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.

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

1.0 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. historic environment. This should be a positive strategy where heritage assets should memory. be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. For clarification, the NPPF The relevant legislation in this case extends from Section 66 and Section 72 of Overview: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning provides definitions of terms relating to the historic environment in a glossary in the 1990 Act. Section 66 states that special regard must be given by the Annex 2. The PPS5 Practice Guide was withdrawn in March 2015 and replaced with planning authority in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of three Good Practice Advice in Planning Notes (GPAs) published by English preserving or enhancing listed buildings and their settings, while Section 72 Of particular relevance to this report are Paragraphs 132-135 which are concerned Heritage (now Historic England). GPA1: The Historic Environment in Local refers to the special regard to be given to the preservation and/or with the potential impacts of a proposed development on the significance ofa Plans provides guidance to local planning authorities to help them make well enhancement of conservation areas. heritage asset. Paragraph 132 states that where a development is proposed, great informed and effective local plans. GPA2: Managing Significance in Decision- weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and that the greater an asset’s The meaning and effect of these duties have been considered by the courts in Making includes technical advice on the repair and restoration of historic significance, the greater this weight should be. Paragraph 134 emphasises that where recent cases, including the Court of Appeal’s decision in relation to Barnwell buildings and alterations to heritage assets to guide local planning authorities, a proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] owners, practitioners and other interested parties. an asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, bearing in EWCA Civ 137. mind the great weight highlighted in Paragraph 132. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 1 (GPA1): The The Court agreed within the High Court’s judgement that Parliament’s Historic Environment in Local Plans Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (March 2014) intention in enacting Section 66 (1) was that decision-makers should give This advice note focuses on the importance of implementing the policies ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving (i.e. National planning guidance has subsequently been adopted in order to guide the within NPPF and NPPG. The advice echoes the NPPF by stressing the keeping from harm) the setting of listed buildings. application of the NPPF. It reiterates that conservation of heritage assets in a manner importance of formulating Local Plans based on up-to-date and relevant appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle. There is no legislation protecting Registered Parks & Gardens. They are evidence on economic, social and environmental characteristics and identified by Historic England, as a government-advisory body, but unlike Key elements of the guidance relate to assessing harm. It states that substantial harm prospects of the area, including the historic environment. It identifies that listed buildings, do not have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Whilst is a high bar that may not arise in many cases and that while the level of harm will be there is not one correct way in which to assess sites for allocation, but they are therefore considered within the NPPF as being of high sensitivity (in at the discretion of the decision maker, generally the degree of substantial harm will recognises that alternative approaches may be acceptable, provided they are particular those of Grade II* and I), there is no legal requirement to consider only be at a level where a development seriously affects a key element of an asset’s demonstrably compliant with legislation, national policies and objectives. It the impact either on themselves or on their setting. The duties relating to special interest. It is the degree of harm, rather than the scale of development that is does however, place a number of requirements for Local Plans, and which these assets is for Historic England to ensure their continued protection. to be assessed. includes the identification of land which would result in detrimental impact on the historic environment were it to be developed. With particular National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage, 2008) relevance to this assessment, paragraphs 13 to 18 state that it is advisable The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s Conservation Principles outlines Historic England’s approach to the sustainable that the plan set out how it will address particular issues identified during the planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. management of the historic environment. While primarily intended to ensure development of the evidence base; whether the local plan needs to assess When examining proposed allocations the NPPF directs LPAs to identify land consistency in Historic England’s own advice and guidance, the document is whether or not it should identify any areas [not full allocations] where certain where development would be inappropriate because of its (environmental or) recommended to LPAs to ensure that all decisions about change affecting the historic types of development might need to be limited, or would be inappropriate historic interest. This encourages LPAs to identify areas of allocations which environment are informed and sustainable. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 2 (GPA2): would be likely to result in harm, and where possible prevent development The guidance describes a range of heritage values which enables the significance of Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment across these areas.. assets to be established systematically, with the four main 'heritage values' being: This document provides advice on numerous ways in which decision making Section 7 of the NPPF, ‘Requiring Good Design’ (Paragraphs 56 to 68), Evidential value: which derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about in the historic environment could be undertaken, emphasising that the first reinforces the importance of good design in achieving sustainable past human activity. step for all applicants is to understand the significance of any affected development by ensuring the creation of inclusive and high quality places. heritage asset and the contribution of its setting to that significance. In line Paragraph 58 states that new design should respond to local character and Historical value: which derives from the ways in which past people, events and with the NPPF and PPG, the document states that early engagement and history. aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. expert advice in considering and assessing the significance of heritage assets Section 12, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ (Paragraphs Aesthetic value: which derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and is encouraged. The advice suggests a structured, staged approach to the 126-141) relates to developments that have an effect upon the historic intellectual stimulation from a place. assembly and analysis of relevant information:

2.0 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE –NATIONAL

1) Understand the significance of the affected assets; case-by-case basis. Although not prescriptive in setting out how this assessment should be carried out, Historic England recommend using a ‘5-step process’ to assess 2) Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance; any effects of a proposed development on the setting and significance of a heritage 3) Avoid, minimise and mitigate impact in a way that meets the asset: objectives of the NPPF; 1) Identifying the heritage assets affected and their settings; 4) Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance; 2) Assessing whether, how and to what degree these settings make a 5) Justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); objective of conserving significance balanced with the need for 3) Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the change; and asset(s); 6) Offset negative impacts to significance by enhancing others through 4) Maximising enhancement and minimising harm; and recording, disseminating and archiving archaeological and historical interest of the important elements of the heritage assets affected. 5) Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 (GPA3): The Setting of Heritage Assets

This advice note focuses on the management of change within the setting of heritage assets. This guidance updates that previously published by English Heritage (The Setting of Heritage Assets 2011) in order to ensure that it is fully compliant with the NPPF and is largely a continuation of the philosophy and approach of the 2011 document. It does not present a divergence in either the definition of setting or the way in which it should be assessed.

