Agenda Item 12

Report PC28/16 Report to Planning Committee Date 12 May 2016 By Director of Planning Title of Report Castle Goring Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Purpose of Report To approve a proposed extension to the Conservation Area and to adopt the appraisal and management plan.

Recommendation: The Committee is recommended to: 1) Approve the proposed extensions to Castle Goring Conservation Area as set out in paragraphs 6.3 – 6.6, and shown on Figure 20, of the Appraisal and Management Plan 2) Adopt the Castle Goring Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, attached as Appendix 2 to this report, for the purposes of Development Management and to inform the wider activities of the South Downs National Park Authority and its partners.

1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 Castle Goring lies within Borough. It was first designated as a Conservation Area in 1997 by . 1.2 The consultation draft of the Castle Goring Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) was prepared in-house by the SDNPA Historic Buildings Officers. On adoption it would replace a previous Worthing Borough document which was presumably prepared at the time of the original designation. 1.3 The appraisal will satisfy the statutory obligation to periodically review conservation areas placed on Local Planning Authorities by Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The document formulates recommendations for preservation and enhancement within a formal Management Plan

2. Background 2.1 As Local Planning Authority, SDNPA has responsibility for planning policy matters, including conservation area designation and review 2.2 The draft text of the Castle Goring CAAMP was the subject of a six week consultation period which ended on 15 January 2016. Letters were sent to all addresses within the Castle Goring Conservation Area and a local landowner and the views of Worthing Borough Council, West County Council, Historic and the Worthing Society were sought. 2.3 Action points and advice in the Castle Goring CAAMP are as follows:

ACTION 1 That the boundaries of Castle Goring Conservation Area be amended to incorporate the area described above and Mapped on Figure 20 ACTION 2 That the Stable Block be added to the emerging Local List of Historic Buildings

101 ACTION 3 That the National Park Authority seeks to secure repair of the Walled Garden by working in co-operation with the owners ACTION 4 That Planning and Listed Buildings Consent applications be determined in accordance with all relevant legislation and guidance, with any opportunities to secure improvements during that process being secured as far as possible. ACTION 5 That the loss of architectural features and traditional materials be monitored by all parties and for the National Park Authority to consider making an Article 4 Direction, in consultation with the community, should it emerge as a problem adversely affecting the special character of Castle Goring Conservation Area. ACTION 6 That the National Park Authority supports, in principle and in association with other partners, the enhancement of the Conservation Area, including the resurfacing of the old road and castle drive in a suitable, relatively low key material; the removal of poles and overhead wires; and the reinforcement of the planting on the northern boundary of the Conservation Area to further mitigate the impact of the A27 ADVICE That anyone considering development of any form which affects Castle Goring Conservation Area or its setting should seek pre-application advice from the National Park Authority before submitting an application and, ideally, before starting any design work. ADVICE That anyone considering development of any form which affects Castle Goring Conservation Area should seek pre-application advice from the National Park Authority’s archaeological advisor, Hampshire County Council, before submitting an application and, ideally, before starting any design work.

3. Consultation Responses 3.1 Five responses were received and these are tabulated, along with a response, in Appendix 1. 3.2 One particular consultation response, that from the landowner, requires more detailed consideration as it raises some fundamental issues associated with the proposed extension to the Conservation Area. The main text of this letter is reproduced as Appendix 1a. 3.3 The rationale for the proposed extension is set out in paragraphs 3.7 – 3.8, 3.10, 4.17, and 6.4 of the Castle Goring CAAMP. Consideration of the landowner’s comments follow in paragraphs 3.4 – 3.11 of this report. 3.4 The difficulty in documenting a designed landscape to the south of the house are acknowledged in the appraisal but it remains the case that this area presents a park-like appearance which was felt to make a significant contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. 3.5 The landowner contends that the land has never been parkland and any such appearance is the unintended consequence of his family’s farming of the land. He concludes that it is totally unacceptable to include the Farmland and woodland to the south of Castle Goring within this definition [of a Conservation Area]. It simply does not fit, and it would be altering the actual history of the area to try to make it do so. 3.6 Starting from first principles, there is no doubt that parkland associated with a house can have the architectural interest required to be included in a Conservation Area. The issue at stake in this particular case, therefore, is whether or not it is accepted that the apparent appearance of the land as parkland is merely fortuitous and that it does not have the special historic interest required for inclusion in the Conservation Area.

