Heritage Statement __________ Mereworth Castle Stables Kent October 2020 | Project Ref 0000A Site Name | 1 Project Number: 6347A File Origin: M:\HC\Admin\3. 2020 HCUK Templates\HC specific templates\2020 HC A4 Report Template.v1.docx Author with date Reviewer code, with date JOR 13.10.2020 RD-0001, 26.10.2019 JA-0001, 30.10.2019 Site Name | 1 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 2. Relevant Planning Policy Framework ..................................................... 4 3. Background and Development ............................................................... 6 4. Statement of Significance .................................................................... 17 5. Heritage Impact Assessment ............................................................... 23 6. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 29 7. Bibliography and references ................................................................ 31 Appendices App. 1 Scale of Harm table (Heritage Collective, 2019) App. 2 Assessment against Historic England’s Guidance on Setting (GPA3, 2017) App. 3 List descriptions in full Figures Fig. 1 Site Location with identification of listed buildings Fig. 2 Mereworth Castle cross section as featured in Vitruvius Britannicus, c.1720 Fig. 3 Extract of the Dury map, 1767 Fig. 4 Extract from the Ordnance Surveyors’ Drawings, 1797 Fig. 5 1840 tithe map Fig. 6 1867six inch to one OS mile Fig. 7 1897 25 inch to one mile OS map Fig. 8 1938 25 inch to one mile OS map Site Name | 2 Fig. 9 1961 1:2,500 OS sheet TQ6653 Fig. 10 Aerial View identifying blocks of the former stables. Fig. 11 Portrait of Evelyn Boscawen, Viscount Falmouth. Site Name | 3 1. Introduction 1.1 This Heritage Statement has been prepared by Heritage Collective on behalf of Mereworth Estate. It presents information on heritage values and significance in order to assist in determination of a retrospective application for works to a series of ancillary structures located some 60m to the north west of the western pavilion of Mereworth Castle. Reference should be made to the site ownership and location plans prepared by Offset Architects for fully detailed site plans and to a full planning statement prepared by Edgars Planning Consultants. Figure 1: Approximate site location © Historic England Search the List. The main block and two pavilions are identified with blue triangles. The ancillary stable blocks subject to his application are outlined. 1.2 Designated assets that may be affected by the proposals are as follows: • Mereworth Castle, main block, Grade I (UID: 1070675) • Pavilion to the north east of Mereworth Castle, Grade I (UID: 1363025) • Pavilion to the north west of Mereworth Castle and stables, Grade I (UID: 1070676) • Mereworth Castle Registered Park and Garden, Grade II* (UID: 1000938) 1.3 The ‘stables’ referred to in the list description of the north west pavilion are not explicitly identified within the description but it is considered that they relate most Site Name | 1 specifically to the ruinous ranges directly attached to the rear (western) elevation of that pavilion. Through the provision of section 1.5(b) of the Planning (listed building and conservation areas) Act 1990 it is also considered that the site under consideration within this application should be considered as forming part of that listed building, the western pavilion. In addition, the Site falls within the Registered Park area and within the setting of the main Mereworth Castle and the Eastern pavilion. 1.4 This identification is a matter of technical fact and does not automatically confer the same degree of value to the stables as that embodied in the grade I listed pavilion. Not all parts of a listed building necessarily make the same contribution to significance. The Context 1.5 In late 2019 the stable buildings under consideration here were in a ruinous condition. Roof structures were failing with several areas collapsed, or in imminent risk of collapse. The applicant began a series of repairs to the building comprising removal of the remaining roof tiles, removal of failed roof and wall structures and timbers and scaffolding of the whole building. By early 2020 certain repair works had also arisen comprising the reinstatement of a roof over an eastern structure and installation of garage doors, restoration of roof structure over the main stable, battening and installation of conservation appropriate membrane and battening to secure water tightness. Restoration of a roof structure and timber walling with appropriate membrane to the southern structure. The westernmost stable structure was in better condition and received no works, it is still in use as a stable. 1.6 Offset Architects and Heritage Collective became aware of the above works in the course of discussions with the client relating to another matter and application. Offset Architects and Heritage Collective advised that the scope of works to the stables had moved beyond what might ordinarily be considered as ‘like for like’ repair or regular ongoing maintenance and that works should cease in order that listed building consent could be applied for. 1.7 The local planning authority, Tonbridge and Malling District Council (TMDC) were informed, and a site visit made by conservation officer Mark Stevens and a member Site Name | 2 of the enforcement team. It was agreed that a retrospective application should be made. Heritage Collective provided input into heritage significance and values Purpose and scope of this Statement 1.8 Following this introduction and a summary of the legislative and policy background this statement provides an historic background of the Mereworth Estate and the stable buildings. A proportionate statement of significance is provided where the relative contribution made by the stables to the Grade I listed Pavilion, and Grade I listed Mereworth Castle, is provided. Then the proposals are considered in terms of their impact on the stables and significance of the listed building. 1.9 This report has been informed by multiple site visits by the author as well as by desk based research into the background history and development of the estate. No primary archive research has been undertaken at this stage. A full bibliography of resources is provided at the end of the report. Key Considerations 1.10 The key consideration is whether or not the repair and restoration works undertaken to date have caused harm, that is the erosion of heritage values and significance, to the designated assets. 1.11 In addition, this report considers whether the application for the main stable building to convert it to form a future estate office and associated functions would similarly give rise to ‘harm’. 1.12 The work to the store building has involved the insertion of garage doors. This change is assessed against the significance of the listed building. Site Name | 3 2. Relevant Planning Policy Framework 2.1 The decision maker is required by section sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting when exercising planning functions. The decision maker must give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the significance of the listed building, and there is a strong presumption against the grant of permission for development that would harm its heritage significance.1 2.2 For the purposes of this statement, preservation equates to an absence of harm.2 Harm is defined in paragraph 84 of Historic England’s Conservation Principles as change which erodes the significance of a heritage asset.3 2.3 The significance of a heritage asset is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as being made up of four main constituents: architectural interest, historical interest, archaeological interest and artistic interest. The assessments of heritage significance and impact are normally made with primary reference to the four main elements of significance identified in the NPPF. 2.4 The setting of a heritage asset can contribute to its significance. Setting is defined in the NPPF as follows: “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.” 2.5 The NPPF requires the impact on the significance of the designated heritage asset to be considered in terms of either “substantial harm” or “less than substantial harm” as described within paragraphs 195 and 196 of that document. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) makes it clear that substantial harm is a high test, and case law describes substantial harm in terms of an effect that would 1 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137. 2 South Lakeland v SSE [1992] 2 AC 141. 3 Conservation Principles, 2008, paragraph 84. Site Name | 4 vitiate or drain away much of the significance of a heritage asset.4 The Scale of Harm is tabulated at Appendix 1. 2.6 Paragraphs 195 and 196 of the NPPF refer to two different balancing exercises in which harm to significance, if any, is to be balanced with public benefit. Paragraph 18a-020-20190723 of National Planning Practice Guidance