St Hilda’s College Phase 2 Development
Heritage Impact Assessment
April 2021 PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT ST HILDA’S COLLEGE OXFORD HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT JANUARY 2021
worlledge www.worlledgeassociates.com associates HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
CONTENTS
Worlledge Associates
Introduction
Brief History of St Hilda’s
Evolution of St Hilda’s site
Heritage Assets
Heritage Significance
Statement of Significance
Setting of St Hilda’s
National and Local Heritage Policies, Guidelines and Advice
Proposal
Assessment of Impact
Assessment of Level of Harm
Conclusion
Appendix 1: NHLE entries
Appendix 2: OCC Policies
Contact Information
Raymond Osborne [email protected]
Ruth Mullett [email protected]
Patrick Horrocks [email protected]
Nicholas Worlledge [email protected]
2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
WORLLEDGE ASSOCIATES
Worlledge Associates is an Oxford-based heritage consultancy, committed to the effective management of the historic environment. Established in 2014 by Nicholas and Alison Worlledge, Nicholas came to private practice with over 35 years’ experience working in heritage management for local authorities. This intimate knowledge and understanding of council processes, and planning policy and practice, helps us to work collaboratively with owners and decision- makers to manage change to the historic environment.
Our team of dedicated researchers and specialists believe in the capacity of the historic environment to contribute to society’s collective economic, social, and cultural well-being. We aim to identify what is significant about places and spaces in order to support their effective management and sustain their heritage value. We have worked with a wide range of property-owners and developers including universities and colleges, museums and libraries, large country estates, manor house, farmsteads, cottages, town houses and new housing sites
3 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
The intelligent management of change is a key principle necessary to entered in the National Heritage List for England. To the west across sustain the historic environment for present and future generations the river lies Christ Church Meadows and to the north the Oxford to enjoy. Historic England and successive government agencies Botanic Gardens, both of which are entered in the National Heritage have published policy and advice that extend our understanding of List for England as Parks and Gardens at grade I. Accordingly, any the historic environment and develop our competency in making proposed development at St Hilda’s within the vicinity of theses grade decisions about how to manage it. I Parks and Gardens, and its potential impacts, needs to be carefully considered. Paragraphs 4-10 of Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note 2 (Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic This Heritage Impact Assessment Report has been prepared to Environment) explains that applications (for planning permission and accompany a planning application for the Phase 2 development of the listed building consent) have a greater likelihood of success and St Hilda’s College site, Oxford. This comprises two new residential better decisions will be made when applicants and local planning blocks, one over 3 floors for 30 student bedrooms with support authorities assess and understand the particular nature of the facilities located on the ground floor; the second over 4 floors with 42 significance of an asset, the extent of the asset’s fabric to which the rooms, and a replacement Principal’s Lodgings which is to include significance relates and the level of importance of that significance. hospitality spaces. To facilitate the development the existing 1954/55 Principal’s Lodgings is proposed to be demolished. Further details The National Planning Policy Framework provides a very similar are provided in the Design and Access Statement (Design Engine). message in paragraphs 189 and 190 expecting both applicant and local planning authority to take responsibility for understanding the The report includes a summary of the evolution of the St Hilda’s significance of a heritage asset and the impact of a development College site, a note of the heritage assets on the site and adjoining, proposal, seeking to avoid unacceptable conflict between the asset’s and a brief a description of the site and its setting. Based on the conservation and any aspect of the proposal. historical development of the site and the surviving buildings and setting, a Statement of Significance is provided for St Hilda’s College It has never been the intention of government to prevent change or freeze frame local communities and current policy and good practice A summary of the relevant National and Local Heritage Policies are suggests that change, if managed intelligently would not be harmful. provided before briefly describing the proposed development and then assessment its impact, or otherwise on the heritage significance St Hilda’s College, founded in 1893 lies within a garden setting on of St Hilda’s College, its setting and the adjoining Christ Church the south side of the River Cherwell, it contains a number of building Meadows and Oxford Botanic Garden.
4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
BRIEF HISTORY OF ST HILDA’S
Dorothea Beale (1831-1906) Principal of Cheltenham Ladies College, founded the College in 1893, following her purchase in November 1892 of Cowley House, Cowley Road, a private residence for £5,000 and named it St Hilda’s. When it opened in 1893 it had seven students.
1896 it was accepted as a recognised hall for women by the Association for Promoting Higher Education for Women.
1897 it became and Incorporated Company, with its own governing board.
1901 it amalgamated with St Hilda’s, Cheltenham.
1910 University formally acknowledged the existence of female students in Oxford.
1911 St Hilda’s was the first women’s only Oxbridge College to field a rowing eight.
1920 female students were finally permitted to become members of the University, and for the first time to be undergraduates eligible for an Oxford degree
1926 St Hilda’s was incorporated by Royal Charter to become St Hilda’s College Oxford.
1955 connection with Cheltenham Ladies College ceased when it became self-governing.
1959 it became a full college of the University.
Between 1994 and 2008 it was only women’s college in Oxford. In 2007 the charter changes to admit men, which began in 2008.
Between 1893 and 204 it had ten women Principals. In 2014 Sir Gordon Duff became the first male Principal. (source: St Hilda’s College A Concise History 2018 https://www.st-hildas.ox.ac.uk/ content/st-hildas-college-concise-history)
5 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVOLUTION OF ST HILDA’S SITE
From a series of maps of Oxford, it is possible to trace the evolution of the site. Please note that early maps are orientated with south to the top and so have been rotated to follow modern conventions.
1775 Humphrey Sibthorpe, Professor of Botany at Oxford acquired a small farm on the west side of the River Cherwell and builds Cowley House and laid out formal gardens.
1784 Humphrey retires and house and grounds goes to his son John Sibthorpe.
1783-4 Richard Davis map of Oxford shows the house, grounds and buildings at Cowley House.
Hollar’s Map 1643 based on Ralph Agas map no development noted on the site
Loggan’s Map of 1674 shows development on the east side of the River Cherwell on what becomes the site of St Hilda’s and the Botanic Garden to the north-west and Christ Church Meadows to the west and south-west
Isaac Taylor’s Map 1750 plots the expansion of the extra mural suburb showing a number Richard Davis map of Oxford 1793-4 showing Cowley House of new buildings, gardens and orchards, being developed southwards alongside the River Cherwell
6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1846 Tithe Award map and schedule for Parish of Cowley
• Portion 5 – Owned by the Executors of William Tuckwell occupied by Professor Sir Benjamin Brodie described as two-houses area 3 roods 18 perches.
• Portion 4 - Owned by the Executors of William Tuckwell occupied 1850 by John Hedges and Elizabeth Roberts described as three houses Robert Hoggar’s map shows the house (portion 5) and gardens in and buildings. detail.
Extract from Tithe Award Map Extract from Robert Hoggar’s map 1850
Interestingly both the 1846 and 1850 maps show a bridge from the garden of Cowley House across the river. Note also the cottages and building sitting hard up against the banks of the river.
1862 Cowley House was bought by Professor Benjamin Brodie, noted as living in the property in 1842, who extended it with a north wing, outer hall and porch, designed by Benjamin Woodward, of Deane and Woodward.
1876 Ordnance Survey Map 1876 1:500 shows Cowley House and grounds in considerable detail and the ‘three house and building’ to the south. The line of the former bridge is noticeable with protrusions in the river banks and remnant of a structure in between.
7 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Extract from 1:500 scale map of Oxford (sheet XXXIX 3.4) showing Cowley House and gar- 25-inch OS map 1898 showing Cowley House (red), Cowley Grange (yellow) and Milham Ford dens and adjoining houses. Note Milham Ford cottages. (green)
1877 1904 Cowley Grange was built for A. G. Vernon Harcourt, Lee’s Reader Church Education Corporation bought the Milham Ford School. in Chemistry, as a private house, extending development of Cowley Place further south. Designed by architect William Wilkinson. 1906 Mill Ford. The cottages, used as a school since 1898, were rebuilt 1892 by the Church Education Corporation. The last riverside cottage was In November 1892 Dorothea Beale bought Cowley House, but not the retained and adapted stables to establish St Hilda’s Hall. It opened in October 1893. 1907 1897-8 A north wing was added to Cowley Grange containing a common South wing was added to the Hall by London architect P. Day, to room, lecture room and study bedrooms, followed in 1911 provide a larger dining-room and more student accommodation, bringing the Hall’s capacity to 28 rooms in all. 1909 A second south wing in brick was added to Cowley House designed 1898 by W. E. Mills Mss Emma and Jane Moody moved their private school from Iffley Road to a cottage at Milham Ford.
1902 Cowley Grange was sold to the Church Education Corporation and became Cherwell Hall, a training college for women teachers in secondary schools.
8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
25-inch OS map 1910 showing Cowley House – St Hilda’s (red), Cowley Grange – Cherwell Hall (yellow) and Milham Ford cottages – Rebuilt Milham Ford School (green)
1921 Cowley Grange acquired and enlarged in 1925 to designs by N.W. Harrison
1925 A temporary chapel was constructed in the grounds of St Hilda’s (South Building) to the design of F. E. Howard.
9 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1920 aerial image showing Cowley House – St Hilda’s, Cowley Grange – Cherwell Hall and Milham Ford cottages – Milham Ford School (EPW000821) and oblique aerial showing relationship of St Hilda’s in relation to the sports fields and Christ Church Meadow (EPW052779)
1934 The Burrows Building was constructed on the site of the stables to the north of Old Hall, by architect Sir Edwin Cooper.
