STRIDE TREGLOWN JOB NO. 154546 PREPARED BY PAUL CHANNING AABC RIBA CHECKED BY AW DATE 04.02.2021 REVISION 03
Revision Description Rev 01 Draft issue for comment Rev 02 Minor amendments Rev 03 Issued for Planning and Listed Building Consent applications
stridetreglown.com 3 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Contents
List of Figures and Plates ...... 6 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 7 Purpose of the report ...... 7 Scope of the report ...... 7 Methodology ...... 8 Sources ...... 8 Authorship ...... 8 2. OVERVIEW OF THE SITE ...... 9 The nature of the proposal ...... 9 PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 10 Heritage designations...... 10 List description ...... 10 Historic Environment Record ...... 10 Planning history ...... 10 CONSULTATION ...... 11 Pre-application site visit ...... 11 Pre-application meeting ...... 11 Pre-application feedback ...... 11 Development option – public cafe ...... 14 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND EXISTING BUILDINGS...... 16 Site location ...... 16 Existing building ...... 16 HISTORICAL RESEARCH ...... 17 Radford ...... 17 Building Radford Castle ...... 17 Living at the Castle ...... 18 Radford Castle under threat ...... 21 3. PROPOSALS ...... 23 Generally ...... 23 New extension ...... 25 New entrance, boot room, and services cupboard ...... 27 Fire safety ...... 27 Overall approach ...... 28 Scope of works ...... 31 Sustainability measures ...... 31 Accessibility ...... 32 Structure ...... 33
stridetreglown.com 4 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Flooding ...... 34 Ecology ...... 37 4. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 40 Methodology ...... 40 Statement of Significance ...... 42 Assessment of Heritage Values ...... 42 5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ...... 43 Methodology ...... 43 Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 45 Justification and Mitigation ...... 47 6. LEGISLATION AND POLICY ...... 48 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ...... 48 The National Planning Policy Framework ...... 48 National Planning Practice Guidance ...... 48 Summary of Compliance ...... 49 Summary ...... 51 7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 52 Generally ...... 52 Conditions...... 53 Sources and references ...... 54 Appendices ...... 55
stridetreglown.com 5 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement List of Figures and Plates
Figures
Figure 01 – Site location Figure 01 – Excerpt of the OS map from Historic England Figure 03 - Painting drawn by H. Warsley and engraved by W. Floyd of ‘Plymstock from Bury Hill’ (now called Burrow Hill) published in 1830 Figure 04 - The Castle Lodge and Dam, in a collection of four watercolours by J. Cocks featuring Hooe Lake and Radford Lake, Plymouth in 1891. Note the tall terracotta chimney pot. Figure 05 - Artist’s impression of the existing Castle and site Figure 06 – Sketch of west extension expressed in a modern style Figure 07 – Artist’s impression of completed project Figure 08 – Artist’s impression of completed project Figure 09 – Sketch of west extension Figure 10 – Sketch of wainscot panelling/ entrance door to undercroft Figure 11 – Sketch of new opening in tower Figure 12 – Sketch of south elevation Figure 13 – Sketch of north elevation Figure 14 – Sketch of west elevation Figure 15 – STBA approach – guidance
Figure 16 – Sketch of existing ground floor plan Figure 17 – Sketch of cracking to south elevation Figure 18 – Flood defence principals Figure 19 – Fixed waterproof glazed balcony to west elevation Figure 20 – Heritage Impact Assessment
Figure 21 – Planning legislation criteria
Plates
Plate 01 – North and West elevations overlooking Hooe Lake Plate 02 – North elevation looking south Plate 03 – East and north elevations overlooking Radford Lake
Plate 04 – South elevation looking north Plate 05 – Photo believed to be c.1930, source HooeLake.org. Note the Gothic style arch-top windows and the garden fence. Plate 06 – Photo believed to be c.1940, source unknown. Note the Gothic style gates. Plate 07 – Part of existing opening in tower Plate 08 – Flood gates for doors – principal Plate 09 – flood gate – mechanics
Plate 10 - 1WQ Schwegler Summer & Winter Bat Roost Plate 11 - Eco Bat Crevice Box Plate 12 - Vivara Pro WoodStone House Martin Nest Plate 13 - WoodStone Swallow Nest Bowl
Plate 14 - Vivara Pro WoodStone Tawny Owl Nest Box Plate 15 - 2H Schwegler Robin Box
stridetreglown.com 6 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the report
1.1.1 This report accompanies applications for planning permission and listed building consent for the repair and extension of a mock castle lodge, erected on a dam at the lower end of Radford Lake/ Hooe Lake, Plymouth, Devon, PL9 7RU for Mr. Joe Radford.
1.1.2 The purpose of this report is to explain the Heritage, Design and Access issues and to provide a robust assessment of heritage significance and impact of the proposals in line with Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, February 2019) and good conservation practice.
1.1.3 Information on the history of the area and site has been drawn from several sources, including historical map regression.
Scope of the report
1.2.1 This report provides a proportionate analysis and assessment of the project to inform and accompany the application for planning and listed building consent. The principal sections of this report will encompass:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.2.2 This section sets out the basic information regarding the background to the report, including the scope of the study and report navigation.
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SITE
1.2.3 This section provides an overview of the site – its historic development, designations, and context today.
3.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
1.2.4 This section provides an overview of the design and access issues, and proposals.
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
1.2.5 This section outlines the methodology for assessing the heritage significance established for this project, details the heritage values of the relevant heritage assets in line with this, and summarises their overarching significance.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT
1.2.6 This outlines the methodology for assessing heritage impact and details the heritage impacts of the proposals. Key areas of heritage impact are detailed with respect to their particular contribution to significance, nature of the works, need for change, impact, mitigation and associated heritage and wider public benefits.
6.0 LEGISLATION AND POLICY
1.2.7 This section considers the heritage impacts of the proposal in line with relevant legislative and planning policy considerations.
stridetreglown.com 7 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 7.0 CONCLUSION
1.2.8 This section provides a concise summary of the report.
Methodology
1.3.1 At an early stage in the development of proposals, we consulted the Local Planning Authority to positively inform the design process and ensure that the important heritage considerations remain at the heart of the project. Our methodology is based on relevant legislation, planning policy and good practice in relation to change management within the historic environment, and tailored to be bespoke to the unique significance of the project. The relevant aspects of this process have been outlined as they relate to each section of this report.
Sources
1.4.1 Information on the history of the area and site has been drawn from several sources, including historical map regression. The sources used in the preparation of the report are presented at the end of this report.
1.4.2 Special thanks are given to Dr Harriet Dismore, Researcher, University of Plymouth, who was commissioned to undertake preliminary historical research which has been reproduced in section 2 of this report for convenience. Sourcing of original documents by DW Research and Archive Services: https://www.dwresearchservices.co.uk/
Authorship
1.5.1 This report has been prepared by:
Paul Channing AABC, RIBA, PGDipArchCons, DipArch, BA(Hons)Arch Conservation Architect Head of Historic Buildings & Conservation
Stride Treglown, Norbury Court, The Millfields, Plymouth, PL1 3LL.
T +441752207737 M +447740707105 [email protected]
stridetreglown.com 8 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 2. OVERVIEW OF THE SITE
The nature of the proposal
2.1.1 Radford Castle is located on a dam at the lower end of Radford Lake/ Hooe Lake, Plymouth, Devon, PL9 7RU.
Figure 1 – Site location
2.1.2 The last evidenced use for the building was as an artist’s studio which commenced early in the 1970’s, it unclear when this or any other use ceased but the building now stands empty. The client proposes to develop the building as a high-end holiday let/romantic get-away. The traditionally constructed building is in a poor state structurally, is thoroughly wet due to failed roof coverings, and requires extensive repair and refurbishment. There are also several problems that need to be addressed that are described in sections that follow, they include, inter alia: provision of safe egress from the first floor in the event of fire, and how to deal with flooding. The report includes a comprehensive suite of measures to reduce energy loss and improve sustainability. Furthermore, the client plans to repair the exterior and reorder parts of the interior to bring the building it up to a decent standard. The overgrown garden area will also be cleared and fenced in, with vegetation acting as primary screening.
2.1.3 Subject to consent the client intends to carry out the work beginning in summer 2021.
stridetreglown.com 9 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement PLANNING CONTEXT
Heritage designations
2.3.1 The Castle is listed at Grade II. Source ID: List Entry Number: 1386347. Date first listed: 23-Apr-1952. National Grid Reference: SX 50342 52913
Figure 2 – Excerpt of the OS map from Historic England
2.3.2 Radford Park to the north east and a water treatment plant to the south. The South West Coast Path runs along the eastern side of the site and through the gateway of the Castle.
List description
Mock Castle lodge, built as an eyecatcher, erected on a dam at the lower end of Radford Lake. Early C19. Plymouth limestone rubble plus flat roof behind rendered embattled parapet and a corbelled embattled stack; the dam has battered walls of large, dressed stone blocks. Built in the Gothic style to resemble a gatehouse with its carriageway running through the lake side of the building, along the side of the dam, with a room over, a 2-storey wing seaward of the carriageway with stack over one corner and a round stair tower clasping the other corner plus a single-storey wing at the seaward side. Gate tower has 4-centred arched carriage vault. N side is 2-window range with C20 windows in fairly large openings. The S side has 2 "arrow loops" over the carriageway and 2 narrow windows over 1 window to its left. The stair tower and the single-storey wing have "arrow loops". INTERIOR: not inspected. (The Buildings of England: Pevsner N: Devon: London: 1989-: 681).
Historic Environment Record
2.5.1 We contacted Alex Pickstone on 30th July 2020 at the Plymouth Historic Environment Record (HER) who did not have any further information beyond the listing description in the HER. Other records will be held in the Plymouth archives office, but the records were not accessible due to relocating into The Box (Plymouth Museum) and the subsequent closure due to Covid-19 lockdown.
Planning history
88/01454/30 – Use of premises as H.Q. for Outward Bound centre – granted conditionally.
92/00035/LBC – Alterations to provide toilet facilities – granted conditionally.
stridetreglown.com 10 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement CONSULTATION
Pre-application site visit
2.8.1 A site visit was undertaken on 23rd June 2020. The purpose of the visit was to engage with the Planning Officer at an early stage, to identify key elements that would need to be retained, any listed building restrictions, and discuss the impact of the alterations to the main building to achieve a sympathetic conversion.
