Heritage Statement

Development at Dairy Farm, Heydon Lane, Heydon, NR11 6RX

1. Introduction

1.1 One planning has undertaken this Heritage Statement in relation to development at Dairy Farm House (Ref. 20170156) for a single storey flat roof side extension, two storey rear extension and demolition of garage. Works of internal alteration and refurbishment do not require planning permission but form part of the overall proposal for the building and are included for the sake of wholeness. It has been written by Clare Vint, Senior Heritage Planner, a full member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation.

1.2 The understanding of heritage assets and the impact of development on them and their setting is one of the core planning principles set out in National Planning Policy Framework, 2012 (NPPF) at para. 17, bullet 10 “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”. Para’s 131 to 139 set out how local planning authorities should make decision in relation to applications relating to the historic environment and further guidance is given in the national Planning Practice Guidance Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, 2014 (PPGHE).

1.3 In addition to national planning policy and guidance, Historic (HE) have produced “Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2: Managing Significance in Decision‐Taking in the Historic Environment” 2015 (GPA2), “Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets”, 2015 (GPA3), and “Advice Note 2: Making Changes to Heritage Assets”, 2016 (AN2), and are relevant to this application.

1.4 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises that the significance, or importance, of a heritage asset (listed building, conservation area or locally listed building etc.) may be harmed through development within its setting. The harm caused may be ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’. In order to asses this it is necessary to set out in sufficient detail the significance of any heritage assets affected by the development so that the potential impact of the proposal can be fully understood (para. 128).

1.5 HE has produced broad guidance on what needs to be assessed. There are three principle documents in this instance: GPA2, GPA3 and AN2 which guide what and how the Heritage Impact Assessment is made. The four stages are as follows:

1. Identify which heritage assets and their setting are affected 2. Assess whether, and how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. 3. Assess the effects of the proposed development on the identified significance 4. Explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm

Local Policy

Joint Core Strategy for , and , adopted January 2014

2 | Page

1.6 The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) includes relevant policies:

Policy 1: Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets. Policy 17: Smaller rural communities and the countryside

Broadland Development Management DPD, adopted September 2015

1.7 The development management policies plan includes relevant policies:

GC1: Presumption in favour of sustainable development GC2: Location of new development GC4: Design

Heydon/Salle Conservation Area: Character Statement, adopted 17.3.2008

Broadland Landscape Character Assessment: Landscape character C1: Foulsham and Reepham Plateau Farmland

Natural England, National Character Area: No 84 Mid Norfolk (NCA)

1.8 The NCA describes the locality as:

The Site

1.9 The site comprises of the House at Dairy Farm to the north of Heydon Lane, Heydon. It formed part of the Heydon Hall Estate, from whom it was purchased in 2016 by the Client. The ancient settlement at Heydon dates to before the Doomsday Book.

1.10 The site lies in the Heydon/Salle Conservation Area (CA) and is considered to be an ‘important unlisted building’ together with the adjacent farm outbuildings, which the applicant also owns. (The former cart lodge has been converted and is not owned by the applicant.)

1.11 Heydon Hall (listed grade I) lies within its historic park and garden (registered grade II*) which is also a county wildlife site and forms a significant part of the CA. The site lies outside of these areas. The site is not priority habitat. The ecological value of the garden of the House is low, the area of the planned extension being laid to grass.

3 | Page

The trees and hedges around the site to the west and north of the site do provide potential habitat, these will be unaffected by the development, although augmentation of the hedge with a variety of native species could add to this habitat’s value.

1.12 The trees and hedges are also important to the character of the conservation area, creating enclosure to Haydon Lane, increasing the sense of tranquility and the rural character of the area. Haydon Lane is enclosed by trees and hedges, where these stop to the south of the buildings the House and farm buildings are dramatically revealed within a significant open area immediately in front (the historic farmyard area).

1.13 Dairy Farm House is in a tired condition and the farm buildings are in poor condition and are in need of some significant repair work to enable them to be maintained into the future. The former cart lodge has been converted and is occupied as a separate dwelling. The farm outbuildings have planning permission to be converted in to a separate dwelling and annex, this has yet to be undertaken.