102 3.7 In a number of points in the letter, the landowner objects to the use of the term ‘parkland’ and argues that it is ‘farmland’. The two are not mutually exclusive, however, and parkland certainly can be grazed. He sets out in his letter how the Castle Goring Estate was a working country estate and it is quite possible that this part of the estate was grazed, allowing it to be both economically productive and contributing to the landscape setting of the house at the same time. 3.8 If one accepts this suggestion, the issue becomes one of terminology. In the absence of hard documentary evidence, ‘parkland’ may not be the appropriate noun and it should perhaps be better referred to as ‘farmland associated with the house’. Given that the special interest of the Conservation Area is derived in no small part from its survival as a small working country estate, its relationship with the house would give it the special historic interest to justify its inclusion within the Conservation Area. 3.9 The extension also brings the walled garden within the boundary of the Conservation Area. 3.10 It should be further noted that extending the Conservation Area designation does nothing beyond giving a degree over protection of trees which would affect the farming of the land. 3.11 The text and proposals map of the new Castle Goring CAAMP, amended in the light of the comments received, is attached as Appendix 2 4. Resources 4.1 The CAAMP for Castle Goring has been written by the Historic Buildings Officers of SDNPA and it is proposed to undertake the implementation of the Management Plan in- house, within the existing resources of the Planning Directorate. There are costs involved with the implementation of the Management Plan but the majority of these will be absorbed within the existing budgets of the Planning Service. Where this cannot be achieved, partnerships or external sources of funding will be sought.

5. Risk management 5.1 Physical and environmental risks invoked by the recommendation are not significant. 5.2 Should SDNPA neglect the timely implementation of proposals arising from Conservation Area Appraisals without good cause, a reputational risk to the National Park Authority could arise. Mitigation of this risk relies on the implementation of the action points in the Management Plan, so that they are built into the work programmes of the SDNPA and its partner organisations through the South Downs National Park Management Plan and its action plans. 6. Crime and Disorder Implication 6.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

7. Human Rights Implications 7.1 This Appraisal and Management Plan has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual’s human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

8. Equality Act 2010 8.1 Due regard has been taken of the South Downs National Park Authority’s equality duty as contained within the Equality Act 2010.

9. External Consultees 9.1 Residents of Castle Goring Conservation Area; Local landowner; Worthing Borough Council; County Council; Historic England; The Worthing Society

TIM SLANEY Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority 103

Tel: 01730 819233 email: [email protected] Appendices 1. Summary of Consultation comments and actions resulting, including as Appendix 1a, the text of the letter received from the local landowner 2. Draft Castle Goring Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan SDNPA Consultees Director of Planning; Director of Policy and Partnerships; Chief Finance Officer; Monitoring Officer; Legal Services Background Documents  Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990  National Planning Policy Framework 2012  SDNPA Buildings at Risk Register 2012

104 Agenda Item 12 Report PC28/16 Appendix 1

By Comment SDNPA Response Local Objection is made to the use of the word ‘parkland’, This issue is addressed in the main Landowner and its perceived implications, wherever it occurs in part of the report. the text, and the role of the land to the south of the house as farmland is emphasised It should be noted that the building was not only Noted unfinished, but also already falling into disrepair and known locally as ‘The Rat House’ by the time Capt. Pechell took the lease. The Red Dot indicating the site of Castle Goring is The map has been corrected. wrongly placed. It should be in the field to the east, below the ‘n’ of Common, or even a little further east. Interestingly, there is substantially less woodland shown on the Map in the area than there is now! The track referred to in figure 3 is evident in figure 1, although it may take a slightly different route as it heads south but it gives a reference point to the location of the house The east (kitchen) pavilion was only linked to the Noted house via later alterations. The original was linked by a wall, matching the west pavilion. 4.12 The Lodge was considerably extended circa This information has been 1980 incorporated into the text and the caption to Figure 12. 4.14 No 14 Castle Goring cannot be said to be facing The reference to the old road has the main road. No 12 was very largely re-built when been removed from the text to the old farmyard / stables area was re-developed avoid confusion circa 1990. Figure 12: Worthing Lodge – was extended See above Eastwards by two window sections from the central downpipe circa 1980 Figure 13: No 12 Arundel Road – the East wall is Noted formed from the old wall of the brick kiln that was part of the brickyards where the Barn known as The Sawmill now stands. The lines of drying bricks and clay can clearly be seen on the Tithe Map (Figure 2) Figure 14: No 13 Arundel Road – was largely rebuilt Caption to Figure 14 amended in the ‘90s when the whole farmyard area was re- developed. The ‘Cottage’ was formally the Cart shed and implement house, with a flat above before the 1990 redevelopment. Figure 15: The Stables range - was formally stalls for Caption to Figure 15 amended the working farm horses that worked the farmland south of Castle Goring. There was a groom’s flat in the middle. The riding and Carriage horses were housed at the Castle. Figure 16: Was formally the Granary for the farm. Noted The large window shown had the winch fitted to lift the sacks of grain up for storage. Again, this was redeveloped in the ‘90s.

