Pond Street, Great Gonerby Lincolnshire

Heritage Impact Assessment

Solstice Heritage Crabtree Hall Business Centre Little Holtby Northallerton North Yorkshire DL7 9NY

www.solsticeheritage.co.uk Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire

Heritage Impact Assessment

Prepared for: Ms E Gaspar

Prepared by: Chris Scott BA (Hons), MA, MCIfA Solstice Heritage Crabtree Hall Business Centre Little Holtby Northallerton North Yorkshire DL7 9LN

Checked by: Jim Brightman BA (Hons), MLitt, MCIfA

Project Reference: SOL1617-22

Document Reference: DOC1617-33

Dates of Fieldwork: July 2016

Date of Document: October 2016

Table of Contents Acknowledgements 1 Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Project Background 3 1.2 Site Location and Description 3 1.3 Description of Proposed Development 3 1.4 Aims of the Study 3 2. Policy and Guidance Framework 5 2.1 Legislation 5 2.2 Policy 5 2.2.1 National 5 2.2.2 Local 6 2.3 Guidance 7 2.3.1 National 7 3. Methodology 9 3.1 Overview 9 3.2 Walkover Survey 9 3.3 Significance 9 3.3.1 Defining Significance 9 3.3.2 Assessing Significance 10 3.3.3 Defining the Contribution of Setting 10 3.3.4 Assessing the Contribution of Setting 11 3.4 Chronology 11 3.5 Assumptions and Limitations 12 3.6 Copyright 12 4. Assessment Results 13 4.1 Walkover Survey 13 4.2 Understanding Constraints and Opportunities for Change 16 4.3 Assessment of Physical Impacts 18 4.4 Assessment of Setting Impacts 18 4.4.1 East-Facing Façade 18 4.4.2 West-Facing Façade 19 4.4.3 Views 19 4.4.4 Setting impacts to surrounding heritage assets 19 5. Conclusions 21 6. Sources 22 6.1 Bibliography 22 Appendix 1 - Proposed Plans and Elevations 23 Appendix 2 – Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets 27 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location 4 Figure 2 East and south elevations of the listed farmhouse, facing north-west 13 Figure 3 Listed farmhouse, with later additions at its north side, facing south-east 14 Figure 4 Gardens to the west of Elm Farmhouse, facing south-east 14 Figure 5 Modern brick wall at western extent of proposed development site, looking north-east from Belvoir Gardens15 Figure 6 Boundary wall at the north of the proposed development area, with listed building in the background looking south 15 Figure 7 View along Pond Street, facing east. Proposed development site to extreme right 17 Figure 8 View north towards Sutton House. Site to extreme right 17 Figure 9 Proposed site plan (prepared and supplied by Taylor Holmwood) 24 Figure 10 Proposed Plot 1 plans, elevations and cross-sections (prepared and supplied by Taylor Holmwood) 25 Figure 11 Proposed Plot 2 plans, elevations and cross-sections (prepared and supplied by Taylor Holmwood) 26 Figure 12 Designated heritage assets within 1km of the proposed development site 28 Figure 13 Designated heritage assets within 1km of the proposed development site 29

List of Tables Table 1 Legislation relating to cultural heritage in planning 5 Table 2 Key passages of NPPF in reference to cultural heritage 6 Table 3 Summary of relevant local planning policy 7 Table 4 National guidance documentation consulted 8 Table 5 Criteria for assessment of significance 10 Table 6 Listed buildings in the study area 30 Table 7 HER monument records in the study area 32 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Acknowledgements

Solstice Heritage would like to thank Ms E Gaspar for commissioning this assessment and Nick Taylor of Taylor Holm- wood for support throughout the project. Where map data has been used in the preparation of the accompanying figures, this is derived from Ordnance Survey Opendata and is crown copyright all rights reserved.

1 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Executive Summary

Solstice Heritage was commissioned by Ms E Gaspar to produce a Heritage Impact Assessment in relation to the impact of a proposed development on the setting of the Grade II listed Elm Farmhouse (NHLE 1146832), as well as on heritage assets within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. The most significant heritage asset within the immediate vicinity of the site, aside from Elm Farmhouse, is considered to be the Great Gonerby Conservation Area, which lies to the north and east of the site.

Whilst many of the aspects of setting, as well as the physical listed fabric, contribute to the significance of the heritage assets assessed, it is not considered to be the case that any of these elements of the setting, or significance, of the listed buildings and Conservation Area suffer negative impacts from the proposed development. Furthermore, those elements of the building which contribute most to its significance will be maintained almost exactly as existing, with the proposed development respecting key views and lying completely within an area of view which contributes little, or in fact partly negatively, to the setting of Sutton House and Elm Farmhouse and the wider Great Gonerby Conservation Area.

The proposed development’s design response to heritage issues has been guided by taking account of the recognised significances of the listed buildings, and it takes considerable care to safeguard those elements of the setting of the listed buildings and Conservation Area which contribute most to their significance, in particular the preservation and enhancement of key views along Pond Street and Belvoir Gardens, as well as views of the principal façade of a building of important evidential and historical value, and architectural interest.

The design and scale of the extension will reference the predominant vernacular architectural style of the nearby Con- servation Area, respecting the pattern of historical development off Pond Street and using traditional forms and materials within a high-quality scheme. The purpose of this assessment has also been to inform the design of the new development, with opportunities and areas for sustainable change being identified and made use of within the proposed scheme.