1.14 The House and Farm are accessed from Heydon Lane, all are significantly set back from the highway with sufficient visibility splays. The property already accommodates a number of bedrooms, as a family home set within large grounds there is sufficient space within the site to provide both family and visitor parking.

1.15 The site does not lie within the public safety zone. It does however lie proximal to a long distant gas pipeline which runs through fields to the north of the site from Bacton Gas Terminal, and within the consultation zone. No development is proposed in close proximity of the pipeline; indeed, all development is within the existing developed area of the property.

Planning History

1.16 The known planning history of Dairy Farm is set out below:

 Dairy Farm Cart Lodge (Ref. 20160650) demolition of existing former agricultural storage building, erection of detached triple garage and detached wood store. Approved 17.6.16.  Conversion of the barns to residential dwelling and partial demolition of rear courtyard wall (Ref. 20151208) Approved 20.10.15.  Dairy Farm Cart Lodge (Ref. 20140321) Non‐material amendment to alter fenestration approved under permission 20120768.Approved 21.2.2014.

4 | Page

2. Identify affected assets and their setting

2.1 We have assessed the setting of each heritage asset in line with the description set out in the Glossary to the NPPF: “Setting of a heritage asset: 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.”

2.2 We have considered that a number of assets and settings are not affected by the proposal, because of lack of visual connection between the asset and/or its setting and the development, or distance between the asset and the development.

2.3 We have identified that the following heritage assets will be affected by the proposal. The nature and degree of the effect will be assessed in Section 3. There are a number of other listed buildings and non‐designated assets around Heydon, however the development has no impact on either the heritage assets or their setting and they have been excluded from the assessment.

Asset Grade Affected Conservation Area Designated Asset Dairy Farm House Non‐designated Asset and setting Dairy Farm Non‐designated Setting

5 | Page

3. Assess whether, and how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.

3.1 We have identified in section 2 which heritage assets settings may be affected by the proposed development. This section will assess whether the setting of these heritage assets has a contribution to make to the significance of the asset and how and to what degree their setting contributes.

3.2 Each assessment of significance of the heritage asset and/or its setting has been examined in relation to the Conservation Principles and the relevant building selection guide for listing. Set out below is an assessment of which settings, how and to what degree the settings contribute to the identified assets.

Heritage Assets and Setting Asset Grade Comment Conservation Designated Asset. Setting is not affected as the Area conservation area extends beyond the site. Dairy Farm Non‐designated The significance of the general setting to the House asset is moderate due to the type of building, height and design of the building and the historic and architectural interest afforded it and the functional relationship of the farm house to the farm. The loss of its historic context from after 1946 with the modern elements, has led to the reduction in the contribution of the setting to the asset. The significance of the setting of the building in relation to the modern extensions to the rear is now low, the remainder of the setting remains of moderate significance to the buildings.

The western hedge demarks the both the historic and current edge of the property. The Garden wall has defined the front garden since the mid nineteenth century. Both are of high significance to the setting of the House. Dairy Farm Non‐designated The setting of the outbuildings to Dairy Farm has already changed with the conversion and separation of the former cart lodge into a separate dwelling with its own three bay garage and log store.

The setting of the barns is of high significance, although the character is changed.

6 | Page

4. Assess the effects of the proposed development on the identified significance

Significance 4.1 The definition of significance is set out in the Glossary to the NPPF as ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence but from its setting’. Historic England set out in their “Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance”, 2008, at page 72 that ‘The sum of the cultural and natural heritage values of a place often set out in a statement of significance.” The Conservation Principles also define what may be included within archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic interest of a heritage asset. In relation to a number of building types Historic England have also produced a number of listing guides called Selection Guides.

4.2 Each assessment of significance of the heritage asset and/or its setting has been examined in relation to the Conservation Principles and the relevant building selection guide for listing. We have assessed the degree or level of value or interest based on the following:

 High: scheduled monument, grade I or II*,  Moderate: locally designated monument, grade II, conservation area or locally identified asset  Low: Grade II, conservation area or locally identified asset where remote from the development  Negligible: none is visible or known.