105 By Comment SDNPA Response Figure 16: The Hermitage – was three one up one Noted down cottages, before redevelopment in the ‘90s Figure 16: The third photo shows the only building Noted linked directly to the running of Castle Goring. It was built as the Gas House, where coal was burnt to create coal gas to power the Castle, with the gas being piped from an expanding gas tower located just outside this house to the Castle. Stables from the Castle were then moved into here after the war, when the farmyard area was used as a livery stable, along with the main stable block. Figure 17: The Sawmill was built on the site of the Noted estate sawmill, which was a concrete / asbestos clad barn erected in the ‘60s. Before that, the area was the main farmyard of the Castle Goring Farm, and before that it was a brickworks site. 6.5: Forest Lane does not provide pedestrian access There is a public right of way along to the proposed conservation area. There is no Forest Lane which connects to a public access to this area whatsoever, nor is there wider network of footpaths to the any public access land here. east and gives access to the Conservation Area at its northern end. Para 6.5 does not say that it gives access to the “proposed Conservation Area” i.e. the proposed extension, which is indeed private land without public access. Resident of Para 4.12 – The Lodge mentioned in the report is Text and caption Figure 12 Castle actually known as Worthing Lodge amended accordingly Goring There is another Lodge at the western end of the There is some merit in including Castle boundary, at the end of the drive. This is not the western (Arundel) lodge for currently in the Conservation Area but perhaps completeness but its distance from should be included for completeness the main part of the Conservation Area is such that it is difficult to produce a boundary that encompasses it but doesn’t appear rather contrived We have been told that our house, number 14, This is interesting information but slightly pre-dates the Castle and was built by John at present is anecdotal and cannot Rebecca as his own house, to live in while the be included in the text without construction of the Castle was under way. We were some corroboration. also told that the house was later used as the Laundry for the Castle, and a boiler exists in what is now the Kitchen. Para 5.7 - While we would welcome the resurfacing In suggesting works of of the approach roads and drive, my understanding is enhancement, the CAAMP is that this is in private ownership. Who would be aspirational but it cannot require responsible for payment? The covenants to our any resident to do works for which property say that we have "a right to resurface, but they have no obligation. no obligation to do so" or words to that effect, i.e. we can do it if we want to but cannot be made to do so. The approach track from the A27 to the Castle, our property and the fields beyond is owned by the Castle Goring Estate

106 By Comment SDNPA Response Action 7 suggests the removal of poles and overhead As above wires. Again, while we would welcome this it would no doubt be expensive. Action 7 also suggests additional planting to screen the A27. It would be good to see this section of A27 resurfaced, which would vastly improve the impact of noise - Highways England currently have several millions to spend improving the A27. I am concerned that permission has been granted for Listed Building Consent and future use of the Castle as a venue for Weddings and Planning Permission have been other events. The access and egress from the A27 is granted for works to the house. poor, as highlighted in your report, and I am The latter does have a condition surprised that there was no condition attached to requiring improvement to signage the Planning Permission for this to be improved. on the main road As I stated in my objection at the time, many vehicles attempting to turn left from a 70 mph road would cause a hazard to other road users. In a similar vein,