Although there will be limited loss of open space, the proposed development is considered to have an overall neutral or slight positive effect on the significance of the listed buildings and Conservation Area, principally through the use of traditional forms and materials in its construction, as well as the desire to remove elements which detract from key views, thereby ensuring their continued contribution to quality of place and the group value of the historic buildings surrounding it. The development is also considered to be in line with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan, by being designed to reflect the character and principal positive historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and in the way it contributes to the conservation, enhancement and partial restoration of the historic character of Great Gonerby (SKDC 1995).

2 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been commissioned by Ms E Gaspar to provide an assessment of the potential cultural heritage impact of a proposed development at Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire. It provides baseline information on the cultural heritage resource in the proposed development site and surrounding area and assesses potential effects on that resource.

1.2 Site Location and Description The proposed development is located within existing gardens at the corner of Pond Street and Belvoir Gardens, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire (NGR SK 89466 38252) (Figure 1). The proposed development consists of the creation of two new single-storey bungalow dwellings with access from Belvoir Gardens within the existing gardens to the west of the Grade II listed Elm Farmhouse (NHLE 1146832). The listing description is reproduced below:

SK 83 NE GREAT GONERBY POND STREET (south side) 7/45 Elm Farmhouse 21.9.79 II Farmhouse. C17, C18, C19. Coursed ironstone rubble, ashlar dressings, red brick, pantile roof with coped gables and 2 brick ridge stacks. 3 storey, 3 bay front, heightened in C19. Quoins. Central doorway with serpentine lintel with raised keystone and panelled door. Doorway flanked by single 3 light mullion windows with moulded cornices. Cross mullion wood casement above door, with segmental head and serpentine stone lintel with raised keystone. A similar window to north with casement above.

1.3 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development seeks to create two new single-storey bungalow dwellings with access from Belvoir Gardens (see Appendix 2 for proposed plans and elevations).

The design of this scheme has been considered carefully and has involved input from Solstice Heritage throughout. The design has sought to reflect the character and prominent building materials of the local area, respect the arrangement of the adjacent buildings, and purposefully sit within an area of the site which contributes little to the understanding of the farmhouse and its surroundings or to the most significant views of the listed building and nearby conservation area.

1.4 Aims of the Study This Heritage Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with Government Policy on the historic environment contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The focus of this document relates to the setting of the Grade II listed Elm Farmhouse, and the potential impact of the proposed development on this setting. Furthermore, the assessment will consider any potential impacts of the development upon surrounding heritage assets such as the Great Gonerby Conservation Area. The aims of the study are:

• To assess the known cultural heritage resource within the proposed development area and its environs. • To assess the potential effects of the proposed development upon the cultural heritage resource.

3 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 1 Site Location

4 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

2. Policy and Guidance Framework

2.1 Legislation National legislation which applies to the consideration of cultural heritage within development and the wider planning process is set out in Table 1 below.

Title Key Points Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Scheduled Monuments, as defined under the Ancient Monuments Areas Act 1979 (amended by the National and Archaeological Areas Act (1979), are sites which have been Heritage Act 1983 and 2002) selected by a set of non-statutory criteria to be of national importance. Where scheduled sites are affected by development proposals there is a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. Any works, other than activities receiving class consent under The Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1981, as amended by The An- cient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1984, which would have the effect of demolishing, destroying, damaging, removing, repairing, altering, adding to, flooding or covering-up a Scheduled Monument require consent from the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Planning (Listed Building and Conserva- Buildings of national, regional or local historical and architectural tion Areas) Act 1990 importance are protected under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Buildings designated as ‘Listed’ are afforded protection from physical alteration or effects on their historical setting. Hedgerows Regulations 1997 The Hedgerow Regulations (1997) include criteria by which hedgerows can be regarded as historically important (Schedule 1 Part III).

Table 1 Legislation relating to cultural heritage in planning

2.2 Policy

2.2.1 National The principal instrument of national planning policy within England is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CLG 2012) which outlines the following in relation to cultural heritage within planning and development:

Paragraph Key Points 7 Contributing to protecting and enhancing the historic environment is specifically noted as being a part of what constitutes ‘sustainable development’ – the “golden thread” which, when met, can trigger presumption in favour. 17 A core planning principle is to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for the contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”. 128 During the determination of applications “local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting”. This information should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and only enough to “understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance”.The normal minimum level is expected to be a desk-based assessment of proportional size “and, where necessary, a field evaluation”.

5 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Paragraph Key Points 129 Paragraph 129 identifies that Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. 132 It is noted that significance – the principal measure of inherent verallo heritage worth – can be harmed or lost through development within its setting. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and any adverse effects require “clear and convincing justification” relative to their significance. 135 At paragraph 135 it states that 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. 139 At paragraph 139 it states that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. 141 In paragraph 141 amongst other matters it states that planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

Table 2 Key passages of NPPF in reference to cultural heritage

2.2.2 Local Under planning law, the determination of an application must be made, in the first instance, with reference to the policies of the local development plan. For the proposed development this is represented by a Local Plan for the district, which currently comprises the Core Strategy, Site Allocation and Policies DPD and a few remaining policies and allocations (which affect Grantham only) included in the 1995 Local Plan (SKDC 1995). The following are key policies with reference to cultural heritage and the nature of the proposed development:

Policy Key Text EN1 “South Kesteven’s Landscape Character Areas are identified on the map [following paragraph 4.1.10]. Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to: 1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets 2. local distinctiveness and sense of place 3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape 4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces 5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings 6. the condition of the landscape 7. biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape 8. public access to and community value of the landscape 9. remoteness and tranquillity 10. visual intrusion 11. noise and light pollution

6 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Policy Key Text 12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council 13. impact on controlled waters 14. protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas).”

