT 2004-5 excavations, Ashby Folville to Thurcaston Natural Gas Pipeline 2004-5 ELE7175 EVS 2004 geophysical survey on half the proposed Ashby Folville to Thurcaston 450mm dia. Pipeline October 2004 (part 2) ELE6038 EVT 2004 geophysical survey on half the proposed Ashby Folville to Thurcaston 450mm dia. Pipeline September 2004 ELE7179 EVP 2004 desk-based assessment, Ashby Folville to Thurcaston Transco Pipeline September 2004 ELE4483 EVT 2005 trial trenching, land at the Grange, Rothley September 2005 ELE4499 EVT 2006 trial trenching, land at the Grange, Rothley June 2006 ELE4968 EVS A desk-based assessment of land at The Grange, Rothley October 2004 ELE4981 EVS 2007 desk-based assessment, land at Hallfields Lane, Rothley October 2007 ELE5641 EVS 2007 Excavation at the Grange, Fowke Street, Rothley 2007 ELE6802 EVT An archaeological watching brief on the Star Works site, off Mountsorrel Lane, Rothley, 1995/1996 Leicestershire (SK 583 128) 1995 - 1996 ELE7033 EVP 1993 aerial photographic assessment, Bentley Nurseries, Wanlip, Leicestershire January 1993 ELE7036 EVP 1993 archaeological assessment for proposed golf course, hotel with conference and associated April 1993 leisure facilities at Bentley's Nurseries ELE7041 EVT 2002 test pitting and trial trenching at Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works, Wanlip, Leicestershire September 2002 ELE7045 EVS 2002 geophysical survey at Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works, Wanlip, Leicestershire January 2002 ELE7324 EVS 2008 desk-based assessment, Temple Grange, Loughborough Road, Rothley March 2008 ELE7603 EVT 2010 excavation at Temple Grange, Hallfield Road, Rothley, Leicestershire Jan-May 2010 ELE7940 EVT 2009 strip, map and sample on land at 4, School Street, Rothley September 2009 ELE7972 EVT An Archaeological Watching Brief at 8 Church Street, Rothley September 2011 ELE7046 EVS 2001 fieldwalking survey at Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works, Wanlip, Leicestershire October 2001

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

ELE332 EVS 1993 geophysical survey: Bentley's Nurseries February 1993 ELE8178 EVS 1985 fieldwalking, west of Wanlip Hill Farm 1985 ELE8215 EVS 1986 fieldwalking, north of Wanlip Hill Farm January 1986 ELE8151 EVS 1983 fieldwalking, north of the sewage works June 1983 ELE9043 EVT 2012 watching brief at Tower House, 4, School Street, Rothley July 2012 ELE9159 EVT 2013 trial trenching at Brookfield Farm, Hallfields Lane, Rothley February 2013 ELE7342 EVS 2010 geophysical survey at Brookfield Farm, Hallfields Lane, Rothley March-April 2010 ELE9170 EVP 2013 desk-based assessment for land to the west of Town Green Street, Rothley December 2013 ELE9952 EVP 2015 desk-based assessment at The Royal Anglian Public House, 49, North Street, Rothley November 2015 ELE10539 EVP 2017 desk-based assessment for the former Conservative Club, Fowke Street, Rothley, July 2017 Leicestershire ELE10579 EVT 2015 excavation, west of Loughborough Road, Rothley, Leicestershire 2015 ELE10643 EVT 2017 trial trenching, 'Broadnook', north of Birstall October 2017 ELE10644 EVP 2014 desk-based assessment, Broadnook Garden Suburb, north of Birstall, Leicestershire September 2014 ELE10645 EVS 2013 fieldwalking, land near Wanlip, Leicestershire November 2013 ELE10646 EVS 2013/14 geophysical survey, Broadnook Garden Suburb, north of Birstall, Leicestershire 2013-14