The Works 4.3 The proposal includes the repair and renovation of the House, including sympathetic replacement of the southern elevation windows and dormers. The unattractive twentieth century rear elements to the building, together with the significantly altered single storey nineteenth century extension will be demolished. The single storey building currently used as a garage will also be demolished.

4.4 The floor space of the garage will be reused, to create the new attached single storey play room and office under a flat GRP roof with a slim zinc coping, linked to the garden room forming the sitting/morning room. The rear will be extended with a new two storey replacement wing (perpendicular to the principle roof) and the replacement of single storey elements with two storey elements under cat slide roofs. In addition to this the introduction of the cat slide roof will facilitate the use of the third storey for accommodation.

4.5 The principle roof will also be replaced with replacement dormers. The ridge, and front pitch and eaves line will be retained.

4.6 The existing windows where in good condition will be repaired and retained. A new gable window will be added to the lounge to match the existing opening and style,

7 | Page

and new traditionally styled double glazed cottage style casement windows will be used in the new extensions.

4.7 The existing doors will be retained and repaired where necessary. New external doors will be constructed of timber and painted white.

Dairy Farm House

Brief history and development 4.8 The building appears to date from the late seventeenth century and is shown on the 1797 Faden Map, in the vicinity of Heydon Common, prior to the extension of the park to Heydon Hall (to include the common) and the associated alteration of the road layout. The plan form of the historic ground floor is developed in this form from about 1600. It is likely that the eastern, southern and west elevations of the two and a half storey house date to Erasmus Earle’s tenure, (or his descendant’s shortly after) he purchased the Estate from Sir Robert Kemp in 1650. It is typical that new owners of estates set about a programme of building and refurbishment of their properties.

4.9 The 1826 Bryant Map begins to show the changes to the road layout, again the House is located.

4.10 The 1841 Tithe Map Shows the House as a ‘T’ shape with a forward projecting wing on the eastern end. It also shows an ‘L’ shape outbuilding/barn range to the east on the same alignment as the House. However, the position/alignment of the buildings is questionable, but it is not unusual for the location and shape of buildings to be representative on maps before Ordinance Survey data of the late nineteenth century. However, it is unlikely that the farm buildings are the current ones due to their position and shape.

4.11 Shown on the late 19th century first edition Ordinance Survey Map (c.1880) (OS) as ‘Home Farm’ the farmhouse, garage and brick built farm buildings are all shown as currently configured in plan form. East Anglia is known for the widespread development of planned or model farmsteads during the nineteenth century, wiping away any older buildings and constructing a courtyard of multi‐functional farm outbuildings in the latest fashion. At Dairy Farm this also included the current separate garage building.

4.12 The additional front door to the southern elevation may be related to either the general practice of splitting farmhouses in to cottages from the eighteenth century or to split occupation of the building, perhaps in association with the World Wars.

4.13 The rear of the property has two single storey extensions and a two storey extension. The eastern single storey extension probably dates to the nineteenth century and would probably have functioned as a dairy and porch and later as an indoor WC/bathroom. The western single storey extension and the two storey extension are constructed of the same brick. The pitched roof of the two storey

8 | Page

extension, which is at 90 degrees to the principle roof is not shown on the 1946 aerial photograph, clearly dating these structures to the post war era. The style of the windows would suggest a late 1960s/1970s date, with the pitched roof of the two storey extension clearly shown on the 1988 Aerial. (Ariel maps accessed 16.3.17, http://www.historic‐maps.norfolk.gov.uk/mapexplorer/).

4.14 The eastern single storey was probably altered at the same time as the construction of the other rear extensions, with further alterations dating to the late twentieth.

4.15 A garden wall, probably in existing front boundary wall, is shown on the OS Map, its alignment suggests that it was constructed around the same time that the planned farm buildings were constructed.

4.16 The western trees/hedge are on the historic boundary formed by the position of Heyford Lane. The trees are not of particular note.