Table 3 Summary of relevant local planning policy

2.3 Guidance

2.3.1 National During the assessment and preparation of this document, the following guidance documents have been referred to, where relevant:

Document Key Points National Planning Practice The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) released the guid- Guidance (NPPG) (CLG 2014) ance to NPPF in March 2014 in a ‘live’ online format which, it is intended can be amended and responsive to comment, particular as case law develops in relation to the implementation of NPPF. In relation to cultural heritage the NPPG follows previous guidance in wording and ‘keys in’ with, in particular, extant English Heritage guidance documents. The NPPG references many similar terms to the previous PPS5 Practice Guidance.

Expanding on the narrow definitions within NPPF, the guidance defines conservation as ‘an active process of maintenance and managing change. It requires a flexible and thoughtful approach to get the best out of assets as diverse as listed buildings in everyday use to as yet undiscovered, undesignated buried remains of archaeological interest.’

In terms of building conservation, the guidance states that ‘in the case of buildings, generally the risks of neglect and decay of heritage assets are best addressed through ensuring that they remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Ensuring such heritage assets remain used and valued is likely to require sympathetic changes to be made from time to time...Where changes are proposed, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a clear framework for both plan-making and decision-taking to ensure that heritage assets are con- served, and where appropriate enhanced, in a manner that is consistent with their significance and thereby achieving sustainable development.’ Conservation Principles, Policies This document sets out the guiding principles of conservation as seen by English and Guidance (Historic England Heritage and also provides a terminology for assessment of significance (impor- 2008) tance) upon which much that has followed is based. Farmstead Assessment Frame- This document represents the latest statement by Historic England as to best work: Informing sustainable practice for securing sustainable development and the conservation of traditional development and the conser- farmsteads and their buildings through the planning system. It seeks to provide vation of traditional farmsteads a framework to enable an initial site assessment of the historic character and (Historic England 2015a) significance of a whole site in its setting. This can then be used to consider the constraints and opportunities for change and any siting and design issues. This assessment broadly follows the staged approach advocated by the Framework, which can be applied to numerous site types, as a useful method for understanding the historic character and significances of a site and its buildings when considering change.

7 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Document Key Points Historic Environment Good This advice note provides good practice advice from Historic England, as the Practice Advice in Planning. government’s advisor on the historic environment. It outlines an advised approach Note 2 – Managing Signifi- to assessing significance of heritage assets and potential planning-led effects on cance in Decision-Taking in the that significance, in a manner compliant with the principles of NPPF. It also out- Historic Environment (Historic lines good practice for managing effects on heritage assets through conditioned England 2015b) mitigation. Historic Environment Good This document represents the latest statement by Historic England as to best Practice Advice in Planning. practice for the assessment of potential effects of development upon the setting Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage of heritage assets, superseding the 2011 guidance. It provides a loose framework Assets (Historic England 2015c) for this assessment, and advocates a staged process of assessment outlined in the appropriate section below. Standard and Guidance for This document represents non-statutory industry best practice as set out by the Commissioning Work or Pro- Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. This assessment has been undertaken to viding Consultancy Advice on these standards, as subscribed to by Solstice Heritage. Archaeology and the Historic Environment (CIfA 2014a) Standard and Guidance for His- This document represents non-statutory industry best practice as set out by the toric Environment Desk-Based Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. This assessment has been undertaken to Assessment (CIfA 2014b) these standards, as subscribed to by Solstice Heritage.

Table 4 National guidance documentation consulted

8 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

3. Methodology

3.1 Overview In accordance with the aims outlined in Section 1 above, the information within this report has been gathered from a number of sources, both primary and secondary; it has been undertaken in line with the relevant Histor- ic England and Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance (CIfA 2014a; 2014b; HE 2008; 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

The following tasks were undertaken as part of this assessment:

• Consultation of local authority Historic Environment Record (HER) and archive sources • Compilation of appropriate desk-based and online resources including the National Heritage List for England (NHLE) • Creation of a bespoke geographical information system (GIS) to allow for the integrated analysis of all data • Site visit to establish ground conditions and assessment of potential effects on setting of specific designated heritage assets within the study area • Preparation of an assessment of known and potential physical and setting effects (this document).

3.2 Walkover Survey A walkover survey, forming part of the Heritage Impact Assessment, was undertaken in July 2016 and comprised an assessment of the entire proposed development area and environs. Furthermore, Solstice Heritage were en- gaged to provide comment and input to inform the design of the proposed scheme, as well as provide a detailed understanding of the structural development of the building and the significance of its various elements in order to produce a sympathetic design which seeks to work with the identified significances of the listed asset and the adjacent conservation area.

3.3 Significance

3.3.1 Defining Significance Significance can be defined using a number of criteria derived from varied sources, all of which can contribute useful factors to the process. Where assessment of significance is necessary, particularly in determining potential effects of the development, the following criteria have been adopted in part or in whole, depending on what can best articulate the nature of the heritage asset being described:

Source Significance Criteria Conservation Principles, Pol- This document highlights four ‘values’ contributing to significance: icies and Guidance (English • Evidential Heritage 2008) • Historical • Aesthetic • Communal NPPF (CLG/DCMS/English Based upon the changes instigated through the now-cancelled PPS5 and its asso- Heritage 2010) ciated guidance, the assessment of significance is based upon four ‘interests’ and their relative ‘importance’:

• Archaeological • Architectural • Artistic • Historic

9 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Source Significance Criteria Ancient Monuments and Ar- This act gives guidance on the criteria considered during the decision to provide chaeological Areas Act 1979 designated protection to a monument through scheduling. The criteria are:

• Period or category • Rarity • Documentation (either contemporary written records or records of previous investigations) • Group value • Survival/condition • Fragility/vulnerability • Diversity (importance of individual attributes of a site) • Potential

Table 5 Criteria for assessment of significance

3.3.2 Assessing Significance The assessment of significance comprises three stages, as set out in Note 2 of the Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning (Historic England 2015b):

• Understanding the nature of the significance through identification of what values or interests (as above) contribute • Understanding the extent of the significance • Understanding the level of significance, perhaps the most important step in terms of planning-led assessment as it can dictate what level of test is applied when determining the potential effects of a proposed development.

