Planning Application for 2 New Dwellings and Extension to Existing House
90 Roe Lane, Southport
Heritage Statement
David Chapman, Dip Arch, RIBA
NJSR Chartered Architects LLP
57 Hoghton St
Southport
PR9 OPG
Page 1 of 21
1. Introduction.
1.1. This document should be read in conjunction with drawings and a Design and Access Statement prepared by Paul Keegan Associates who are architects for the scheme.
1.2. The site is 0.1Ha and contains a three bedroom dwelling house and outbuildings.
1.3. The proposals are for planning consent to retain and extend the existing dwelling house and also for two detached dwellings to the rear.
1.4. The building is not listed as of architectural or historic interest; it is not part of a conservation area or in the curtilage/close proximity of a listed building. However, the proposals have been subject to a pre-application process following which the Council’s Conservation Team opined that ‘the building is a Non Designated Heritage Assett and so policy NH15 would apply in which development will only be permitted where aspects of the asst which contribute to its significance are conserved or enhanced’. A number of further comments or advice were made.
1.5. This assessment is prepared in accordance with guidance published by English Heritage in their ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ and ‘Building in Context’ the latter being a joint publication with CABE. Broadly speaking the following assessment process is recommended; Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected; Step 2 : assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; Step 4: explore the way maximising enhancement and avoiding or minimising harm; Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
Government advice (www.gov.uk ‘Guidance Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’) says;
‘Local planning authorities may identify non-designated heritage assets. These are buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which are not formally designated heritage assets. In some areas, local authorities identify some non-designated heritage assets as ‘locally listed’. A substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process.’
1.6. It is understood that the Council’s response to the pre-application process includes issue sot do with design and access which are addressed by the revised design forming the application.
1.7. This statement concludes that the building is of little architectural value, was built in about 1840 so is of limited historical value, no evidence has been found of any wider cultural value (for example it having been the home of a famous person) but does conclude that the property has some value in the setting of Roe Lane in a wider context.
Page 2 of 21
2. History.
2.1. Geologically Southport was developed on a layer of windblown sand overlaying sandstone with marshland to the landward side much of which was flooded the last vestiges of which are Martin Mere about 5 miles to the east. It is interesting to note that Greenwood in 1818 (see appendix A) shows an extensive sand dune system to the north west of Roe Lane (then spelt Row) and in parts the dunes encroached right up to the edge of the lane.
2.2. There are records of a church at Churchtown in the 12 th century although the current building dates from the 17 th . Southport owes its rapid growth the railways in the mid 19 th century prior to which it was probably a collection of small hamlets and a fishing village at the coast. Therefore it is probable that Roe Lane connected the two areas during the period long before it was indicated on the Yates mapping (see appendix) in 1786.
2.3. Sporadic development existed along Roe Lane prior to the 1786 mapping but it is not possible to match the buildings shown with the more accurate mapping shown on the first edition of the ordnance survey. It is therefore reasonable to say that the mapping indicates a building on the site from the 1840’s onwards but does not indicate that the was a building in that location at an earlier date albeit that it is possible.
2.4. Prior to the construction of the canals in the late 18 th /early 19 th centuries and later the railways in the mid 19 th century it is usually found that simple domestic structures used the materials ready to hand for reasons of cost. Therefore mid to late medieval (and later) cottages tended to be wood, wattle/daub and thatch. The Lancashire plain on which Southport and the surrounding area stands is characterised by outcrops or near surface deposits of sandstone which is often seen in foundations of cottages or surviving boundary walls. The use of brick in the area tends to date from the mid 19 th C with the opening of brick and tile works along the canal at Burscough (about 6 miles from the site) and later at Tarleton to the north. Liverpool was rapidly growing in the 19 th century with a resulting greater number of brickworks but of a similar date, this period also corresponded with a widespread use of slate for roofing as communications with the Welsh quarries improved. The building is brick with sandstone lintels under a slate roof which tends to point at the building being no older than mid 19 th C. It is understood that the nearby earlier listed building at number 83 is painted brick but not clear whether the use of brick was a 19 th C ‘improvement.’
2.5. The current owners believe that the building may have been a farmhouse farming land to the east and south. The historical mapping does not reveal any substantial farm buildings commensurate with the age of the dwelling so it may be better to describe the building as part of a small holding which use continued on a reduced scale into the late 20 th C (see aerial photograph in appendix A).
