THE RICHBOROUGH ESTATES PARTNERSHIP LLP
CO-JOINED SECTION 78 APPEALS, SEMINGTON, WILTSHIRE
RICHBOROUGH ESTATES APPEAL: LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, LPA: 16/05783/OUT PINS: APP/Y3940/W/16/3162997
OXFORD LAW APPEAL: LAND NORTH OF ST GEORGE’S ROAD LPA: 16/06956/OUT PINS: APP/Y3940/W/16/3164255
DR CHRIS MIELE MRTPI IHBC PROOF OF EVIDENCE
RE. HERITAGE MATTERS
MAY 2017
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERTIAGE MATTERS
CONTENTS
Section Page No. 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Instructions and Scope of the Statement 6 3.0 Statutory Provision and Planning Policy Considerations 10 4.0 Historic Development of Semington 25 5.0 The Significance of Semington Aqueduct, Former St George’s Hospital and WWII Structures 28 6.0 Comparative Assessment of the Sites 51 7.0 Performance Against Policy 64 8.0 Signed Affirmation 66
APPENDICES (bound separately) 1 Heritage Asset Map (1) 2 List Descriptions (3) 3 The ‘Barnwell Decision’ (16) 4 The ‘Forge Field’ Decision (34) 5 The ‘Forest of Dean’ Decision (57) 6 The ‘Palmer’ Decision (81) 7 GPA3: the Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, March 2015, republished July 2015) (93) 8 Historic maps (112) 9 Heritage Collective, Land north of Pound Lane, Semington. Heritage Statement of Case prepared on behalf of Oxford Law, April 2017 (117) 10 Biography of Henry Edward Kendall by James Stevens Curl in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, September 2004 (143) 11 Historical accounts of Semington Workhouse by Peter Higginbotham and Liz Corfield (Wiltshire OPC Project) (145) 12 Historic England, Listing Selection Guide. Transport Buildings (2015) (161)
Shared Heritage, Landscape and Visual Appendix: Photographic Volume (bound in separate volume)
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 1 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 My name is Chris Miele and I am a senior and owning Partner at Montagu Evans’
central London office. I am a Chartered Town Planner and a Member of the Institute
of Historic Building Conservation. I have twenty-five years professional experience as
a specialist in heritage matters and also hold advanced academic qualifications in
architectural and urban history.
Our Practice
1.2 Montagu Evans is a leading firm of chartered surveyors. Established in 1921, we 21
owning partners employ nearly 300. I work in our West End offices, which are the
registered office of the LLP.
1.3 We provide all areas of development surveying consultancy, from rating and valuation
to management and investment advice. The town planning consultancy has always
been central to our business, and it is provided through our Planning and
Development Department.
Professional Background: Some Current Projects and Clients
1.4 As a partner in the Planning and Development department I provide specialist advice
on sites that involve development in the historic environment and sensitive
landscapes. There I run a team of experts who work on heritage-based projects of all
kinds, involving highly graded listed buildings, World Heritage Sites, Scheduled
Monuments and sensitive land (conservation areas, Registered Parks, MOL, Green
Belt, AONBs). I have worked on many housing schemes, large and small, which
affect heritage assets directly or indirectly. I have advised on development affecting
historic engineering structures and historic hospitals and workhouses, which I
mention here because those asset classes are treated in my evidence in support of
the Appellant.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 2 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
1.5 I act regularly as an independent expert witness on planning appeals and call-in
inquiries. I am aware of the duties of expert planning witnesses. I work to the RTPI
Code of Conduct for chartered planners at appeals (see signed affirmation at the
conclusion of this Proof). My Evidence is also prepared in accordance with the March
2016 guidance on planning appeals, Annexe O, ‘What is expert evidence?’
1.6 My public and charitable clients have included the Royal Shakespeare Company, the
Trustees of the Victoria and Albert and Natural History Museums in London, English
Heritage, the Oxford Colleges (Magdalen, Keble and Exeter), University College
London, Keele University, Middlesex University, Transport for London, the City of
Westminster, and Southern Water. I have also worked for the Greater London
Authority, first on the preparation of the London View Management Framework 2007
edition (SPG to the then London Plan), and on the redesign of Parliament Square,
which bounds the Westminster World Heritage Site.
1.7 This is in addition to the advisory work I do to support development work undertaken
by major cultural institutions, notably the British Museum and South Bank Centre. I
advise the Universities of Leicester and Sheffield on a range of projects, along with
other notable educational institutions (Sussex, Durham, and Oxford).
1.8 Over the last five years I have become more involved in large housing schemes and
town extensions as well as the promotion of land for housing allocations through the
local plan. My clients include major national housebuilders: Commercial Estates
Group, City and Country, Hallam Land, Wates, Bloor, Berkeley, Barratt’s, Fairview
New Homes, Barwood Land and Estates, Barratt’s, Taylor Wimpey, and Gladman.