It should be noted that the varied nature of heritage assets mean that, in the majority of cases, they are unsuit- able for assessment via a nominally ‘objective’ scoring of significance, and there will always be an element of interpretation and professional judgement within a considered assessment.

3.3.3 Defining the Contribution of Setting Setting is a contributory factor to the overall significance of a heritage asset and assessment begins with identi- fying the significance of a heritage asset as described above. As outlined in Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015c), setting is defined as (quoting NPPF) ‘the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and it 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’ (ibid. 2). A recommended staged approach to the assessment of potential effects on the setting of heritage assets is also set out in the guidance (ibid. 7):

• Identify which heritage assets and their settings may be affected • Assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) • Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether positive, neutral or negative • Explore ways to maximise enhancements and avoid or minimise harm • Document the process and decision and monitor outcomes.

The guidance provides (non-exhaustive) lists of attributes relating to, firstly, characteristics of a heritage asset’s setting (both physical and intangible), and also to potential attributes of a development which may have an effect upon that setting. The guidance is clear that, in both cases, only a limited selection of characteristics is likely to be relevant to individual heritage assets, and so the lists are not reproduced here. There are, however, a number of broad categories into which potential effects on setting can be grouped for ease of assessment:

10 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

• Location and siting of development • Form and appearance of the development • Other effects of the development, including; • Physical effects such as changes to a skyline or environmental factors such impact of noise, dust, light- ing, hydrology or soil chemistry • Changes to wider context such as the alteration of landscape character or use • Changes to public appreciation through alteration of access or amenity • Permanence of the development • Longer term or consequential effects, with examples given including changes to ownership and eco- nomic, social and communal use viability.

The changing nature and mutability of setting is acknowledged in its definition, and therefore an assessment of setting can only consider its current contribution to significance. It is not appropriate to ‘second-guess’ future changes to the setting beyond the potential effects of a proposed development or associated mitigation and off-setting, as this would render an assessment meaningless. This axiom also helps resolve an apparent contradic- tion within guidance (CLG 2014) which states that “setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced” and also that “the contribution that setting makes to the significance does not depend on there being…an ability to… experience that setting”.

With certain heritage assets, there is no requirement to access a site physically to experience it, but with the majority of archaeological sites in particular, physical and intellectual access is an important prerequisite to fully experiencing them, as they can be largely invisible or even completely buried. The resolution to this anomaly lies in the application of a second part of the definition of setting: ‘elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset’. Acknowledging this, ‘the contribution that setting makes to the significance of the asset does not depend on there being…an ability to… experience that setting’ (CLG 2014), it is just that the lack of access is likely to mean that the current contribution will be negative. This approach accords with the Good Practice Advice Note 3 in relation to the setting of ‘buried assets’ (Historic England 2015, 5).

3.3.4 Assessing the Contribution of Setting In terms of the practical method for this assessment, initial discrimination of those sites for which there was a potential effect on setting was undertaken as a desk-based exercise within the project GIS following a series of logical steps. Discrimination started by considering:

• All heritage assets within the core study area • Scheduled monuments, Grade I and II* listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, registered battle- fields and protected wreck sites in the study area.

Following preliminary desk-based discrimination, further consideration was given to those heritage assets where non-visual and/or intangible elements of setting may be affected by the proposed development. This stage also included a consideration of potential setting effects deriving from the other aspects of the proposed development: principally the alteration of historic fabric or inclusion of modern elements into historic buildings.

This desk-based discrimination ultimately resulted in identification of a list of heritage assets for which more-detailed assessment was required. These assets were subject to a site visit (or as close as was practicable where sites were inaccessible) to check the initial findings of desk-based assessment and make a photographic record of key views or other aspects of their setting and significance. In line with the current guidance, assessment comprised a description of the contributory factors to each asset’s significance, including the contribution of setting, and the potential effects of the proposed development on those factors; this assessment is presented below.

3.4 Chronology Where chronological and archaeological periods are referred to in the text, the relevant date ranges are broadly defined in calendar years as follows:

11 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

• Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age): 1 million – 12,000 BP (Before present) • Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age): 10000 – 4000 BC • Neolithic (New Stone Age): 4000 – 2400 BC • Chalcolithic/Beaker Period: 2400 – 2000 BC • Bronze Age: 2000 – 700 BC • Iron Age: 700 BC – AD 43 • Roman/Romano-British: AD 43 – 410 • Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Scandinavian: AD 410 – 1066 • Medieval: AD 1066 – 1540 • Post-medieval: AD 1540 – 1750 • Industrial: AD 1750 – 1900 • Modern: AD 1900 – Present

3.5 Assumptions and Limitations Data and information obtained and consulted in the compilation of this report has been derived from a number of secondary sources. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of secondary information, its accuracy has been assumed in good faith. The information accessed from the relevant HER and national lists of designated heritage assets represents a record of known assets and their discovery and further investigation. Such information is not complete and does not preclude the future discovery of additional assets and the amendment of information about known assets which may affect their significance and/or sensitivity to development effects. All statements and opinions arising from the works undertaken are provided in good faith and compiled ac- cording to professional standards. No responsibility can be accepted by the author/s of the report for any errors of fact or opinion resulting from data supplied by any third party, or for loss or other consequence arising from decisions or actions made upon the basis of facts or opinions expressed in any such report(s), howsoever such facts and opinions may have been derived.