Setting is defined as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve’. The guidance emphasises that setting is not a heritage asset or a heritage designation and that its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset itself. Elements of setting may make a positive, negative or neutral contribution to the significance of a heritage asset.

While setting is largely a visual concept, with views considered to be an important consideration in any assessment of the contribution that setting makes to the significance of an asset, setting, and thus the way in which an asset is experienced, can also be affected by other environmental factors, including historic associations.

This document states that the protection of the setting of a heritage asset need not prevent change and that decisions relating to such issues need to be based on the nature, extent and level of the significance of a heritage asset. It is further stated that the contribution made to an asset’s significance by their setting will vary depending on the nature of the asset and its setting. Different heritage assets have the capacity to accommodate change differently within their settings, possibly without harming the significance of the asset (or even enhancing its significance) and, therefore, setting should be assessed ona

3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT

As has already been described in the introduction, the purpose of this Priority Description Magnitude Overview of input to Significance document is to provide an assessment on the impact of a proposed site Importance/ of Significance sensitivity allocation on the setting and significance of heritage assets. In orderto Very High Grade I and II* listed buildings; achieve this the following methodology is set out, which incorporates High Makes substantial contribution to the setting of a heritage asset, the Scheduled Monuments and archaeological sites of demonstrable loss or harm of which would result in major harm to a heritage asset's elements of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) methodologies, as well sensitivity schedulable quality & importance; setting, such that the significance of the asset would be subject to a as undertaking the stepped process for assessing both setting and significance Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens. high level of less than substantial harm. of views as set out by Historic England in their guidance. High Grade II listed buildings; Medium Makes considerable contribution to overall setting. Harm or loss of It is essential to note that the NPPF differentiates between “sites” and “land”, Conservation Areas. this element of setting will result in the asset's significance being sensitivity and this is particularly relevant when considering the requirements set out at materially affected/considerably devalued. Paragraph 157 of the NPPF to identify land where development would be Medium Local Authority designated sites; inappropriate, for instance because of the impact on historic significance. For Undesignated sites of demonstrable regional importance Low Makes moderate to low contribution to setting of heritage asset but the purposes of this document, the two sites (Area 4: Foxlydiate, and Area 5: sensitivity is not integral to its significance. The loss or harm to this element will Brockhill West) are taken as one parcel of land. Undertaking the assessment result in a perceivable level of harm, but insubstantial relative to the Low Sites with specific and substantial importance to local interest overall interest of the heritage asset and not so high that it would as such will enable the presentation of an even and equal assessment across groups; materially compromise the significance of the heritage asset. the two sites on their cumulative potential for impact on the historic environment. For the purpose of this document, the two Areas are referred Sites whose importance is limited by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual associations. collectively as “the site”. Negligible Makes a very slight contribution to the setting of a heritage asset, sensitivity but does not materially contribute to its significance. Any harm or In terms of the language used in this assessment, Major Harm is understood Table 1: Sensitivity of heritage receptors loss will result in a slight impact on, but not materially affecting, the to represent a high level of less than substantial harm. Whilst such heritage asset’s significance. terminology may usually indicate substantial harm, it is agreed by all parties Table 3: Degrees of contribution of setting to significance that the development of the two Areas would result in less than substantial harm, with the development of either Area 4 or Area 5 not presenting the Heritage value Sensitivity (High, Medium, Low) potential to result in substantial harm to any designated heritage assets. identified through considering how geographic areas of setting In order to assess the potential impacts arising from an allocation on the site, contribute to the heritage values of the asset, as set out in the following methodology has been employed: Aesthetic Conservation Principles (Tables 2 and 3, and Appendix F). The zones for each individual heritage asset are then mapped out using a Geographic 1. A rapid initial assessment of the site and its surroundings is Evidential Information System (GIS); undertaken to identify heritage assets which may be affected through development within their setting. Each heritage asset is given a value 3. With the site being surrounded by a variety of heritage assets, which Historic (illustrative) in terms of its relative significance (i.e. very high, high, moderate, low, range from the highest significance through to the lowest, it is none), in view of its designation (Table 1). Due to the potential size of necessary to assess the effects of proposed allocation on the the site, a 1km search radius was taken, and each designated heritage Historic (associative) significance of heritage assets individually, but crucially also on the asset lying within that radius was initially assessed as to the likelihood cumulative capacity for heritage assets to withstand potential of potential impact (see Appendix I). Although this is only one of the development within their setting. This is achieved through considering Communal possible methods of identifying heritage assets suggested by Historic the relative significance of the heritage asset against the magnitude of England, due to the time-scales and having regard to the need for sensitivity for each zone (Table 4), and overlaying these in GIS in order, proportionality, other methods such as the utilisation of Zones of Total sensitivity from lowest to highest. The result is a clear illustration of the relative Theoretical Visibility or Influence (ZTVs or ZTIs) have not been utilised; sensitivities of the historic environment, showing the areas of lowest and highest sensitivities; 2. The site is assessed as part of the setting of each heritage asset, and is Table 2: Settings table for individual contribution of setting to significance, to enable examined to identify relative zones of sensitivity. The zones are identification of zones of high, medium, low sensitivity for each asset individually. 4. It is recognised within this report that a transition area around the

3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT

Magnitude of High Medium Low Negligible moderate-high harm following. The areas of highest harm should be sensitivity/ considered as land where development would be inappropriate, unless such Significance harm can be balanced by the public benefit of proposals, thus justifying the Very High Major Major Moderate Minor harm to the heritage assets;

