Strategic Heritage Setting Assessment

P l a n n i n g H e r i t a g e Specialist & Independent Advisors t o t he Proper t y Indust r y STRATEGIC HERITAGE SETTING ASSESSMENT LAND WEST OF REDDITCH WORCESTERSHIRE MILLER HOMES, PERSIMMON HOMES AND SOUTHERN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS MARCH 2016 Authors: CONTENTS Pages Simon Roper-Pressdee BSc (Hons) PG Cert IHBC MCIfA Tom Copp BA Hons MA 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary 1 1.2 The Site 2 2.0 Legislative and Planning Policy Framework 2.1 Legislation, National Planning Legislation and Guidance 3 Approved by: 3.0 Methodology Jonathan Smith 3.1 Methodology of Assessment 5 4.0 The Site 4.1 Identification of Heritage Assets 7 4.2 Settings Assessment 10 Report Status: FINAL 4.3 Effects of Proposed Site Allocation 16 4.4 Mitigation 18 5.0 Conclusion 19 Issue Date: March 2016 Abbreviations Bibliography & Sources CgMs Ref: SR/TC 21375 Appendix A National Heritage List Descriptions Appendix B Historic Mapping Appendix C Historic Environment Character Zones Appendix D Historic Landscape Characterisation © CgMs Limited Appendix E Historic Environment Record Appendix F Setting Assessments (Designated Heritage Assets) No part of this report is to be copied in any way without prior written consent. Appendix G Views around Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden and Conservation Area Appendix H Views around Lanehouse Farm Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate Appendix I Discounted Buildings information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report. © Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This strategic document has been undertaken to present as part of the submitted evidence illustrating that Bromsgrove District Council’s heritage assessments remain unsound and contrary to case-law as set out in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] UKHL 33; [2004] 1 WLR 195, which stated that “The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved [and that] ….The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds”. The assessment also recognises the requirement of primary legislation to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and that, as confirmed in the South Lakeland decision, this creates a strong presumption to refuse planning permission (which can be reasonably interpreted in this context as a site allocation) which would fail to preserve such. It also presents an alternative approach to that undertaken by the Council, and one which complies with the requirements for determining strategic site allocations set out within the NPPF and Historic England’s guidance. It utilises elements of Environmental Impact Assessments, together with identifying and mapping areas of sensitivity for each identified heritage asset. In order to undertake a balanced assessment, rather than identifying two separate development areas, the two sites have been combined to provide a considered approach of the setting of heritage assets, rather than adopting an approach dictated by separate indicative proposed site boundaries. The assessment also recognises that extant national policy and guidance, together with case-law, has changed considerably since the initial heritage assessments and masterplanning was undertaken between 2010 and 2012. The introduction of the NPPF, together with the removal of PPS5, and the updating of Historic England guidance, have all had significant impact on how heritage is to be considered within the planning environment, in particular through the identification of more specific levels of harm than previously required, and with regard to designated heritage assets, the requirement to balance any harm against public benefit. The meaning and effect of these duties have been considered by the courts in recent cases, including the Court of Appeal decision in relation to Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA civ 137, where The Court agreed with the High Court’s judgment that Parliament’s intention in enacting Section 66(1) was that decision-makers should give “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. Although there are several Grade II listed buildings surrounding the site, many of these are sufficiently removed as to negate any harm – however, one Grade II listed building lies adjacent to part of Area 4, whilst a further is considered due to its nature as a farm, within a wider agricultural setting. There are also several non-designated heritage assets, a Grade II* Registered Park & Garden, a conservation area, and one Grade I listed building that may be affected by the allocation of a site. Buildings contained within the Registered Park & Garden are considered throughout the report as part of the Registered Park & Garden, and/or as part of the conservation area. The assessment has identified areas where the impact arising from proposed allocation across the whole of the site will be lowest, taking in to account the relative importance and sensitivity of each asset identified, and as such identifies land which should be considered for allocation. It should be recognised that, in reading this assessment, the areas of sensitivity and suggested densities identified are not fixed, and do not suggest definitive lines of development, but that the transition areas should be recognised and utilised. In summary, this document concludes that there are areas of land across Area 4 and Area 5 which would result in different cumulative impacts on designated heritage assets if put forward as an allocation than those identified in Bromsgrove District Council’s assessments, in particular when considering the legal requirement for consideration of the setting of listed buildings. Figure 1: The Site 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.2 THE SITE Although there are two specific sites being examined within this assessment (Foxlydiate (Area 4 in BDC’s evidence base) and Brockhill West (Area 5), (Figs 1-3)), this report combines both sites, and considers them as one area of land (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’). This will enable an equal and balanced assessment of potential harm on surrounding heritage assets arising from an allocation of land within the two proposed allocation sites. The purpose of the report is to assess the relative sensitivity of identified heritage assets, and their individual and cumulative capacity to withstand development within their setting, and to form a sound evidence-base relating to impacts on heritage, informing site allocations1 for Redditch Borough. This method of assessment therefore complies with the advice set out in Historic England guidance2 and the requirements contained within the NPPF3. The site consists of land forming the western edge of the existing settlement boundary of Redditch, with land falling across the boundary of Redditch Borough and Bromsgrove District (Figs 1-3). All of the site is currently in agricultural use, ranging between crops and livestock. The topography of the area is generally rolling, and the surrounding landscape is agricultural land, with historic hedges lining lanes and holloways, and with various hedge- trees, forming field boundaries, with underlying lowland marl or clay. The surrounding land-use is primarily agricultural in nature, with patches of woodland, and historic hedges and trees lining lanes. The settlement of Redditch lies to the east and south-east, and the site in general acts as a transition area between the existing settlement boundary and the rural aspect of the wider landscape to the north and west. A variety of streams and brooks are evident throughout the area, and these have some historic significance, in particular in their role in supporting the mills found within the surrounding landscape, and their contribution to how the surrounding landscape has evolved. Figure 2 and 3: The site, showing the two areas proposed for allocation with Parish and Local Authority boundaries and contours. The Historic Environment Record (HER) identifies a variety of non-designated heritage assets, from ridge and furrow through to pre-parliamentary and parliamentary enclosures, and buildings of local interest, and these have been considered, in particular in how they may contribute to the significance of designated heritage assets. Throughout this assessment, in particular through the settings assessment, reference should be made to the appendices, in particular Appendices F (Settings Assessments), G & H (views from the designated heritage assets). Other documents should also be referred to, including the Worcestershire Historic Environment Character Zone documents produced as part of the initial work undertaken as part of the Local Development Framework. 1 The assumption of this report is that there is a sound evidence-base for the need for c.2800 dwellings within the Worcestershire Housing strategy document. 2 2 The Historic Environment in Local Plans: Historic Environment Good Practice Guide in Planning –Note 1. 3 NPPF: paragraph 157. 2.0 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE –NATIONAL Legislation regarding buildings and areas of special architectural and historic environment. This is the guidance to which local authorities need to refer when Communal value: which derives from the meanings of a place for the people interest is contained within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation setting out a strategy in their Local Plans for the conservation and enjoyment of the who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or Areas) Act 1990.

Load more