HER Monument Data

MonUID Record Type Name MonTypes MLE13259 BLD HUNT HEADSTONE AT CHURCHYARD OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN GRAVESTONE AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, CHURCH STREET (EAST SIDE), ROTHLEY MLE7775 FS Roman coin from 25 Fowke Street FINDSPOT MLE16767 FS Roman mosaic at The Old Vicarage, School Street MOSAIC? MLE895 BLD MERCIAN CROSS, ST MARY AND ST JOHN'S CHURCHYARD CROSS MLE906 MON Medieval deer park, Rothley Park DEER PARK MLE6672 FS Medieval spindle whorl from the Rothley Temple Estate FINDSPOT MLE19767 MON Bronze Age pit, Armitage Drive PIT MLE19768 MON Bronze Age pit, Temple Grange, south of Hallfields Lane POST HOLE MLE19774 FS Bronze Age flints, Temple Grange, from south of Hallfields Lane FINDSPOT MLE21364 FS Human remains, 4, School Street FINDSPOT MLE21648 FS Neolithic/Bronze Age flint, Burrow Drive FINDSPOT

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

MLE21649 FS Iron Age/Roman pottery, Burrow Drive FINDSPOT MLE22281 FS Medieval brooch from the Rothley to Wanlip pipeline FINDSPOT MLE23696 FS Early prehistoric flint, Black Hovel Spinney FINDSPOT MLE23697 FS Roman pottery, Black Hovel Spinney FINDSPOT MLE13289 BLD TURRET, GATE PIERS, AND GATES AT ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL, WALL; GATE PIER WESTFIELD LANE (SOUTH SIDE) MLE20648 MON Turnpike Road, 'London to Manchester Road' (Loughborough to TOLL ROAD Leicester) MLE9528 MON Late prehistoric site, Wanlip-Rothley pipeline (site 1) PIT; DITCH; POST HOLE MLE13268 BLD BRIDGE C.100M SOUTH OF END OF TOWN GREEN STREET, BRIDGE ROTHLEY PARK MLE15286 BLD ROTHLEY METHODIST CHURCH, HOWE LANE WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL MLE15327 BLD 16 Anthony Street HOUSE MLE15369 BLD 27 Fowke Street HOUSE MLE13258 BLD CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, MINSTER?; CHURCH CHURCH STREET (EAST END), ROTHLEY MLE16054 MON Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Rothley Grange INHUMATION CEMETERY MLE17208 MON Medieval activity at Rothley Grange WELL; GULLY; PIT MLE13315 BLD DRAYCOTT HOUSE, 17, ANTHONY STREET (WEST SIDE), ROTHLEY HOUSE MLE13314 BLD ROSE COTTAGE, 9, ANTHONY STREET (WEST SIDE), ROTHLEY TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE MLE13313 BLD IVY HOUSE, 30, ANTHONY STREET (EAST SIDE), ROTHLEY HOUSE MLE13290 BLD MOTOREX, 10, WOODGATE (SOUTH SIDE), ROTHLEY HOSIERS COTTAGE MLE13288 BLD LODGE AT ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL, WESTFIELD LANE (SOUTH GATE LODGE SIDE) MLE13285 BLD 86 TOWN GREEN STREET (SOUTH) HOUSE MLE13284 BLD 84 TOWN GREEN STREET (SOUTH) HOUSE MLE13283 BLD 80 TOWN GREEN STREET (SOUTH) TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE MLE13282 BLD KEEPERS COTTAGE, 103, TOWN GREEN STREET (NORTH), CRUCK HOUSE ROTHLEY MLE13281 BLD 91 TOWN GREEN STREET (NORTH) CRUCK HOUSE MLE13280 BLD 89 TOWN GREEN STREET (NORTH) CRUCK HOUSE MLE13277 BLD ROOD HOUSE, 3, TOWN GREEN STREET (NORTH), ROTHLEY HOUSE MLE13276 BLD 1 TOWN GREEN STREET (NORTH SIDE) HOUSE MLE13255 BLD 2 CHURCH STREET (NORTH SIDE) TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE MLE13256 BLD 4 CHURCH STREET (NORTH SIDE) HOUSE