High Major Moderate Moderate Minor 8. The final stage is to assess how potential mitigation can assist in reducing harm or even, if possible, where enhancement can be achieved. As this is a high- Medium Negligible Negligible None None level strategic document, and is not intended as a detailed heritage parameter document, it is considered that areas of enhancement should form part of any Low Negligible None None None detailed master-planning of the site. However, the document can identify where areas of harm can be minimised, in particular through consideration of Table 4: Potential for harm (magnitude of sensitivity of zone/ significance of asset) appropriate density, and to some degree scale and massing. As such, it is logical to translate the areas of lowest harm into the areas which would be able to contain the highest density of development, whilst the areas of areas of highest sensitivity/ major harm should be considered as moderate-high harm would be able to withstand the lowest density of necessary, to emphasise the need to carefully consider the impacts of development, particularly where those areas abut areas considered as proposed allocation on these areas. As such, those areas identified as inappropriate for development; being of moderate sensitivity/ moderate harm are further examined, with Step 2 of this methodology being carried out within this context, 9. These latter areas, due to forming a transition area to areas of higher potential and identifying areas where there is potential for moderate-high and harm, also need to take into account additional factors such as height and moderate-low harm; massing of buildings (including taking into account elements such as topography), and any design or master-planning should be conscious of the 5. Within GIS, the areas indicated as moderate sensitivity/ moderate impact of such details of design. harm are removed from the layers, and the areas of moderate-high and moderate-low are inserted. This allows an illustration of such areas in relation to the rest of the sensitivities, and the areas of It is essential to note that, throughout the assessments and analysis, the zones of moderate-high harm can be translated to produce a transition area sensitivity, and subsequently the areas of relative density, should not be taken as around the areas of highest sensitivity; representing fixed or definitive lines. It is widely recognised that a gradual interface 6. The purpose of this section is not to consider whether harm will arise between areas of differing density across sites is an essential element of good design, from allocation, as it is considered that due to the necessity of housing and such considerations should be carried through into masterplanning. As such, the requirements that this is inevitable, but to identify those areas where interface between such areas should be treated as areas of transition and that these the effects will be lowest when taking account of the relative areas should be considered for graduated densities, with a feathering-in between the significance of heritage assets and, in line with the NPPF, to identify various zones, during any masterplanning. areas of land where development would be inappropriate; It is also important to note that this assessment and methodology is intended as a 7. As such, the areas of lowest cumulative harm are considered as being high-level and strategic analysis. It is not intended as a detailed heritage assessment the most appropriate for development within the confines of the site of the impact of proposed development, but rather to act as an assessment of how boundary. This does not indicate that there will be no harm on the land may be allocated across the site, when considering the historic environment. significance of any heritage asset, but that these areas will have the least harm overall and, therefore, the greatest capacity to accommodate development. These are identified as the primary preferred zones for allocation. The areas of moderate-low harm are then identified as being the next most appropriate, with the areas of

4.0 THE SITE 4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS

The first stage is to assess whether a development (or in this case a proposed allocation) is capable of affecting the setting and significance of a heritage asset. Due to the potential size of the site, a 1km search radius was taken, and each designated heritage asset lying within that radius was initially assessed as to the likelihood of potential impact. Previous work, including the Bromsgrove District Council’s setting assessments1, have already identified several heritage assets, but additional heritage assets, which may be affected by proposed allocation and have not been previously assessed, are identified within this assessment. Appendix I provides a brief overview of the designated heritage assets lying within 1km of the site, and the reasons for their initial inclusion or removal from further assessment.

In addition to this, previous baseline information and studies, including the Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ) work undertaken by Worcestershire County Council as part of the evidence-base for the Local Development Framework (LDF) Green Infrastructure (GI) documents, together with historic mapping, the Historic Environment Record (HER), and Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) have all been used to further provide an initial assessment of the potential for impact, and to inform the assessment of sensitivity for each designated heritage asset.

Following the identification of heritage assets that the site has the potential to impact, a short description of each asset is provided, together with a brief synopsis of its significance. These are not intended as definitive statements of their significance, but merely as a brief overview.

Very High Sensitivity

Norgrove Court

Norgrove Court is a building of the highest significance, being Grade I Listed. The house was originally constructed during the mid-seventeenth century, in brick with ashlar dressings, and a plain clay-tiled hipped roof, and the building is noted in the HER as a good example of the “modernising” plan of the first half of the seventeenth century, with the introduction of domestic privacy. The significance of the building also arises through the previous use of the site, with a moated site being shown on historic mapping. The presence of the mill pond and landscaped grounds may still hold evidence of an earlier building, or of a moat around the existing building.

Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden

Historically the park landscape for Hewell House1 was undertaken for the Lord Windsors, although the gardens have been through several phases of development. William Shenstone was involved in remodelling part of the gardens during the mid-eighteenth century; Lancelot “Capability” Brown was responsible for re-ordering and re- designing some of the landscape in the later eighteenth century; and in 1812, Repton was asked to provide an improved design for the garden, as part of a wider project involving the redesign of the house and its buildings. Repton noted that the design concept of the garden, for both Brown and himself, was to create a garden which centred around views from the House, which at that time faced north-west, whilst also providing interesting and pleasant walkways through the garden. The significance of the Registered Park & Garden predominantly arises from the aesthetic values together with the illustrative and associative values of both the Brown and the Repton landscapes. Some further associative value is gained from the lesser works undertaken by Shenstone (although it is doubted that many of these elements remain) and the aesthetic values of the later Pettigrew landscaping of the gardens.

The house, considered as part of the Registered Park & Garden for the purposes of this assessment, is a replacement of the Neo-Classical country “pile” (as described by Repton) of Hewell House, which was the subject of a fire in 1889. As described above, whilst Repton was involved in the re-design of Hewell House with Thomas Cundy Snr, during the early nineteenth century, the Gothic Revival Hewell Grange was constructed for the fourteenth Baron Windsor, during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The significance of the Grange therefore principally lies in its high quality architectural design and appearance, although there is some limited associative value through its ownership by Baron Windsor, and some further minor local associative value through the probable design by Francis Smith. As well as forming a part of the Registered Park & Garden, the Grange is listed in its own right at Grade II*, ensuring that it is a heritage asset of very high significance in its own right.