Pre-application meeting
2.9.1 Following the site visit, we developed the design and held an online meeting on 23rd November for initial feedback. The feedback was very positive. The principle of the change of use was supported to bring the long-vacant building back into use and the works to the listed building would be considered acceptable, subject to submission of further details. Overall, it was considered the proposals would be supported in principle by the Local Planning Authority.
Pre-application feedback
2.10.1 A Pre-application Summary Report was provided on 30th November 2020 (ref: 20/00301/MOR) and included input from the Conservation Officer. In broad terms, the proposal was considered acceptable in principle, subject to more detail being provided in a full application. The following details were requested to accompany a full application:
Design and Historic Considerations
2.10.2 The building is a Grade II listed building and appropriate consideration must be given to ensuring less than significant harm occurs to the historic fabric. The proposal includes the following elements:
1) Change of use to holiday let. 2) Insertion of internal first floor walls. 3) Creation of access from Bedroom 2 to roof area to create roof terrace, including raising of ground floor kitchen roof. 4) Extension to existing rear extension and creation of doorway through from spiral staircase. 5) Creation of ground floor balcony and change of windows to large glazing. 6) Removal of ground floor north window and replacing with main door. 7) Insertion of wall and new entrance in undercroft. 8) Replacement windows. 9) New fencing and planting in garden area.
2.10.3 The previous proposal also included enlarging windows, creation of a large, raised deck and a jetty. These aspects were likely to be generate significant harm and were removed from the proposal.
2.10.4 The proposed changes are discussed individually below.
1) Change of use to holiday let:
The use of the property as a holiday let must also be considered in terms of historic impacts. The site was designed as a lodge, which gives rise to the idea that it was original for a form of residential use, whether as full-time occupation or as temporary accommodation. It is considered that, whilst the use of the property as a café or other publicly accessible use would be preferred, with adequate justification the use as a holiday let
stridetreglown.com 11 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement would be acceptable. The use would bring back a long-vacant and boarded up building back into use and see historic features reintroduced.
2) Insertion of internal first floor walls:
The first-floor layout currently consists of two large rooms, with the eastern room only accessible through the main room. It is proposed to insert a new wall to create a corridor and create a bathroom and a first floor ‘inglenook’. Although this will alter the internal layout of the building it is considered that there is adequate justification for the works in order to create clearly distinct bedrooms and provide bathroom facilities for the building. Details of how the internal walls will be attached to the existing walls to ensure the works are reversible and to minimise harm to the existing building. Full details of the bathroom will be required setting out how any fixtures or fittings will be attached to any historic fabric as well as routes of any cabling or pipework.
3) Creation of access from Inglenook to roof area to create roof terrace, including raising roof of ground floor kitchen:
It is proposed to create an entrance from Bedroom 2 onto an existing flat roof area to create a roof terrace. The extension will have parapets in a similar design to the existing building and there will be a black metal railing around the edge, inside the parapet, for safety. This is considered to be acceptable as, although it will be visible on approach to the site, the area will continue to be screened by the parapet. There is already an extension here and the alteration will improve the appearance and will not dominate the existing building.
4) Blocking up of ground floor wall and creation of access into western facing lounge:
The blocked-up area will follow the original built form of the building. The existing layout has multiple walls in close proximity to each other, creating an awkward entrance through and severely limiting the level of usable space. The new entrance doorway will be in the base of the spiral staircase and will see an existing arrow-hole window lost to create the entrance. Following discussions with the applicant and planning agent it was found that a secondary exit away from the kitchen area was essential in order to provide an escape route in case of a kitchen fire. As such, there is considered justification for this doorway and emergency route.
5) Extension of western room to the north:
The toilets were a later addition to the building, with permission granted in 1992 (92/00035/LBC) and their removal is considered acceptable. The extension to this room ties in with the need for an emergency escape route and is justified acceptable in order to provide door clearance areas for the emergency escape route. Multiple designs of this extension were considered, and it was found that a more modern extension would not sit appropriately with main building. The side elevation of the existing extension is of stone with a parapet and it is proposed to be similar on the proposed extension, but still noticeably different as they are approached. This contrast is welcomed to ensure the extension does not appear as a part of the original building and is clearly an (appropriately designed) addition to the original fabric.
6) Opening up of western elevation and creation of balcony:
The west facing toilet window will see the existing window removed and a glazed door inserted to allow access onto a raised decking area. As set out previously, this extension is a later addition to the building and not part of the original fabric. The balcony is limited in size and will sit on the existing seawall with glazed safety panels. There will be a level of glazing added on this elevation, however the windows are proposed to be similar to those on the main building. The restrained balcony size is considered to be acceptable and although visible on the approach will not dominate the building.
7) Alteration of northern window to double doors:
stridetreglown.com 12 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement The new door will see an existing window removed and the opening widened. Although a level of harm will be created from this alteration, it is considered that it will generate less than substantial harm is an acceptable alteration.
8) New entrance wall:
It is proposed to create a new timber wall in the undercroft, approximately 0.75 metres from the existing entrance. It will contain services and will have a secret door. The material will also be matched on the roof of the undercroft, replacing an existing wooden mismatched design. This alteration, although creating a new aspect, will be fully reversible and will remove a setback area that is currently blighted by graffiti and rubbish. This will provide a separation between the building and the publicly accessible walkway and increase security and enjoyment for occupants of the building.
9) Replacement windows:
It is proposed to replace existing windows, of which the exiting is currently boarded up. The proposed designs are in keeping with those historically used in the building and are considered acceptable, subject to full justification and design details.
10) Glazed roof dome and roof alterations:
The stairwell will see a glazed roof dome installed to provide light to the stairway. This will be primarily screened from view by the parapets and is considered acceptable subject to full design details being submitted.
11) Other Details:
Additional information will be required in relation to internal wall/floors, methods of fixing of internal walls and details of where all fixtures and fittings will be installed. This is not necessarily information that would be required upfront and could be dealt with via condition if the information is not available at the time of application. It is also recommended to submit details of the repair schedule for the existing building, as this will help provide additional weight to the proposals in returning the building back to a useable state.
12) South West Coast Path:
The South West Coast path runs through the application side, running along the eastern side through an arched corridor underneath first floor rooms. The application proposes to retain this access and there is not considered to be any significant conflict. The coast path will need to be kept open during the works period.
13) Occupant Amenity:
The proposal will see a large double bedroom installed and all habitable rooms will be served by natural light. The positioning in an isolated location may not be suitable for a dwelling but is considered acceptable for a holiday let. A condition will be placed on any approval for use as a holiday let only. This is to promote visitor economy and stop the building being used as a primary residence.
14) Neighbour Amenity:
The site is in an isolated location with no immediate neighbours. The limited size of the building and single bedroom would prevent it generating significant noise or amenity impacts to the surrounding area.
15) Biodiversity:
The site forms part of the Hooe Lake City Green Space and adjoins the Country Wildlife Sites and core biodiversity network features of Hooe Lake and Radford Lake. It is noted that there are bats in the wider area.
stridetreglown.com 13 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement The existing building forms a key part of the green space. Whilst the site will not be a publicly accessible asset there is scope for providing improvements within the wider Green Space in order to meet Policy DEV27 requirements. An Open Space Assessment will be required to be submitted with the application, alongside landscape details.
In order to assess the impacts of the scheme a preliminary ecological appraisal will be required, which may result in other surveys being undertaken. A bat survey should be undertaken in the existing building and a bird survey of the entire site as there is reasonable likelihood of nesting birds being present.
An Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy will be required to outline mitigation and compensation measures to avoid impacts on protected species during and post construction, along with any enhancement measures. It should include a Construction Environment Management Plan.
The existing tree on site is proposed to be retained and a tree survey will need to be undertaken to ensure it is not harmed by the proposal. This will be followed by a tree protection plan and Arboricultural method statement; however this can be dealt with via condition.
16) Highway Considerations:
The site has a large public car park to the north which would provide ample parking for visitors to the property. The Local Highway Authority advised that it would be considered necessary to demarcate and mark out a dedicated space for the property separate from the wider car parking area used by the general public.
Development option – public cafe
2.11.1 The idea of using the building as a café has been considered and ultimetaly discounted for the following reasons.
• Space: the kitchen would have to go in the seaward extension so visitors in the main space & first floor. kitchen would be tiny, no storage and would likely rely on food prep off-site, just light cooking, plate up and serve on site. Low-profit margin. Not an economically attractive business model. • Accessibility (in the proper sense) for the general public would limit them to the single main space on the ground floor. To avoid discrimination this should contain an Accessible WC, for which there is precious little room. • General toilets for the public would have to go on the first floor. That would eat up one space leaving just one other for tables/ covers. • Staff facilities would be extremely limited and compromise the available space further. • All in we think we would get approximately 16 covers in total inside the building. • Fire egress from first floor for the public will limit numbers due to the travel distance and spiral stair. • The experience of the roof terrace over the seaward extension (assuming public use) would be compromised by the smell from the kitchen extract. • The garden is in the shade. • Increased public provision and fit-out would add a significant increase to the budget. • Increased cost of a license would need to be added. • Increased rates. • The increased load on drainage associated with a public use would require connection to the mains sewer, which is some 120m away, this would significantly increase cost.
stridetreglown.com 14 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement • Furthermore, it is unlikely we can ‘fix’ the external walls now (repoint them all with lime – as we suspect the cement will not come out). Its proposed use will need to realise sufficient profit to accommodate an increased maintenance commitment – perhaps for the first 10 years. Not unusual with these old buildings. All things considered we do not believe it would stack up particularly well as a public cafe.
stridetreglown.com 15 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND EXISTING BUILDINGS
Site location
2.13.1 The site was once part of the wider Radford Estate which included Radford House, Radford Park, Radford Lake, St. Keverne’s Quay, and the quarry. The site is level from north to south, is located on the South West Coast Path which runs through the east part and enjoys an open aspect over Hooe Lake and beyond.