3. The Property and its Setting.
3.1. The Site. The map regression shown in appendix A reveals that the plot gradually reduced in size from the mid 19 th C as development encroached with the growth of Southport so that it reached its current frontage by the 1930’s. The depth of the plot may have further reduced more recently when flats to the rear were built. The mapping also reveals that the house originally stood further back from the street to become nearer as Roe Lane was widened to accommodate the tram line between Southport and Churchtown. The plot has
Page 3 of 21
a width of nearly 23 metres and a depth of over 46 metres and therefore is 0.1 ha (0.25 acres).
3.2. Trees. There are no tree protection orders on or in the near vicinity of the site . Although there remain substantial shrubs at the western gable older photographs indicate that plot had become overgrown particularly by a large tree at the eastern gable. The nett result was to create a setting for the dwelling forward of the main building line and also to make the rear of the plot more secluded. Unfortunately much of this planting including the large tree has been removed by the present owner of a third party.
An earlier photograph showing the large tree to the left (now removed) which also demonstrates how secluded the rear of the property had been. The extent of the planting is best seen in the aerial photograph in appendix A.
The applicant and his architect feels that it is right to try and return to this sense of seclusion and is trying to establish what was there and to develop a suitable replacement planting scheme.
3.3. Setting. The site plan below is taken from the Council’s interactive mapping system (SIMON) and shows outlined in brown two listed dwellings at 79/81 and 83 Roe Lane 60 metres away at the nearest points. The blue circle is intended to illustrate the area considered to be part of the setting of the listed buildings and it is noteworthy that the council also use this type of circle to denote non designated heritage assets. The nearest being a pillar box some distance to the west of the subject site but notably not the subject site itself.
Page 4 of 21
Site plan from ‘SIMON’ the subject property is ringed in red and nearby listed dwellings edged in brown with the setting outlined in blue.
3.4. Nearby Listed Buildings. (Statutory description – authors photographs)
79 and 81 Roe Lane; Listed grade II.
Farmhouse, converted to 2 houses. Probably late C17 or early C18, altered in C19 and remodelled in C20. White painted render now with applied half-timbering; thatched roof. Single-depth 4-unit plan (with C20 additions to rear). EXTERIOR: one-and-a-half storeys; 2 plus 2 windows. Plinth, 2 3-light sliding sash windows to each house, the upper being in half-dormers. No.79 has the doorway in a C20 extension to the left; No.81 has a doorway with board door to the left of its windows (i.e. in the middle of the range). 3 ridge chimneys. INTERIOR: altered.
83 Roe Lane; Listed grade II.
Page 5 of 21
Farmhouse, now house. Probably late C17 or very early C18; altered, and enlarged since 1952. White painted brick, slate roof. Single-depth 2-unit baffle-entry plan (with C20 additions to left end and to rear). EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 2-window range. Doorway at right- hand end protected by small gabled porch with round-headed arch; 2 small 3-light sliding sash windows on each floor, all with small panes. Gable chimneys, both extruded and that to the right larger and earlier. Small C20 extension to left end. Right-hand gable has 2 inserted windows. INTERIOR: 3-light window in rear wall (now covered by C20 addition to rear)
As Roe Lane itself is an historical route in Southport the presence of the listed buildings and the subject building are a reference to that history and in that respect there is some value in its retention.
3.5. The Buildings.
3.5.1. Plan Form. The rectangular main building comprising two or three rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor and is still probably in its original form. The stair winds tightly, is narrow and very steep. The rear outshoot appears to be a later addition probably to form a scullery as is borne out by the map regression. The outshoot was further extended, probably in the 1950/60s in rudimentary construction and now provides a bathroom and toilet entered from the kitchen. There is also a small rear porch of a similar date.
Page 6 of 21
Ground and First Floor Plans from application drawings
3.5.2. Construction. The building is founded in sand typical of the area and visible under the stair. The author’s experience of buildings of a similar age and status in Southport would suggest that the foundations will be of very shallow depth and comprise only of brick spreaders. The ground floor is very uneven and appears to comprise a thin screed on top of the sand. The walls are brick of a slightly narrower coursing for that typical of Southport in the late 19 th century which could point to the brick coming from Burscough which was an earlier factory. The outshoot and outbuilding are larger and typical of the Southport ‘common’ variety. Upper floor joists and boards are sawn sections typical of commercial sawmills rather than estate production – about 30% of the floor boards are missing. Roof timbers comprise jack rafters, ceiling joists with trimmers and hangers but no purlins and are also mechanically sawn. The roofs are slate covered and still retain small areas of lime parging on the underside. There is no evidence that the roof has ever been recovered which is remarkable as it would then be 180 years old. The most striking feature are the enormous chimneys on each gable. These look to have been extended upwards at some point as the upper sections are in diamond pattern on plan and are topped with huge pots.