High Sensitivity

Hewell Grange Conservation Area Figures 4 & 5: Designated Heritage assets surrounding the site, and those examined The Hewell Grange Conservation Area was designated in 2010. The character appraisal prepared by BDC notes that the significance of the conservation area arises from: in this assessment “the high number of listed and unlisted historic buildings, and the connection between the wider landscape and the built environment. As a historic entity, the interrelationship between the setting of the listed buildings and the registered historic park is a key element of the special interest of this conservation area.” Although the

1The Setting of Hewell Grange, 2013, The Setting of Hewell Grange, 2015, The Setting of Lanehouse Farm, 2015. 7

4.0 THE SITE 4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS conservation area is centred around the same boundary as the Registered Park & Garden, the conservation area is marginally larger to include Hewell Kennels and Papermill Cottages. Although there is some significance and heritage values shared with those arising from the Registered Park & Garden, there is also significance arising from the previous land-use evident within the conservation area, and represented by elements such as the former mill, now converted into residential units. Both the Hall and the Grange, together with the various elements of formal landscaping, and the buildings associated with each phase, make considerable contributions to the significance of the conservation area.

Lanehouse Farm

Lanehouse Farm dates from the early seventeenth century, evidenced through the timber-framed wing to the rear. Later seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century alterations have changed the building considerably, in particular with the introduction of the front wing, whilst there is a combination of seventeenth- to nineteenth-century barns to the rear, in a loose courtyard arrangement. As a farm complex, although the barns have largely been converted into residential units, the loose arrangement and the presence of both timber-framed and Georgian elements help to illustrate the gradual development of this farm complex as a part of, and in reaction to, the evolution of the surrounding landscape, rather than the creation of a model farm, as occurs elsewhere in the region during the late eighteenth century.

Upper Bentley Farm

Upper Bentley Farm is another timber-framed farmhouse and, similarly to Lanehouse Farm, consists primarily of a timber-framed rear wing, most likely dating to the early seventeenth century, together with an eighteenth-century front wing. The building still retains a collection of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century barns, forming a loose courtyard, separated by the farm track, whilst further modern agricultural sheds lie to the rear. The significance of this building again lies primarily in its architectural and historic values, although the additional buildings and evident continued use as a farmhouse add further to the overall significance of this listed building.

Medium Sensitivity

Papermill Cottages

A set of buildings on the outskirts of the Park and Garden formed by an eighteenth-century paper-mill, although now converted to residential use, and several other smaller cottages, each set in their own piece of land, some of which are likely to be as a result of the later nineteenth-century development of the Park & Garden. The gate-lodge, as the most decorative, is likely to have been designed to be experienced from within the garden, as an eye-catcher and acting as a more decorative and symbolic lodge house marking the end of the gardens of Hewell House, rather than a functional one.

Tack Farm barns

A complete set of eighteenth and nineteenth-century barns. Residential conversion on each barn has domesticated and degraded their historic and architectural character and appearance, although they remain as a cohesive and legible group within a rural landscape.

Hewell Kennels

An unlisted mid-nineteenth-century house, originally constructed as the Kennel house, serving Hewell Grange. It is positioned between areas of woodland, most likely to reduce noise from kennels on surrounding buildings. Various additions and out-buildings serving the commercial kennels and cattery have been erected, and the kennels is now divorced from the estate.

Holyoakes Farm

In parts dating to the sixteenth century, the majority of the barns and house date to the seventeenth and eighteen centuries, although elements of the barn complex are nineteenth century in date. Now mostly converted into residential development. Documentary evidence suggests that the Plates 1-5 (Down, from left to right): Sketch of Proposed Landscape, Repton’s Red Book; Hewell Hewell Estate either owned, rented or had a vested interest in this farm, and they heavily invested in it during the nineteenth century. Grange (Courtesy Wikipedia); Norgrove Court (courtesy Google Maps); Lanehouse Farm; the Water- Tower.

1 For the purposes of this report, the Neo-Classical predecessor to the existing Hewell Grange is referred to as Hewell House, as the building 8 was called by Repton, and not to be confused with the current Hewell House—the farmhouse within Tardebigge.

4.0 THE SITE 4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS

Springhill Farm

With origins in the nineteenth century, this farmhouse appears to have suffered considerably, including through the residential conversion of the barn complex to the side and rear. The farmhouse itself is constructed in red brick, with a hipped slate roof, and clearly represents a designed development, rather than one which has developed organically over time.

Oxstalls Farmhouse

This building is noted in the HER, however, while consgructed on the same footprint as the historic farmhouse, this building appears to have been re- Plate 6: Holyoakes Farm Plate 7: Hewell Kennels built in recent years, with modern brickwork and roofs evident throughout. No outbuildings of any interest are visible from the public footpath. This building is not therefore considered as an NDHA within this report.

Plate 8: The Lodge Plate 9: Oxstalls Farmhouse

Plate 10: Springhill Farm (Courtesy Bing maps) Figure 6: Buildings identified on the HER Plate 11: Tack Farm barns

4.0 THE SITE 4.2 SETTING ASSESSMENT

Step 2: Understanding the contribution of the site to the significance of the heritage assets

The following section assesses the contribution that the setting, including the site, makes to the significance of those heritage assets identified above. It should be read in conjunction with Appendix F which explores in detail how the site contributes to the significance of these heritage assets, with a particular emphasis on the heritage values that each of the assets possess.

Norgrove Court (NHL 1167093)

As this is a designated heritage asset of the highest sensitivity and importance, and considering the statutory duty of the desirability of preserving and/or enhancing the setting of listed buildings, considerable weight is given to the potential contribution of its setting to the significanceof this listed building. Thus, whilst much of the site lies at a distance which is generally considered as being sufficient to negate any harm, areas of the site closer to the listed building may make some contribution to significance, due to the nature of the landscape. These have been assessed in terms of their potential level of contribution.