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

MLE13261 BLD WAR MEMORIAL, CROSS GREEN, ROTHLEY WAR MEMORIAL MLE13263 BLD CHAUME COTTAGE, 6, FOWKE STREET (NORTH SIDE), ROTHLEY TIMBER FRAMED HOUSE MLE13264 BLD STEP COTTAGE, 8, FOWKE STREET (NORTH SIDE), ROTHLEY HOUSE MLE13266 BLD BARN AT WOODCOCK FARM, LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD (EAST), BARN ROTHLEY MLE13267 BLD OLD FARM HOUSE, 36, NORTH STREET (EAST SIDE), ROTHLEY FARMHOUSE MLE13269 BLD TOWER HOUSE, 4, SCHOOL STREET (NORTH SIDE), ROTHLEY HOUSE MLE885 MON Neolithic barrow and cremation pits, Black Hovel Spinney ROUND BARROW; CREMATION BURIAL; PIT MLE10301 MON Iron Age enclosures and burials, Black Hovel Spinney DITCH; ENCLOSURE; CREMATION BURIAL; PIT; INHUMATION; ENCLOSURE; GULLY MLE910 MON Historic settlement core of Rothley VILLAGE; WATERMILL; WINDMILL MLE17282 BLD Rothley General Baptist Chapel, Woodgate GENERAL BAPTIST CHAPEL MLE13265 BLD 13 FOWKE STREET (SOUTH SIDE) BOX FRAME HOUSE; CRUCK HOUSE MLE887 MON Site of medieval/post-medieval houses, 1-11, North Street CRUCK HOUSE; HOUSE MLE13257 BLD APRIL COTTAGE, 10, CHURCH STREET (NORTH SIDE), ROTHLEY CRUCK HOUSE MLE898 BLD Templar preceptory at Rothley Temple PRECEPTORY MLE13287 BLD ROTHLEY COURT CHAPEL, WESTFIELD LANE (SOUTH SIDE) CHAPEL MLE13286 BLD ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL, WESTFIELD LANE (SOUTH SIDE) COUNTRY HOUSE MLE13278 BLD 81 TOWN GREEN STREET (NORTH) CRUCK BARN?; BOX FRAME HOUSE; OUTBUILDING MLE8459 MON Possible medieval cellar, 16, Cross Green Street CELLAR MLE9607 BLD Rothley Grange, Fowke Street COUNTRY HOUSE MLE9530 MON Later prehistoric ditches, Wanlip-Rothley pipeline (site 2) FIELD SYSTEM? MLE19769 MON Iron Age field system and pit, Temple Grange, west of Loughborough FIELD SYSTEM; PIT Road MLE19770 MON Roman remains, Temple Grange, south of Hallfields Lane BOUNDARY DITCH MLE19771 MON Anglo-Saxon building, Armitage Drive GRUBENHAUS? MLE19772 MON Late Neolithic settlement, Temple Grange, south of Hallfields Lane ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)?; STRUCTURE; PIT MLE19773 MON Early Neolithic settlement, Temple Grange, south of Hallfields Lane SETTLEMENT; STRUCTURE; PIT MLE1102 MON Neolthic/Bronze Age flint from north-west of the Sewage Works FLINT SCATTER MLE16109 MON Roman settlement site at The Grange, Rothley VILLA?; BUILDING; PIT; FEATURE; WALL?

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

MLE21241 BLD War Memorial Cottages, 6-12, North Street TERRACE; WAR MEMORIAL MLE21647 MON Medieval activity, Burrow Drive POST HOLE; BOUNDARY DITCH; PIT MLE22348 BLD Primitive Methodist Chapel, 6a, Mountsorrel Lane PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHAPEL; HOUSE MLE22349 MON Star Works, Mountsorrel Lane (The Roods) FACTORY MLE22706 MON Site of a cruck-house, 34, Main Street CRUCK HOUSE MLE22707 MON Site of a cruck-house, 49, Main Street CRUCK HOUSE MLE22708 BLD 7, Cross Green Street CRUCK HOUSE MLE22709 MON Site of cruck-framed house(s), Wellsic Lane CRUCK HOUSE MLE22735 BLD Crown Inn/Royal Anglian, 49, North Street, Rothley PUBLIC HOUSE MLE23505 MON Site of former Conservative Club, 23, Fowke Street, Rothley POLITICAL CLUB MLE23633 MON Anglo-Saxon cemetery and settlement, Black Hovel Spinney INHUMATION CEMETERY; GRUBENHAUS?; SETTLEMENT?; METAL WORKING SITE?