Kitchen – very small and in poor structural condition – note bathroom beyond.
Page 7 of 21
Under-stairs showing sand and broken section of floor screed.
Fireplaces – not original. All of the internal doors are 15 pane glass probably dating from the 1960’s/70’s
First floor structure – over 30% of the floor boards are missing.
Page 8 of 21
Underside of roof – probably original.
Rear outshoot. The black timber section is the bathroom and the greens is an entrance porch. The proposals are to demolish all of these structures and to replace them with a larger extension in modern brick construction using reclaimed brick from demolition including the outbuilding.
Page 9 of 21
Early 1900’s outbuilding incorporating outside toilet.
Enormous chimneys.
One of four similar windows on the street elevation. These each comprise four panes as can be seen but the opening section is side hung in the lower quadrant. The condition is fair indicating that these were installed less than 50 or 60 years ago.
Page 10 of 21
Horizontal sliding sash to rear of living room. The condition is fair also indicating replacement perhaps 50 or 60 years ago.
3.6. Condition. (Disclaimer – this section is not intended to be a comprehensive condition report and must not be treated as such and should not be relied on for any other purpose than to illustrate this statement. Enclosed spaces were not inspected and the condition of timbers cannot be vouched for.) As a whole the building will need extensive work to bring it to a reasonable modern habitable standard. Although probably built on inadequate foundations by modern standards there are only few signs of differential settlement in the masonry structure. The ground floor is very uneven and the screed is breaking up so a new floor will be required, care will be required not to undermine existing foundations so underpinning cannot be ruled out but pending further investigation. Notwithstanding the disclaimer above there is evidence of insect infestation in structural timbers and fungal decay cannot be ruled out. The roof coverings will require replacement including replacing battens which are of inadequate size and in some cases rotted away (see earlier photographs). The outshoot including the porch and further extension are not to habitable standards and will require rebuilding in their entirety. The windows are in fair condition for their age but require replacing to bring up to modern standards – as the building is not listed or in a conservation area there is no reason to resist replacement in favour of repair but it would be desirable to keep the same overall pattern in the interests of the impact on the street scene. The condition of the chimney stacks will need assessing once scaffold is erected to repair the roof and re-pointing/re-bedding is likely to be necessary. The stone lintels whilst painted appear to be in good condition and a trial should be executed to establish if the paint can be removed. The front door has been replaced at some point and although it attempts at an historic appearance the ‘gothic’ top panels are inappropriate and it is suggested that a simpler design, probably also panelled is utilised.
4. Responses to Conservation Team comments and conclusions.
4.1. ‘The building appears to date from the 1840's and was built as a brick built rural dwelling from the days when this part of the town was relatively scarce. Its position is set somewhat forward in comparison to its neighbours, with a plain and simple design.’ This brief summary is agreed.
Page 11 of 21
4.2. ‘We would consider that the building is a Non Designated Heritage Asset and so policy NH15 would apply in which development will only be permitted where aspects of the asset which contribute to its significance are conserved or enhanced.’ This is a very simple building of little or no overriding architectural interest. The building is about 180 years old and is therefore of minor historic value and for this reason the applicant intends to retain the building rather than demolish and in doing so to bring the building into a good state of repair. In retaining the building its relationship with the streetscape and nearby listed buildings will be retained and enhanced as the building will be in better condition.
4.3. ‘The proposals for 2 dwellings in the rear garden area would cause harm to the setting of the NDHA and its integrity of a rural dwelling compromised. However, there may be potential to weigh up this harm with a balance of enhancing, repairing and safeguarding the NDHA itself if proposals were put forward to reinstate the NDHA back to its original form.’ This is not a rural dwelling and has been in a suburban setting for nearly 100 years so it is not true to say that its integrity is compromised in this way. It is the setting in the street scene that is important and not the relationship with the back garden. The application is to extend the existing dwelling only and it is the applicant’s intention to restore the building although this restoration itself will not require planning permission.
4.4. ‘As part of a full application a Heritage Statement would be required and this would need to include full repair of the building, reinstatement of timber sliding sash windows and doorway along with other measures of reinstatement that would need to be outlined.’ It is the applicant’s intention to repair the building as outlined herein.
4.5. ‘In addition I would suggest that plot 1 is either set further back or the garage is removed to enable more garden space for 90 Roe Lane as the original and principal dwelling which was originally set in the large plot in order to retain some of its original integrity.’ The applicant and his architect have responded to this comment and others made the pre-application response by adjusting the proposed site layout and have given consideration to restoring the sense of enclosure of the rear of the plot by careful consideration to new planting.