many vehicles exiting an event together would be hazardous to others on the A27 and make exiting from our property difficult. While it is inevitable in this day and age that some commercial use will help to pay for the upkeep of this important property, more thought might have gone into the traffic that will be generated. Partnership I write primarily as a Partnership member who Noted Member & happens to live locally in Durrington. My remit is nearby economic rather than planning. resident I have no objection in principle with the report, but what it misses for me is the economic business case to enable success. Whilst the are limits to where the Authority can be in this area, the basis of sympathetic economic and employment potential is missing. Without that, I struggle to see how the proposals robustly support the Duty. South Downs The Society very much welcomes the work carried Noted Society out to date and fully endorses the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan for Castle Goring. The need for a Conservation Area Management There is no particular reason for Committee comprising appropriate stakeholders is creating a Management Committee essential for taking forward any enhancement for Castle Goring as compared to proposals. all the other 166 Conservation Areas in the National Park. To create a Management Committee for all of the Conservation Areas would impose an insuperable burden on available resources. We would suggest that more might be done to raise Noted public awareness and access to this unique site and to secure funding from European, national and local sources. Historic We found this to be a useful and well researched Noted England document that has followed out published advice.

An area that we felt could be improved was the Text amended in line with HE’s statement of significance more detailed comments

107

108 Agenda Item 12 Report PC28/16 Appendix 1a

Please find below my comments on your draft Castle Goring area plan. 2.3 The house looks out over open FARMLAND to the south, not parkland. When the house was built and then taken on by Captain Pechell in 1825, the land was farmed by a tenant named Bright, and references were made to liming, and other farm work on this land. (See archives, Castle Goring) The tithe Map and early Ordinance Survey maps of this time show the area as farmland. It has been farmed as farmland for all of the 20th century and still is now. 3.5 It should be noted that the building was not only unfinished, but also already falling into disrepair and known locally as ‘The Rat House’ by the time Capt. Pechell took the lease. Please note ‘Pechell’ not Petchell throughout. 3.7 Again, early OS maps show how the area was divided and wooded, and most of the Oak trees now in the field reflect lines of earlier field boundaries. Again the use of the word ‘grassland’ gives the wrong implication. It is very much ‘farmland’ and is actively farmed. 3.9 The Red Dot indicating the site of Castle Goring is wrongly placed. It should be in the field to the east, below the ‘n’ of Common, or even a little further east. Interestingly, there is substantially less woodland shown on the Map in the area than there is now! The track referred to in figure 3 is evident in figure 1, although it may take a slightly different route as it heads south but it gives a reference point to the location of the house. 3.12 Again, this map shows no evidence of Parkland. It does show that the field we now know as ‘The Castle Field’ was fenced off from the Roundel. This would allow for stock to graze the field and protect the wood. 4.4 It is not correct to call this ‘Parkland’ It is Farmland that currently happens to be in grass for the purposes of grazing sheep and cattle commercially. It has all been ploughed and grown cereal crops in living memory. 4.9 The east (kitchen) pavilion was only linked to the house via later alterations. The original was linked by a wall, matching the west pavilion. 4.12 The Lodge was considerably extended circa 1980 4.14 No 14 Castle Goring cannot be said to be facing the main road. No 12 was very largely re-built when the old farmyard / stables area was re-developed circa 1990.

4.19 Study of the Tithe and other maps show that the trees that now appear to be individual ‘Parkland’ trees were largely either boundary forming fence line trees, or were part of the larger area of woodland that was reduced to become the Roundel as it now is. It is nothing to do with Park design, but a consequence of farming throughout the period and before. The house actually has very limited views to the south. Even before the southern hedge grew up, the line of its trim is still clearly visible (it was last cut in 1941) to a height that was impossible to see over from the garden or the ground floor. The main rooms could have only seen as far as the Roundel (before the hedge grew up – There is no view over the hedge now!) You can just glimpse the sea from the upstairs bedrooms, and really need to get on to the highest part of the roof to see down to the sea properly. The hedge originally encompassed the tennis court area as well, before catching fire after the war, so there was NO view southwards from the lawns. 4.20 Again, there was no view to the Walled Garden.