Historic England Data

Historic England Listed Buildings

List Entry Name Grade Easting Northing 1230041 ROSE COTTAGE II 458454 312692.3608 1230205 IVY HOUSE II 458504 312659.3608 1230283 2, CHURCH STREET II 458527 312635.3608 1230284 4, CHURCH STREET II 458538 312646.3608 1230285 CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST II* 458595 312654.3608 1230286 COSSINGTON LOCK AND GATES ON RIVER SOAR II 459482 312888.3608 1230288 8, FOWKE STREET II 458512 312754.3608 1230297 ROOD HOUSE II 458389 312582.3608 1230356 6, FOWKE STREET II 458497 312752.3608 1230412 1, TOWN GREEN STREET (See details for further address information) II 458404 312569.3608 1230418 NUMBER 81 AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS II 458146 312350.3608 1230419 91, TOWN GREEN STREET II 458107 312320.3608 1230420 80, TOWN GREEN STREET II 458142 312302.3608

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

1230421 84 AND 86, TOWN GREEN STREET II 458128 312302.3608 1230470 LODGE, TURRET, GATE PIERS AND GATES AT ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL II 457741 312416.3608 1278604 89, TOWN GREEN STREET II 458125 312333.3608 1278605 KEEPER'S COTTAGE II 458037 312275.3608 1278606 ROTHLEY COURT HOTEL AND THE CHAPEL I 457679 312300.3608 1278607 MOTOREX II 458325 312716.3608 1278623 BRIDGE CIRCA 100 METRES SOUTH OF END OF TOWN GREEN STREET II 458067 312154.3608 1278645 HUNT HEADSTONE AT CHURCHYARD OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST II 458631 312653.3608 JOHN THE BAPTIST 1278647 WAR MEMORIAL AND WALLS II 458402 312762.3608 1278658 BARN AT WOODCOCK FARM II 459061 312498.3608 1278660 APRIL COTTAGE II 458556 312653.3608 1278663 13, FOWKE STREET II 458515 312736.3608 1278664 OLD FARM HOUSE II 458408 312634.3608 1278666 TOWER HOUSE II 458603 312700.3608 1278711 17, ANTHONY STREET II 458483 312654.3608

Historic England Scheduled Monuments

List Entry Name Easting Northing 1014511 Mercian cross, St Mary and St John's churchyard 458613.027 312636.8876

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley

Appendix 2: Designation Descriptions

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley  

80, TOWN GREEN STREET

Overview

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1230420

Date first listed: 12-Oct-1984

Statutory Address: 80, TOWN GREEN STREET Map

© Crown Copyright and database right 2020. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100024900. © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited 2020. All rights reserved. Licence number 102006.006. Use of this data is subject to Terms and Conditions .

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1230420.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 02-Jan-2020 at 14:19:24.

Location

Statutory Address: 80, TOWN GREEN STREET

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority. County: Leicestershire

District: Charnwood (District Authority)

Parish: Rothley

National Grid Reference: SK 58142 12302 Details

ROTHLEY SK 51 SE TOWN GREEN STREET (South Side)

6/125 No. 80

GV II

Cottage. Late C16/C17. Timber framing with whitewashed brick nogging, granite rubble stone plinth and Welsh slate roof with brick central ridge stack. Two storeys of 2 2-light casements. Door to le. 1 1/2 bays of timber framing, 6 x 2 panels, mostly complete, and three diagonal braces. Lean-to with door on right end.

Listing NGR: SK5814212302

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system. Legacy System number: 405338

Legacy System: LBS

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of oicial listing

Images of England

Images of England was a photographic record of every listed building in England, created as a snap shot of listed buildings at the turn of the millennium. These photographs of the exterior of listed buildings were taken by volunteers between 1999 and 2008. The project was supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Date: 30 Jun 2001

Reference: IOE01/06401/22

Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Michael Ratcli. Source Historic England Archive

Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.  

84 AND 86, TOWN GREEN STREET

Overview

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1230421

Date first listed: 12-Oct-1984

Statutory Address: 84 AND 86, TOWN GREEN STREET Map

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1230421.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 02-Jan-2020 at 14:19:28.

Location

Statutory Address: 84 AND 86, TOWN GREEN STREET

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority. County: Leicestershire

District: Charnwood (District Authority)

Parish: Rothley

National Grid Reference: SK 58128 12302 Details

ROTHLEY

SK 51 SE TOWN GREEN STREET (South Side)

6/126 No. 84 and 86

GV II

Range of 2 cottages. Early C19. Whitewashed render with brick dentilled eaves and Swithland slate roof with rendered central ridge and end stacks. Two storeys of 4 3-light centre-opening casements. On ground floor central alley door and entrance doors between windows. Cambered lintels to ground floor.