25-inch OS map 1939 showing extent of St Hilda’s pre-WWII
10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1920 aerial image showing Cowley House – St Hilda’s (red), Cowley Grange – Cherwell Hall (yellow) and Milham Ford cottages – Milham Ford School (green) (EPW000821) and oblique aerial showing relationship of St Hilda’s in relation to the sports fields and Christ Church Meadow (EPW052779)
1952 Building programme was launched. All the works were by the architectural practice Richardson and Houfe
1953-54 The kitchen in South building was extended with a block of undergraduate rooms above. New lodge by the gates of South and a boiler house. Lodgings for the Principal erected.
1958 The dining hall of South building was extended. Milham Ford was acquired by St Hilda’s.
1959 Milham Ford upgraded and altered and included rebuilding the River wall to the Library
1960 New Driveway and Porters’ Lodge
1960-64 The Wolfson Building, a new residential block made possible by a grant from the Wolfson Foundation, was opened in 1964. 1961 aerial of St Hilda’s (POX0450620)
11 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1968-1970 2002 The Garden Building by A&P Smithson Library extension by Laurence Burrell.
1995 2011 Jacqueline du Pré Music Building by Van Heynigen and Haward. Cowley House entrance ramp, by Adrian James Architects. Extended in 2000 2018 2001 Milham Ford School and Porters Lodge demolished. The Christina Barratt Building. A new student residential accommodation completed in 2001
2017 plan of St Hilda’s showing its stages of evolution (Heritage Statement Marcus Beale Architects 2017)
12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
HERITAGE ASSETS
NATIONAL HERITAGE LIST FOR ENGLAND ST CLEMENTS AND IFFLEY ROAD CONSERVATION AREA There are a number of buildings and structure that are entered in the This Conservation Area was designated on 25 July 1977 and National Heritage List for England, ‘NHLE’, formerly the Statutory extended on 24 May 2000. List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. The Old Hall and brick piers were added in 1972, and the Library and Garden In February 2009 a Conservation Area Appraisal was published by Building in 1999. Oxford City Council. This divided the Conservation Area into five areas for a more detailed appraisal. St Hilda’s College, Old Hall (red) St Hilda’s was not identified in the summary of significance (pp. 2-3) St Hilda’s College, Wall and Piers on Cowley Place (light blue) It is not referred to in the historical development of the area nor in the summary of historical features (pp. 6-9) St Hilda’s College, Piers and Gates to South Building (light blue) It lies within Character Area 1 – The Plains Library at St Hilda’s College, Cowley Place (dark blue)
The Garden Building at St Hilda’s College, Cowley Place (green)
Details of these entries are in Appendix 1
Extract from St Clements & Iffley Road Conservation Area Appraisal February 2009
The map identifies the places entered in the NHLE green with the character appraisal making the following statement in relation to St Hilda’s and adjoining area.
Beyond the school Cowley Place continues in educational use with both Magdalen College School and St Hilda’s College. The architectural style is varied ranging from the 18 century Cowley House built for the Sheriden Professor of Botany, Dr Humphrey Sibthorpe and the castellated former Milham Ford School building constructed in 1906* both now part of St Hilda’s, to the 20 century ‘Big School’ building of Magdalen College School constructed from brick with a lead roof and stained-glass windows on the eastern side of the road. The road is quiet, leading only to the school or college therefore escaping the heavy traffic dominating the Plain. The variety of architecture, the railings and greenery, together with the strong sense of learning, characterise Cowley Place, contrasting with the more commercial and vibrant nature of the Plain. (p. 21) *Since demolished 2017 plan of St Hilda’s showing its stages of evolution (Heritage Statement Marcus Beale Architects 2017) St Hilda’s is not specifically identified as a key feature of the area, although it forms a part of the ‘strong ‘educational’ feel to the southern side of the Plain’ (p. 22)
13 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
Significance is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework As noted earlier in the report there are a number of buildings and (NPPF) Annex as comprising: ` structures included in the National Heritage List for England (‘NHLE). St Hilda’s College is also included in the boundary of the St Clements “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations and Iffley Road Conservation Area, which was designated on 25 July because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, 1977 and extended on 24 May 2000. architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.” WOMENS COLLEGES Women only colleges were principally established in the last quarter Placing a building in its historical context and describing its of the 19th century at four Universities, London, Durham, Cambridge characteristics and appearance is an important component of the and Oxford. The earliest was Bedford College, London established evidence gathering exercise to inform understanding of a place’s in 1849 as a teaching college, the basis for the establishment of a significance and contribution of its setting. As Historic England number of colleges. A number subsequently amalgamated. All are explains in ‘Conservation Principles’ (2008) understanding how a now or will be co-educational by 2021. There are a number of women place has evolved and how different phases add to or detract from its only colleges established in the 20th century in Cambridge and significance is a part of that exercise. Durham all now co-ed.
Women’s only colleges founded in the nineteenth century in England
FOUNDATION DATE WENT CO-ED LONDON Bedford College* 1849 *Amalgamated 1965 Royal Holloway* 1879 1965
DURHAM St Hilda 1858 1975 Amalgamated with St Bede male college St Marys 1899 2005
CAMBRIDGE Girton 1869 1979 Newnham 1871 Planned 2021 Hughes Hall 1885 1973
OXFORD Lady Margaret 1878 1979 Somerville 1879 1994 St Hughes 1886 1986 St Hilda’s 1892 2008
14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Having regard to the history and surviving fabric, the following is a summary of the Heritage Significance of St Hilda’s.
• The site provides evidence of the development of the extra mural suburb, representing a part of the history of Oxford, not built as one single event, but in common with many other parts of Oxford as a site that has evolved to meet changing needs.
• Founded in 1892, St Hilda’s is one of four women only colleges founded in Oxford in the last quarter of the 19th century, with Lady Margaret (1878), Somerville (1879) and St Hughes (1886). It provides evidence of the strong movement in this period which saw the establishment of women only colleges in London, Durham, Cambridge and Oxford, as part of the push for women emancipation through education.
• St Hilda’s is of historical significance in being the last women only college in Oxford to accept men, this occurring in 2008, and almost the last of the 19th century women’s colleges in England to go co-education with the last being Newnham, Cambridge planned in 2021.
• St Hilda’s is historically significant for its former association with Cheltenham Ladies College, the principal of which, Dorothea Beale (1831-1906) founded St Hilda’s in 1892, with the association only ceasing in 1955.
• St Hilda’s is historically significant for its association with internationally acclaimed cellist Jacqueline du Pre (1945-87) who was made an Honorary Fellow in 1974. Following her death in 1987 with multiple sclerosis, money was raised, and a music building named in her honour was built and opened in 1995.
• St Hilda’s exhibits buildings of different date and style with 1775 Cowley House, and 1877 Cowley Grange, both subsequently extended in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and major phases of building in the 1950s and early 1960s, demonstrating the expansion of tertiary education post WW2 but also the economic constraints and austerity which affected the architectural quality of new buildings.
• The characteristics of St Hilda’s riverside setting varies, reflecting the historic uses and functional relationships of the various buildings on site. There is a dynamic between the buildings and the river meadows that reflects Oxford’s historic and functional relationship with its river valley setting. The opportunities to see and experience buildings in this setting from afar and close to holds aesthetic significance. For St Hilda’s, its mature garden trees, lawns, framed or framed by buildings of different ages and styles, views into and out of the site and riverside setting overlooking the River Cherwell and the open fields and meadows to the west contribute to this aesthetic and help understanding of the of Oxford’s core characteristics.
15 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SETTING OF ST HILDA’S
UNDERSTANDING SETTING GPA3 Part 2: Setting and Views – A Staged Approach to In relation to the setting of a heritage asset the National Planning Proportionate Decision Taking, explains the broad approach to be Policy Framework Glossary: Setting of a heritage asset, defines followed: setting as: Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. affected; Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether Historic England’s advice in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice beneficial or harmful, on that significance; Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets, December 2017 (GPA3) para 9) is similar stating: Step 4: explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm; Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated... Its importance lies Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes. in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate the significance. WHAT VIEWS ARE IMPORTANT Pre-application discussion with the City Council officers have helped It explains (GPA3 para 10) that the contribution of setting to the shaped the scope of study of settings and identified the views that significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to need particular consideration. views – a visual impression of an asset. In assessing the characteristics of the setting of nearby heritage It comments (page 6) that: assets the following matters were considered:
Some views may contribute more to understanding the heritage • Is the composition of the view a fundamental aspect of design? significance than others. This may be because the relationships between the asset and other historic assets or places or natural • Is there an unplanned/unintended beauty to the view and viewing features are particularly relevant; experience?