“Using local stone, the dam was built around 1815 with a romantic castellated cottage in the middle for the sluice keeper. The boating lake (Radgord Lake) was enhanced by some pleasure gardens, cottages, and a boathouse on the site of St Keverne’s Quay. This was originally a simple landing quay that could only be reached at high tide. Drake, Frobisher, Hawkins and Raleigh used it when visiting Radford.”1
2.13.2 There is a large Yew tree to the north of the tower which is very close to the sea wall and requires lopping and topping to protect the sea wall and the property.
Existing building
2.14.1 Radford Castle was built for the workers of the Radford estate, unlike similar looking structures which were used to defend Plymouth. The existing building is two storeys plus a single storey lean-to extension to the west end. Built in the Gothic style using traditional materials and techniques it has been poorly converted in the mid C20 using modern materials; concrete ground slab, steels beams, steel staircase but retains is historic character externally. The building has been vacant for many years, is empty and is falling further into disrepair. Nothing of heritage value remains internally. The roof coverings, timber first floor, staircase, windows, and doors all require replacement along with comprehensive repairs to the envelope.
Plate 01 – North and West elevations overlooking Hooe Lake Plate 02 – North elevation looking south
Plate 03 – East and north elevations overlooking Radford Lake Plate 04 – South elevation looking north
1 Robin Blythe-Lord, Radford Castle, http://www.plymvalleyheritage.org/radford-castle.html, undated.
stridetreglown.com 16 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Radford
2.16.1 Described by a former resident as ‘a squared block with round turrets and a gateway for the route that runs across the Dam’2, Radford Castle was once part of the Radford Estate. Although Radford House itself was demolished in 1937, the estate can be traced back to the 1086 Domesday Survey when the king owned one hundred acres at ‘Radeford’ as part of his manor of Plympton3. Later, Radford became home to the Harris family. Christopher Harris is a particularly well-known character, whose connections with some of the great names of the Elizabethan era, such as Drake, Hawkins, Howard, and Raleigh, have direct links to the estate.
Building Radford Castle
2.17.1 Following an exchange agreement between the Duke of Bedford and John Harris, to tidy up the Duke’s Plymstock manor (1812 and 18194), the decision was made to add an embankment over the tidal creek to create a permanent lake, complete with ponds and waterfalls56. Situated on the causeway between what are now called ‘Radford Lake’ and ‘Hooe Lake’, the Castle was built with limestone from nearby Radford Quarry in the style of a ‘small mock gothic castle’7. This was to be a cottage for the groundsman who also controlled the main sluice gate. Opening this would drain the entire lake to enable cleaning and fishing.
2.17.2 The exact date when Radford Castle was built remains unclear, but the evidence suggests between 1815 and 1860. Brian Steele, in his booklet ‘A History of Radford’, stated that it was built as a folly at the time the present dam was constructed c. 18608 and used as accommodation for the keeper. However, another source points to an earlier date of 18159. Between 1815 and 1860, the Radford estate was owned by John Harris (buried in 1817), married to Catherine Bulteel of Flete and then his son John Harris (born 1785 and died in 1841). Ivy Langdon suggests that both John’s were interested in embellishing and extending the estate10. Various maps and other documents also give a vague idea but nothing definite.
2.17.3 For example, in 1794 John Swete wrote of travelling to Radford, ‘the seat of Harris Esq’ and described the view of the creek ‘which ran up to Radford Mill as ‘a rocky appearance beyond, at the mouth of the creek, the larger sheet of water extending itself to the lower village of Hue’. He made a drawing of it11 which shows a lime kiln at the far end of the Hill (the quarry face in front of what is now called Amacre Drive) but no causeway or castle exists. Similarly, the 1827 Greenwood map of the Plymouth and Plymstock area12 does not show a causeway or castle.
2.17.4 However, a painting drawn by H. Warsley and engraved by W. Floyd of ‘Plymstock from Bury Hill’ (now called Burrow Hill) published in 183013 does seem to show a building on the causeway, suggesting it may have been built by this time. An image of the engraving follows.
2 Colin Stephenson https://www.hooelake.org/2011/03/the-radford-story-my-childhood-days-at-radford-bycolin- stephenson/, posted 28th March 2011. 3 Ivy Langdon, The Plymstock Connection, p.103, 1995. 4 Bedford Records, DRO bundle 1, Title Deeds 1812 &1819 in Ivy Langdon, The Plymstock Connection, p103, 1995. The original records have not yet been located by this author so cannot be substantiated. 5 Ivy Langdon, The Plymstock Connection, p.103, 1995 6 In ‘The Harris Chronicles: the story of a West Country family’, it was also noted that the castle originally had a draw bridge. 7 Robin Blythe-Lord, Radford Castle, http://www.plymvalleyheritage.org/radford-castle.html, undated. 8 Brian Steele. A History of Radford, p.19, 1990. 9 Robin Blythe-Lord, Radford Castle, http://www.plymvalleyheritage.org/radford-castle.html, undated. 10 Ivy Langdon, The Plymstock Connection, p.103, 1995. 11 Devon Records Office, 564M/F5/45 12 Greenwood Map, Devon Rural Archives. 13 PWDRO, 1373/230
stridetreglown.com 17 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Figure 03 - Painting drawn by H. Warsley and engraved by W. Floyd of ‘Plymstock from Bury Hill’ (now called Burrow Hill) published in 1830
2.17.5 The 1843 Tithe map of Plymstock14 shows the causeway built alongside ‘Mill Pond’ but no Castle or building, although if it was not occupied the Castle may have not been titheable (the reason for Churches to carry out the survey). Indeed, in the same year of 1843, a lodge is mentioned as part of the Barton of Radford property of Colonel Harris but no Castle or Folly. This may refer to one of several lodges (Radford Lodge, Burrow Lodge, and another at Resevoir Road, Elburton) serving the Radford Estate.
2.17.6 More clues might be found in the name. In early records it seems to have been known as ‘Radford Gatehouse’15. In the 1917 deed when the estate was sold to the Mitchell family, it was called ‘The Tower’16. In local history books it is often referred to as ‘a folly’17. Later census records have referred to it as ‘Radford Castle Lodge’18, or just ‘The Castle’19. Interestingly, according to Brian Steele, the Castle was known locally as ‘Jack’s Castle’. The following lists the people known to have lived in Radford Castle between 1861 and 1911.
Living at the Castle
1861 Census20
14 1843 Tithe Map Plymstock, https://www.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/tithe-map/plymstock/ 15 1861 Census 16 PWDRO, 1096/116 and 221 17 Brian Steele, A History of Radford, p.19, 1990. 18 1871 Census 19 1891 Census 20 The 1841 census has two entries for ‘Radford Lodge’ one on page 3 and one on page 7. There were reportedly two Radford lodges, one at Burrow Hill and the other where the present one stands on the corner of Radford Park Road. The page 3 entry records James Rydr (70), Mary Rydr (65), Andrew Wakeham (30 and Elizabeth Wakeham (30) as living there. The page 7 entry registers Henry Adams (63), Grace Adams (71) and Henry Cox (4).
stridetreglown.com 18 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 2.18.1 John (34) (labourer) and Elizabeth (32) Edwards are registered as living at ‘Radford Gate House’, Wixenford, Plymstock with no less than 6 children. Mary Jane (11), William (9), Daniel (6), Maria (4), Samuel (2) and Grace (1). Amazingly they also have a ‘lodger’, William Stephens (2).
2.18.2 Prior to this a John (24) and Elizabeth (22) Edwards are registered in the 1851 census as living at or near the Volunteer Inn at Plymstock. John is described as a farmer’s labourer and they have one daughter, Mary Jane (0).
1871 Census
2.18.3 At ‘Radford Castle Lodge’ lives John (44) (no occupations listed), Elizabeth (41), Maria (14), Samuel (12), Richard (8), Emily (6) and Charles (4).
1881 Census
2.18.4 At ‘Castle Lodge’ lives John (54) (General labourer and gamekeeper), Elizabeth (52), Richard (18) (gardener domestic), Emily (16) (general servant unemployed) and Ernest Edwards (6) (Grandson).
1891 Census
2.18.5 At ‘The Castle’ are gatekeeper John Edwards (64), wife Elizabeth (62), daughter Emily (26) living on her own means, Ernest (16) a labourer, Clara (16) a dressmaker and Walter a visitor (23) (Sergeant in the Royal Marines).
Figure 04 - The Castle Lodge and Dam, in a collection of four watercolours by J. Cocks featuring Hooe Lake and Radford Lake, Plymouth in 1891. Note the tall terracotta chimney pot.
1901 Census
2.18.6 At ‘Radford Castle’ is living a general labourer John Edwards (74) and his wife Elizabeth (72), their daughter Emily (36) son-in-law Walter Nurse (43) who was a labourer in the limestone quarry, together with Walter Nurse (8) (Grandson), Harold Nurse (6) (Grandson) and Percy Nurse (4) (Grandson), Daisy Nurse (1) (Granddaughter), Sidney Nurse (2) (Grandson) and Bessie Phillips (14) (Granddaughter).
stridetreglown.com 19 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 2.18.7 So, it seems that John Edwards and his family may have lived in the Castle for around 40 years. If John was known as Jack, can this explain Brian Steele’s reference to ‘Jack’s Castle’? Or was Jack another name for John Harris, owner of the Radford Estate?
1911 Census
2.18.8 John Axworthy (54) lives there as a gardener domestic with his wife Edith (46). Their children, Thomas (12), Kathleen (9) and Mildred (4) were all at school.
2.18.9 The next family known to have lived in Radford Castle between 1931 and 1937 was Colin Stephenson and his parents and siblings21. He describes no gas or electricity within the castle and using oil lamps and candles. Water was collected from an outside tap and Colin’s mother used to cook on an open range using coal, coke, and wood. The WC was in the washhouse outside the castle and all the laundry was done in a copper boiler. These recollections also confirm that there were three bedrooms with concrete and stone floors.
1917 Deeds
2.18.10 The 1917 deeds confirm the purchase of The Radford Estate by William Alfred Mitchell of ‘Rockville’ Pomphlett (Miller) from Mackworth Praed Parker and Frederick Thomas Bulteel, former bankers of Harris Bulteel & Co (the Naval Bank) by now bankrupt.