4.6. It is considered here that whilst the building is of some, perhaps minor, historical interest and has some value in the street scene it is not of sufficient interest or value to be an overriding material consideration in the planning process. The applicant is aware of this conclusion and has taken the view that the building could be successfully retained and its retention is therefore material to the application.
5. Archaeological Potential. The Merseyside Historic Characterisation Project – Sefton Report Settlement Study for Southport (Appendix B) suggests that the main period of dune building took place in the 17 th century so that any prehistoric finds such as a bronze age axe or remains of extinct animals have either been chance finds or found at depths of around 3 metres. Furthermore evidence of Roman activity along the Sefton coastal strip have been found to be limited. The study points to significant post medieval activity – roughly 17 th C onwards. As it seems likely that the subject property was the first on the site and as the building is to be retained there is no opportunity for archaeological investigation in the building itself. The rear of the plot will be subject to foundation excavation or pilling and given the windblown sand geology it seems unlikely that any evidence will be found except for the remote ‘chance’ finds. It is therefore not expected here that a separate archaeological study will be required albeit that the Council may decide to seek MEAS advice in this respect.
Page 12 of 21
Appendix A – Map Regression
Yates map of 1786 Greenwood’s Map of Lancashire 1818
Both Yates and Greenwood show sporadic development along Row Lane (later Roe Lane) linking the historic settlement at Churchtown to the east with Southport which at that time was probably little more than a fishing village. Extensive sand dunes are shown to the north of the lane to become the site of the Rookery shown on later mapping.
Ordnance Survey First Series published 1846.
The subject building can now be identified at this stage it is set back from the lane and was a simple rectangular building with no sign of outbuildings as can be seen on other nearby buildings. The nearby listed cottages are those to the right of the word ‘Rectory’. Stone walls still seen on the north side of the lane possibly originate from the large house and grounds.
Page 13 of 21
Ordnance Survey published 1894.
Now known as Roe Lane incorporating the tram line from Southport to the Botanic Gardens in Southport. The lane had been widened so that the subject property appears closer. The rear outshoot can now be seen together with an outbuilding in the SE corner of the plot.
Ordnance Survey published 1911
The subject property and its immediate neighbours remain the same but extensive new housing is beginning to appear to the east.
Page 14 of 21
Ordnance Survey published 1928
The plot of the subject property is now reduced to its current size. The Rookery has gone to be replaced by the sports ground which at that time and until recently was owned by Holy Trinity Church in Southport town centre.
Ordnance Survey 1964 Edition.
An extension to the outshoot can now be seen together with a rear porch and further outbuildings. The land to the south had become a garage. Adjacent land is now otherwise developed as housing which probably took place mainly in the 1930’s. The garage to the south was later developed as flats know as Claridge Court and interesting to note that comparison of this map with the current version in section 3 confirms that the adjacent gardens were not shortened to create the site.
Page 15 of 21
Aerial Photograph probably taken in the 1970’s when the rear garden appears to have been used for the growing of fruit and vegetables.
Page 16 of 21
Appendix B Sefton Historic Settlement Study taken from Merseyside Historic Characterisation Project
Southport
Rural Fringe Report: No
OS Map Sheet: SJ 31 NW / SJ 31 NE
NGR (centred): Southport SD 337 174 (north) SD 342 178 (south) SD 329 166 Little London (centred) SD 348 168
District: Sefton
Township: North Meols
Geology: The area overlies a mix of drift deposits consisting of blown sand and estuarine alluvium and silts, over a solid deposit of Triassic Keuper Marl.
Historic Core: Southport expanded from a large urban linear settlement along Lord Street, overlooking the coast.
Origin of Name: The settlement name Southport was christened in 1798, perhaps after the local name South Hawes or in relation to the ‘north port’ of Preston (1). The township name North Meols is from: Otegrimele (1086). This is a corruption of a Scandinavian personal name, possibly Old Norse Audgrimr . Nor Muleis 1229, Northmeles 1229, Molis 1242 (2).
Topography: Southport is located on relatively flat, low-lying land, bounded by the sea to the north-west with vast sandbanks extending out into the Ribble estuary.
Page 17 of 21
Originally undulating sand dunes would have extended up from the Sefton coastline (3).