And furthermore, (GPA 3 para 9) that the setting of heritage assets • Are there any historical/cultural associations that influenced will change over time and that this can be a positive element understanding of the history of the view? in our understanding of places and how we experience the historic environment and heritage assets. It cautions that where • Is there any designed intervisibility between places and spaces? unsympathetic change has affected the setting of a heritage asset further cumulative negative changes could sever the last • Is there a borrowed landscape that is an intended part of the link between an asset and its original setting but pointing out viewing experience? that sympathetic new development has the potential to enhance setting, successfully illustrating the cycle of change that shape our This report examines the nature of the city’s historic and visual towns and countryside. relationship to its river valleys (Thames and Cherwell) and the key characteristics of the views associated with Christ Church Meadows GPA3 Part 1- Settings and Views, discusses the issue of setting and the Botanic Gardens. stating: SETTING OF THE CITY Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced and Oxford’s setting is characterised by the green corridors of the rivers may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage Cherwell and Thames winding their way through the city’s urban assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they fabric and the views of its spires, domes and towers from the water survive and whether they are designated or not. The extent and meadows and also from the hills surrounding the city core. There is importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual an intervisibility between objects, that changes through the seasons considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an and from different viewing places. There is a narrative between the important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its historic city core and its suburbs that helps to express the physical setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as constraints to development imposed by the rivers’ floodplains and noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and helps to illustrate how the city developed beyond its historic walls. St by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. Clement’s is a medieval suburb outside the city, expanding in the 19th century to form the first phases of what is now East Oxford and then Amongst the Government’s planning objectives for the historic again in the interwar and post-war period to house the burgeoning environment is that conservation decisions are properly informed. motor industry population.
16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A characteristic of Oxford’s setting is that a focus of the views is the Oxford’s diversity, academic component and its history. This can interplay between the built environment and the city’s green and be illustrated (see photos that follow and plan to show view location) rural surroundings, with buildings often a focus of the view, either as approaching the city along the Thames towpath towards Christ clusters or as a silhouetted linear form. On approaches into Oxford Church Meadow and the city’s historic core. from its rural surroundings there are views of buildings that signal
9
8
5 4 6 7 3
2
1
Photo locations
17 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1. View along the Thames illustrating the cluster of college boathouse that line the Thames
2. Views over to Abingdon Road and the suburban development lining the medieval causeway across the water meadows
18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3. An early introduction to the cluster of historic buildings of Christ Church, Corpus Christi College, Merton College and Magdalen College.2350
4. View of Grandpont House on Abingdon Road, from the towpath
19 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
JMW Turner 1798
CHRISTCHURCH MEADOW Christ Church Meadow, along with the college’s gardens and quads, It is also a site of privilege and the noticeable juxtaposition of the is part of a Grade I listed park and garden. The Meadow exhibits meadows with its suburban neighbours helps to emphasise this a history of recreation, with a perimeter walk established in 1570, exclusive characteristic. As a part of the setting of the city scenes of Broad Walk added in1675, New Walk in 1863 and Memorial Gardens Christ Church Meadow are recorded by artists, most notably JMW in 1920s. The nature of the surroundings of Christ Church Meadow Turner, but the focus of the view in his work was Tom Tower. has continually changed. A characteristic of the registered park is its expanse of meadow and grazing within the heart of a city, surrounded Thus, there is a synergy between the city and its green spaces and an by built form with the green river corridors connecting with the wider important historical relationship that is evidenced by the opportunities rural landscape. The waterways give people a different perspective to see the built forms of the city from its rural setting and approaches to experience Oxford, its architecture and its relationship with its and also from within those spaces (as is case from places such as rural setting with clues and evidence of history and change along the Rayleigh Park, South Park). route, boathouse, bridges, canals, railways, college buildings and churches etc. Christ Church Meadow offers a circular route or more perambulatory walks (Broad Walk and New Walk) and thus the views are dynamic or The unplanned ‘beauty’ of the Meadow Buildings, Merton and kinetic, with changing objects in the view and changing perspectives. Magdalen Colleges towers in the view from the meadows is focus of There are opportunities to see a variety of built forms, close to the views and some or all are visible from most parts of the meadow. and in the distance. The experience of these is moderated by an Other built form is also visible in views – Abingdon Road, St Aldates, understanding of the scale of the meadow and the long views across High Street and Merton Street. It is not that buildings have been it and the knowledge that it is located within the city centre. designed out of any view. More probably the exact opposite and it helps to communicate the city’s history it is what makes Oxford internationally recognisable.
20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5. View across Christ Church Meadow towards St Clements
6. View towards Christ Church Meadow Buildings and Merton College tower, the buildings, framed by and visible within gaps between the trees. It is the visibility of the buildings in the view that gives points of interest.
21 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
7. in views from the banks of the Cherwell the historic buildings above the tree line provide a focus to the view
8. Progressing along the River Cherwell the expanse of the meadow catches the eye, with the Christ Church Meadow buildings give an understanding of the scale.
22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9. Alongside the Botanic Garden there are views across to St Hilda’s and Magdalen School, the management of the green spaces as sports pitches resonates with academic uses of the surroundings buildings.
The most common recorded view from outside the walls to the Botanic Gardens is the view towards Magdalen College tower.
BOTANIC GARDEN Established in 1620 and constructed by raising the ground levels to There is a very clear design intent to the garden and one that avoid flooding. Enclosed by high walls. Glass house were erected historically did not engage with its wider setting with the external on the river side (east) from 1851. The area south of the garden was garden spaces and routes being developed more recently. There incorporated around 1945 with subsequent reorganising during the are early photographs of the Botanic Garden, particularly by Henry latter part of the 20th century. Taunt (1842- 1922), but the majority are from within the walled garden and those outside views focus on Magdalen College’s tower and Magdalen Bridge.
23 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
There is external seating to the garden with opportunities to linger never fully implemented. Arguably, in exploring the characteristics and observe the river traffic/wildlife. The view includes St Hilda’s with of the place and its relationship to its setting, what St Hilda’s lacks, foreground views of Magdalen School sport and leisure facilities. The because it has evolved and outgrown the historic Milham Ford school sound of traffic on Magdalen Bridge is noticeable and just beyond the buildings, expanding haphazardly during the 20th century is a clear bridge is Queen’s Florey Building (James Stirling). The development identity with a rationality and order to its spaces and buildings (in the alongside the river results in a ‘transitional edge’, the consequence same way perhaps that Lady Margaret Hall has addressed a similar of continuous change and an unresolved development programme challenge and reordered itself). by the College, the commencement of a 1950s masterplan that was
The 1921 view from St Hilda’s illustrating the important juxta position between the buildings of Oxford and its green river corridors – the landscape giving emphasis to the buildings and vice versa.
24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The view across the Cherwell from the footpath in the south east corner of the Botanic Garden looking across to the Principal’s Lodging at St Hilda’s
25 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL HERITAGE POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND ADVICE
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Conservation principles, policy and practice seek to preserve and large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do enhance the value of heritage assets. With the issuing of the National not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Government has re-affirmed genuine public benefits. It explains that public benefits can include its aim that the historic environment and its heritage assets should heritage benefits, such as: be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. • Sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting; In relation to development affecting a designated heritage asset the NPPF states in paragraphs 193 and 194 that: • Reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset;
‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the • Securing the optimum viable use for a heritage asset. significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, HISTORIC ENGLAND ‘CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES’ (2008) the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any Works of alteration, extension, or demolition need not involve any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than harmful impact and may be necessary to ensure a building has a substantial harm to its significance. viable future. Historic England explains its approach to managing the historic environment and how we experience places stating in in Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage ‘Conservation Principles’ (April 2008) paragraph 88: asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.’ ‘Very few significant places can be maintained at either public or private expense unless they are capable of some beneficial use; THE PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE (PPG) nor would it be desirable, even if it were practical, for most places This seeks to provide further advice on assessing the impact of that people value to become solely memorials of the past’. proposals explaining that what matters in assessing the level of harm (if any) is the degree of impact on the significance of the asset. It It also points out in paragraph 92: states: ‘Retaining the authenticity of a place is not always achieved by ‘In determining whether works to a listed building (or its setting) retaining as much of the existing fabric as is technically possible’. constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its It also comments in paragraph 86: special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development ‘Keeping a significant place in use is likely to require continual that is to be assessed.’ adaptation and change; but provided such interventions respect the values of the place, they will tend to benefit public (heritage) The NPPF explains in paragraphs 195 and 196 the differences as well as private interests in it. Many places now valued as part between ‘substantial’ harm and ‘less than substantial’ harm, advising of the historic environment exist because of past patronage that any harm should be justified by the public benefit of a proposal. and private investment, and the work of successive generations often contributes to their significance. Owners and managers In cases where there is less than substantial harm, paragraph 196 of significant places should not be discouraged from adding states: further layers of potential future interest and value, provided that recognised heritage values are not eroded or compromised in the ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial process’. harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal Further, in relation to new works and alterations in paragraph 138 including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use’. states:
The PPG also seeks to provide a clearer understanding of what New work or alteration to a significant place should normally be constitutes ‘public benefit’, as it is the public benefit that flows from acceptable if: a development that can justify harm. In weighing the public benefits against potential harm, considerable weight and importance should a. there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand be given to the desirability to preserve the setting of listed buildings. the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place.
Public benefits can flow from a variety of developments and could be b. the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, anything that delivers economic, social, or environmental progress as which, where appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed. described in the NPPF, paragraph 8. c. the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at may be valued now and in the future.