Listing NGR: SK5812812302

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system. Legacy System number: 405339

Legacy System: LBS

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of oicial listing

Images of England

Date: 02 Aug 2005

Reference: IOE01/12769/07

Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Peter J Ellis. Source Historic England Archive

Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.  

91, TOWN GREEN STREET

Overview

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1230419

Date first listed: 07-Sep-1970

Statutory Address: 91, TOWN GREEN STREET Map

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1230419.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 02-Jan-2020 at 14:19:32.

Location

Statutory Address: 91, TOWN GREEN STREET

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority. County: Leicestershire

District: Charnwood (District Authority)

Parish: Rothley

National Grid Reference: SK 58107 12320 Details

ROTHLEY

SK 51 SE TOWN GREEN STREET (North Side) 6/123 7.9.70 No. 91

GV II

Cottage. C16 and c1800. Cruck framed, painted brick with painted granite rubble stone plinth and Welsh slate roof with brick right ridge and front le stacks. 2 storeys of 2 2-light horizontal sliding sash windows. On ground floor, towards le, a 3-light centre-opening casement either side a plank door. To right a 9-pane fixed light and 2-light casement. Except last, cambered lintels to ground floor. On le end a first floor 2-light horizontal sliding sash and a partly visible pair of cruck blades.

Listing NGR: SK5810712320

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system. Legacy System number: 405336

Legacy System: LBS

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of oicial listing

Images of England

Date: 30 Jun 2001

Reference: IOE01/06401/20

Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Michael Ratcli. Source Historic England Archive

Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.  

89, TOWN GREEN STREET

Overview

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1278604

Date first listed: 01-Jun-1966

Statutory Address: 89, TOWN GREEN STREET Map

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1278604.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 02-Jan-2020 at 14:19:36.

Location

Statutory Address: 89, TOWN GREEN STREET

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority. County: Leicestershire

District: Charnwood (District Authority)

Parish: Rothley

National Grid Reference: SK 58125 12333 Details

ROTHLEY

SK 51 SE TOWN GREEN STREET (North Side) 6/122 1.6.66 No. 89 GV II

House. C16 and C18. Cruck framed, painted brick with painted granite rubble stone plinth and C20 Roman tile roof with painted brick right ridge and right end stacks. A smaller range on either end of main central range. All of two storeys, central of 3 2-light casements with top lights. On ground floor four similar casements with cambered lintels. 6-panelled door within wooden doorcase centre right. Firemark and horizontal timber over. On le end a pair of cruck blades and saddle are mostly visible. Le range of a 2-light horizontal sliding sash both floors. Right range of a 2-light casement over pair of garage doors.

Listing NGR: SK5812512333

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system. Legacy System number: 405335

Legacy System: LBS

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of oicial listing

Images of England

Date: 02 Aug 2005

Reference: IOE01/12769/06

Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Peter J Ellis. Source Historic England Archive

Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.  

NUMBER 81 AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS

Overview

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1230418

Date first listed: 12-Oct-1984

Statutory Address: NUMBER 81 AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS, 81, TOWN GREEN STREET Map

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1230418.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 02-Jan-2020 at 14:19:40.

Location

Statutory Address: NUMBER 81 AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS, 81, TOWN GREEN STREET

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority. County: Leicestershire

District: Charnwood (District Authority)

Parish: Rothley

National Grid Reference: SK 58146 12350 Details

ROTHLEY SK 51 SE TOWN GREEN STREET (North Side)

6/121 No. 81 and attached outbuildings

GV II

House and outbuildings. C17. Timber framing and whitewashed brick with granite rubble stone plinth in part and C20 Roman tile roof, hipped to right, with brick ridge and le end projecting stacks. One long range, with large carriage entrance to right. House of 2 storeys of 3 3-light and 1 2-light casements over 3 3-light and glazed door centre le. Three bays, 10 panels, of fragmentary timber framing, with diagonal braces, on front of house. Beyond carriage entrance two windows with one window over. On le end timber framing, 1 bay, 4 panels wide, and gable truss. Wing to rear.

Listing NGR: SK5814612350

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system. Legacy System number: 405334

Legacy System: LBS

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of oicial listing

Images of England

Date: 30 Jun 2001

Reference: IOE01/06401/19

Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Michael Ratcli. Source Historic England Archive

Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.  

CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST

Overview

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II*

List Entry Number: 1230285

Date first listed: 01-Jun-1966

Statutory Address: CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, CHURCH STREET Map

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1230285.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 02-Jan-2020 at 14:19:51.

Location

Statutory Address: CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN AND ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, CHURCH STREET

The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority. County: Leicestershire

District: Charnwood (District Authority)

Parish: Rothley

National Grid Reference: SK 58595 12654 Details

ROTHLEY

SK 51 SE CHURCH STREET (East End)

6/103

1.6.66 Church of St. Mary the Virgin and St. John the Baptist

GV II*

Church. C13-C15, restored and chancel rebuilt 1878. 1878 restoration by R. Reynolds Rowe of Cambridge. Granite rubble stone with stone dressings and part battlemented, part Swithland slate roof. Stone coped gables, some with cross finials. W tower, nave, aisles, chancel, N organ chamber and N porch. Perp W tower of 3 stages with clasping buttresses becoming polygonal at second stage, and angle at third stage. W doorway with traceried spandrels. 3-light W window with stained glass of 1879. Clock face, quatrefoil and 1-light windows at second stage. Four 2-light bell openings, quartrefoiled lozenge frieze and battlements. Tall nave arch with deeply hollowed mouldings on semi-circular responds. 4½ bay N arcade of C13, with unchamfered arches of one step on circular piers. Four bay S arcade with double chamfered arches on octagonal piers. Perp clerestory with 4 3- light windows on either side. Restored 6 bay low-pitch tie beam roof, the tie beams original and with carved bosses. C14 N aisle the four windows with renewed Reticulated tracery, three filled with C19 stained glass. NE window with Intersected tracery opens into C19 N organ chamber. N door and porch. Double chamfered chancel arch on polygonal responds. Chancel has polygonal boarded roof and most of the windows filled with later C19 stained glass. C14 S aisle, the windows with renewed Curvilinear tracery, and the SE with stained glass of 1897. Piscina with cusped niche. Small S door, and larger S door. Fine series of monuments. Tombe-chest with incised lid to Bartholomew Kyngston, died 1486, and wife. On front are inscribed Kingston's Will and coat of arms. Incised slab is Robert Vincent and two wives, c1530. Tomb-chest with incised lid to Humfrey Babington, died 1549, and wife. Hanging monument with many small figures to Thomas Babington, died 1567, and wife. Panel from C16 monument with two mermaids holding coat of arms of Kyngston impaling Skeington. Wall monument to Anne Babington, died 1648, in alabaster with black and red marble, showing within an oval niche the busts of both Anne and her husband Mathew Babington : attributed to Edward Marshall. C19 wall monumnent, oak choir stalls and brass lectern. Round Norman font, with pattern of concentric lozenges, on C19 short shas. Chancel screen, Perp, with 1-light divisions, ogee arches decorated with foliage. Said dated 1520 in Kelly's Leicestershire, Rutland, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, 1881, where also tower dated 1425. White's Leicestershire and Rutland, 1877, and Pevsner.

Listing NGR: SK5859512654

Legacy

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system. Legacy System number: 405199

Legacy System: LBS

Sources

Books and journals 'Kellys Directory' in Leicestershire Rutland Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, (1881) 'Whites Directory' in Leicestershire and Rutland, (1877)

Legal

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

End of oicial listing Images of England

Date: 30 Jun 2001

Reference: IOE01/06401/30

Rights: Copyright IoE Mr Michael Ratcli. Source Historic England Archive

Archive image, may not represent current condition of site.

Appendix 3: Figures

P17-1201 │ RG │ March 2020 Land south of Rothley KEY

Site

Sch eduled Monum ent

*# Grade I Listed Building

*# Grade II* Listed Building

*# Grade II Listed Building

R oth ley R idgew ay Conservation Area

1230285 R oth ley Conservation

1230418 1278604 1278606 1230419 1230420 1230421

R evisions: First Issue- 05/03/2020 R G

Figure 1: Designated Heritage Assets

Land South of R oth ley

Client:R oth ley Tem ple Estates Lim ited DR WG No: P17-1201 Sh eet No:- R EV:- Draw n by:R G Approved by:GS 0 0.5k m > Date:05/03/2020 (N Scale:1:12,500 @ A4