3.6 Copyright Solstice Heritage will retain the copyright of all documentary and photographic material under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act (1988).

12 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

4. Assessment Results

4.1 Walkover Survey Elm Farmhouse sits within a large surrounding plot at the southern extent of a grouping of otherwise modern structures and landscaping a short distance beyond the south-west edge of the Great Gonerby Conservation Area (South Kesteven District Council, n.d.). The principal listed building is a three-storey, north to south orientated range with a principal east-facing façade, looking out onto an enclosed small garden (Figure 2). Located to the north of the principal building, modern structures extend the line of the older range towards Pond Street (Figure 3). To the west of this is an open grassed garden area with some mature trees, (Figure 4) bounded by a modern brick wall with dwarf railings which faces on to Belvoir Gardens (Figure 5). At the northern extent of the site, a tall rubble stone wall frames an attractive approach, somewhat compromised by poor quality later buildings, eastwards along Pond Street towards the Conservation Area. The wall itself provides a contribution to the character of the general area where similar walls are common, particularly along Green Street, Pond Street and High Street, reflecting the vernacular style of the village landscape. The site as a whole retains almost no evidence that would allow an appreciation of its former agricultural use.

Thick planting, boundary walling and other buildings prevent almost all long views into and out of the site (Figure 6). From all directions the high wall, later buildings and mature trees allow only glimpsed views of the higher parts of the listed building from anywhere but its most immediate environs. The highly enclosed nature of the site means that it provides little outward contribution to the wider area, beyond its ‘green’ envelope and the contribution of its northern boundary wall to the character of the approach to the Conservation Area along Pond Street. The lack of visibility of the farmhouse means that it provides a minimal contribution to the setting of other surrounding assets.

Figure 2 East and south elevations of the listed farmhouse, facing north-west

13 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 3 Listed farmhouse, with later additions at its north side, facing south-east

Figure 4 Gardens to the west of Elm Farmhouse, facing south-east

14 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 5 Modern brick wall at western extent of proposed development site, looking north-east from Belvoir Gardens

Figure 6 Boundary wall at the north of the proposed development area, with listed building in the background looking south

15 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Elm Farmhouse itself, and the boundary wall at the northern edge of the site, also have inherent architectural and historic interest, consisting as they do of historic stone structures, inter-related spatially and through their use of complimentary materials. Most historic value and architectural interest is contained within the listed building and, more particularly, in its eastern and southern elevations as well as its general form. The other, modern, buildings within the site detract from the setting of the listed farmhouse and contribute negatively to the setting of the group.

Some longer views which incorporate parts of the site are of heritage value. Most significantly, these are directed along Pond Street to the east (Figure 7), in the direction of High Street, and along the northern extension of Pond Street, northwards towards Sutton House (Figure 8). These views provide a visually attractive approach to the conservation area and a long view of Sutton House as a prominent and assertive higher-status structure within a group of lower buildings along Green Street. Both provide contributions to the setting of the Conservation Area and Sutton House, but both are compromised by the visual interjection of later modern houses on the north side of Pond Street in particular. The incongruous modern wall at the western side of the proposed development site also negatively impacts the attractive view north to Sutton House.

Based on this assessment, it is strongly considered that the views which contribute most to the setting, and therefore the significance, of the listed building are those from the immediate south-east, where intimate views contained by the surrounding garden walls present the best viewpoint of the listed fabric. These views most clearly allow an understanding of the building’s former function, as well as its architectural interest and aesthetic value. Views of the building gained from the north and east offer little in the way of experiencing it in its surroundings and so do not make a major contribution to the setting of the asset.

The contribution to significance made by the building itself is most evident within the fabric of the building and its architectural features. This provides the overall character, evidential value and architectural interest of the building. In particular, this is reflected in the east and south elevations of the building, its architectural detailing and its palette of traditional materials shared with other traditional buildings in the area. Elements of fabric which detract from the significance of the building have also been identified; specifically, these elements com- prise the later additions to the building, which contribute negatively to the special interest of the structure.

4.2 Understanding Constraints and Opportunities for Change Understanding the opportunities for change as well as the constraints presented by any site or group of historic structures is central to the successful integration of change that preserves and enhances the site or structure’s setting and significance. Constraints are most often represented by significant views and elements of architectural form which, if disrupted, would cease to provide key facets of the special interest of the historic asset or enable that special interest to be appreciated. Opportunities to introduce change can often be found in areas which currently detract from the significance of the asset or within parts of a site that have no place within the key views or spaces that help to allow appreciation of its function or associations. With regard to the site in question, an assessment of constraints and opportunities is presented in this section.

It is considered that the surviving fabric of the farmhouse building provides the greatest single contribution to its significance. Given the building’s age and complex structural history, as well as the existing additions which detract from the setting and experience of the asset, it is considered that the building is not able to sustain further structural change without severely compromising the significance of the heritage asset through entirely masking any ability to appreciate it.

As mentioned within the walkover survey element of this study, the existing northern boundary wall of the site is an important feature of the immediate setting of the listed building and provides a contribution to its significance as the visible retention of an associative link to the historic setting of the structure. The wall also provides a wider link on a landscape scale, allowing the building and the wall to contribute to views eastward along Pond Street towards the Conservation Area. The boundary wall is considered to be important for this contribution to these views, as well as for its evidential/historical value in understanding the historic interest of the wider area. As such, the need to retain this boundary wall is considered to be a key constraint on possible development within the site.