109 Corrections & Information on the Photos: Figure 12: Worthing Lodge – was extended Eastwards by two window sections from the central downpipe circa 1980. Figure 13: No 12 Arundel Road – the East wall is formed from the old wall of the brick kiln that was part of the brickyards where the Barn known as The Sawmill now stands. The lines of drying bricks and clay can clearly be seen on the Tithe Map (Figure 2) Figure 14: No 13 Arundel Road – was largely rebuilt in the ‘90s when the whole farmyard area was re-developed. The ‘Cottage’ was formally the Cart shed and implement house, with a flat above before the 1990 redevelopment. Figure 15: The Stables range - was formally stalls for the working farm horses that worked the farmland south of Castle Goring. There was a groom’s flat in the middle. The riding and Carriage horses were housed at the Castle. Figure 16: Was formally the Granary for the farm. The large window shown had the winch fitted to lift the sacks of grain up for storage. Again, this was redeveloped in the ‘90s. Figure 16: The Hermitage – was three one up one down cottages, before redevelopment in the ‘90s Figure 16: The third photo shows the only building linked directly to the running of Castle Goring. It was built as the Gas House, where coal was burnt to create coal gas to power the Castle, with the gas being piped from an expanding gas tower located just outside this house to the Castle. Stables from the Castle were then moved into here after the war, when the farmyard area was used as a livery stable, along with the main stable block. Figure 17: The Sawmill was built on the site of the estate sawmill, which was a concrete / asbestos clad barn erected in the ‘60s. Before that, the area was the main farmyard of the Castle Goring Farm, and before that it was a brickworks site. Figure 18: Farmland not Parkland. The top photo was taken on a day when the Goring & District Riding Club were setting up for their annual show, which I host on this land, but it does not make it Parkland. Management Plan & Comments: Taking 6.1 as the starting point of the legal definition of a conservation area, it is accepted that Castle Goring and some of the Cottages fit the definition, albeit with total changes to their use and intention and in part to their structure over the years. However, it is totally unacceptable to include the Farmland and woodland to the south of Castle Goring within this definition. It simply does not fit, and it would be altering the actual history of the area to try to make it do so. There is no evidence to suggest that the field south of Castle Goring was ever parkland, or ever intended to be. The informal garden and parkland area was more likely to have been to the West of Castle Goring, in the area that is now taken over by Laurel & Rhododendron bushes. It was in this area that the Summer House was located, and here there are the real specimen trees that indicate the use as informal areas. The Chichester archives show that the field to the south was let to a farmer during the first half of the 19th century, and the fact that the farmyard, granary and working stables for the area was situated in what is now the Castle Goring Mews area surely enhances this fact. That the sawmill site sits on what used to be a brickworks, still evidenced by the old kiln wall forming the eastern wall of No 12, is also proof that the area was used for work and industry. It is unlikely that there would be a brickworks right on the edge of a ‘Park’. It is

110 not certain where the clay was dug from, but I have always thought that the various dips and hollows in the Roundel itself would have been a source of brick clay for these brickworks. The old estate sawpit was situated just east of the kitchen garden. Again this is hardly a feature of parkland. The area indicated in figure 20 as being proposed as the boundary of a revised conservation area is the first area of farmland that my father was able to farm himself on the death of my grandfather in 1957. His first cereal crop was Oats, grown in the Castle Field. He kept pigs in a lean too attached to the Granary, and cattle in the sheds on the site of the Sawmill. It was very much a working farm when he took it on, as it had been when the Castle was taken on by Capt. Pechell. In Shelly & Pechell’s time, the whole estate was about 150 acres, with a large proportion of the area being woodland, and this was the farmyard. The Cart horse stables, as stated showing early use of concrete blockwork, would not have been built to overlook a park – there would have been no need for them as the whole open area of the estate was only about the size of the proposed extension. 6.5: Forest Lane does not provide pedestrian access to the proposed conservation area. There is no public access to this area whatsoever, nor is there any public access land here. Summary: Many of the assumptions about the land to the South of Castle Goring are simply wrong, and to allow them to stand is to re-write history. The fact that the land is currently in grass does not make it parkland, but the fact that it may look like parkland is testament to the way it has been farmed in very recent times. Most of the individual trees were either part of old field boundaries, or included in the old woodland areas, but it was and is not uncommon for arable fields to include individual trees. Land use is bound to evolve and change over 200 years, but the underlying fact is that this land is farmland owned by the Castle Goring Estate, and has been farmland throughout the history of Castle Goring and has always been used commercially for the Estate to generate income, not as an extension to its gardens. I would urge that you do not include the land south of Castle Goring within a revised boundary, as although linked through historic ownership to the house, it has no special architectural or historic interest. It is simply farmland, and always has been.

111