Significance of the site 4.17 The House is a substantial farmhouse which probably dates to the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, then being split to form a separate farm cottage, and then re‐combined at a later stage. Significantly added to at the rear in the mid to late twentieth century, the building maintains its attractive historic façade and relationship with the front garden wall and adjacent farm buildings.

4.18 It is identified as an non‐designated heritage in the Conservation Area Appraisal as a ‘Important Unlisted Building’.

4.19 The site has a low archaeological value, as an undesignated heritage asset, with low potential to reveal archaeology of moderate value. The current buildings and the use of the land in association with the farmyard will have led to disturbance of the stratigraphy of the soils.

4.20 The trees are not of particular note or age, but together with the hedge and trees on the opposite side of the lane form an important feature within the setting of the House.

4.21 There is a low to moderate associative and historic and social values to the site and its association with the Estate and also low to moderate illustrative value showing the development and alteration of farmhouses through time in Norfolk.

4.22 The design value is low to moderate being probably late seventeenth century in date and of a common type with a significant degree of alteration.

4.23 The artistic, commemorative, symbolic, social and spiritual values of the site are low to moderate.

9 | Page

Impact of development on the site 4.24 Permitted development exists to alter and extend unlisted buildings within a conservation area without planning permission. Rather than altering or extending the House in a piecemeal fashion the proposal considers in detail the architectural context and detail of the existing, and adopts an holistic approach to the site and character of the buildings. It also considers in detail the fabric of the existing building.

4.25 The repair works to the fabric of the building will maintain the architectural and illustrative historic value of the site. It will have a significantly positive impact on the site.

4.26 The proposed alterations will remove negative elements from the rear elevation, providing a larger traditionally styled extension to enable access to the full three floors of the house and functioning living space with reasonable head heights. These works of demolition and extension will have a positive impact on the site enhancing the building and its setting, impacting only on the existing altered areas of the building, they will maintain the architectural and historic values of the site. Photographs 1 and 2 shows an indicative 3D view of the building from the rear.

Photograph 1: Indicative 3D view of the rear

10 | Page

Photograph 2: Indicative 3D view of the rear

4.27 The modern side extension is able to provide modern rooms with large floor plates without significant intervention into the historic building retaining as much as possible of the remaining historic rear wall of the building, and allowing a relatively ‘light touch’ approach. These works of extension will have a minimal impact, of a slight adverse character due to the gable being partially hidden and the demolition the historic outbuilding, but they will maintain the architectural and historic values of the site. Photograph 3 shows an indicative 3D view of the building from the south west.

Photograph 3: Indicative 3D view from the south west (ground level view)

11 | Page

4.28 Alterations to the roof are typical of the type of development which may have occurred historically, the development from a steeply pitched roof to a cat slide through to a perpendicular wing being all possible ways the house may have developed traditionally. These works of alteration and extension will have a minimal impact, of a slight adverse character due to the historic roof fabric being removed, but they will maintain the architectural and historic values of the site.

4.29 The Farm projects beyond the southern elevation of the House by some distance. Views from the east include the House in the background and trees in the distance. Views from the bend in Heydon Lane to the west of the Farm will include the hedge in the foreground, the house in the middle ground and the farm beyond, with trees in the distance. A further public view location is at the current drive to the House, located between the house and the Farm, photograph 4 shows an indicative 3D view of the building from the south east.

Photograph 4: Indicative 3D view of the building from the south east, from the private drive

4.30 The Farm has planning permission to be converted to a dwelling, with the associated insertion of windows and doors and repair of the building. This will change the functional relationship with the House, the use once converted no longer being a dependent of the House. There is no interference between the new relationship of the house to the farm or with the house and its garden wall as a result of the proposal. There is no impact.

4.31 Overall, the proposal will have a positive impact on the site, with the building’s future use and health secured. As the impact is positive there is no need to assess the level of harm.

12 | Page

Conservation Area

History and significance 4.32 The Conservation Area is a designated asset. The significance of a conservation area is moderate on the scale of significance for heritage assets.

4.33 The CA was a late designation, being designated in June 1991. The CA’s Character Statement was adopted in March 2008, this is almost 10 years old. The 2008 Statement also extends the designation. Dairy Farm House and the farm formed part of the 1991 designation. The Statement was written prior to the introduction of current guidance and the NPPF. The Statement sets out the special character of the area.