The majority of the setting of this listed building is not of consideration in this assessment, in particular as it is recognised that the most important element of setting for this Grade I listed building is its immediate context, which combines landscape features such as ponds and fields, which perhaps have earlier origins, evidence of earlier settlements, and contemporary outbuildings. This assessment will therefore be restricted to those areas both within the site, and immediately adjacent to the site, where experience of both the site and the listed building can be gained.

The southern tip of the site is again, similar to the rest of the site, predominantly rural and agricultural in nature. Whilst no PROW exist within this section of the site, Pumphouse Lane, running along the southern tip of the site, is largely a holloway, with high banks to either side, and limiting views beyond. However, the PROW (Fig 6) which runs to the south of Pumphouse Lane through the adjacent field, allows views of the Court to be clearly gained. The experience of rural landscape setting of Norgrove Court to the north is continued, and presents a degree of visual contribution to this overall rural setting, inparticular in the vicinity of Raglis Cottage. It is therefore considered that, whilst much of the site can clearly be disregarded when considering the impact on the Grade I listed building, there is some potential visual impact arsing from development on this southern tip, although this is identified as being of low sensitivity.

Figure 7: Sensitivities for Norgrove Court

4.0 THE SITE 4.2 SETTING ASSESSMENT

Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden (NHL 1000886)

In terms of its contribution to the significance of the Registered Park & Garden, there is little, if anything, within the site which helps illustrate the importance or design of the designed elements of the parkland and of the garden, save for forming part of the general rural outlook and surroundings in which the Registered Park & Garden were designed to sit within. Whilst there is some association between the land and the Hall (and indeed the later Grange) through land ownership, the majority of the site does not appear to have served any purpose in relation to the design of the Registered Park & Garden, save for forming part of the wider farmland and rural backdrop.

The area to the south-east of the Registered Park & Garden, whilst not providing any illustrative values in terms of the significance of the designated heritage asset, none- the-less is likely to have some degree of associative linkage, although this is more likely to be as part of the wider Hewell Estate. The continuation of agriculture across this area continues the soft rural backdrop of the heritage asset, and from certain points, in particular when traversing the footpath which bounds the site and the Registered Park & Garden, views of the latter and indeed of the Grange can be gained. However, there is no evidence to suggest that these views were planned, and when considering the later date of the Grange compared with the most significant elements of the Registered Park & Garden, and that the Grange is only just visible in glimpses through the trees, this visual connection can only be considered as incidental. Although areas to the south-east of the Registered Park & Garden are likely to have served it, including areas of coppice, these have generally been removed or thinned so drastically that their contribution to the significance of the designated heritage asset is now largely devoid.

When viewed from the Registered Park & Garden, the rolling landscape to the south and west of the designated heritage asset continues the topography found within the confines of the designated heritage asset, with short distance views often limited, and longer distance views, where available, generally being of woodland and agricultural fields along ridges of landscape. Shorter views, in particular when seen from the remnants of the parkland at the southern tip of the Registered Park & Garden, are generally terminated by the topography and woodland, with much of the site not being experienced.

To the south, the landscape again rolls away from the Registered Park & Garden, and views of the tree-line and of features such as the Grade II listed Water Tower can be clearly gained. Furthermore, there is evidence to show that there is some degree of associative linkage between this area and the Registered Park & Garden, and the listed buildings contained within it, as part of the network of farms lying to the south and east of the designated heritage asset and directly serving the Estate. Although the A448 cuts across the landscape, due to its landscaping and the nature of the topography, the road is only experienced from close range, and even then, visual interference with the surrounding landscape is minimal, and other factors, such as noise, are limited, in particular when considering the continual drone of the motorways (M5 and M42) which can clearly be heard. Such areas, in particular those adjacent to the A448, are sensitive to change, in particular because at present they allow for a rural approach to the Registered Park & Garden to be experienced. Even when walking along Hewell Lane, the A448 does not present a major disturbance, and the impression of longer views to both the south and north of the rural setting make a significant contribution to the significance and setting of this designated heritage asset (Appendix G). Figure 8: Sensitivities for Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden The network of footpaths across the site provide public access to areas of this setting, although views of the Registered Park & Garden are often limited, with such views generally melding in with the surrounding landscape. Occasional views of the listed Water Tower can be gained from the central parcel of the site and provide the only visual hint of what lies within the woodland; similarly, only glimpsed views of the Grange can be seen from the footpath running across the northern boundary of the site alongside the Registered Park & Garden.

Further to the south, the agricultural landscape, including farms such as Lanehouse Farm, retain the rural setting of this designated heritage asset, although this is considered less important due to the nature of the topography, with minimal experience between the two. However, due to the high nature of sensitivity of the designated heritage asset, due consideration is given to the relative sensitivity of such landscapes and experiences, evenif minimal. It is only when one reaches the southern most area of the site, and to some degree the most south-eastern section of the central part of the site, where the experience of the Registered Park & Garden becomes lessened, and in some cases completely negated.

4.0 THE SITE 4.2 SETTING ASSESSMENT

Hewell Grange Conservation Area

It is notable that the Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any key views either toward or across the site. This reflects the relationship between the Registered Park & Garden and the built environment (both the house, the settlement of Tardebigge and farms including Holyoakes Farm), whilst the surrounding rural landscape plays a wider role through its largely undeveloped nature, creating the wider setting of the conservation area.

The degree of contribution of the setting to the significance of the conservation area is, in many ways and unsurprisingly, similar to that already described for the Registered Park & Garden. However, further consideration has to be given here to the other values of the conservation area,such as the representation of earlier structures, and the degree to which outlying buildings are important to the significance of the conservation area, and the degree to which elements of setting contribute to such significance.