2.18.11 The deeds document the Radford Estate conveyancing since 1887, when an Indenture was made between Thomas Bulteel and Giles Andrew Daubeny (1) and Williams Edwin Matthews and Christopher Bulteel (2). Under this agreement, a 1000 years lease appears to have been arranged, to which later agreements refer. There is also reference to lands paid for under the Defence Acts of 1860 and 1861, but it is unclear to which land this refers to.
2.18.12 In 1906, following several deaths, the estate was released to Thomas Bulteel. Upon his death in 1908, the estate went to Mackworth Praed Parker, Frederick Thomas Bulteel and Edward Daubeny Griffith Richards under the firm name Harris Bulteel & Co (the Naval Bank) at Plymouth.
2.18.13 However, by 1912 the estate appears to be in trouble. An indenture is made between Frederick Thomas Bulteel (1) Louis Eric Ames Henry Alfred Newton and Reverend Leonard Victor Goodenough for a mortgage for certain lands at Radford for the sum of £25,000. By 1914 they received an order of bankruptcy and in 1917 the estate of 263 acres was sold for £11,000 to Mr Mitchell.
2.18.14 Several memos in this document also show various sub-purchasing between William Alfred Gordon Mitchell (until 1927) and Priscilla Littleton Mitchell (from 1935) and various local residents: eg. Philip Bluett Hine and William Frederick Rowe.
1962 Deeds
2.18.15 In 1962 the estate was sold by William Alfred Gordon Mitchell to The Rural District Council of Plympton St Mary for £10,100 comprising of 44.53 acres. Interestingly, one of the rights specified in the Deeds is that owners or occupiers of the Castle have the right to take a supply of water from the spring near the Old Mansion site. These Deeds also refer to a tenancy dated 30th Dec 1944 for Priscilla Littleton Mitchell and Arthur Wallace Littleton Ridge, along with Sydney John Philips at Pond Farm at a rent of £117 per annum.
21 Colin Stephenson https://www.hooelake.org/2011/03/the-radford-story-my-childhood-days-at-radfordby- colin-stephenson/, posted 28th March 2011.
stridetreglown.com 20 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Radford Castle under threat
2.19.1 Radford Castle has been under continuous threat of development, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s22. However, as early as 1936 plans were drawn out by WAG Mitchell for developing the Radford Estate23 and of course, Radford House itself was demolished in 1937.
2.19.2 In 1966 the Plymstock and District Civic Society fought the Cheshunt Saw-Mills Company plans to build houses on the Radford estate24. After buying the land for tree-felling, the company wanted to develop land bounded by Barn Wood, Buddle Wood and Basinghall plantation. The Civic Society wanted the Rural Council to purchase the whole area to prevent this from happening.
2.19.3 In Feb 1968, The South Devon Times reported that Plymstock Councillors Jack Wigmore and Rodney Easton wanted to clear the weirs and flood the lake so that it might be used as a children’s boating pool25. However, the same month Jack and Rodney suffered a setback after their appeals for funding for the project was turned down following severe cuts in public spending26. A further report from Mrs Over of the Radford Preservation Society in April claimed that the Radford area was once famous for waterfowl and they hoped that they would one day return. The Castle, it was hoped, would once again be made habitable, perhaps by a sluice gate keeper who would have lodgings and a mooring in return for keeping vandals at bay. In June of that year. The South Devon Times confirmed a two-year plan for Radford that Mr Stanley Goodman would coordinate with the work force for Radford Preservation Society. The Western Evening Herald then reported that Plymouth City Engineer’s Department was installing a new valve system to control the lake water. It also suggested that Plymouth Parks Committee had not yet decided on the best future use for the Castle and that mostly tidying work was going on. By July 26th, 1968, the repairs were underway to the lake and the Castle by the Council as reported in the South Devon Times27 and The Western Morning News stated that it would cost £1,21628. However, the same month saw reports in the Western Evening Herald of a review into the suitability of Hooe Lake as a deep-sea yachting anchorage by Corporation Officials29. In 1969 the building was referred to as ‘Radford Gate House, Hooe Lake’. Permission was sought from the City Council to use the building as headquarters and storehouse for the voluntary workers restoring Radford lake and meadows.
2.19.4 In 1970 registration of the Grade II listed building was made, describing it as:
‘Early 19th century. Previously inhabited folly erected on a dam at the lower end of Radford Lake in the form of Gothic gatehouse with embattled parapet and angle stair turret. Flat roof. Rubble and ashlar. 2s. Gothic wood casements. The passage has plain pointed arch at each end.’
On Jan 5th, 1972, a scheme to repair the shell of Radford Castle was approved, along with the Foulston designed Devonport Guildhall. The grade 2 listed building was deemed an important feature at an unusual causeway between Radford and Hooe Lakes ‘and the only building externally intact in an attractive city park’. On February 4th, the South Devon Times reported that a group of teenagers had volunteered to help make good the damage done by vandals, renovate the walls in the park, remove foliage from the buildings and make the ruins safer and more attractive to visitors. There was again a request to use the Castle as a storeroom and shelter for those volunteering at the park. On Feb 25th, the South Devon Times advertised a sponsored walk to raise money for the work. Just a few days later on Feb 29th a request was made for an
22 It is important not to confuse The Castle with Radford Lodge (of which there were two originally). The Lodge that survives today narrowly missed demolition several times and given last minute temporary reprieve (PWRDO 2732/26). Then in September 1973 the Minister for the Environment, Mr Geoffrey Rippin ‘in light of public feeling’ ordered a Radford Lodge public enquiry (PWDRO, 2774/81). By April 1974 the decision had been made not to demolish it. 23 PWDRO 2961/PCC/60/1/20961. 24 PWRDO 2732/24, Morning News 6/1/66. 25 PWDRO 2732/26. 26 South Devon Times 21/2/69. 27 PWDRO 1373/230. 28 PWDRO 2732/26. 29 PWDRO 2732/26.
stridetreglown.com 21 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement expert to inspect cracks in the walls of the castle. It followed a tour of the castle by representatives of Plymouth Corporation’s parks, planning and city engineers’ departments, members of the Radford Park Preservation Society and councillors for Radford Ward, as well as Mr Stanley Goodman who had organised the young volunteers. Interestingly there was a strong local opinion that the cracks were old and caused when bombs were dropped in the adjoining Hooe Lake during the war. It was confirmed then that the estates committee had approved expenditure on securing the castle as a shell and that Radford volunteers had already reroofed the building to prevent further decay. The team were planning to restore an upper floor as a tool room and replace the concrete blocks filling the window spaces with natural stone. In Nov 24th, 1972, The Times reported a request from artists to use Radford Castle as a studio. On January 9th, 1973 it was reported in The Western Morning News that the Castle would be used by Oreston husband and wife artists Mr and Mrs Favata as a studio for stone carving and portrait sculpture. As well as checking vandalism on buildings in the park, the couple were planning to spend £1000 on repairing the building before paying rent. This was the year that Radford Heritage Group was formed. An appeal was also made to the Council for the wider Radford Park to be sanctioned as a 27 acres arboretum30. This proposal was put forward by the Plymstock and District Civic Society and the Radford Heritage Project Group and approved by nearly 100 people at a public meeting on 30th Oct 197331. The council agreed to prepare the land if the public could plant the trees. In February 1975 140 trees and shrubs were planted but some suffered from drought, vandalism, and elm disease.
2.19.5 1980 saw a new marina proposal put forward for Hooe Lake. Plymouth Extra interviews with Mr Demelweek (of Boringdon Terrace Turnchapel) described the freedom of boating in his childhood, insinuating that this would be further ruined if a marina were to go ahead. This continued in 1985 when Jack Wigmore (Councillor) posted a letter in the Western Evening Herald objecting to the plans for a marina for up to 600 boats. Another letter in the same newspaper reported that in 1983 over 400 letters of objection were sent to Plymouth planning offices about the proposal. In 1992 a Friends of Radford support group was set up to raise money for the work and pay for things like insurance and tools32.
2.19.6 So, despite continuous threat of development and changing landowners, Radford Castle survives. Although since the 1970s it has been mainly empty and gradually decaying, it continues to be enjoyed by many who visit Radford Park and Hooe Lake. Now, with this application, its future is much more promising and a new era beckon.
30 PWDRO, 2774/81, Western Evening Herald 1/8/73. 31 PWDRO, 2774/81. 32 PWDRO, 2774/81, Plymouth Extra, 2/7/1992.
stridetreglown.com 22 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3. PROPOSALS
Generally
3.1.1 Radford Castle is a mock castle lodge, built as an eyecatcher, erected on a dam at the lower end of Radford Lake. An early C19 2-storey building with an impressive exterior detailed with local materials, it is listed at Grade II. Built in the Gothic style as a gatehouse with its carriageway running through the lake side of the building, along the side of the dam, with a room over. A seaward wing features a corbelled chimney stack over the south-west corner and a large round stair tower clasping the north-west corner plus a low-quality single-storey wing with mono-pitch roof at the seaward side. It is primarily of heritage significance as a striking example of an early C19 gatehouse built in the Gothic style. An artist’s impression of the existing Castle and site follows.
Figure 05 - Artist’s impression of the existing Castle and site
3.1.2 One of the most attractive aspects of the character of the building is how it is perceived in the wider landscape – sat atop a dam of battered walls of large, dressed granite blocks. The South West Coast Path runs along the carriageway and enjoys a high footfall of visitors.
3.1.3 The proposed use is as a high-end holiday let/romantic get-away. The idea of converting to a cafe has been investigated and will be further explained and ultimately discounted in the accompanying Planning Statement – prepared by others.
3.1.4 The design faithfully reinstates period details to restore the character of the original building. The designs for the windows are shown in the following photo.
stridetreglown.com 23 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Plate 05 – Photo believed to be c.1930, source HooeLake.org. Note the Gothic style arch-top windows and the garden fence.
Plate 06 – Photo believed to be c.1940, source unknown. Note the Gothic style gates.
stridetreglown.com 24 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement New extension
3.2.1 First thoughts were to style the new extension to be clearly contemporary using modern materials expressed in a modern way. The effect is shown in the sketch below. We felt that, in this instance, the modern approach would be jarring, over-stated, and generally discordant with the Castle.