4.34 There have been a number of changes to the conservation area over the years, but most have been subtle in nature. The special character has not been significantly eroded in the vicinity of the site. The House, grounds and Farm form an important group within conservation area, but a small part of the wider estate. The location of significant trees and the historic parkland together with the rural area form the conservation area in the wider area.

4.35 Significant trees to south of the site, indicated on the Conservation Area Map contained within the Statement are not affected by the development proposal.

4.36 The Conservation Area is ever evolving; it will continue to evolve over time.

Impact on the conservation area 4.37 The visible alterations and extensions to the House will be limited to those discussed in 4.29, above. These will have a neutral effect on the conservation area.

4.38 The repair works to the building will maintain the architectural and illustrative historic value of the site within the conservation area, and positively enhance its character and appearance.

4.39 Overall the impact on the heritage asset is minor in nature and have a positive contribution on the Conservation Area. As the impact is positive there is no need to assess the level of harm.

Setting of Dairy Farm

4.40 The history and significance of the Farm is discussed in association with Dairy Farm House above. The Farm as a non‐designated heritage asset has a low level of significance on the national scale. The setting of the Farm is of moderate significance to the Farm.

4.41 The Farm has planning permission to be converted to a dwelling, with the associated insertion of windows and doors and repair of the building. This will change the

13 | Page

functional relationship with its setting, the use once converted no longer being a dependent of the farm house.

4.42 The Farm projects beyond the southern elevation of the House by some distance. Views from the east include the House in the background and trees in the distance. Views from the bend in Heydon Lane to the west of the Farm will include the hedge in the foreground, the house in the middle ground and the farm beyond, with trees in the distance. A further public view location is at the current drive to the House, located between the house and the Farm.

4.43 The current condition of the House has a negative impact on the setting of the Dairy Farm, which in due course will itself be repaired and reused. The repair of the house will enhance the setting of the Farm.

4.44 Little alteration to the view from the east will be made by the proposed works, these being minor in nature and relating to the repair of the building or the addition of double glazed windows. The impact will be negligible.

4.45 In views from the west with the House located closer to the viewer the proposed works to the House will be more visible however, the nature of these works is such that it would be an enhancement to the setting of the Farm.

4.46 The location of the western extension is set back from the southern elevation of the house which is itself setback from the southern elevation of the Farm. In views from the west the extension will be on the extreme left of view and the Farm at best in the centre or to the right. The visual distance and physical division between the two together with the quality, detailing and materials of the extension will mean that the impact of the extension is low and slightly positive.

4.47 In the view from the road looking up the drive the Farm lies on the right and the House on the left in the mid ground. In the foreground is the grassed forecourt to the Farm and House and the garden wall to the house. In the background is the agricultural field and northern garden hedge remnants. The rear extension to the House will be visually in line with the existing, due to the distance and pitched nature of the proposed roof the difference to the elevation will be barely perceptible. The impact on the setting of the barn of the extension will be negligible. The impact of the repair works will be positive.

4.48 Overall, the impact on the setting of the barn will be negligible, with some part of the works having a positive impact. As the impact is positive there is no need to assess the level of harm.

Summary

4.49 The proposal has a positive impact on the site, Conservation Area and Dairy Farm. There is no substantial harm caused by the proposal to any of the heritage assets or their settings.

14 | Page

5. Explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm

5.1 The national PPGHE advises on how proposals can minimise harm to heritage assets at para. 019 “A clear understanding of the significance of a heritage asset and its setting is necessary to develop proposals which avoid or minimise harm…studies can reveal alternative development options, for example more sensitive designs or different orientations, that will deliver public benefits in a more sustainable and appropriate way.”