In terms of Papermill Cottages and the Lodge, as with views from the southern-most section of parkland, there is little experience of the land to the south or south-east, particularly due to the nature of the topography, and the remnants of the quarry in which the buildings sit. Furthermore, the history of these buildings has significantly changed, with the former Papermill historically being part of a network of mills and farms running south-west. Whilst the immediate areas provide an agricultural and rural setting to the conservation area, this is generally seen as being a minor overall contributor to the significance of the conservation area. As with the Registered Park & Garden, the footpaths across the south-eastern section of the site allow for views over and to the conservation area, but these are generally of woodland, which in turn is subsumed into views of the surrounding agricultural and wooded character of the landscape. Where views of Kennel Cottage are gained, consideration needs to be given to the historic intended design of the landscape in this area, with historic coppice evident on the Tithe map, which would have provided both visual and aural protection from the kennels to the surrounding landscape. With the coppice now removed, views toward the kennels cannot be seen as historically significant, in particular when considering the modern and unsympathetic nature of the kennels development today. The experience of the conservation area from areas such as the northern parts of the site, is also harmed through the intervisibility of the conservation area and modern development on the western side of Redditch. This experience is emphasised by the levelling of the topography, and the lack of any degree of planting or similar which would mitigate the effects.

Land to the south of the conservation area, in a similar way to that of the Registered Park & Garden, can be seen as presenting some illustrative values to this designated heritage asset, in particular through part of the wider rural and agricultural landscape and a degree of direct functional relationship between this area, and the workings of the buildings and the estate centred within the conservation area. Again, as the landscape rolls southwards, the distance and nature of the topography reduces the degree of contribution. Although the A448 creates a hard line separating the conservation area from the majority of the landscapeto the south, as already described, the degree to which this severs the overall experience is minimal, predominantly due to the nature of the rolling topography, and the degree of planting along the path of the road.

Figure 9: Sensitivities for Hewell Grange Conservation Area

4.0 THE SITE 4.2 SETTING ASSESSMENT

Lanehouse Farm (NHL 1348539)

The lane and the land within the site, lying to the north-east of the farmhouse, form part if the immediate setting of this listed building with the fields surrounding the house to the south and west creating a coherent agricultural landscape around the farm. However, the land forming the northern part of the site has been subject to considerable field amalgamation as a result of dairy intensification since the mid-twentieth century. Although hedges remain, these now form the boundaries of large fields, rather than clusters of fields surrounding the farmhouse. To the south and south-east of the farmhouse, and abutting the western edge of Redditch, are areas of modern green-edge set accompanied by areas of parliamentary enclosure. Further to the north-east, and separated by both Hewell Lane and the A448 lie further areas of both parliamentary and piecemeal enclosure, together with areas of field amalgamation and modern sub-division and some areas of historic meadow. The HER also notes that there is potential for remains of an eleventh-century settlement in this area (Appendix E). All of this is recognised as being a coherent landscape with below- and above-ground features surviving well, and high potential for further remains of all periods1. The topography rises sharply to the north and east, with the landscape ridges, carved with ridge and furrow, forming the dominant character, whilst it remains undulating and rolling to the south. Other areas of ridge and furrow, and historic hedge- lines remain as earthworks in fields to the south and east. It is recognised that distance will reduce the level of such contribution, and as such, whilst the more historic fields lie further to the south (in the form of piecemeal enclosure, with ridge and furrow) these are considered only to make a very minor contribution to the significance of this listed building.

When examining the evident historic development of the farmhouse, with a seventeenth-century timber-framed rear wing, an eighteenth-century front wing, and ranges of late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century barns, the surrounding landscape and its evidence of changing agricultural practices during the past few centuries contributes to the evidential and aesthetic values of the farmhouse. For example, the parliamentary enclosure to the east and south-east most likely relates to the early eighteenth- century development of the farmhouse, whilst the fields directly to the north have generally been enlarged through field amalgamation, in line with more modern farming practices, and further represented by the large modern cow-sheds to the north-west of the listed building. The archaeological evidence of an earlier settlement within the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse further contributes to the evidence of continuing farming practices in this area, of which it is likely that Lanehouse Farm was a part of. This contribution is strengthened by the network of farms and mills throughout the area, running from Oxstalls Farm, through to Upper Bentley Farm, the Papermill, and other mills and streams to the west.

Other factors such as the aesthetic, topographic, and associative links have to be considered. Considering the proximity of Lanehouse Farm to the site, and again through considering the age of the building in comparison to other farms in the vicinity, it is reasonable to assume that the farmhouse is likely to have had some degree of direct association with this area. It is also possible that some areas of the southern part of the site may have had some degree of associative value, although again distance would limit the contribution of such to the significance of the listed building.

The topography plays an important role in all directions: to the south and south-east, views from the farmhouse are of gently rolling landscape, and looking back toward the farmhouse from these areas (Appendix H), the white chimneys and roof of the farmhouse are seen in an historic rural context. The landscape to the east and north slopes sharply up directly from the lane, and whilst it then reduces to a gentle roll further afield, this initial rise sets the building within a bowl in which both its aesthetic value and agricultural context can be readily appreciated. These fields, with their agricultural character, together with the narrow unlit lane, lined within historic hedging, Figure 10: Sensitivities of Lanehouse Farm create a dominant contribution to the aesthetic values of the listed building. Again, however, this dominance peaks atthefirst main crest of topography, with the landscape becoming more distant. However, the relative height of these further areas within the central part of the site make a considerable visual contribution, in particular as there are several public rights of way through this area, which in turn provide communal experience of the listed building and its setting.

1 Historic Environment Character Zones, Worcestershire County Council 2010 13

4.0 THE SITE 4.2 SETTING ASSESSMENT

Upper Bentley Farm (NHL 1348563)

As with Norgrove Court, whilst the site lies at a considerable distance from this listed building, there is a legal requirement to consider the setting of the listed building, and thus additional emphasis is placed on any potential harm arising from a proposed development. Due to the nature of the topography, the historic and current land-use, and the network of farms running north-east/ south-west across this area, it is considered that, whilst this will be a very low level of aesthetic impact, affecting the wider rural character of setting for this listed building, there is some low potential for harm to arise from development within the southern-most tip of the site.