26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
In relation to quality of design, paragraph 143 and 144 state: Section 72 of the Act requires that local planning authorities ‘In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation There are no simple rules for achieving quality of design in new area, […] special attention shall be paid to the desirability of work, although a clear and coherent relationship of all the parts preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.’ to the whole, as well as to the setting into which the new work is introduced, is essential. This neither implies nor precludes working There have been a number of Court of Appeal decisions which have in traditional or new ways but will normally involve respecting the provided interpretations of the requirements of these sections. values established through an assessment of the significance of the place. In the Court of Appeal, Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East
Quality is enduring, even though taste and fashion may change. Northants District Council, English Heritage and National Trust, The eye appreciates the aesthetic qualities of a place such as [2015] 1 W.L.R. 45, Sullivan L J made clear that to discharge this its scale, composition, silhouette, and proportions, and tells us responsibility means that decision makers must give considerable whether the intervention fits comfortably in its context. Achieving importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of quality always depends on the skill of the designer. The choice listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise (of judging of appropriate materials, and the craftsmanship applied to their harm against other planning considerations). use, is particularly crucial to both durability and to maintaining the specific character of places. In Jones v Mordue & Anor [2016] 1 W.L.R. 2682 the Court of Appeal explains how decision makers can ensure this duty can be fulfilled: Amongst the Government’s planning objectives for the historic that by working through paragraphs 131 -134 of the NPPF, in environment is that conservation decisions are properly informed. accordance with their terms a decision maker will have complied with the duty under sections 16, 66(1) and 72. This report follows this HISTORIC ENGLAND’S ‘GOOD PRACTICE ADVICE NOTES 3: advice to ensure consistency with the duty to preserve or enhance. THE SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS’ Paragraph 19, of this practice note, explains that, ‘amongst the In the Court of Appeal [Catesby Estates v Steer and SSCLG, 2018] the Government’s planning policies for the historic environment is that concept of setting was explored. In paragraph 15 of the judgement conservation decisions are based on a proportionate assessment of Justice Lindblom rehearses the Planning Inspector’s considerations, the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected commenting that the Inspector found it difficult to disassociate by a proposal, including by development affecting the setting of a landscape impact from heritage impact. The focus of the judgement heritage asset’. is to determine the extent to which visual and historical relationships between places contribute to define the extent of setting. Three From this summary of the national heritage management policy general conclusions are made: framework it is clear that there is a complex assessment decision- making process to navigate when considering change within the a) The decision maker needs to understand the setting of a historic environment. designated heritage asset, even if it cannot be delineated exactly;
Central to any decision is the recognition that history is not a static b) There is no one prescriptive way to define an asset’s setting thing and that the significance of our historic environment derives - a balanced judgement needs to be made concentrating on the from a history of change. surroundings in which an asset is experienced and keeping in mind that those surroundings may change over time; S66 AND S72 PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 c) The effect of a development on the setting of a heritage asset Section 66 of the Act requires local planning authorities to have and whether that effect harms significance. special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
27 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OXFORD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN HERITAGE POLICIES
At full Council meeting on 8th June 2020 the City Council voted to It discusses and addresses the following issues and sets outs policies adopt THE OXFORD LOCAL PLAN 2016 - 2036. The forward states: to guide future development.
Oxford’s Local Plan is a vital document that sets out the shape of • High quality design and placemaking DH1 our city, and how it will look and feel in years to come. It will guide and shape new developments, so that they respect the past and • Views and building heights DH2 present of Oxford, while improving its future by supporting our city’s people and their environment. • Designated heritage assets DH3
This new Local Plan will determine the homes, jobs, community • Archaeological remains DH4 facilities and infrastructure for the next twenty years, striking the right balance between the different pressures that Oxford and its • Local heritage assets DH5 people face. It also sets out our priorities as a city. The policies relevant to the proposed phase 2 development at St The issues and policies in relation to Oxford’s heritage are contained Hilda’s College are DH1 and DH3. in Part 6. Enhancing Oxford’s heritage and creating high quality new development. Managing change in a way that respects and draws Policy DH1 stipulates that planning permission will only be granted from Oxford’s heritage is vital for the continued success of the city. for development which shows a high standard of design, and which respects the character and appearance of an area and uses materials The value and benefits of good design and improvements to appropriate to the site and surroundings. quality of life are so significant that good design is not a nice extra, it is essential. A successfully designed scheme will be a positive Policy DH3 requires development to respect and draw inspiration addition to its surroundings. It may blend in or stand out, but it from Oxford’s unique historic environment (above and below ground), should not detract from existing significant positive characteristics responding positively to the significance character and distinctiveness in the area, and it may add interest and variety. A well-designed of the heritage asset and locality. scheme will meet the needs of all users and will stand the test of time. These policies closely reflect the NPPF and are set out in full in Appendix 2
28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OXFORD TALL BUILDINGS TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTE (OCTOBER 2018)
This document is informed by ‘The Oxford High Buildings Evidence While principally designed to identify opportunities for higher Base Report (EBR) and inter-relate with the Oxford View Cones buildings outside the City Centre, in the northern, eastern, south (2015). It is specifically referenced in Oxford Local Plan 2016-2036. eastern suburbs and nine identified dynamic areas, it includes a set of Whilst not necessarily directly relevant as the proposals do not overarching guidelines/criteria against which high buildings (including involve tall buildings the considerations to be taken into account raising the height of an existing building) need be considered. These and the methodology are helpful and show that this development criteria are also relevant and applicable to other forms of development has been sensitively designed to respond to the characteristics and and by considering them it demonstrates that the proposed appearance of the site and its settings that are of significance. The development has been designed to be sensitive to and respond to the Advice Note explains how and when it should be applied: site’s characteristics.
‘Any design choice to design buildings to a height that would impact • Understanding Context on character should be fully explained, and regard should be had to the guidance on design of higher buildings set out in the High • Architectural Quality and Design Buildings Study TAN. In particular, the impacts in terms of the four visual tests of obstruction, impact on the skyline, competition and • Profile / Silhouette change of character should be explained’ • Height / Scale / Massing The Oxford High Buildings Technical Advice Note (TAN) seeks to inform decisions regarding the growth and intensification of Oxford • Green Infrastructure in a positive and structured way. It seeks to identify and protect what is important and provide opportunity for positive change and growth. • Streetscene / Streetscape The TAN takes a flexible approach to allow for the changing policy and development context. (1.1) • Public Realm / Open Space
The purpose of the TAN, in combination with Local Plan policies and • Urban Grain other guidance documents, is to set out a framework to assess a site’s or area’s potential for change and its ability to accommodate • Microclimate high buildings. (1.7) • Materials The TAN seeks to: • Lighting • Allow the city to grow whilst protecting its key character and heritage, including listed heritage assets and conservation areas. • Roofscape
• Secure opportunity for positive change including the establishment • Services and Utilities of development parameters to enable new placemaking policies. • Cumulative and Incremental Effects • Understand and define how the city as a historic asset is appreciated, including its wider landscape setting.
• Support exploration of the development capacity of the city to inform growth scenarios, including those in development as part of the Local Plan. (1.8)
29 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
View of the site looking south west from in front of the Garden Building with the Jacqueline du Pre Building to the LHS
PROPOSED PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT
The proposal comprises The proposals involve the demolition of the existing 1953/4 Principal’s Lodgings. See separate WA Heritage Report on this building for a • A detached residential building over 3 floors with rooms in the roof description of its history and significance. space for 30 student bedrooms with support facilities located on the ground floor. (Villa Building) This is proposed to be constructed PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE in brick to reflect the adjoining buildings to the north (du Pre and The proposed area for the phase 2 development lies at the south Wolfson), with metal clad mansard roof western end of the site which is currently occupied by a hard surface tennis court and outbuildings, the Principal’s Lodgings and garden • A detached residential building over part 3 and part 4 floors with and car parking. To the north east along the boundary of the site lies 42 rooms. (Meadow Building) This is proposed to be clad in green the Jacqueline du Pre and the Wolfson Building, to the north of these vertical metal or ceramic materials picking up the greenery of the the Garden Building and then the former Cowley Grange – Cherwell adjoining meadow to the south, and lawns to the north. Hall which overlooks the River Cherwell.
• A new Principal’s Lodgings which is to include hospitality spaces. Further details of the site and the proposed development are provided The proposals adopt a modern interpretation of the ‘Arts & Craft’ in the Design and Access Statement (Design Engine). idiom, with the use of brick, steep gables with a bold gable chimney, with bronze metal clad roof.
30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
View from adjacent to the northern corner of the Jacqueline du Pre Building looking west across the lawn to the Principal’s Lodgings just visible
View from in front of the Jacqueline du Pre building looking north-west towards the former Cowley Grange – Cherwell Hall
31 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
View from the verandah on the southern corner of the former Cowley Grange looking south to the Jacqueline du Pre building with the old tennis court beyond and the Principal’s Lodgings to the right just out of the picture.