Figure 06 – Sketch of west extension expressed in a modern style
3.2.2 After much debate we decided a more sympathetic style was required. Something altogether quieter and more understated. The new extension has been carefully styled to be complementary to the Castle - itself the ‘star’. Viewed from a distance the new extension does not draw attention to itself, it is sensitive and sympathetic in reverence to the Castle. The effect is shown in the artist’s impressions drawings 150-154 submitted with this application – excerpts below for convenience.
Figure 07 – Artist’s impression of completed project
Figure 08 – Artist’s impression of completed project
stridetreglown.com 25 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3.2.3 Upon closer inspection the new extension will reveal itself as clearly contemporary with high quality materials and detailing - in-line with the precepts of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB). The proposed materials are:
• Plymouth limestone - note the different scale to the original. • Pointing will be lime but expressed differently (subject to site trials). • Solid steel reveals to openings - painted. • Traditional joinery. • Contemporary glass balustrade. • Steel castellations - painted. • Oak handrails left to ‘silver down’ naturally. All carefully crafted and beautifully detailed but deliberately different to the original. Shadow gaps express the line between old and new and give a clean look. The effect is shown below. Please also refer to the drawings submitted with the application.
Figure 09 – Sketch of west extension
3.2.4 We feel a high-quality response is appropriate given the sensitivity of the site, the visual impact in terms of heritage, and it will release the building’s potential for the users to enjoy.
stridetreglown.com 26 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement New entrance, boot room, and services cupboard
3.3.1 The existing entrance is accessed from the carriageway. Currently an anti-social space it will be replaced with a practical use; a lobby with cloak/boot room and electrical cupboard, to the benefit of the main ground floor spaces. The lobby also helps to provide acoustic privacy. The enclosure is proposed to be clad with traditional timber wainscot panelling - given a contemporary twist with shadow gaps at junctions and a discreet door - which can be painted to provide fire-proofing and can be quickly re-coated if damaged by anti-social behaviour.
Door
Figure 10 – Sketch of wainscot panelling/ entrance door to undercroft
Fire safety
3.4.1 Life safety/egress in the event of fire is crucial and has driven the plan. We propose the minimum of historic fabric to be removed to enable the building to be used safely. We have increased the width of an existing opening in the tower to provide safe egress out from the first floor in the event of fire.
Figure 11 – Sketch of new opening in tower Plate 07 – Part of existing opening in tower
stridetreglown.com 27 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3.4.2 We feel that the changes should be acceptable as: there is no reasonably practicable alternative means of doing so without harm, and harm has been reduced to the minimum consistent with achieving the objective.
Overall approach
3.5.1 In terms of our approach, we have sought to provide a design that balances the many aspects of the brief, the constraints of the site and existing building, will meet current Building Regulations (where appropriate and excluding any necessary dispensations – tbc in separate Building Regulations application), is ‘green’ and sustainable, yet sensitive to the heritage/conservation aspects of the site, and provides exciting and interesting spaces that will contribute towards its effective re-use.
3.5.2 Generally, a conservative approach of minimal intervention and disturbance to the original fabric is fundamental to good conservation and is sound practice. In order of priority, the guiding principles are:
• Minimal intervention and disturbance to the original fabric - conserve ‘as found’. • Like-for-like repairs using traditional techniques and materials. • Replacement with reclaimed materials where possible - where original fabric had been lost.
3.5.3 The proposed internal alterations are moderate-considerable in nature but generally do not affect the buildings special interest. The external alterations proposed are moderate-considerable in nature and, on aggregate, would have a positive impact on the appearance of the building, whilst preserving the character of the Castle.
Figure 12 – Sketch of south elevation
stridetreglown.com 28 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Figure 13 – Sketch of north elevation
3.5.4 The proposed reuse is well suited to the building while preserving the integrity of the Castle.
3.5.5 The proposed use would facilitate much-needed repairs to the structure and help secure its long-term conservation.
3.5.6 The proposals will be shown in the heritage impact assessment to amount to less than substantial harm to the listed building.
3.5.7 The east elevation remains unchanged.
3.5.8 For clarity, the west elevation follows at a larger scale.
stridetreglown.com 29 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Figure 14 – Sketch of west elevation
3.5.9 The proportions and geometry have been carefully crafted to sit comfortably with the existing building.
stridetreglown.com 30 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Scope of works
3.6.1 A full suite of drawings is included with the application. For convenience, a concise summary follows.
• Demolish existing C20 extension. • New replacement extension to the east. • New enclosure for draught lobby, boot room, and services cupboard. • New openings for fire safety and improved amenity. • New insulated ground floor. • New insulated first floor. • New insulated roof structure and coverings. • Repair existing masonry walls and period features. • New high-performance windows and doors. • New Mechanical & Electrical services. • New foul drainage system with anti-flood design. • New finishes, fixtures, and equipment.
Sustainability measures
3.7.1 A bespoke retrofit assessment of Radford Castle has been carried out to understand the most appropriate way to retrofit and improve its energy performance. It demonstrates that we have considered the options to improve the energy efficiency as far as is reasonably practicable, and that all reasonable measures have been employed in the design for the repair and refurbishment of the existing building without prejudicing the character of the host building or increasing the risk of long‐term deterioration of the building fabric.
Figure 15 – STBA approach – guidance
The ‘Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance (STBA) Retrofit Assessment’ is included with the application.
3.7.2 Details of the how this has informed the design follow.
stridetreglown.com 31 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3.7.3 The overall concept is to firstly reduce energy demand, then;
• Reduce infiltration. • Increase insulation of envelope (as far as practicable). • High performance insulated windows and doors. • Look to remove thermal bridging (as far as practicable). • Only then to consider renewables.
3.7.4 A summary of the recommendations for this project are as follows:
• Flat roof insulation. • Exposed soffits to upper floors: insulation in between joists or under soffit. • Replacement of existing ground floor with new concrete insulated solid ground floor. • Wet under-floor heating. • High performance windows and doors. • Window and door draughtproofing. • Reduced air flow to chimney flue. • High efficiency gas-fired condensing boiler – to be confirmed. • Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) – to be confirmed. • New cylinder and insulation. • Cylinder thermostat. • Heating controls (for wet and warm air systems). • Pipe insulation. • Lighting system upgrade. • Background ventilators and intermittent extract fans. • Passive stack ventilation. • User interfaces for usability. • Provision of simple and clear information. • Maintenance. • New top-quality energy saving appliances; refrigerator/ freezer, washing machine and dryer.
Full details of the bespoke retrofit assessment can be found in the ‘STBA Retrofit Assessment’ submitted with the application.
3.7.5 NOTE: The planning submission for the building is to RIBA Stage 3. The LPA should therefore seek to condition the detailed/technical design aspects as part of the consent as appropriate.
Accessibility
3.8.1 It is not possible to make the building ‘fully accessible’ due to its diminutive size internally, nor the approach to it along the South West Coast Path, due to the gravel surfacing along its length.
3.8.2 There is no reasonable way of providing ‘step-free’ access to the first floor due to the constraints of the building.
stridetreglown.com 32 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3.8.3 Due to its constraints, the likely users, and its intended use, there are no facilities for buggies etc.
3.8.4 Nonetheless, the proposed internal adjustments will allow users to move around the building with greater ease than the current layout. For example, the current entry area to the C20 extension to the west is through a door opening just 600mm wide. The internal subdivision in this area is also extremely tight and not practical. An excerpt of the ground floor plan follows:
Figure 16 – Sketch of existing ground floor plan
3.8.5 This is as much as can be reasonably achieved all things considered.
Structure
3.9.1 A large crack is evident on the south elevation between the carriageway and the seaward wing (shown in red on the sketch that follows). The ‘tower’ over the carriageway is also leaning northward – this is evident in the enclosed plans. A visual structural appraisal has been completed by MBA Engineers and opening-up works are required to investigate further.
Figure 17 – Sketch of cracking to south elevation
3.9.2 Subject to the items detailed in Section 2 of MBA’s report, it is their opinion that the building structure is generally suitable for the proposed refurbishment work. Areas of further work and investigations should be carried out as indicated in Section 2.
stridetreglown.com 33 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3.9.3 The building appears to have been subject to movement at foundation level most likely from the general passage of water in and around the foundations. This is evident from the general cracking and movement observed across the elevations. The foundation detail for the building is currently unknown, but it is likely to be traditional stone walling built directly off the ground.
3.9.4 It is not clear at this stage if the movement is progressive, although given the age of the building (circa 200 years), any movement is likely to be at a very slow rate. Given the very high costs associated with underpinning or other means of similar structural intervention, we would recommend that the cracking is repaired with specialist crack stitch repairs and the movement is subsequently monitored on an annual basis for the foreseeable future. This should be undertaken by installing tell-tale crack monitors to some of the more pronounced cracks once repaired. Given any ongoing movement is likely to be at a very slow rate, it is recommended that the walls are monitored by using a high precision digital survey with target points which should be undertaken by a specialist surveying company. If the movement is found to be progressive, it would be expected that more involved structural intervention would be required in the way of underpinning or similar.
Flooding
3.10.1 A Flood Risk Assessment has been completed by MBA Engineers and is enclosed with this application. For convenience this has been partly reproduced below.
“The existing building has an FFL of 3.55m AOD which places it in the high probability risk area for flooding from the sea both now and in the future. Raising the floors above predicted levels is not possible within the parameters of the existing building and is therefore not considered further.
To mitigate against the impact of flooding flood resilient construction will be used for the ground floor areas. This will comprise using materials and finishes that are resistant to damage from seawater inundation and the design of building services that remain above the design flood level.
It is also practical to look at the options for flood defences being built into the fabric of the building. This could take the form of strengthening of ground floor walls and incorporation of removable flood gates to be erected in the event of anticipated flooding.
In addition, access to the property will be cut off for periods of extreme high tide.
Therefore, a robust flood plan will be required based on evacuation of the premises in the event of flood warnings for the area. This will be required to be reviewed on a regular basis as the effects of climate change on tidal levels take place. As a managed holiday let this will be required to ensure safety of all potential users.“
3.10.2 In addition, over the next 100 years the projected height of tidal flooding is estimated at around 1.2m. This is likely to have a significant effect on continued use of the property as there is little that can be done to prevent water getting in at that height. As such, the design of the ground floor construction, fixtures, and fittings will take this into account.