Figure 11: Sensitivities for Upper Bentley Farm

4.0 THE SITE 4.2 SETTING ASSESSMENT

Non-designated Heritage Assets

Papermill Cottages

These cottages are set within the area of an open-cast quarry at the edge of the gardens of Hewell Grange and originally consisted of a paper-mill, most likely powered by the brook, similar to other mills in the vicinity. The immediate setting within the site lies directly above these, and hence is identified as being of some localised high impact, whilst the topography and nature of the assets, as non-designated heritage assets, is considerably reduced through short distances and the nature of the topography, in particular immediately to the east and south.

Tack Farm

Mostly now converted with a modern replacement farmhouse, the immediate agricultural setting of these buildings, together with their sympathetic alterations, provides some contextual understanding for the barns.

Hewell Kennels

Originally set within an open area of land, surrounded by woodland and coppice, the flattening out of the landscape in this vicinity allows for full views of both the house and the associated kennels from within the site. Furthermore, the topography also allows for views through to the modern development of Redditch to the east. The landscape has been considerably altered, with historic coppice being removed, enabling full views of buildings. The views to and from this building are therefore modern, and should not be considered as having any degree of heritage value or reflecting the historic nature of setting for the kennels.

Holyoakes Farm

Holyoakes Farm still retains its rural aspect, and it has a clear relationship with the surrounding agricultural fields. Historic mapping and sources strongly suggest that land at least in the northern section of the site, closest to the farmhouse, is likely to have been in the same ownership, and is likely to have had some relationship with Hewell Estate. Topography between this farmhouse and most of the site prevents any meaningful views, but the proximity of the closest part of the site are considered as having a degree of potential impact on the significance of this non-designated heritage asset.

Springfield Farm

Although much of this farmhouse and its immediate barn complex have been converted, the surroundings are still generally rural. However, the farm is generally seen in a more urban context, with modern housing to the south, and positioned near a roundabout. Whilst heavily screened from the road, views to the rear of the complex can be Figure 12: Sensitivities for non-designated heritage assets gained, although the degree to which these contribute to the understanding of the farmhouse are minimal.

4.0 THE SITE 4.3 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED SITE ALLOCATION

Step 3: Identify the impact of allocation on the significance of the heritage assets

With the site being surrounded by and containing a variety of heritage assets, ranging from the highest significance through to those of the lowest, it is necessary to assess not just the effects on heritage assets individually, but also the effects of proposed allocation on the cumulative and relative capacity for heritage assets to withstand potential development within their setting. The purpose of this section is not to consider whether harm to the historic environment will arise from allocation, as it is considered that due to the necessity of housing requirements that this is inevitable, but to identify those areas where the effects will be lowest when taking account of the relative significance of heritage assets and, in line with the NPPF1 to identify areas of land where development would be inappropriate. To achieve this, Tables 1 and 4 are used, and the sensitivities for each asset are grouped according to the relative significance of the asset to understand the relative potential for harm. These groups are then illustrated in GIS by overlaying the groups from the lowest harm upwards (Figs 14-18).

No Perceivable Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 13) Figure 14: Negligible Harm to Historic Those areas where: Figure 13: No Perceivable Harm to Historic Environment Environment  the sensitivity of buildings on the HER is negligible to medium; and  the sensitivity of buildings Locally Listed is negligible to low.

Negligible Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 14)

Those areas where:

 the sensitivity of buildings on the HER is high; and  The sensitivity of Locally Listed buildings is medium to high.

Minor Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 15)

Those areas where:

 The sensitivity of Grade II listed buildings and the Hewell Grange Conservation Area is negligible;

 The sensitivity of Norgrove Court and Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden is negligible.

Moderate Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 16)

Those areas where:

 The sensitivity to Grade II listed buildings and the Hewell Grange Figure 15: Minor Harm to Historic Environment Figure 16: Moderate Harm to Historic Figure 17: Major Harm to Historic Environment Environment

1. NPPF: paragraph 157 16

4.0 THE SITE 4.3 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED SITE ALLOCATION

Conservation Area is low to medium; and  The sensitivity of Norgrove Court and Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden is low to medium.

Major Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 17)

Those areas where:

 The sensitivity of Grade II listed buildings and the Hewell Grange Conservation Area is high; and

 The sensitivity of Norgrove Court and the Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden is medium to high;

As the areas of Major Impact are reflective of the high sensitivity of setting for designated heritage assets, it is reasonable to assume that areas adjacent to areas of high sensitivity, whilst still within the Moderate Harm zone, will be more sensitive than those further away. Thus, the areas of Moderate Harm for Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden, and for Lanehouse Farm1 are further sub-divided into Moderate-High and Moderate-Low Harm, taking into account the assessments in Appendix F. These are then mapped out in GIS (Figures 19 to 21), removing the areas of Moderate Harm, and inserting these additional areas: Figure 18: Moderate-Low to Moderate Harm to Moderate-Low to Moderate Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 18) Historic Environment Those areas where:

 The sensitivity to Grade II listed buildings and the Hewell Grange Conservation Area is low to medium/low; and  The sensitivity of Norgrove Court and Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden is low to moderate-low.

Moderate to Moderate-High Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 19)

Those areas where:

 The sensitivity to Grade II listed buildings and the Hewell Grange Conservation Area is low to medium/high; and  The sensitivity of Norgrove Court and Hewell Grange Registered Park & Garden is medium to medium-high.