Allied to the existing northern boundary wall, views are also a constraint on potential development. Views of Elm Farmhouse are generally very limited, with those which are most important in appreciating the listed building

16 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7 View along Pond Street, facing east. Proposed development site to extreme right

Figure 8 View north towards Sutton House. Site to extreme right

17 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

constrained to the immediate east and south of the building itself. Views along Pond Street towards the conservation area, and to a lesser degree north towards Sutton House, also contribute to the appreciation of the wider historic village edge setting of the listed building and the conservation area covering the central area of Great Gonerby. All of these views should be considered as general constraints to potential change.

Aside from the constraints mentioned above, the site does present considerable opportunities for change within the setting of the listed building and the wider conservation area.

Firstly, the frontage of the site onto Belvoir Gardens presents the most significant opportunity to introduce such positive change. Here, the modern brick wall has introduced an overly decorative, visually prominent and unsympathetic boundary treatment to the site which contributes negatively to the longer view of the listed Sutton House from Belvoir Gardens. This wall stands at odds with the much older, more visually sensitive stone walls which frame the view along the northern extension of Pond Street up to its junction with Green Street at Sutton House itself. The negative contribution afforded by this boundary presents an opportunity to introduce positive change.

Also notable is the area of the site to the west of the existing building, currently occupied by enclosed mature gardens and large trees. This part of the site sits outside significant views of the listed farmhouse building from the south-east and to the rear of the building, where only one window is located. Equally, development in this area would allow the retention of the existing stone wall at the northern boundary of the site and improvements to the current unsympathetic boundary treatment. Furthermore, buildings here would address the existing road on Belvoir Gardens and reflect the pattern of development noted along parts of the south side of Pond Street, particularly the listed No. 37 Pond Street (NHLE 1360065), where older buildings are situated at a right angle to the line of the street with their gable ends facing the road. This pattern of development would also reflect the layout of the farmhouse range and the buildings shown on older maps of the immediate area. The tall wall obstructing most views from the north also aids in hiding this part of the site from longer views, giving increased opportunity to site new development here sensitively and with historic pretext.

4.3 Assessment of Physical Impacts The proposed development will have no physical effects on the listed building, or any known heritage assets.

Assessment of historic mapping, site walkover and aerial photograph sources have not revealed any specific potential, or evidence, for the preservation of archaeological remains within the proposed development area. However, the general archaeological character of the surrounding study area suggests a potential for medieval settlement or agriculture, which would potentially be of local significance. The lack of identified remains within the proposed development area from desk-based analysis cannot be taken as clear evidence of absence, but it is considered that the potential for remains earlier than the post-medieval period to exist is low, particularly given that the site has been subject to horticultural use with associated ground disturbance likely to mean that exten- sive or well preserved remains are less likely to be present.

On balance, the physical effects of the proposed scheme are therefore considered to have a neutral effect on the significance of the listed building.

4.4 Assessment of Setting Impacts The most pertinent elements of the setting of Elm Farmhouse and their contribution to the significance of the building are examined here. This assessment also considers the potential setting impacts of the proposed development on surrounding heritage assets.

4.4.1 East-Facing Façade Elm Farmhouse has a principal east-facing façade, identified during the walkover survey as forming a key element of the setting of the building. The presentation of this façade – with a principal entrance and the majority of the building’s windows, alongside clearly readable architectural detailing speaking to the function and structural development of the building – is clearly an important element of the setting of the listed building. This provides an important view of the building in terms of appreciating its architectural interest and evidential value. It is considered that the experience and view of the building from the east side is an important element of the building’s setting and it makes a strong positive contribution to the significance of the asset.

18 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

The proposed development will be almost invisible from viewpoints which include this element of the setting of the asset, and as such it is considered to have a negligible impact, particularly given the retained visual pre-emi- nence of the listed farmhouse and the use of traditional materials and forms within the proposed development.

4.4.2 West-Facing Façade As noted above, the west-facing elevation of the farmhouse is a subservient rear elevation with little architectural detailing and one small window. The experience of this side of the building has been diminished by the unsympathetic extensions to the north and the modern roofing materials used on the historic farmhouse. The existing domestic gardens and ornamental planting do not reflect the agricultural history and original purpose of the building. This diminution of experience has contributed to the low level of contribution this façade makes to the overall significance of the listed asset. It does, however, create an opportunity to site sensitive development in this area without compromising a key experience of the listed asset. The development proposed will introduce sympathetic fabric in locally distinctive, higher quality materials to this side of the building, and as such it is considered that it will have an overall neutral impact on the significance of this façade and the contribution it makes to the building’s setting, given the balance between the loss of open space set against the introduction of higher quality materials more in keeping with the character and age of the wider settlement.

4.4.3 Views Views around the listed building are considered to make some, limited, contribution to its significance. As previ- ously discussed, the most significant views of the building are those from the immediate south-east, most easily gained from within the walled garden area at this side. To the south-east, the listed building’s architectural and evidential value can best be understood.

Generally, however, longer views give little appreciation of the building in its context, or its position in relation to the wider village. Such views are mostly partial and of the subservient rear elevation.

The introduction of the proposed development will have a negligible impact upon the contribution of this element of the building’s setting. Although the new houses will involve the loss of some open space, its contribution in terms of views is considered to be a negligible one given the mature vegetation on the site and the surrounding buildings and walls, with views of the listed building unaffected from the most significant viewpoints described above. The building will remain architecturally separate and unaffected, allowing its existing fabric to remain appreciated within these principal views. The views from the west will also be slightly improved by the removal of the partially unsympathetic boundary wall currently present, as well as the removal of some thicker vegetation.