This is my first instruction with Richborough Estates.
1.9 I have no other current instructions with the Appellant. I describe my involvement in
further detail in the next section.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 3 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Other Relevant Experience, including CABE, Select Committee Advice and English Heritage Advice
1.10 I draw to the Inspector’s attention other relevant experience, notably my work as a
panel member on the National Design Review Panel of the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment or ‘CABE’ from 2003 to end 2007.
1.11 I have previously acted as professional advisor to the ODPM Select Committee on
Heritage and Regeneration and in this capacity contributed to the Committee’s report
and recommendations on that subject (2005). I have also served as an external
member on English Heritage’s Research and Standards Committee.
Past Employment
1.12 Formerly I was Senior Planning Director at RPS Planning central London office, and
before that, from 1998 to 2004, a Director at Alan Baxter & Associates, a multi-
disciplinary consultancy based in engineering.
1.13 From 1991 to 1998 I was employed by English Heritage (now Historic England),
providing advice in support of its statutory functions. I should add here, because it is
relevant to the facts of this case, that I trained at EH as a listing inspector (as we
were called then), and continued to contribute to listing casework from time to time
where the matter at hand reflected my particular expertise. I continue to represent
clients in designation matters. Thus I consider myself particularly qualified to
comment on the extent of the listing as it pertains to the Aqueduct – that is the basis
of OL’s criticism of RE’s proposals, as I will explain further in section 5.0.
Academic Qualifications and Credentials/Publications
1.14 Before settling in the United Kingdom, and whilst completing my masters and doctoral
work, I held several academic and museum appointments, at Columbia University,
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 4 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
New York University, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Museum of Modern Art, all
in New York.
1.15 I hold an Honours Degree (BA) in the history of architecture and planning from
Columbia College, Columbia University in the City of New York, and post-graduate
degrees – an MA and a PhD – in this subject area from the Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences, New York University. I latterly studied town and country planning at
South Bank University.
1.16 I have an extensive record of academic and professional publications. This includes
editing a volume of essays in Yale University Press’ Studies in British Art series, on
the history and philosophy of the conservation movement in this country. In April 2010
Merrell published my book on the new UK Supreme Court, a Grade II* listed
Edwardian building on Parliament Square. I contributed to and designed this
commercial publication for the Ministry of Justice and UK Supreme Court.
1.17 English Heritage published a book I wrote jointly with a former colleague, on C18
architecture. I am currently working on a biography of the Victorian architect George
Gilbert Scott. I have published articles recently on him along with other historical
publications (currently an essay for a collection of articles on the C19 century design
William Morris).
1.18 I am invited to review books and articles in my special subject area, and have been a
referee for proposals put to the British Academy on architectural-heritage topics in
addition to reviewing proposals to the AHRC. This is in addition to regular lectures at
professional and academic conferences in the UK, USA and in Europe. I have also
served on the management committee of the William Morris Society, and I am
recently appointed as chairperson to the Board of the post-graduate Centre for Urban
History, Leicester University.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 5 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
1.19 In recognition of my scholarly achievements I have been elected a Fellow of the
Royal Historical Society (2001) and of the Society of Antiquaries, London (2000).
1.20 I was additionally a trustee of two historic houses in London (including one of
Elizabethan date) and for several years chaired a conservation area advisory
committee in my local London area.
1.21 I set out this academic background because I consider it goes to the weight to be
attributed to my Evidence about the significance of the heritage assets under
discussion.
1.22 My graduate education focused on British cultural history of the C18 and C19, and I
have studied the history of English and European landscape design in that period. I
have, as a professional, also worked in and around many historic landscapes, from
prehistoric and medieval to C18 and modern.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 6 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
2.0 INSTRUCTIONS AND SCOPE OF STATEMENT
2.1 I am appearing at this Inquiry on behalf of the Appellant, Richborough Estates
(hereafter RE or the Appellant).
2.2 In this section I set out my involvement with these proposals as an expert witness.
2.3 My signed affirmation at the end of this Proof confirms my understanding of the duties
of an expert.
2.4 I was first approached by RE in March 2017 with respect to their Appeal against a
refusal of outline planning permission for 75 dwellings on land north of Pound Lane in
Semington. My initial appraisal was on the basis of a desktop review. I subsequently
visited the site in the preparation of this evidence.
2.5 The Appeal has been conjoined with another Section 78 Appeal against the refusal of
planning permission for 72 dwellings on the land north of St George’s Road, also in
Semington. The Appellant for the competing site is Oxford Law (hereafter OL). I
understand that OL is now seeking permission for 50 dwellings and I have considered
the revised illustrative layout in preparing my evidence.