View across the lawn in front of the Principal’s Lodgings towards the Jacqueline du Pre building and the Wolfson building
32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
View north east from near the tennis court with Cherwell Building – formerly Cowley Grange and obscured by the substantial copper beech tree, the Garden Building
33 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT
The University of Oxford ‘s research, library and educational buildings are The Principal’s Lodging sits in a landscape setting borrowed from within the city centre. It is a well established objective of the University the designed gardens of the former Cowley Grange, which is then and the local planning authority that the student residences and the subsequently colonised with additional built forms. The Lodging, places of study should remain close to one another and within the city designed by Albert Richardson, has been extended and altered such centre. This is why the University of Oxford has been redeveloping the that its historic integrity and architectural quality have been depleted. Radcliffe Observatory Quarter as opposed to developing sites beyond As a building type there are better less altered examples elsewhere and the city centre. It is also a shared objective of the institutions and that sit in a more appropriate and less altered setting. As concluded authorities to provide for students in purpose built accommodation, for in the separate report (Worlledge Associates 2020) the removal of the their safety and wellbeing and to release existing ‘open market’ family building would result in negligible harm. Recording the building prior to housing, currently used for students back onto the market. demolition would preserve the building by record. As discussed in the Planning Report (Turnberry) there are public benefits that would also This relationship between places of residents and students places compensate for any harm. The tennis court and other structures to be of learning has helped to define Oxford. Historically, it has shaped removed are modern and of no significance Oxford’s built environment and the associated activities and uses sustain the viability and vibrancy of the historic core in an almost unique The introduction of three new buildings along the southern edge of the combination. Development to meet the growing needs of the colleges site will alter the overall setting of the buildings for the better, preserving and their students presents challenges within a city that is already the open lawn areas that lie between the Cherwell Hall – former Cowley densely developed, but also out of the challenges there are opportunities Grange, Green Building, Wolfson and du Pre buildings. – to celebrate the continuity of use, the creative use and recycling of sites and good design. Importantly, it also helps to sustain what makes the The existing belt of mature trees and shrubs lying to the north of the city special. current Principal’s Residence, which encloses the southern side of the lawn remains. As the NPPF and Historic England makes clear most places are capable of change and in most cases change is necessary. An important focus ST CLEMENTS AND IFFLEY ROAD CONSERVATION AREA of this proposals is to meet the needs of the college in a way that not The St Hilda’s site is visually separated from the majority of the only sustains those business and educational needs but that also Conservation Area. Physically it is an uncharacteristic spur of sustains the sense of place. Having examined the history of the site and development that possesses its own character and built form, distinct its heritage significance what needs to be considered now is how the from the commercial and residential quarters of St Clements. The proposed development would affect our appreciation of that significance. existing development on the western side of Iffley Road obscures any views of St Hilda’s from the Plain, while the part of the site proposed for ST HILDAS development is not visible from Cowley Place to the north. The proposed development would help to reinforce the historical relationship between the city and its suburb. The River Cherwell and In views from Iffley Road the verified views study shows that the Magdalen Bridge acts as a threshold between the suburb and the city, foreground developments of Magdalen School, the college and university where something stops and something else begins. Cowley Place, sports facilities mean that the development would not be in the view. Magdalen School and St Hilda’s is part of the suburb that begins beyond the bridge. It is visible from the bridge and it is visible from CHRIST CHURCH MEADOW various points on the city side of the river. The new development will The proposed development will be visible in some views from Christ give a greater sense of definition to the limits of the suburb, without Church Meadows. However, given the extent of the view from the undermining the role of the green corridor in maintaining the special Meadow and Thames Towpath the development would appear as a very setting of the city. minor incident in the view:
The proposed development will reinforce the identity of St Hilda’s • It would not interfere with how people appreciate the significance of celebrating its role as a ‘new’ college outside the city. The opportunity the meadows to see the proposed development from various vantage points – public streets as well as private parks will allow people to understand more • It would not undermine the contribution the setting of the Meadows about the development of colleges for women and the development of St makes to its significance (nor that of the overlapping setting of other Hilda’s, as well as giving visual delight in the quality of the new buildings. designated heritage assets within or adjacent the Meadows) As illustrated in this report, routes around the edges of this part of Oxford are characterised by views of buildings within a green setting. • It would reinforce the historic and visual relationship with the suburban and urban areas that bound the Meadows The proposed development offers the opportunity to create some rationality and order to the spaces within the college. The transition • Along with the phase 1 development, in the glimpses that would be between suburb and river setting is unresolved, the consequence of possible from some parts of the Meadows, it would celebrate the incremental changes to the college’s building portfolio, the absence of development of new Oxford Colleges outside the city core and its a coherent long-term strategy and evidence of a 1950s masterplan that ‘traditional’ colleges. was never completed.
34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
BOTANIC GARDEN From within the Botanic Garden the development would not be visible. In views from the gardens beyond the walls the viewing experience is very different with evidence of the city, in built form, sound and visibility of traffic evident. There is external seating to the garden with opportunities to linger and observe the river traffic/wildlife. The view includes St Hilda’s with foreground views of Magdalen School sport and leisure facilities. The proposed development of St Hilda’s will be visible from these outdoor garden spaces, framed by mature trees that form part of the designed landscape of the earlier St Hilda’s buildings. The proposed Meadow building will help to define the edge and extent of St Hilda’s. Arguably, what St Hilda’s lacks, because it has evolved and outgrown the historic Milham Ford school buildings, expanding haphazardly during the 20th century is a clear identity with a rationality and order to its spaces and buildings. That this changes the viewing experience (as a glimpsed view) would not be harmful. There are 20th century historic precedents where college buildings are visible from the River Cherwell, not least Wolfson and Queen’s Florey Building. This proposed development would be far less assertive than these other examples but would nevertheless offer a point of interest in the view. To celebrate the new buildings’ presence is preferable than seeking way to conceal them but never quite succeeding.
35 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL OF HARM
The assessment of the proposed development shows that there will be • Identify the significance of the asset (high significance to low a range of impacts on the setting of listed buildings and registered park, significance, with Grade I and II* listed building being categorised but with limited impact, if any on the character and appearance of the as high significance); Iffley Road and St Clements conservation area. Many of the effects of the development will be positive, creating better quality buildings that • Measure the magnitude of impacts from highly beneficial to highly can make a positive contribution to the setting of the site integrating adverse (it categorises development that erodes to a clearly it with the structure of the suburb. Through the extensive consultation discernible extent the heritage values of the heritage assets or the with Historic England the Oxford Design Review Panel, City Council and ability to appreciate those values as a moderate adverse impact); key local stakeholders the form, siting and design of the proposed new buildings have been refined to ensure that the potential for any harmful • Take into account any cumulative impact – such as how impacts have been eliminated or minimised by design. the development would be seen with other existing or new development; In determining the level of any harm, it needs to be made clear that substantial harm is a high test and would be represented by total or • Correlate the magnitude of impact with the level of significance nearly complete loss in significance. This is not the case here and the to arrive at an overall level of harm. Historic England suggest that conclusion, having carried out an assessment of the significance of the this assessment can either be presented in tabular form or as a designated heritage assets and the contribution of their settings to that narrative, explaining that both methods are legitimate, but that significance, is that any harm, should the Council consider there to be ultimately assessment is down to professional judgement. any, would be less than substantial. Indeed, it is considered that the proposed development has the opportunity to enhance the existing Following this methodology, based on analysis of the nature and extent setting and contribute to the variety and quality of Oxford’s building of the impacts, the proposed development will have a very low level stock, enhancing peoples experience of the place, creating new visual of magnitude of impact to the significance of the designated heritage experiences. assets and allowing for the different mitigation strategies across the site (landscaping and design, use of materials), would result in a very minor ‘Less than substantial harm’, covers a wide range of impacts ranging effect (i.e., that the development would erode to a very minor extent the in simple terms from ‘limited’ to ‘significant’. Any harm should be given heritage values of the site). This would place the level of harm at the significant weight and importance, within the terms of the National bottom end of the ‘less than substantial’ scale. This harm, if it exists, Planning Policy Framework and because of the statutory significance would derive, taking into account the cumulative effects of other recent attached to it, in any balancing act between that harm and public development, from the marginal increase in the presence of buildings benefits. However, it may be helpful for this site to clarify where on this along the river bank, compared to what presently is experienced. scale of less than substantial harm, if any exists, these proposals will sit. However, the proposed development is evidence of the constantly changing face of the college and of East Oxford, reflecting Oxford’s Neither the NPPF or its accompanying Guidance offer any advice on evolving history. What is important is that the important history that determining the level of harm beyond the distinction between substantial precedes this development is not erased or eroded. The development and less than substantial. Historic England in its publication Seeing has been designed to ensure that this will not happen. History in the View discusses the options for identifying significance and magnitude of impacts, referring in particular to the methodology National policy requires that there should be compensatory public developed by the Landscape Institute for Landscape and Visual Impact benefits to justify any harm and the revised NPPF makes clear that Assessments. Briefly the steps are to: even a low level of harm should be given considerable importance and weight in terms of delivering the duty to preserve or enhance designated heritage assets. There will be a range of public benefits to outweigh any harm (see Turnberry planning statement).
36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSION
The proposed development will not have any direct adverse impact on any designated heritage asset but has the potential to affect the character and appearance of a conservation area and the setting of listed buildings and registered park.
In accordance with the Good Practice Advice Note 2 Managing Significance in ‘Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment’ this report has undertaken a structured and staged approach to understanding heritage significance of the affected designated heritage assets, and the impacts on the setting of these heritage assets.