3.10.3 The client lives nearby and has a keen interest in the sea. They will prepare a detailed flood plan for the management of the building that will ensure the building will not be let to users when tidal flooding is expected.
3.10.4 The safety of users can be assured through adequate flood planning as the risk of extreme tidal flooding can be predicted.
3.10.5 Deployment of flood defences to protect the property can be done ‘within the hour’.
3.10.6 We have incorporated flood defences in the design, a summary of the recommendations for this project are as follows:
stridetreglown.com 34 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Figure 18 – Flood defence principals • D.04 – Fixed waterproof glazed balcony. • D.01- D.03 – Flood gates installed across doors.
Waterproof glazed balcony to west elevation
3.10.7 The balcony will be designed to provide flood defence, like that installed at the Royal William Yard but frameless, this design will be fully glazed for minimum visual impact. This will also serve to protect the doors against sea spray and wind driven waves.
Figure 19 – Fixed waterproof glazed balcony to west elevation
stridetreglown.com 35 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement External doors
3.10.8 Making the actual doors ‘flood doors’ is problematic. A door’s main purpose is to cope with everyday use, opening, closing, being locked, and unlocked many times a day. To engineer a door capable of performing for enhanced flood defence is possible but the result will be extremely heavy for everyday use and is not considered practical. Furthermore, once a flood door is closed and there is flood water on the outside, we have effectively lost the use of the door until the flood water has receded.
3.10.9 Therefore, the client will install localised flood defences when required, similar to the following:
Plate 08 – Flood gates for north doors - principal Plate 09 – flood gate – mechanics
3.10.10 The Floodgate door guard consists of a 25mm boxed frame that can telescope sideways using a strong jacking mechanism. The frame is covered by a 7mm thick rubber envelope that creates a watertight seal against the doorway frame. This lightweight effective door guard takes 2 minutes to install and can be used for effective sealing to 680mm in height. The Floodgate, shown above, once installed on the outside of Door D.03, enables the continued use of the door, the barrier can be stepped over if required.
Other measures
3.10.11 Given we are in a high-risk area, we will also make more extensive adjustments to the design to mitigate the potential damage that a serious flood could cause. These include:
• The ground floor will be formed with resilient construction as far as practicable. • Sealed ground floor construction with membrane to prevent water from rising from underneath. • Existing stone rubble walls will be painted with lime-based paint to enable drying. • Use water-resistant materials for the entrance lobby/services cupboard area – Accoya and Tricoya. • Use water-resistant materials for the kitchen fit out. • Install tiling and use rugs that can be easily removed and stored away when a flood occurs. • Ensure utilities can be accessed easily and turned off at the main valve and switches. • Fit electrical sockets and sensitive appliances at least 1400mm above ground level. • Store valuable items on high shelves or move them upstairs where possible. • Use plastic bags and elastic bands around the legs of furniture to protect them from the water. • Fit non-return valves on drains and taps to ensure water only flows in one direction.
stridetreglown.com 36 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 3.10.12 The extension will likely be formed using a cavity wall. In this instance, damp-proof barriers will be required, and ventilation covers will need to be carefully designed. Furthermore, when flood water outside a building rises to more than one metre in depth, then it is recommended that owners allow the water into the building, rather than continuing to block it out. This is because such a volume of water could result in excessive pressure on the external walls, causing structural damage that would be even more expensive to repair than the flood damage.
3.10.13 Insurance is also a big part of the preparation process, so it is vital for the client to check what their policy will cover in relation to flooding. This may mean clarifying any ambiguities with policy providers – something that is going to be much simpler to do before anything happens, rather than trying to do so after the fact.
3.10.14 The flood plan will be required to be reviewed on a regular basis as the effects of climate change on tidal levels take place.
3.10.15 In conjunction with the FRA, the above demonstrates how the development might be made safe for its lifetime using a mixture of building based flood defences and resilient construction with a complementary management strategy.
Ecology
Summary
3.11.1 An Ecological Appraisal survey was undertaken by Devon Wildlife Consultants and confirmed the site was suitable for bats and breeding birds. The subsequent emergence surveys ascertained that Radford Castle currently supports a day roost for two common pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus sp. There was no evidence of bird nesting activity either within or on the exterior of the building, although there is potential for crevice- nesting bird species such as house sparrow Passer domesticus to be present. There was also no evidence of roosting/nesting barn owl activity, and the surrounding habitats are not considered to be suitable for this species.
Mitigation and Enhancement
3.11.2 The design will include enhancements to the site post development to satisfy the national biodiversity strategy detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to preserve, restore, and re-create priority habitats, ecological networks and to ensure the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets.
3.11.3 The development will enable a net gain in biodiversity. In summary, items include:
Bat boxes:
• Two bat roosting boxes, which suitable for different species of bats, will be installed on the building on a southerly aspect and hidden from view on the inside of the castellations at roof level. This will be away from lighting and protected from disturbance. The robust design will not require any maintenance. • The Schwegler 1WQ Summer and Winter Bat Roost (see Plate 10 below) is designed for year-round occupation by bat species which typically inhabit buildings. It is suitable for the safe hibernation of bats in winter as well as for roosting, forming of colonies and raising of young during summer. • Additionally, two further bat boxes, which are suitable for different species of bats, will be installed on mature trees in the woodland to the north and south of the site – see Plate 11 below.
stridetreglown.com 37 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Plate 10 - 1WQ Schwegler Summer & Winter Bat Roost Plate 11 - Eco Bat Crevice Box
Bird boxes:
• Two bird boxes suitable for different species of birds which nest in association with human habitation will be incorporated on the soffit of the undercroft Due to the location of the building, species such as house martin Delichon urbicum or swallow Hirundo rustica may be suitable – see below.
Plate 12 - Vivara Pro WoodStone House Martin Nest Plate 13 - WoodStone Swallow Nest Bowl
• Additionally, two general purpose wooden or ‘woodcrete’ bird boxes suitable for different species of birds will be installed on mature trees that surround the site. These could include tawny owl Strix aluco, robin Erithacus rubecula and general woodland bird species – see below.
Plate 14 - Vivara Pro WoodStone Tawny Owl Nest Box Plate 15 - 2H Schwegler Robin Box
• Due to the proximity of the site to Plymouth, it is considered unlikely that barn owls would utilise the site and therefore it is considered unnecessary to provide enhancements such as a barn owl nest box.
stridetreglown.com 38 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Construction Compliance Recommendations
3.11.4 Considering the survey results, the following construction compliance recommendations are proposed:
• The presence of roosting bats within the structure means that a Bat Low Impact Class Licence (BLICL) from Natural England will be required to undertake any works which would potentially disturb or damage the roost or the bats. • A nesting bird check will be undertaken prior to any demolition or associated works.
stridetreglown.com 39 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 4. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Methodology
THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE
4.1.1 Understanding the significance of a place to inform its future management and change is the foundation of the process of informed conservation management planning: ‘Significance lies at the heart of every conservation action…Unless we understand why a place is worthy of conservation, the whole business of conservation makes very little sense’ (Kate Clark, Informed Conservation).
4.1.2 Assessing significance also provides an opportunity to enhance said significance within proposed works – for example revealing architectural features or removing intrusive interventions. It also provides compliance with various policies, legislation, and guidance.
4.1.3 Significance can be defined as the sum of the cultural heritage values that make a building or place important to this and future generations. The aim of conservation is to sensitively manage change to a place to ensure that its significance is not only protected, but also revealed, reinforced, and enhanced at every possible opportunity.
4.1.4 In legislation, significance is defined as the special architectural or historic interest of a place. The National Planning Policy Framework uses the term ‘significance’, which it defines as, ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. The interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic’. Harm to these key elements, however indirect or small in scale, can strike at the heart of what makes a place special.
4.1.5 The assessment of significance is a way of articulating the key values that contribute to the special interest of a heritage asset. The assessment of individual and overall heritage values should be graded using levels defined specially for the site (BS7913: 2013).
COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY
4.1.6 Research and assessment of the heritage values and significance of the historic building should be carried out to ensure that decisions resulting in change are informed by a thorough understanding of them in line with BS7913:2013.
4.1.7 The fundamental importance of understanding-based heritage conservation is further enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires the significance of a heritage asset to be described at a level of detail proportionate to its importance (NPPF, para 189 & 190).
4.1.8 This significance assessment criteria have been designed to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and the associated Planning Policy Guidance, British Standard 7913 (2013) and Historic England’s Conservation Principles (2008).
THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT
4.1.9 Significance can be defined as the sum of the cultural values which make a building or site important to society. These values are often associated with both physical fabric, and more intangible qualities such as communal value and associations.
4.1.10 Cultural significance is unique to each historic site. The following assessment considers the values outlined in Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance’ (2008), which recommends making assessments using the following categories: evidential, historical, aesthetic, and communal value.
stridetreglown.com 40 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement HERITAGE VALUES
4.1.11 The following values are explained in detail in Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance’ (2008).
1. Evidential Value derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. 2. Historical Value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative. 3. Aesthetic Value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. 4. Communal Value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values but tend to have additional and specific aspects.
4.1.12 To identify the relative contribution that these values make to the significance of a place, and to assist with objective decision making, the significance of the site and its setting are assessed using a scale of significance ratings ranging from ‘high’ to ‘detrimental’.
1. High: An aspect of value that strongly contributes to the significance the heritage asset, forming an essential piece of its cultural value. 2. Medium: An aspect of value that has some cultural importance, making a moderate contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. 3. Low: An aspect of value that has a slight, yet still noteworthy, contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. 4. Detrimental: An aspect of the place that detracts from its collective value and significance. In material terms, removal or reversal of these aspects should be strongly encouraged.
4.1.13 In each case, the level of assessment is proportionate to the level of special interest of the heritage asset and degree to which it is potentially affected by the proposed works.