Copyrigh t Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Crow n copyrigh t. All righ ts reserved. 2016 Em apsite Licence num ber 0100031673. Ordnance Survey Copyrigh t Licence num ber 100042093. Prom ap Licence num ber 100020449. Pegasus accepts no liability for any use of th is docum ent oth er th an for its original purpose, or by th e original client, or follow ing Pegasus’ ex press agreem ent to such use. T 01285 641717 w w w .pegasuspg.co.uk KEY

Site

Study Area

ELE4968 HER Even t Poin t ELE6802 ELE10539 ELE4483 ELE9043 ELE4499 HER Even t Lin e ELE7940 ELE5641 ELE7574 ELE7972 HER Even t Polygon ELE9952 ELE10571

ELE7603

ELE7324 ELE4981

7 ELE9170 ELE9159 E ELE10579 L E

ELE7342 78 71 E L E ELE8151 8 603 ELE

75 71 ELE7041 E EL 9 ELE7046 17 E7 ELE7033 EL ELE7045 ELE7036 ELE10646 ELE10643 Revision s: ELE10644 First Issue- 05/03/2020 RG ELE8215

ELE8178 Figure 2: Leicestershire

ELE10645 ELE10645 HER Event Data Lan d South of Rothley

ELE332 Clien t:Rothley T em ple Estates Lim ited DRWG No: P17-1201 Sheet No:- REV:- Draw n by:RG Approved by:GS 0 0.5k m > Date:05/03/2020 (N Scale:1:12,500 @ A4

Copyright Pegasus Plan n in g Group Ltd. Crow n copyright. All rights reserved. 2016 Em apsite Licen ce n um ber 0100031673. Ordn an ce Survey Copyright Licen ce n um ber 100042093. Prom ap Licen ce n um ber 100020449. Pegasus accepts n o liability for an y use of this docum en t other than for its origin al purpose, or by the origin al clien t, or follow in g Pegasus’ express agreem en t to such use. T 01285 641717 w w w .pegasuspg.co.uk KEY

S ite

MLE22349 MLE22348 S tudy Area MLE22708 MLE9607 MLE887 MLE13261 MLE23505 MLE13264 MLE7775 MLE17282 MLE13265 MLE15369 HER Monum ent Point MLE21241 MLE8459 MLE13263 MLE16109 MLE13269 MLE13290 MLE21364 MLE16054 MLE17208 MLE13314 MLE15327 MLE13259 HER Monum ent Line MLE13315 MLE13257 MLE895 MLE910 MLE13313 MLE13256 MLE13258 MLE15286 MLE16767 MLE13276 MLE13267 MLE13255 HER Monum ent Poly gon MLE13277 MLE22735 MLE19767 MLE19771 MLE13266 89 MLE22706 MLE22707 132 LE MLE19769 M MLE22709 MLE19768 MLE13288 MLE19774 MLE13278 MLE19770 MLE19772 MLE13287 MLE13281 MLE19773 MLE21648 MLE898 MLE13284 MLE13280 MLE21647 MLE13286 MLE21649 MLE906 MLE13285 MLE13283 MLE13282 MLE23697 MLE23696 MLE22281 MMLELE23868353 MLE13268 MLE10301

MLE6672

E L MLE9528

M MLE1102 MLE9530 Revisions: First Issue- 05/03/2020 RG

Figure 3: Leicestershire HER Monument Data

Land S outh of Rothley

Client:Rothley Tem ple Estates Lim ited DRWG No: P17-1201 S heet No:- REV:- Draw n by :RG Approved by :GS 0 0.4k m > Date:05/03/2019 (N S cale:1:10,000 @ A4

Copy right Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Crow n copy right. All rights reserved. 2016 Em apsite Licence num ber 0100031673. Ordnance S urvey Copy right Licence num ber 100042093. Prom ap Licence num ber 100020449. Pegasus accepts no liability for any use of this docum ent other than for its original purpose, or by the original client, or follow ing Pegasus’ express agreem ent to such use. T 01285 641717 w w w .pegasuspg.co.uk www.pegasusgroup.co.uk

Pegasus Group Pegasus House Querns Business Centre Whitworth Road Cirencester Glos GL7 1RT

Telephone: 01285 641717

COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group.