4.4.4 Setting impacts to surrounding heritage assets From a review of historic environment data, it is considered that the other heritage assets which could be potentially affected by the proposed development are:

• Great Gonerby Conservation Area • Sutton House (NHLE 1062881)

In relation to the Conservation Area, which lies mainly to the north and east of the proposed development site, it is considered that there will be a slight positive impact upon the significance of this designated heritage asset. Currently, the proposed development area is characterised by the presence of the unsympathetic boundary wall to the western edge of the site, and by an enclosed character which does not appear to reflect the original setting of the farmhouse and is ultimately highly restrictive in terms of appreciating the listed asset. The proposed development will introduce sensitive new-build fabric encompassing traditional materials and forms, thereby increas- ing the prevalence of the local stone-built vernacular architecture and its materials within the wider setting of the Conservation Area. This considered use of traditional forms and materials, which reflect the main character of the Conservation Area, is considered to enhance and respect its setting through reinforcing its traditional built character, therefore providing a slight positive impact upon its significance. Another contributory factor will be the increased visibility of the listed farmhouse through the limited removal of boundary planting and existing trees.

It is also considered that Sutton House will receive a slight positive impact as a result of the proposed development. The development sits well away from this listed building, but within the already noted view from the

19 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

general area of Belvoir Gardens, northwards along the northern extension of Pond Street. This view, although not the best of Sutton House, does show the visual prominence of the listed asset within its surroundings. Currently, the view is compromised by the modern wall at the western edge of the proposed development site. The removal of the wall and its replacement with two dwellings of traditional design and complimentary local materials, as well as the creation of a new boundary, will introduce more traditional materials and a period ‘feel’ to this view, better revealing the significance of the asset by enhancing its setting.

20 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

5. Conclusions

Whilst many of the aspects of setting, as well as the physical listed fabric, contribute to the significance of the heritage assets assessed, it is not considered to be the case that any of these elements of the setting or significance of the listed buildings and Conservation Area suffer negative impacts from the proposed development. Furthermore, those elements of the building which contribute most to its significance will be maintained almost exactly as existing, with the proposed development respecting key views and lying completely within an area of view which contributes little, or in fact partly negatively, to the setting of Sutton House and Elm Farmhouse and the wider Great Gonerby Conservation Area.

The proposed development’s design response to heritage issues has been guided by taking account of the recognised significances of the listed buildings, and it takes considerable care to safeguard those elements of the setting of the listed buildings and Conservation Area which contribute most to their significance, in particular the preservation and enhancement of key views along Pond Street and Belvoir Gardens, as well as views of the principal façade of a building of important evidential and historical value, and architectural interest.

The design and scale of the extension will reference the predominant vernacular architectural style of the nearby Conservation Area, respecting the pattern of historical development off Pond Street and using traditional forms and materials within a high-quality scheme. The purpose of this assessment has also been to inform the design of the new development, with opportunities and areas for sustainable change being identified and made use of within the proposed scheme.

Although there will be limited loss of open space, the proposed development is considered to have an overall neutral or slight positive effect on the significance of the listed buildings and Conservation Area, principally through the use of traditional forms and materials in its construction, as well as the desire to remove elements which detract from key views, thereby ensuring their continued contribution to quality of place and the group value of the historic buildings surrounding it. The development is also considered to be in line with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan, by being designed to reflect the character and significant historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and in the way it contributes to the conservation, enhancement and partial restoration of the historic character of Great Gonerby (SKDC 1995).

21 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

6. Sources

6.1 Bibliography Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). 2009. Code of Conduct. Reading, Chartered Institute for Archaeolo- gists.

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). 2014a. Standard and Guidance for Commissioning Work or Provid- ing Consultancy Advice on Archaeology and the Historic Environment. Reading, Chartered Institute for Archaeol- ogists.

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). 2014b. Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk- Based Assessments. Reading, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. London, The Stationery Office.

Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2014. National Planning Practice Guidance. Lon- don, The Stationery Office.

Historic England (HE). 2006. Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice. London, Historic England.

Historic England (HE). 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. London, English Heritage.

Historic England. 2015a. Farmstead Assessment Framework: Informing sustainable development and the conservation of traditional farmsteads. London, Historic England.

Historic England (HE). 2015b. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning. Note 2: Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment. London, Historic England.

Historic England (HE). 2015c. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning. Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. London, Historic England.

South Kesteven District Council. 1995. Local Plan. Grantham, South Kesteven District Council.

South Kesteven District Council. 2010. Core Strategy. Grantham, South Kesteven District Council.

South Kesteven District Council. 2014. Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document. Grantham, South Kesteven District Council.

South Kesteven District Council. No date. Great Gonerby Conservation Area: Character Appraisal. Grantham, South Kesteven District Council.

22 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 1 - Proposed Plans and Elevations

23 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed site plan (prepared and supplied by Taylor Holmwood) Taylor 9 Proposed site plan (prepared and supplied by Figure

24 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed Plot 1 plans, elevations and cross-sections (prepared and supplied by Taylor Holmwood) Taylor and cross-sections (prepared supplied by 10 Proposed Plot 1 plans, elevations Figure

25 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed Plot 2 plans, elevations and cross-sections (prepared and supplied by Taylor Holmwood) Taylor and cross-sections (prepared supplied by 11 Proposed Plot 2 plans, elevations Figure

26 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 2 – Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets

27 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 12 Designated heritage assets within 1km of the proposed development site

28 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 13 Designated heritage assets within 1km of the proposed development site