5.2 There is no harm caused to the heritage assets. The proposals have considered their context and affected heritage assets or settings of heritage assets as follows:

 The proposals are for the rear and western side of the building which minimises the impact on views of the building from the conservation area.  Additional native planting to the western hedge will enhance the sense of enclosure to the lane, better integrate the planting with the rural area, and enhance enclosure to the side garden area of the House meaning that the sense of privacy is enhanced and the visual impact of the western area of extension is reduced.  Revisions to the design will ensure that the architectural character of the old building is not diminished and that the extension is subservient to the original  The materials will reflect the local vernacular pallet,  The garden room will be a light weight touch and allow visibility through the structure  Repair of the historic buildings

15 | Page

6. Conclusion

6.1 The new proposal reflects the heritage impact assessment of the site, additional living space for the client, whilst protecting and enhancing the historic and natural environment.

6.2 There is no harm caused to the heritage assets, with the impact being positive.

6.3 The proposal is considered to comply with national and local policy as set out in Section 1, above.

16 | Page

Appendix 1 Policy Reference

NPPF 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and  no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and  conservation by grant‐funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and  the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non‐designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.

17 | Page

PPGHE 017 How to assess if there is substantial harm? What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting.

While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.

Policy on substantial harm to designated heritage assets is set out in paragraphs 132 and 133 to the National Planning Policy Framework.

018 What about harm in relation to conservation areas? An unlisted building that makes a positive contribution to a conservation area is individually of lesser importance than a listed building (paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework). If the building is important or integral to the character or appearance of the conservation area then its demolition is more likely to amount to substantial harm to the conservation area, engaging the tests in paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the justification for its demolition will still be proportionate to the relative significance of the building and its contribution to the significance of the conservation area as a whole.

039 Non‐designated heritage assets What are non‐designated heritage assets and how important are they? 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.

18 | Page

040 What are non‐designated heritage assets of archaeological interest and how important are they? The National Planning Policy Framework identifies two categories of non‐designated site of archaeological interest: (1) Those that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments and are therefore considered subject to the same policies as those for designated heritage assets (National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 139). They are of three types: o those that have yet to be formally assessed for designation o those that have been assessed as being nationally important and therefore, capable of designation, but which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion not to designate usually because they are given the appropriate level of protection under national planning policy o those that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 because of their physical nature

The reason why many nationally important monuments are not scheduled is set out in the document Scheduled Monuments, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Information on location and significance of such assets is found in the same way as for all heritage assets. Judging whether sites fall into this category may be assisted by reference to the criteria for scheduling monuments. Further information on scheduled monuments can be found on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s website.

(2) Other non‐designated heritage assets of archaeological interest. By comparison this is a much larger category of lesser heritage significance, although still subject to the conservation objective. On occasion the understanding of a site may change following assessment and evaluation prior to a planning decision and move it from this category to the first

Where an asset is thought to have archaeological interest, the potential knowledge which may be unlocked by investigation may be harmed even by minor disturbance, because the context in which archaeological evidence is found is crucial to furthering understanding.

Decision‐taking regarding such assets requires a proportionate response by local planning authorities. Where an initial assessment indicates that the site on which development is proposed includes or has potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, applicants should be required to submit an appropriate desk‐based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. However, it is estimated following an initial assessment of archaeological interest only a small proportion – around 3 per cent – of all planning applications justify a requirement for detailed assessment.

041 How are non‐designated heritage assets identified? Local lists incorporated into Local Plans can be a positive way for the local planning authority to identify non‐designated heritage assets against consistent criteria so as to improve the predictability of the potential for sustainable development.

19 | Page

It is helpful if Local Plans note areas of potential for the discovery of non‐designated heritage assets with archaeological interest. The historic environment record will be a useful indicator of archaeological potential in the area. In judging if non‐designated sites of archaeological interest are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, and therefore considered subject to the same policies as those for designated heritage assets, local planning authorities should refer to Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s criteria for scheduling monuments.

When considering development proposals, local planning authorities should establish if any potential non‐designated heritage asset meets the definition in the National Planning Policy Framework at an early stage in the process. Ideally, in the case of buildings, their significance should be judged against published criteria, which may be generated as part of the process of producing a local list. For non‐designated heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should refer to ‘What are non‐designated heritage assets of archaeological interest and how important are they?‘

20 | Page