4.1.14 A summary of the heritage values is provided at the end of the section.
stridetreglown.com 41 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Statement of Significance
4.2.1 Radford Castle is a mock castle lodge, built as an eyecatcher, erected on a dam at the lower end of Radford Lake. An early C19 2-storey building with an impressive exterior detailed with local materials, it is listed at Grade II. Built in the Gothic style as a gatehouse with its carriageway running through the lake side of the building, along the side of the dam, with a room over. A seaward wing features a corbelled chimney stack over the south-west corner and a large round stair tower clasping the north-west corner plus a low-quality single-storey wing with mono-pitch roof at the seaward side. It is primarily of heritage significance as a striking example of an early C19 gatehouse built in the Gothic style.
4.2.2 One of the most attractive aspects of the character of the building is how it is perceived in the wider landscape – sat atop a dam of battered walls of large, dressed granite blocks. The South West Coast Path runs along the carriageway and enjoys a high footfall of visitors.
4.2.3 The completeness of the building has been eroded by the loss of period features and the addition of a small poor-quality C20 extension to the west.
4.2.4 The original C19 building, structure, principal rooms, and stairwell are all of high significance and should be retained with minimum alteration and any harm should be reduced to the minimum consistent with achieving the objective. The later extension and internal subdivision are considered to have a negative impact.
Assessment of Heritage Values
Evidential Value: Low
The building and site are relatively well understood, and therefore have low potential to yield additional evidence about past human activity.
Historical Value: Medium/High
The building is itself a significant element in the narrative history of the area.
Aesthetic Value: Medium/High
The building has considerable aesthetic value though the legibility of the whole has been compromised.
Communal Value: Medium
The building represents notable communal value for its historic associations and presence within the community.
Group Value: Low
While of local interest in its own right, the building and site form part of the wider historical pattern of planning in the area, though this has been compromised by the loss of Radford House and the wider Radford Estate.
stridetreglown.com 42 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT
5.1.1 Heritage impact assessment is a structured process to make sure that the significance of the historic asset has been considered when developing and designing proposals for change. It is a core part of the design process, which tests whether the proposals for change to a historic asset are appropriate by assessing their impact on its significance. It helps to ensure that what is important about the historic asset is sustained or even enhanced when making changes.
5.1.2 In making the applications for planning and listed building consent we must carry out a heritage impact assessment as part of a detailed heritage statement complete with justifications and details of proposed mitigation, particularly for items that may constitute negative impact. This gives decision makers the information they need to understand the reasons for the proposal and to weigh up the risks and benefits.
Methodology
THE REQUIREMENT FOR ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT
5.2.1 This assessment of impact criteria has been designed to comply with the requirements and recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), the associated Planning Policy Guidance, British Standard 7913 (2013).
5.2.2 This integrated approach ensures that the relevant issues for both planning considerations and wider good conservation practice are considered as an integrated part of the assessment.
THE PROCESS FOR ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACT
5.2.3 Following from the understanding of significance detailed in the previous section of this report, this section analyses the impact of the proposed works upon that significance.
5.2.4 The assessment of impact measures the identified levels of significance against the degree of change proposed, and whether this causes harm. Harm to heritage significance has been avoided wherever possible as part of a balanced scheme.
5.2.5 Where avoidance of harm in heritage terms has not been possible, the second test ensures that any harm is necessary, and thirdly, that the harm can be clearly and convincingly justified. Justification relies on the balance between harm and benefit. The benefits of a proposal must be in the public interest.
5.2.6 This assessment methodology has been used to inform the assessment of the ‘key areas of impact’ within this report. Following this established methodology, the cited sections are structured as follows.
1. Measuring relative significance.
5.2.7 This section describes the contribution of the area in question to the overarching significance of the heritage asset in line with the methodology previously established in this report.
2. What is the level of change?
5.2.8 Assessing the degree of harm to significance first requires an understanding of the change that is proposed. The scale of change does not directly correlate to the level of impact. The cumulative effect of separate impacts has also been considered.
stridetreglown.com 43 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 5.2.9 This section describes the proposed works and identifies the level of change involved. This section is intended as a helpful overview of proposals and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying application documents for a full understanding of the works. For the purposes of this assessment the levels are defined as follows.
3. What is the impact of change?
5.2.10 The significance of the effect of change i.e., the overall impact is summarised for each identified aspect of the proposal. Both the micro and macro impact of the proposals has been considered, as the direct impact of proposals may constitute a major change or adverse impact on a relatively small area, which does not translate to the same level of harm to the heritage asset as a whole. Similarly, the cumulative impact of numerous minor alterations could have a proportionally higher impact across the whole.
5.2.11 This section analyses the collective impact of the proposed works in question upon the significance of the heritage asset as a whole, considering the contribution the element or area in question makes to that significance. This includes consideration of cumulative impact.
4. What is the need for change?
5.2.12 Heritage has great weight within planning policy and law, so any harm to significance has been carefully considered with regards to whether it is necessary, including the consideration of alternatives.
5.2.13 This section clarifies the need and rationale for the proposed works within the context of the ambitions of the project as a whole. Where most relevant, information regarding options development is provided.
5. Can harmful change be mitigated?
5.2.14 Any changes that would cause harm in heritage terms are limited to what is necessary to sustain the heritage asset in use within the context of the project as a whole. Mitigation measures have been provided to support the need for the proposals in their current form. Willingness to consider and compare proposals and offering mitigation measures provides evidence that a range of options have been considered. This has facilitated the selection of options that either eliminate or mitigate harm as far as possible.
5.2.15 Heritage has been at the heart of the design development process, which has mitigated harm to a considerable degree. This section helpfully clarifies the key measures taken to mitigate any harm in heritage terms.
6. Can harm be justified against the public benefit?
5.2.16 Proposals that have an impact on the significance of a heritage assets have been clearly and convincingly justified in terms of the public benefits these provide. Public benefits are any outcomes in the public interest, such as economic, social or environmental progress. These benefits do not need to be visible or accessible to the public, for example conservation repair to a heritage asset ensures its survival for future generations. Sustaining and securing a heritage asset in its optimum viable use is both a heritage and a public benefit.
5.2.17 This section analyses any harmful impact in heritage terms against the public benefits associated with the work (including heritage benefits).
stridetreglown.com 44 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Heritage Impact Assessment
5.3.1 The design will have various impacts on heritage. They are summarised in the following table.
5.3.2 Note: RAG stands for ‘red, amber, green’. RAG reporting is essentially a traffic light system, and in this instance, ‘red’ statuses are negative, ‘amber’ statuses signal caution, and ‘green’ statuses are positive.
ITEM STATUS SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT RAG RATING
DEMOLITION The existing is poor quality and of no Detrimental High OF THE C20 intrinsic heritage value. EXTENSION
REPLACEMENT The existing ground floor is concrete, Low High OF GROUND believed to be a C20, and of no intrinsic FLOOR heritage value. Its removal is necessary to address issues with structural movement.
This also provides the opportunity to reinstate with an insulated floor to meet current Building Regulations standard.
REPLACEMENT The existing modern C20 floor is poor Low High OF FIRST quality and of no intrinsic heritage value. FLOOR
REPLACEMENT The existing modern C20 roof structure and Low High ROOF coverings are poor quality and of no intrinsic STRUCTURE heritage value. AND COVERINGS
NEW The existing modern C20 windows and Low High WINDOWS doors have all failed and require AND DOORS replacement and are of no intrinsic heritage value.
PROVISION OF The design faithfully reinstates period High High A NEW details to restore the character of the EXTENSION TO original building whilst the style of new THE WEST extension is complementary to the Castle – explained elsewhere.
stridetreglown.com 45 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement PROVISION OF The existing entrance is accessed from the Medium/High High A NEW carriageway. Currently an anti-social space ENCLOSURE it has been replaced with a practical use; a TO THE EAST lobby with cloak/boot room and electrical cupboard, to the benefit of the main ground
floor spaces. The lobby also helps to provide acoustic privacy. Explained elsewhere.
INTERNAL That which remains is modern, of poor Detrimental High WORKS quality, and of no intrinsic heritage value.
EXTERNAL The building has considerable structural Detrimental High WORKS TO issues, the envelope is covered in cement, THE and is in urgent need of repair. ENVELOPE
LANDSCAPE The site is on the South-West Coast Path Detrimental High and enjoys a considerable footfall of visitors, it is in poor condition, the landscape is overgrown, the wall to the Hooe Lake needs urgent structural works, and it is subject to anti-social behaviour.
Figure 20 – Heritage Impact Assessment
5.3.3 WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF CHANGE?
5.3.4 The external alterations being proposed are moderate-considerable in nature, the impact of change will be High, and will have a positive impact on the appearance of the building, whilst preserving its overall character. The proposed internal alterations are moderate-considerable in nature and generally do not affect the buildings special interest. The proposed extensions are to areas of ‘Medium/ High’ significance. Again, the impact of change will be High and have a positive impact on the appearance of the building, whilst preserving its overall character. The proposals would therefore amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the listed building in line with best practice conservation.
5.3.5 WHAT IS THE NEED FOR CHANGE?
5.3.6 The positive and proactive desire to regenerate the site to offer increased socioeconomic and cultural benefits.
5.3.7 CAN HARMFUL CHANGE BE MITIGATED?
5.3.8 The design has been very carefully configured to minimise adverse impact on the asset. The structural works are the minimum required to achieve the objective.
5.3.9 CAN HARM BE JUSTIFIED AGAINST PUBLIC BENEFIT?
5.3.10 The positive and proactive desire to regenerate the site will yield considerable public benefit by bringing the site into use as a high-end holiday let/ romantic get-away for two, should reduce anti-social behaviour, and will dramatically improve the quality and experience of this part of the South West Coast Path.
stridetreglown.com 46 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Justification and Mitigation
5.4.1 Policy 162 of Historic England's ‘Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance’ states:
"Every reasonable effort should be made to eliminate or minimise adverse impacts on significant places. Ultimately, however, it may be necessary to balance the public benefit of the proposed change against the harm to the place. If so, the weight given to heritage values should be proportionate to the significance of the place and the impact of the change upon it."
5.4.2 We believe changes that harm the heritage values of the building are considered to be acceptable on the basis that:
• The changes are demonstrably necessary either to make the building sustainable, or to meet an overriding public policy objective or need. • There is no reasonably practicable alternative means of doing so without harm. • Harm has been reduced to the minimum consistent with achieving the objective.
5.4.3 User safety and practicality are necessary for the building to operate effectively. The proposals highlight a need to completely overhaul the external envelope and the facilities within the building to meet modern standards of heating, ventilation, thermal efficiency, etc.