The design process has been heritage led, with the designated heritage assets and the contribution they make to the sense of place informing the evolution of the proposals. The delivery of the development will create a new chapter in the history of the site, reshaping its identity without erasing the site’s history and the meaning it holds for local and wider communities.
The proposals involve change - introducing new built forms that will positively engage with Oxford’s urban fabric and history. Any level of harm that would result from the proposals would be less than substantial and at the bottom end of that scale of harm. There is the potential for the development to create new visual experiences and opportunities to enhance peoples experience and appreciation of Oxford’s historic environment. There will be public benefits that would be delivered by the proposed development that would outweigh any harm that it is considered would result from the development proposed.
37 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPENDIX 1: LIST ENTRIES
Heritage Category: Listed Building Heritage Category: Listed Building Grade: II Grade: II List Entry Number: 1387551 List Entry Number: 1046646 Date first listed: 23-Jul-1999 Date first listed: 28-Jun-1972 Statutory Address: LIBRARY Statutory Address: ST HILDAS COLLEGE, PIERS AND GATES TO SP 5205 OXFORD ST HILDA’S COLLEGE SOUTH BUILDING 612/19/10058 Library GV II ST HILDA’S COLLEGE 1. 1485 Piers and gates to South Building SP 5205 19/502D II 2. Mid/Late C19. Red brick, and stone piers, capped by Oxford college library. 1934, by Sir Edwin Cooper. Buff-coloured English small obelisks. Wrought-iron gates and screen. bond brick with tile and stone dressings. Slate hipped roof behind parapet with plain stone coping. Brick axial stacks. PLAN: Rectangular Heritage Category: Listed Building on plan with library on ground floor; attached to north end of earlier Grade: II college building. Neo-Georgian style. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys, attic and List Entry Number: 1379819 basement. East front 1:5 bays. Tall triple-hung sash windows to ground Date first listed: 12-Nov-1999 floor with tile architraves and keyblocks, first floor windows above with Statutory Address: THE GARDEN BUILDING AT ST HILDAS louvred shutters, broad stone cill band to second floor windows, left bay COLLEGE, COWLEY PLACE slightly recessed and right-hand bay advanced, both with oculi to first SP 5205 OXFORD COWLEY PLACE (West, off) 612/19/10060 The floor. West garden front similar but 1:4:1 bays, the ground floor end bays Garden building at Hilda’s College have tall sashes in stone recesses with round arches and small brick GV II balconies; the basement windows with rusticated stone arches set in stone band. All sash windows with glazing bars. Flat roof dormers. North Residential accommodation for students and graduates. 1968- 70 by side, 3 bays, centre ground floor window has cambered arch, bay to left Alison and Peter Smithson, job architect Peter Smithson, engineers Ove is recessed. The library is attached to Old Hall, St Hilda’s College to the Arup and Partners. Pre-cast posts and beams, with concrete panels and south, the top storey of the canted north bay on the west side is of the a timber trellis; entrance front of pale brick, and internal brick walls; flat 1934 build by Cooper. INTERIOR: The rectangular-plan library is panelled roof. 51 students’ rooms on four floors, with one room for a member of in oak and galleried on all four sides, the galleries with balustrades staff, set around a central volume containing the services, separated stair between broad piers that support a coffered ceiling; the doorway compartment, and a room for the cleaning staff. A covered walkway links architraves at either end have cornices on console brackets and small the building to the rest of the college, which repeats the timber motif, wooden urns above; the double doors are covered in leather; polygonal and gives on to a projecting trunk room store which is part of the original vestibules. SOURCE: Buildings of England, p.245. composition. The three main facades overlooking the garden relate to a preserved beech tree and demonstrate the Smithsons’ interest in Heritage Category: Listed Building ‘layering’, with the facade set behind a trellis that runs between each Grade: II floor level supported on capitals within the concrete frame. Aluminium List Entry Number: 1369685 horizontal sliding windows within timber frames. The entrance front (at Date first listed: 28-Jun-1972 the rear if one approaches from the grounds as intended), has a central Statutory Address: ST HILDAS COLLEGE, OLD HALL well of glazing set behind brick ends which continue as enclosures to the walkway. The interior is notable for its use of fine timber and detailing. ST HILDA’S COLLEGE 1. 1485 Old Hall SP 5205 19/502B II 2. Built Timber staircase enclosed by glass and timber partitions. Full-height as Cowley House by Dr Humphry Sibthorp between 1775 and 1783 in doors to all the rooms and fitted cupboards and carefully planned variegated brick round an Adam-style partly renewed staircase brought dressing units within them. The Smithsons interpreted their brief as being from “a country house of the Bertie family in Oxfordshire,” (? Rycote, to construct a building that would be readily recognisable “as a girls’ demolished circa 1785) and fitted with chimney pieces of various origins. place, as older colleges are so easily seen as men’s places”. As they Sir Benjamin Brodie (dated 1880 DNB) added a North wing with an outer also noted, “starting from the fundamental English problem of needing hall and porch designed by Benjamin Woodward, the sculptured caps a lot of light, we have provided big windows. But to prevent girls being being the work of O’Shea. A South wing was added in 1897-8 by P Day, too ‘exposed’, there is a separate external screen of timber members, architect. In 1909 a second South wing was added in brick, designed by which we hope will cut down the glare, obviate any sense of insecurity W E Mills. and prevent the casual eye from breaking too easily the ‘skin’ of the building. The timber screen is a kind of ‘Vashmak’ in untreated oak, pale Heritage Category: Listed Building grey when dry, brown when wet” (quoted, for example, in Vidotto). The Grade: II mini-dressing rooms was seen as a means of shutting away ‘a cascade List Entry Number: 1183619 of washing powder and stockings’ while providing sound insulation from Date first listed: 28-Jun-1972 the corridor and pantry, while the rest of the room made as flexible as Statutory Address: ST HILDAS COLLEGE, WALL AND PIERS ON possible with its lack of fitted furniture. This planning has its origins in the COWLEY PLACE Smithsons Appliance House’ project of 1958 and more directly in their competition entry for Churchill College, Cambridge, of 1959. The use of ST HILDA’S COLLEGE 1. 1485 Wall and piers on Cowley Place SP 5205 beige and brown tones was a reaction to the bright colour of their 1950s 19/502C II 2. C18. Ashlar wall, 4 piers with moulded caps. exhibition work and, they suggested, provided a ‘neutral’ background
38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the occupants’ own decorations while better admitting views of the the High Street, opposite Magdalen College tower. Iron gates (and grounds. The Garden Building repeated the square plan with chamfered formerly wooden doors) are set within the Danby Arch (Nicholas Stone corners of their Economist Group of buildings (Westminster, listed grade 1632, listed grade I), an imposing, two-storey, Mannerist archway in II*), yet is transitional between their major projects of the 1960s and a Headington Freestone, flanked by stone walls, with a small doorway more gentle approach that considered buildings as a framework for their with similar motifs close by in the wall to the east. Two lesser gateways users’ activities, the art of inhabitation ‘that informs what they in 1982 (Nicholas Stone 1632-3, listed grade I), in similar style to, but on a smaller termed the Shift’. This increased domesticity without loss of intellectual scale than, the Danby Arch, give access to the walled garden, that to the rigour is paralleled in the work of their friend and fellow founder of Team west off Rose Lane via wooden doors, and that from the river to the east 10, Aldo van Eyck. via iron gates, each set within contemporary garden walls.