2.6 The Inspector will appreciate that the reasons for refusal do not cite heritage.
2.7 However, OL have instructed a report that alleges the RE proposals harm the setting
of the grade II listed Semington Aqueduct. I have to say I am surprised at this
allegation which I do not think can be sustained. The OL note is reproduced at my
Appendix 9.
2.8 In light of this allegation of harm to the listed aqueduct, RE have sought my expert
opinion to consider these claims.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 7 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
2.9 As this section 78 Appeal is co-joined with OL’s, RE have asked me to assess the
impact of OL’s proposals on heritage interests, and so to treat these in the same
proof of evidence. In contrast to the allegation of harm against our client, for which I
have found no basis, the OL proposals do have a material effect on an important
element of a listed building’s setting, the grade II listed former St George’s Hospital,
or Melksham Union Warehouse (see Appendices 2, 10 and 11 for information on this
structure). The amendments to their proposals do not address my concern in respect
of this attractive late Georgian building. The Council’s Conservation Officer found
there to be harm, but less than substantial.
2.10 In my judgment, and for the sake of clarity, I conclude no harm whatsoever to the
listed Aqueduct near to our client’s land, and no harm either to the non-designated
asset within the site boundary, a WWII feature.
2.11 In contrast, I find less than substantial harm to the grade II listed hospital arising from
the OL proposals. My particular concern lies with the visual impact of the proposals
on impressive public views of the listed building from the towpath to the west. The
hospital was intended to be located on the edge of the settlement, near open
countryside, and such a location is characteristic, having historical associations. The
open nature of the land also, of course, enable a very good appreciation of the
classical façade of this building. There are buildings on adjoining land to the west,
and these have harmed the setting of the building, but nevertheless it is still possible
to appreciate the special interest of the former workhouse in its attractive landscape
setting, and admire the siting of it. It is my firm view that the architect, H. E. Kendall,
sought to exploit the position of the site when he laid out and designed the complex.
2.12 Mrs Brockhurst is providing expert opinion on landscape considerations. We met with
her discuss our observations on site and I have been mindful of her conclusions when
preparing my Evidence because my observations on the two sites is based on an
assessment of visual impacts. Essentially, in a number of views from the north and
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 8 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
west it is possible to appreciate the rural setting of the former workhouse and its
location on the outskirts of the settlement.
2.13 The OL houses would intrude into this view and so undermine an appreciation of the
architectural interest of the hospital. The proposals would also further and harmfully
erode the rural character of the setting in the foreground of the building, which setting
contributes to the historic interest of the property.
2.14 I have considered the analysis conducted by CgMS for RE and agree with their
conclusions: there would only be negligible effects of the RE Site on the listed
Aqueduct. I would go further and say I cannot see RE’s proposals cause harm to the
special interest of this interesting engineering feature. Furthermore I disagree with Dr
Edis’ treatment of the extent of listing, for reasons I will explain later.
2.15 The following section (3.0) of my Evidence sets out the statutory provisions and
planning policy context in summary form, focusing on key considerations, including
heritage policy.
2.16 Section 4.0 provides a short account of the historic development of Semington to put
the heritage assets into context.
2.17 Section 5.0 assess the significance of the Semington Aqueduct and the former
workhouse and the contribution of their respective settings to that heritage value.
2.18 Section 6.0 provides a comparative analysis of the sensitivity of OL site and the RE
site with respect to the historic environment.
2.19 I should add that I have given Evidence in support of a number of Appellants
promoting land which is in the setting of heritage assets. I think there are many cases
where new housing can be developed in a way which does not cause harm to the
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 9 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
significance of heritage assets or where there is some harm but it is not
unacceptable. I advise clients, too, on emerging proposals and how their design
might be changed to mitigate or remove such harmful setting impacts.
2.20 I see no inconsistency between identifying the sensitivity of alternative sites – the
scope of my Evidence here – and assisting with proposals in sensitive settings. My
instruction is simply to identify what the potential sensitivities are at play and whether
they could cause a harmful impact.
2.21 I have concluded, and my reasons follow, that developing the OL site would have a
harmful impact on heritage interests.. This harm is, then, less than substantial in the
terms set out in paragraph 134.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 10 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
3.0 STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Statutory Provisions: The Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and The Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990
3.1 Section 38 (6) of the 2004 Act requires the decision maker to determine applications
(and Appeals) in accordance with the statutory development plan for the area unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
3.2 Before considering the relevant heritage provisions, I draw the Inspector’s attention
the plan at my Appendix 1 which shows the location of the two listed structures I
consider: Semington Aqueduct and the former St George’s Hospital, and their
relationship with the co-joined Appeal sites.
3.3 Section 66(1) of the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990 sets out the duty of the local planning
authority when considering whether to grant planning permission for development
that affects a listed building or its setting to:
‘have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting
or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’.
3.4 In this context ‘to preserve’ means ‘to cause no harm’, the principle established in
South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and another
[1992] 1 ALL ER 573.