5.4.4 The predicted public benefit decisively outweighs the harm to the heritage values of the building, considering: its comparative significance, the impact on that significance, and the benefits to the place itself and/or the wider community and society as a whole. We therefore consider the proposals are justified.
5.4.5 In addition, the proposals include a series of works which will have a positive impact on the heritage values of the site including:
• Comprehensive repair works to the envelope. • The new design is complementary and much improved over the existing. • Tidying up of the site and wider landscape. • Should reduce anti-social behaviour. • Will improve the quality and experience of the South West Cost Path.
stridetreglown.com 47 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 6. LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
6.1.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out relevant legislative considerations for listed buildings and conservation areas, including authorisation of works such as currently proposed. In particular;
‘In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority… shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the and building of its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ - Section 16(2)
6.1.2 Section 66 of the Act requires the Local Planning Authority to ‘have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ when considering whether to grant Planning Permission.
The National Planning Policy Framework
6.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. A key concept of this is that of achieving ‘sustainable development’ (paragraph 7), the objective of which is summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is identified as having three principal objectives – economic, social, and environmental. The historic environment makes a notable contribution to all these important considerations, as evidenced in Historic England’s ‘Heritage Counts’ research: https://historicengland.org.uk/research/heritage-counts/. The NPPF gives particular emphasis to the heritage contribution to the environmental objective, defining this as, “contribut(ing] to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment”.
6.2.2 Chapter 16 of the NPPF addresses specifically national planning considerations with respect to the historic environment and delivery of sustainable development. In these terms, developments which fail to give due weight to the conservation of heritage assets are deemed not to be sustainable development, and consequently should not be supported.
6.2.3 The focus of Government planning policy regarding the historic environment is to ensure that account is always taken of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to sustainable communities and economic vitality, putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, and for new development to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness (NPPF paragraph 185).
6.2.4 The NPPF stresses that ‘great weight’ should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets (paragraph 193), and clearly sets out any tests for harm to the significance of heritage asset with respect to reaching balanced sustainable development. Clear and convincing justification is required for any harm to the significance of a heritage asset, including through change within its setting (paragraph 194). In addition to this, ‘less than substantial’ harm requires weighing against the public benefits of a proposal and, where appropriate, securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset (paragraph 196). Substantial harm is not proposed as part of the proposed works.
National Planning Practice Guidance
6.3.1 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was introduced in March 2014 as a live web-based resource to support the NPPF. It brings together planning practice guidance for England in an accessible and usable way and is a material consideration in assessing this application.
stridetreglown.com 48 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 6.3.2 The NPPG recognises that the conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle, requiring a flexible and thoughtful approach to get the best out of assets. It states that:
“Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals.”
6.3.3 The NPPG acknowledges that substantial harm is a high test, and that it is the degree of harm to the significance of an asset, rather than the scale of the development, which is to be assessed.
6.3.4 The NPPG, (paragraph 20) explains how harm to heritage assets can be weighed against the public benefits of a proposed development. These benefits should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, NPPG notes that benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits. Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as:
• Sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting. • Reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset. • Securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation.
Summary of Compliance
6.4.1 The methodologies outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this report have been based upon good conservation practice and the legislative, planning policies identified in the preceding sections. This can be most succinctly summarised through the design development and impact assessment headers below, which have formed the basis of the content and structure of this report;
• Overall assessment of significance & measuring relative significance. • What is the level of change? • What is the impact of change? • What is the need for change? • Can harmful change be mitigated? • Can harm be justified against public benefits?
6.4.2 For convenience, the above has been summarised in tabular form on the following page.
stridetreglown.com 49 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Figure 21 – Planning legislation criteria
stridetreglown.com 50 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Summary
6.5.1 In terms of NPPF Paragraph 192, the Castle is empty and has stood empty for many years. Its’ use as a high- end holiday let/romantic get-away for two is considered to be its viable use and it is desirable to facilitate works that would enable its reuse while sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset.
6.5.2 The re-use of Radford Castle for holiday let purposes will provide a valuable community asset that will enhance the significance and visibility of the heritage asset and the contribution of its setting, ensure its long-term conservation and have a positive influence on local character through the realisation of the sites potential.
6.5.3 On this basis, the harm to the significance of the Grade II heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of bringing the building back into use and securing its optimum viable use as a community asset in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 196.
6.5.4 The positive and proactive desire to regenerate the site will yield considerable public benefit by bringing the site into use as a high-end holiday let/ romantic get-away for two, should considerably reduce anti-social behaviour, and will dramatically improve the quality and experience of this part of the South West Coast Path.
6.5.5 The proposals will allow access to the public increasing the appreciation and communal value of the asset. The overall character of the Castle will not be adversely affected, and local identity and heritage features will be enhanced in accordance with Local Plan policy.
6.5.6 In terms of paragraph 193 of the NPPF, which refers to great weight being given to the conservation of designated heritage assets when considering the impact of a proposed development on its significance, this Heritage Statement has identified ‘less than substantial harm’ to the asset which must be given consideration in the determination of the application. The weight to be attached to the harm should be balanced by the fact that at present the Castle has stood empty for nearly many years and will fall into disrepair without significant investment.
6.5.7 Overall, the proposed works successfully conserve and enhance the visibility and significance of the heritage asset. Clear and convincing justification for any elements of harm have been provided, as have demonstrable heritage and wider public benefits which outweigh any adverse impacts.
6.5.8 The methodology adopted and examples of how heritage benefits have been maximised and harm minimised further demonstrate that ‘great weight’ has been given to the conservation of this heritage asset in the development of the proposals. Considering this, we believe the proposed works to the Castle are broadly in line with the relevant heritage legislative requirements and planning policy.
stridetreglown.com 51 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement 7. CONCLUSIONS
Generally
7.1.1 Preserving the listed building in its current state would not facilitate its use for any practical purpose. The idea of converting it to a café has been considered and ultimately discounted. The proposed use as a high- end holiday let/romantic get-away for two would provide sufficient benefits in terms of maintenance, public access, and long-term viability. The Council’s Economic Development Department were supportive of the holiday let use, with it creating additional visitor accommodation and economy benefits to the wider area and bringing a tired and vacant building back into use.
7.1.2 The proposed development will provide a valuable facility which is well suited to the building considering its previous use. The proposed use would facilitate much-needed repairs to the structure and help secure its long-term conservation.
7.1.3 The external alterations being proposed are moderate-considerable in nature, the impact of change will be High, and will have a positive impact on the appearance of the building, whilst preserving its overall character. The proposed internal alterations are moderate-considerable in nature and generally do not affect the buildings special interest. The proposed extensions are to areas of ‘Medium/ High’ significance. Again, the impact of change will be High and have a positive impact on the appearance of the building, whilst preserving its overall character. The proposals would therefore amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the listed building in line with best practice conservation.
7.1.4 The ‘less than substantial’ harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of bringing the building back into use and the heritage benefits in accordance with Historic England's ‘Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance’ and the national policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
7.1.5 The original building has a positive influence on the area and the proposals will provide the opportunity for the character and appearance of the area to be enhanced through the re-use of the building, new landscaping works and sympathetic development proposals.
7.1.6 The design approach to the building has had special regard to features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses illustrated by the nature of the works previously identified along with the sensitivities such as preserving the appearance of the primary elevations (those generally seen on approach by land) and extending on the lesser seen elevation. At the rear of the building the new extension is a complementary form which, together with quality materials and good detailing, will provide a sensitive addition that is sympathetic to the building.
7.1.7 Special regard has been had to the desirability of preserving the setting of the heritage asset by the location of new external landscape and boundary treatments which will primarily use plants for screening. The proposals would therefore comply with the presumption of preserving the setting of listed buildings.
7.1.8 The proposals have sought to take account of the pre-application comments received from Plymouth City Council. In broad terms they would accord with the Council’s local plan policies in respecting the special interest of the listed buildings and heritage assets.
7.1.9 We have sought to provide a design that balances the many aspects of the brief, the constraints of the site and existing building, will meet current Building Regulations (where appropriate and excluding any necessary dispensations – tbc in separate Building Regulations application), is ‘green’ and sustainable, yet sensitive to the heritage/conservation aspects of the site, and provides exciting and interesting spaces that will contribute towards its effective re-use.
7.1.10 The development will enable a net gain in biodiversity.
stridetreglown.com 52 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Conditions
7.2.1 We would politely request the following are subject to appropriately worded conditions:
1) Use restriction to holiday let only. 2) Details of roofs and coverings. 3) Details of doors/windows. 4) Details of ground floor balcony railing/glazing and first floor railings. 5) Details of domed staircase rooflight. 6) Details of west extension. 7) Details of undercroft wall and doors. 8) Details of internal walls/flooring. 9) Details of fixing methods of new walls to historic fabric. 10) Details of services in the building. 11) Car parking space provided prior to first use. 12) Landscaping details and maintenance plans.
stridetreglown.com 53 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Sources and references
PUBLICATIONS
Brian Steele, A History of Radford, p.19, 1990. Ivy Langdon, The Plymstock Connection, 1995 English Heritage. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (April 2008). SPAB, New Design for Old Buildings (2017)
WEBSITES
http://www.plymvalleyheritage.org/radford-castle.html https://www.hooelake.org/2011/03/the-radford-story-my-childhood-days-at-radford-bycolin-stephenson/ https://www.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/tithe-map/plymstock/ https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/ https://historicengland.org.uk/ https://www.spab.org.uk/
OTHER
PWDRO Devon Records Office Devon Rural Archives Available historic Ordnance Survey maps (Landmark/ProMap) Online sources, including Archaeology Data Service; and
Site visit and photographic survey.
stridetreglown.com 54 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement Appendices
Site Photographs
South elevation Bridge
Existing wall adjacent new extension Sea wall
Undercroft Well
stridetreglown.com 55 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
Tower West extension
Detail West wall and chimney
END.
stridetreglown.com 56 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement
stridetreglown.com | twitter.com/StrideTreglown | linkedin.com/company/stride-treglown | instagram.com/stridetreglown
stridetreglown.com 57 Radford Castle Heritage, Design & Access Statement