Sources Philip Opher, Twentieth Century Oxford Architecture, Oxford, GARDENS The garden is dominated by 100m long, 5m high, ashlar Heritage Tours, 1995, p.19 Daily Telegraph, 16 October 1968. Alison walls (Nicholas Stone 1623 and later, listed grade I) with stone coping, and Peter Smithson, The Shift, London, Architectural Monographs and enclosing the original, square Physic Garden. Short stretches of wall Academy Editions, 1982, pp.66-7, 91-5. Marco Vidotto, Alison and Peter have been removed to create access in the north-east corner, and in Smithson, Works and Projects, Barcelona, Gustavo Gili, 1997, pp.128-33. the centre of the south wall, where the resultant opening is flanked by Alison and Peter Smithson, Signs of Occupancy, Pidgeon Audio Visual, square pillars with vase finials. The Oxford Almanac (1766) shows the PAV 793, 1979. Alison and Peter Smithson, The Pavilion and the Route’, first successful glasshouses built in the garden, lean-to structures which in Architectural Design, March 1965, pp.143-6. Helena Webster, ed. lasted until the mid C19, sited against the north wall flanking the Danby Modernism without Rhetoric, London, Academy Editions, 1997, pp.64- Arch. The north wall now (1997) has a C20 aluminium structure at its east 71. end, adjacent to the original library and herbarium building (c 1735, 1835, listed grade I), now Magdalen College Bursary. This building consists of Heritage Category: Park and Garden two sections to north and south: the south elevation, originally of one Grade: I storey, was formed around the easternmost orangery, built by William List Entry Number: 1000464 Townesend 1733-5 and modified in 1835 by H J Underwood, who raised Date first listed: 01-Jun-1984 the building to two storeys and constructed the north elevation in similar Early C17 walled university physic garden, the oldest of its kind in style. At the west end of the wall is the West Block (listed grade II), its Britain. south facade in similar style to the Bursary, retaining at its centre the westernmost of Townesend’s two orangeries. HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Henry Danvers, first Earl of Danby, gave £5000 in 1621 for a Physic The walled garden is divided by gravel paths into eight rectangular Garden which was sited in the north-east corner of Christ Church quarters largely containing narrow, rectangular beds within lawns, Meadow, on land belonging to Magdalen College, part of which had with two cruciform paths aligned on the central gateways, the whole been the Jewish burial ground until 1293. The land, outside the city surrounded by a perimeter path and overlooked by the late C15 walls, was raised to counteract flooding by the addition of 4000 loads Magdalen College tower. At the centre lies a circular pond (C19, listed of ‘mucke and dunge’ (guidebook 1995). After this, during the 1620s, grade II), with a stone basin surmounted by a central basin and jet. the walls were erected, the archways being built during the early 1630s Throughout the garden is planted a collection of mature trees including, by Nicholas Stone, Inigo Jones’ master mason. The first of fifteen close to the south wall, one of Bobart’s original yews. Superintendents, Jacob Bobart, who was appointed in 1642, published a catalogue of 1300 trees and plants growing in the garden in 1648. Almost the whole of the outer side of the east wall, facing the lawn which Bobart, upon his death in 1679, was replaced by his son, Jacob the runs down to the river, is occupied by a range of glasshouses, on the Younger, who also became Professor of Botany. There followed a outline of predecessors erected by the then Professor of Botany, Charles succession of Superintendents and Professors, and the fortunes of the Daubeny, in 1851 and rebuilt in 1893, 1949 and 1972. These buildings garden waxed and waned, it being renamed the Botanic Garden by include a palm house, tropical water lily house, succulent house, service Professor Daubeny in 1840. In 1945 the area beyond the south wall was ranges and potting sheds. From this part of the garden there are views incorporated from Christ Church Meadow. The Garden remains (1997) across the river to Magdalen Bridge and playing fields. part of the University, and an educational facility. Outside the west wall a service area lies south of the gateway, while to DESCRIPTION the north are lawns with mature trees, the remains of a C19 pinetum LOCATION, AREA, BOUNDARIES, LANDFORM, SETTING Oxford planted by the Keeper William Baxter, who advised on the planting of Botanic Garden lies close to the centre of Oxford at the east end of the local gardens, notably Park Town (qv) in North Oxford. South of the High Street, next to Magdalen Bridge, the level site occupying former walled garden lies the area largely incorporated into the gardens c flood meadows in the Cherwell Valley. The 2ha garden is bounded to the 1945. This area, bisected by an extension of the central north/south east and south by the River Cherwell and beyond this Magdalen College path aligned on the Danby Arch, is arranged informally, and includes an School playing fields, to the south-west by Merton Field and Christ herbaceous border, bog garden (rebuilt 1997), shrub beds and a rock Church Meadow; to the north by the Penicillin Memorial Rose Garden garden (built 1926, rebuilt 1946, 1965, 1998) flanking a circular lily pond (designed by Dame Sylvia Crowe mid C20, for Magdalen College) and lying adjacent to the south entrance of the walled garden. The Cottage The High and to the west by Rose Lane and adjacent college buildings. (1623, C18, listed grade II), attached to the west end of the south wall, has continued as the Superintendent’s house since its initial erection. ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES The main entrance, at the centre The rear portion, against the wall, is probably C17, the front being C18, of of the north garden wall, lies set back from, and slightly lower than, ashlar with two storeys and two unequal gables.
39 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Loggan’s bird’s-eye view (1675) seems to be the earliest depiction of been established, running around much of the meadow as far south as the gardens, Hollar’s map of 1643 showing meadows on the site. It the River Thames, marked on Agas’ map of 1578 by a double row of shows the layout of narrow beds in geometrical patterns in each quarter, trees and named as ‘Christ Church Medows and Walkes’. By 1675 (map, surrounded by low fences or walls, at the centre a small, circular pond Loggan) what later became known as the Broad Walk was established, or well, the whole surrounded by stone walls and the gateways which and Tom Quad had been completed except for the tower, which was are illustrated alongside. A short path, flanked by shrubs clipped into completed by Sir Christopher Wren in the early 1680s. Loggan shows the topiary shapes, leads to the Danby Arch from the north (no flanking terrace around the inner edge of the Quad, together with a central pool doorways shown), to the east the outline of a path runs from the gateway and fountain, and the Broad Walk in its current position in the Meadow, to the river side, and to the south is what appears to be an extension named as ‘new walks’. Earthworks had been erected approximately of the river running parallel with the south wall, bounding a walk below along the line of the Broad Walk during the Civil War in the 1640s. the wall, reached from a small, central doorway, with a semicircular Peckwater Quad was built from 1705(14, and Meadow Buildings from garden feature beyond. No features appear outside the west wall. A 1862-6. In 1863 Dean Liddell (Dean 1855-91) laid out the straight New conservatory for evergreens, as Loggan illustrated on his view, now Walk running south through the Meadow to the river, in line with the gone, may have been sited on a wall beyond the north wall adjacent to centre of the south front of Meadow Buildings and opened in 1872 by the High Street, shown in outline on Loggan’s map of Oxford (1675). Princess Louise. Charles Dodgson, alias Lewis Carroll, lived at Christ Church for forty-seven years from 1851, writing Alice’s Adventures in In 1850, under the direction of Charles Daubeny, Professor of Botany, Wonderland and other books during the 1860s and 1870s, taking Dean the shape of the beds was altered from narrow rectangles to irregular, Liddell’s daughter, Alice, as his inspiration. The site remains (1997) in informal shapes (OS 1878). Isaac Balfour, a later Botany Professor, college use. directed further rearrangement, 1884-8, creating long, rectangular beds arranged to display the plants according to the taxonomic system DESCRIPTION created by Bentham and Hooker, which is the basis for the surviving LOCATION, AREA, BOUNDARIES, LANDFORM, SETTING Christ Church layout (1997). lies close to the centre of Oxford towards the south end, and on the east side of St Aldate’s. The c 32ha college and its grounds lie largely on level REFERENCES ground which rises slightly to the north-west where the buildings are University of Oxford Botanic Garden, guidebook, (1971, 1989, 1995) N located. The college is bounded to the west by St Aldate’s and south of Pevsner and J Sherwood, The Buildings of England: Oxfordshire (1974), this the Trill Mill Stream, to the north by Blue Boar and Bear Lanes and pp 267-8 Country Life, no 51 (19/26 December 1996), pp 48-51 Oriel Square, together with the City Wall sections which now form the south boundaries of Corpus Christi (qv) and Merton Colleges (qv). The Maps Agas/Bereblock, Map of Oxford, engraved 1728 from 1578 original east boundary is formed by the River Cherwell, and the south boundary Hollar, Map of Oxford, 1643 Loggan, Map of Oxford, 1675 R Davis, A by the River Thames. The college is set within a group of colleges, New Map of the County of Oxford ..., 1797 A Bryant, Map of the County the closest of which are Corpus Christi and Merton to the east, and of Oxford ..., surveyed 1823 Pembroke to the west, with the University Botanic Garden (qv) at the north-east corner. To the south and east, beyond the rivers, lie college OS 6” to 1 mile: 1st edition published 1881-2 2nd edition published 1901 playing fields and further meadows. 3rd edition published 1926 OS 25” to 1 mile: 1st edition published 1880 OS 1:500: 1st edition published 1878 ENTRANCES, APPROACHES AND QUADRANGLES The main approach, off St Aldate’s, opposite St Aldate’s church, enters beneath Tom Tower, Description written: October 1997 Amended: March 1999 Register emerging into the square Tom Quad (1526, 1668, listed grade I) which Inspector: SR Edited: March 2000 is the largest quad in Oxford. The Quad is largely laid to lawn, with two central cruciform paths meeting at a central pond (1670, listed grade Heritage Category: Park and Garden I), a round stone basin in which stands the Mercury Fountain (bronze Grade: I figure of Mercury acquired 1928, pedestal Sir Edwin Lutyens 1935). List Entry Number: 1000441 The outer ends of the paths are connected by a perimeter terrace with Date first listed: 01-Jun-1984 several sets of steps down to the lower central level. The interior of the Quad is shown by Loggan (1675): the perimeter terrace, with baroque, C16 and later college gardens and quadrangles, with adjacent meadow semicircular steps at the centre of each side (except the west), leads surrounded by ornamental walks. down to the central lawn and cross paths converge on the circular basin containing a globe and serpent fountain (William Bird 1670). Each set of HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT steps is shown connected to its immediate neighbours by a straight path Christ Church was founded by Cardinal Wolsey in 1525, as Cardinal across the lawn. Dean Liddell lowered the terrace in the 1870s, at the College, the buildings straddling the site of the south City Wall, partly same time unexpectedly revealing the base of the cloister shafts, and the on the site of St Frideswide’s Priory which Wolsey had suppressed in steps were altered to the current arrangement. 1524. Various college buildings, including the Hall and the south side of Tom Quadrangle, together with parts of the west and east ranges, were A path flanked by stone walls, leaving the north-east corner of Tom Quad completed by the time of Wolsey’s fall in 1529, the buildings bounded to beneath Fell Tower, leads into the Palladian Peckwater Quad (Dean the south by open water meadows. Henry VIII refounded the college in Aldrich, 1706(11, listed grade I). The Quad encloses grassed panels of 1546 as a unique joint foundation of cathedral and college, renaming it lawn separated by broad gravel paths, laid out in 1978, based on an Christ Church and incorporating various priory buildings, including the unexecuted C18 design (Williams 1733). The south side is dominated by church as Christ Church cathedral. By the 1570s a perimeter walk had the Library (Dr George Clarke (1716-61), listed grade I), and at the south-