Major Harm to Historic Environment (Figure 20)

Those areas where:

 The sensitivity of Grade II listed buildings and the Hewell Grange Conservation Area is high; and

 The sensitivity of Norgrove Court and the Hewell Grange Figure 19: Moderate to Moderate-Major Harm to Figure 20: Major Harm to Historic Environment Registered Park & Garden is high. Historic Environment

1 No other assets are re-assessed, as the only other asset with moderate harm identified is the conservation area, and it is considered that the varying degrees of harm for this heritage asset will be reflected in the Registered Park & Garden. 17

4.0 THE SITE 4.4 MITIGATION

Step 4: Maximising enhancement and avoiding harm In order to minimise the harm on the relative significance of the historic environment, the relative sensitivities identified in Step 3 are used to identify relative areas of density, and where development should not occur. Using these relative sensitivities, an assessment can be made in terms of the extent to which a particular area can withstand alteration, and thus this can be correlated to the relative density of development which can be withstood. Figure 21 illustrates areas of no-build, with areas where development should be restricted to that of lowest impact. It is perhaps conceivable that these areas could withstand some form of development, but this is more likely to be in the form of landscaping and associated features rather than built form. Whilst Figure 21 illustrates these areas, these areas should not be taken as definitive lines, where impact is suddenly negated, but should be treated as lines where a feathering-in of development would be more appropriate, and, in order to promote good urban design, a graduation between zones and areas of density should be considered. Other areas of consideration should be the transport network proposed across sites, in particular with details such as lighting, noise, and general character, and care should be taken that such features are designed to reduce any impact. The position of other elements of development, such as schools, formal open space, and retail areas, if required, should also be considered carefully for their impact. It is accepted that some form of enhancement will be sought across the site, where this is possible, and consideration should be given to the overall cumulative benefit of such measures. For example, the re-planting of coppice in the vicinity of Kennel Cottage, and the use of meadow as water attenuation could be seen as positive enhancements, reflecting the historic character of the area, and tying in to the restoration works currently being undertaken within the Park & Garden. Other measures, such as the creation of bridleways between Lanehouse Farm and Hewell Grange may alter the landscape considerably, in particular considering the proposed nature of the surroundings of such a bridle-path. However, they will ensure that the existing PROW network is maintained, and will to some extent retain important views of the listed farmhouse.

Figure 21: Areas of development density

5.0 CONCLUSION

This assessment has set out to identify the relative sensitivities of a range of heritage assets, of varying sensitivities and designations, when considering the potential for allocation of two areas of land (Area 4: Foxlydiate and Area 5: Brockhill West).

It has utilised methodology from EIA standards, including using recognised criteria of sensitivity for such assets, and has used a variety of tools and methods, in order to identify land which should not considered as suitable for development, whilst also identifying a graded approach to other areas of land, identifying whether they have either low or moderate potential.

The assessment has identified a range of areas across both Area 4 and Area 5 which would result in at least high levels of less than substantial harm, and which have subsequently been considered as “no-build” zones. Of the remaining parcels of land, these have been further sub-divided, with areas of low relative cumulative sensitivity being considered as suitable for higher density residential development, and areas of relatively moderate cumulative harm being considered for lower density residential development.

Other factors have been highlighted in this assessment which should be taken in to account when considering master-planning, including the potential for elements of development usually considered as high impact (such as schools and retail areas), whilst also highlighting the necessity to consider the impacts of associated infrastructure (roads, lighting, etc.), to ensure that these do not increase potential for harm.

This report has complied with both national guidance and policy, and presents a balanced and sound methodology from which to extract a sound evidence-base.

GLOSSARY & ABBREVIATIONS

BDC Bromsgrove District Council

CA Conservation Area

GIS Geographic Information System

HA Heritage Asset

HECZ Historic Environment Character Zones

HER Historic Environment Record

HLC Historic Landscape Characterisation

LB Listed building

PROW Public Right of Way

RPG Registered Park & Garden

NDHA Non-designated heritage asset

NHL National Heritage List

RBC Redditch Borough Council

WCC Worcestershire County Council

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Bibliography Sources

The Red Book for Hewell House. H Repton Courtesy of Worcestershire Historic Environment Record Office Historic mapping: Ordnance Survey and Landmark Mapping

The Landscape Gardening of the Late Humphry Repton. JC Lowdon, 1840. Library of the University of Michigan/ Google Books. List descriptions: National Heritage List

Observations on the theory and practice of landscape gardening. H Repton, 1805. Library of the University of Michigan/ Google Books. Historic Environment Record—Worcestershire County Council (sourced Janu- ary 2016) The Book of Farm Buildings—their arrangement and construction. H Stephens and RS Burn, 1861. Library of the University of Michigan/ Google Books. Historic Landscape Characterisation—Worcestershire County Council Humphry Repton. D Stroud, 1962. Country Life. (sourced January 2016) Historic Environment Assessment for Redditch Borough Council: Supplementary Historic Environment Statement for the Sub-divided HECZ 147.Historic Environment Land at Brockhill West, Heritage Assessment. CgMs 2013 and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council, 2012 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. CgMs 2012 Historic Environment Assessment for Redditch Borough Council: Supplementary Historic Environment Statement for the Sub-divided HECZ 148. Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council, 2010 Examination of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) & Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4 (BORLP4) - Inspector’s Post-Hearing Note, July 2015 Worcestershire Farmsteads Guidance: Part 1—Farmsteads Assessment Framework (Consultation Draft, June 2013). Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council and English Heritage, 2013

Worcestershire Farmsteads Guidance: Part 2—Worcestershire Farmsteads Character Statement. Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council and English Heritage, 2013

Historic Farmsteads—Preliminary Character Statement: West Midlands Region. University of Gloucester, English Heritage and The Countryside Agency. 2006

The Historic Environment in Local Plans—Historic Environment Good Practice Guide in Planning: Note 1. Historic England, July 2015

The Setting of Heritage Assets—Historic Environment Good Practice Guide in Planning: Note 3. Historic England, July 2015

Lanehouse Farm—Setting of Heritage Assets Assessment. Bromsgrove District Council, December 2015

Hewell Grange Estate—Setting of Heritage Assets Assessment. Bromsgrove District Council, December 2015

Hewell Grange Estate—Setting of Heritage Assets Assessment. Bromsgrove District Council, 2013

Narrative of the Site Selection Process. Bromsgrove District Council, January 2016

Hewell Grange Conservation Area Character Appraisal. Bromsgrove District Council, 2010

The National Planning Policy Framework

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990