History: The Domesday survey of 1086 records ‘Otegrimele’, or North Meols, as five manors held by five thanes, included in the West Derby Hundred (3). Ownership was then divided between St Werburgh’s Abbey at Chester and various earls and dukes of Lancaster during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (3). Robert de Cowdray took part possession in 1213 passing down through descendents (3). Alan de Meols held a quarter of the manor which later passed over to William de Cowdray who became lord of the whole manor by 1343. The manor would eventually pass through several families including the Aughtons in 1380, the Bold and Kitchen families (through marriage) by the mid sixteenth century, the Heskeths, (also through marriage) by the seventeenth century and the Fleetwoods during the nineteenth century . Originally a small fishing village (4), Southport gradually developed into a seaside resort (3) by the beginning of the nineteenth century. Hotels soon began to be constructed to cater for the demand in accommodation (3). Lord Street developed in the 1829s by the Bold- Houghton and Fleetwood-Hesketh families (4). The Promenade, originally a form of coastal protection, was laid out on former sand dunes in 1834 along with building plots overlooking the beach (The town hall was erected in 1852 and Southport Pier built in 1860 Recreation grounds, library, art gallery, public park and lake (1887), King’s Gardens (1913) and South Marine Gardens are among some of the historic buildings and features within the original settlement core of Southport. The main Liverpool-Southport
Page 18 of 21
railway line was fully operational by 1851 aiding the growth of the town .
Present landmarks: Southport Pier, Lord Street (and various nineteenth /twentieth century buildings including the town hall), King’s Gardens and South Marine Gardens, Marine Lake, Southport Municipal Golf Course, Hesketh Golf Club, Victoria Park, Princes Park, miniature railway. A series of post-medieval cottages remain in and around the town (5).
Historic landmarks: The site of Shore Cross lies south-east of the bandstand in Victoria Park (5). Lord Street railway station was opened in 1884 then closed in 1952 becoming the main bus depot (5) in Southport. The train shed was demolished (5).
Early Activity: During the 1950s and 1970s studies were carried out on the stratigraphic sequences of the coastal belt of lowland mosses between Liverpool and Southport (6). The origin of the dunes along Sefton’s coast can probably be traced as far back as 8500 BP. The main early phases of dune building appear to have occurred at 4600-4000 BP, with intermittent phases of activity throughout the Prehistoric period. Despite these early origins, most of the present dune system probably originated in the seventeenth century (7). Palaeoenvironmental remains have been collected and studied from Blowick Moss, east of Southport town (5). In 1871, ‘during excavations at Crowlands for new gasworks, a number of elk antlers and bones of extinct animals were found’ over three metres below the surface (8). A large perforated Bronze Age stone axe was found in
Page 19 of 21
the Southport district, however the exact location of discovery is unknown and was purchased by Preston Museum in 1933 (5). A Neolithic flint was discovered at Pitts House Farm in 1969 and presented to Rufford Old Hall (5). Prehistoric finds have been also been discovered at Martin Mere to the east (5). Evidence for Roman activity along the Sefton coast is limited (7). Significant Post-Med Activity: Originally a small fishing village (4) which developed into a popular seaside resort during the nineteenth century. From 1809 onwards a series of embankments were created in North Meols in order to protect and maintain the coast and reclaim the coastal marshes (9). Agriculturally North Meols (modern Southport) had little arable land due to the coastal location whereby sandy, wetlands were more suited to grazing (6).
Other potential settlements identified within township which may need further investigation: Little London, east of Southport Maps: 1st Edition 6” OS map Lancashire sheet 75. Surveyed 1845-6. Published 1848.
References: (1) Mills, D. 1976. The Place Names of Lancashire. Batsford. London. (2) Eckwall, E. 1922. The Place names of Lancashire . Chetham Society. Manchester. (3) Farrer W. and Brownbill J.A. 1907. The Victoria History of the County Of Lancaster. Volume Three. Archibald Constable & Company Limited. London. (4) English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of
Page 20 of 21
Special Historic Interest in England – King’s Gardens and South Marine Gardens, Southport, Merseyside. (5) Merseyside Historic Environment Record documentation. (6) Cowell R.W. and Innes J.B. 1994. North West Wetlands Survey 1: The Wetlands of Merseyside. Lancaster. National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside/Lancaster University Archaeological Unit. (7) Adams M., Harthen D. & Cowell R. 2007. An Archaeological Assessment of the Sefton Coast, Merseyside. National Museums Liverpool Field Archaeology Unit. (8) Bland E. 1903 Annals of Southport. 187. (9) Cowell R.W. and Lewis J. 2002. The Archaeology of a Changing Landscape: The Last Thousand Years in Merseyside. Journal of the Merseyside Archaeological Society Vol. II.
Page 21 of 21