40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
east corner the path continues into Canterbury Quad (James Wyatt of the Library, and contains a chestnut tree said to have been used as 1773, listed grade I). Here a Doric gateway is incorporated within the the model for that in which Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat ‘appeared’. The centre of the east range which gives access from Oriel Square, providing Deanery to the east of Tom Quad, and Canons’ Gardens to the north, a triumphal arch at the beginning of the progress to the imposing are attached to individual dwellings within the college and maintained as Peckwater Quad. A wall and screen (probably Dean Aldrich, C18, listed private gardens. grade II*) defines a space north of Canterbury Quad overlooking Oriel Square, with a stone wall punctuated by piers with ball finials, and five Christ Church Meadow lies to the south-east of the grouped college wrought-iron panels between the piers buildings, a meadow surrounded by ornamental public walks. The Meadow is enclosed by waterways, including the Trill Mill Stream to the A passage at the south-east corner of Tom Quad leads through to the west, and is separated from Merton Field to the north by the straight, cathedral cloister (rebuilt c 1500), with a path continuing south to the 400m long, gravel Broad Walk, with its flanking avenue of semi-mature brick and stone Meadow Buildings (T N Deane 1862(5, listed grade II), plane trees set wide apart (these planted in 1975 with alternating oriental through which a lofty central passage gives onto the west end of the and London planes, to replace the earlier elms). The Meadow is largely Broad Walk and the Meadow, with views south along New Walk and pasture surrounded by a circuit walk. From Meadow Buildings in the across the Meadow to the Thames. north-west corner of the Meadow the straight New Walk (also known as Poplar Walk), flanked by mature poplars, runs south for 400m to the The formal approach to the Meadow is through the War Memorial Thames, returning east along the north bank as an informal path which Garden, laid out in the late 1920s to commemorate college members lost curves north along the west bank of an arm of the Cherwell. The edges in the First World War. The entrance is off the east side of St Aldate’s, of the walk are lined with mature trees and shrubs, including exotics such through wrought-iron screens (1920s, listed grade II) set on a low stone as Zelkova, with views north and north-west across the centre of the wall and separated by stone piers, flanking two single wrought-iron gates Meadow, over the college buildings towards the Oxford skyline. The walk with overthrows. Larger piers with vase finials flank central double gates continues north, past the east end of the Broad Walk, around Merton with an ornate overthrow. The gates give access to a broad, straight, Field, past the Botanic Garden to the east, reaching the Rose Lane gate stone-flagged path which rises 75m east of the entrance, ascending a in the north-east corner, the gateway defined by large iron gates and short flight of stone steps with flanking stone walls (1920s, listed grade II) flanking iron screens giving onto the south end of Rose Lane. From here before crossing the canalised Trill Mill Stream, to enter the Meadow at its the walk returns west along Deadman’s Walk (so called because in the north-west corner and join the Broad Walk, on which the War Memorial Middle Ages it was used by Jewish funeral processions from St Aldate’s Garden path is aligned. The garden is divided into several sections by to the burial ground on the site of the Botanic Garden) at the bottom of stone walls, with lawns and herbaceous borders, and a line of limes set the City Wall which here bounds Merton and Corpus Christi Colleges. into the lawn south of the path. The path turns south at Merton Grove gate to rejoin the Broad Walk, having encircled the playing fields which now constitute Merton Field. GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS A group of small gardens lies to the east and north of Tom Quad. The Masters’ Garden, lying adjacent to REFERENCES the west side of Merton Field, was laid out in 1926 as the first corporate Country Life, 57 (20 June 1925), pp 988-95; 65 (9 March 1929), pp 336-8 college garden (until 1867, when the students acquired power, the H Trevor Roper, Christ Church, Oxford (1950, 3rd edn 1989) E G W Bill, college’s corporate identity was represented by the Dean and canons, Christ Church Meadow (1965) N Pevsner and J Sherwood, The Buildings all of whom had, and retain, their own houses and private gardens within of England: Oxfordshire (1974), pp 109-27 M Batey, Oxford Gardens the college). The Masters’ Garden is entered from Merton Field to the (1982), pp 64-7, pls 13, 14 east via an iron gateway, and from the south-west from the area behind Meadow Buildings. It contains a central lawn surrounded by gravel paths Maps [all held at Oxon Centre for Local Studies] Agas/Bereblock, Map and herbaceous borders along the bottom of stone boundary walls of Oxford, engraved 1728 from 1578 original Hollar, Map of Oxford, 1643 (1926, listed grade II), including the City Wall to the north, overlooked by Loggan, Map of Oxford, 1675 W Williams, Collegium Aedis Christi, from the Fellows’ Building and garden of Corpus Christi College. The Priory Oxonia Depicta, 1732 R Davis, A New Map of the County of Oxford..., House Garden, lying adjacent to the west of the Masters’ Garden, is 1797 also largely enclosed by stone walls and laid to lawn; it contains a C17 plane tree. The Cathedral Garden lies adjacent to the east and north OS 6” to 1 mile: 1st edition published 1881-2 2nd edition published 1901 sides of the cathedral, enclosed by stone walls and laid to lawn, with a OS 25” to 1 mile: 1st edition published 1880 grass terrace along the north boundary in which wall is set a small door through to the Deanery Garden. This enclosed garden was the garden Description written: November 1997 Amended: March 1999; April 1999 for the royal apartments, with a special door for Queen Elizabeth I to Register Inspector: SR Edited: January 2000 enter the cathedral. It is dominated to the north by the south elevation
41 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX 2: OXFORD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN HERITAGE POLICIES
POLICY DH1: HIGH QUALITY DESIGN AND PLACEMAKING Planning permission will only be granted for development of high- quality c) that, in cases where development would result in harm to the design that creates or enhances local distinctiveness. significance of a heritage asset, including its setting, the extent of harm has been properly and accurately assessed and understood, All developments other than changes of use without external alterations that it is justified, and that measures are incorporated into the and householder applications will be expected to be supported by a proposal, where appropriate, that mitigate, reduce or compensate constraints and opportunities plan and supporting text and/or visuals to for the harm; explain their design rationale in a design statement proportionate to the proposal (which could be part of a Design and Access Statement or a Where the setting of an asset is affected by a proposed development, Planning Statement), which should cover the relevant checklist points set the heritage assessment should include a description of the extent to out in Appendix 6.1. which the setting contributes to the significance of the asset, as well as an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the Planning permission will only be granted where proposals are designed setting and its contribution to significance. to meet the key design objectives and principles for delivering high quality development as set out in Appendix 6 1 (see Appendix 1) Substantial harm to or loss of Grade II listed buildings, or Grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional. Substantial harm POLICY DH3: DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS to or loss of assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled Planning permission or listed building consent will be granted for monuments, Grade I and II* listed buildings, Grade I and II* registered development that respects and draws inspiration from Oxford’s unique parks and gardens, should be wholly exceptional. Where a proposed historic environment (above and below ground), responding positively to development will lead to substantial harm to or loss of the significance the significance character and distinctiveness of the heritage asset and of a designated heritage asset, planning permission or listed building locality. consent will only be granted if:
For all planning decisions for planning permission or listed building i. the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that consent affecting the significance of designated heritage assets, great outweigh the harm or loss; or all of the following apply: weight will be given to the conservation of that asset and to the setting of the asset where it contributes to that significance or appreciation of that ii. the nature of the asset prevents all reasonable uses of the sites; significance). and
An application for planning permission for development which would iii. no viable use of the asset itself can be found in the medium or may affect the significance of any designated heritage asset, either term (through appropriate marketing) that will enable its directly or by being within its setting, should be accompanied by a conservation; and heritage assessment that includes a description of the asset and its significance and an assessment of the impact of the development iv. conservation by grant funding or similar is not possible; and proposed on the asset’s significance. As part of this process full regard should be given to the detailed character assessments and other v. the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site relevant information set out any relevant conservation area appraisal and back into use; management plan. vi. a plan for recording and advancing understanding of the The submitted heritage assessment must include information sufficient significance of any heritage assets to be lost, including making this to demonstrate: evidence publicly available, is agreed with the City Council.
a) an understanding of the significance of the heritage asset, Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm including recognition of its contribution to the quality of life of to a designated heritage asset, this harm must be weighed against the current and future generations and the wider social, cultural, public benefits of the proposal. Clear and extensive justification for this economic and environmental benefits they may bring; and harm should be set out in full in the heritage assessment
b) that the development of the proposal and its design process have been informed by an understanding of the significance of the heritage asset and that harm to its significance has been avoided or minimised; and
42