29 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

NHLE UID Name Grade 1062882 CHURCH OF ST SEBASTIAN I 1062880 SUTTON LODGE II 1062881 SUTTON HOUSE II 1062883 NO 18 AND ATTACHED BAKERY II 1062884 COURT LEYS FARMHOUSE II 1062885 FAIRFIELDS II 1062886 66, LONG STREET II 1062887 76 AND 78, LONG STREET II 1062888 1, POND STREET II 1146794 17, HIGH STREET II 1146796 LONGCROFT II 1146809 OLD MANOR HOUSE II 1146814 MANOR FARM II 1146819 3, POND STREET II 1146832 ELM FARMHOUSE II 1308811 THE RECURITING SERGEANT PUBLIC HOUSE II 1360064 GREYSTONE COTTAGE II 1360065 37, POND STREET II

Table 6 Listed buildings in the study area

HER UID Name Montype Period MLI30119 Mesolithic to Bronze Age flint scatter, Stubbock Hill FLINT SCATTER Mesolithic to Bronze Age MLI30132 Romano-British finds from Barrowby ARTEFACT SCATTER, SET- Roman TLEMENT MLI30133 Prehistoric finds from Roman site in Barrowby ARTEFACT SCATTER Prehistoric MLI30134 Medieval artefacts from a large Roman site, Barrowby ARTEFACT SCATTER Medieval MLI30458 Medieval Farmstead and possible settlement of Easthor- DESERTED SETTLEMENT, Medieval pe, Great Gonerby SETTLEMENT, WALL, FARMSTEAD, BAKE- HOUSE, OVEN MLI30459 Roman pottery found east of the Manor House, Great ARTEFACT SCATTER Roman Gonerby MLI30460 PONDS, SOUTH OF MANOR HOUSE, GREAT GO- FISHPOND, POND Medieval NERBY MLI30461 St Sebastian's church and churchyard, Great Gonerby CHURCH, CHURCHYARD Medieval MLI30462 Undated building remains near Belvoir Gardens, Great BUILDING Undated Gonerby MLI30463 Romano-British site, west of Great Gonerby ARTEFACT SCATTER Roman MLI30464 AMPULLA FOUND, POND STREET, GREAT GONERBY FINDSPOT Roman MLI34684 ROMANO BRITISH POTTERY FOUND IN A DITCH E ARTEFACT SCATTER Roman OF GREAT GONERBY

30 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

HER UID Name Montype Period MLI80075 Ridge and furrow, possibly associated with Easthorpe, RIDGE AND FURROW Medieval Great Gonerby MLI80076 The Old Manor House, Great Gonerby MANOR HOUSE, HOUSE Post Medieval MLI82903 Petrol pump, High Street PETROL PUMP 20th Century MLI84297 Medieval earthwork ridge and furrow, Grantham RIDGE AND FURROW Medieval MLI86439 Prehistoric flint scatter on land at Gonerby Hillfoot, FLINT SCATTER Prehistoric Grantham MLI87013 Roman-Saxon glass bead found on land at Poplar Farm, FINDSPOT Roman to Early Grantham Medieval Mli87017 Ridge and Furrow on land at Poplar Farm, Grantham RIDGE AND FURROW Medieval MLI88482 Possible prehistoric cropmark enclosures, Great Goner- ENCLOSURE Prehistoric by MLI89539 Brickworks to the north of Great Gonerby BRICKWORKS 19th Century MLI91046 Earthwork medieval ridge and furrow, Great Gonerby RIDGE AND FURROW Medieval MLI91755 Mesolithic flints found near Belvoir Gardens, Great FINDSPOT Mesolithic Gonerby MLI91756 Post medieval quarry pits near Belvoir Gardens, Great QUARRY Post Medieval Gonerby MLI95102 Sutton House, Green Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 19th Century MLI95103 18 High Street and attached bakery, Great Gonerby HOUSE, BAKERY 19th Century MLI95104 Court Leys farmhouse, High Street, Great Gonerby FARMHOUSE 18th Century MLI95105 3 Long Street (Fairfields), Great Gonerby HOUSE 18th Century MLI95106 66 Long Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 19th Century MLI95107 76 and 78 Long Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 18th Century MLI95108 1 Pond Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 17th Century MLI95274 17 High Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 18th Century MLI95275 36 Long Street (Longcroft), Great Gonerby HOUSE 18th Century MLI95277 3 Pond Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE, KITCHEN? 17th Century MLI95279 Elm Farmhouse, Pond Street, Great Gonerby FARMHOUSE 17th Century MLI95810 The Recruiting Sergeant public house, High Street, HOUSE, PUBLIC HOUSE 19th Century Gonerby MLI95904 Greystone Cottage, Green Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 17th Century MLI96217 Sutton Lodge, Green Street, Great Gonerby BARN, HOUSE 18th Century MLI96248 Manor Farm, Great Gonerby HOUSE 19th Century MLI96353 37 Pond Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 18th Century MLI97487 War memorial in the churchyard of St Sebastian's WAR MEMORIAL 20th Century church, Great Gonerby MLI97489 Former Sunday School, Green Street, Great Gonerby SUNDAY SCHOOL, 19th Century HOUSE MLI97490 Primitive Methodist Chapel, Green Street, Great Go- PRIMITIVE METHOD- 19th Century nerby IST CHAPEL, PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHAPEL MLI97491 2-4 Green Street, Great Gonerby HOUSE 19th Century

31 Pond Street, Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire Heritage Impact Assessment

HER UID Name Montype Period MLI98805 Ridge and furrow in Great Gonerby RIDGE AND FURROW, Medieval FIELD SYSTEM MLI99325 Former site of Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, Great WESLEYAN METHODIST 19th Century Gonerby CHAPEL MLI99424 Maltings Green Street, Great Gonerby MALTINGS 19th Century

Table 7 HER monument records in the study area