3.5 This statutory provision arises in my evidence because of the OL site’s visual
interaction with the former workhouse in views from the west and because of the
claim that the development of the RE site would harm the Aqueduct. I note that the
Cotswold Archaeology report on heritage matters for OL recognises the land is in the
setting of the listed workhouse but concludes the impact is not harmful. I do not agree
with the way they have carried out the assessment, and their definition of setting, but
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 11 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
even leaving that to one side this report is flawed because it did not consider the
views from the towpath to the north.
Case Law
3.6 I draw attention to the Court of Appeal decision Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd and
East Northamptonshire District Council (Case No C1/2013/0843) or ‘Barnwell’. This is
one of a suite of recent judgments that bear on the interpretation of the statutory
provisions of the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990 and consequent or parallel policies. I
reproduce ‘Barnwell’ as my Appendix 3.
3.7 The decision affirms what I have always understood to be the case.
3.8 Great weight attaches to the preservation of heritage assets, and in this context that
means seeking wherever possible to avoid harm to them.
3.9 The Barnwell judgement is also clear (in paragraph 28) that the presumption against
allowing development which causes harm to the setting of a listed building or
conservation area lessens in weight as the importance of the heritage asset
decreases, and if the harm is less than substantial rather than substantial.
3.10 I also draw attention to the Court of Appeal decision R (on the application of The
Forge Field Society and others) v Sevenoaks District Council (Case No [2014] EWHC
1895 (Admin)) or ‘Forge Field’. I reproduce this decision in Appendix 4.
3.11 The decision concerned two alternative sites for affordable housing in Penshurst.
3.12 The Forge Field Appeal site was in the High Weald AONB, in Penshurst Conservation
Area and in the setting of grade II* and grade II listed buildings.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 12 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
3.13 The decision reinforced the findings of Barnwell that any harm to the significance of a
listed building or character and appearance of a conservation area is of ‘considerable
importance and weight’ (para 48).
3.14 Furthermore the decision found that:
‘a finding of harm to the setting of a listed building or to a conservation area
gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted’
(para 49).
3.15 Lindbolm J criticised the officer’s report for carrying out:
‘a simple balancing exercise between harm to heritage assets and the
countervailing planning benefits without heeding the strong presumption
inherent in sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Building Act against planning
permission being granted in a case such as this.’ (para 55)
3.16 The decision emphasised the need to consider alternative sites:
‘If there is a need for development of the kind proposed, which in this case
there was, but the development would cause harm to heritage assets, which
in this case it would, the possibility of the development being undertaken on
an alternative site on which that harm can be avoided altogether will add
force to the statutory presumption in favour of preservation. Indeed, the
presumption itself implies the need for a suitably rigorous assessment of
potential alternatives.’ (para 61)
3.17 I know well that the ‘strong presumption’ Lindblom J found in statutory provision may
be rebutted, enabling the grant of a consent which causes harm (see paragraphs 133
and 134 of the Framework). That said, and as the Framework makes clear
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 13 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
(paragraph 132), there needs to be a clear and convincing justification to consent
development causing harm to designated assets. I understand that a range of land
use planning benefits could provide such a justification.
3.18 I am aware of several other recent cases – for example, Mordue, High Court and
Court of Appeal (Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243 ). I do not consider it
necessary to cite these or discuss them because they hold the principles established
in the above two judgments which are recognised in my specialist area as the leading
ones. Effectively, for my purposes, the Court of Appeal in Mordue held that a decision
maker having regard to the policy reasoning in paragraphs 132 to 134 of the
Framework was discharging the statutory duty.
3.19 I am also aware of the recent Forest of Dean case (Appendix 4) which is more
appropriately discussed below where I consider the Framework, paragraph 14
footnote 9.
3.20 A more recent case, Palmer v Herefordshire Council & ANR [2016] (Appendix 5),
confirmed that where a development would affect a listed building or its settings in
different ways, some positive and some negative, the decision maker may
legitimately conclude that although each of the effects has an impact, the overall
effect is taken on the basis of the development as a whole. On this basis, paragraphs
133 or 134 of the NPPF would only be engaged where the harm is not outweighed by
the heritage benefits delivered by a development.. I identify a two-stage process,
striking whas has been called an ‘internal heritage balance’ to see whether there is a
residual harmful impact taking any heritage benefits into account. If there is, then
paragraph 134 of the Framework is engaged and the decision maker needs to see
whether there are any other land use planning benefits.
3.21 Although I do not identify that the RE site will cause any harm to the historic
environment, and nor does the Council, I mention the Palmer decision because RE
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 14 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
have agreed to make a contribution to the Canal and River Trust for the improvement
of the towpath.
The Development Plan Policies on Heritage
Wiltshire Core Strategy, adopted 2015 (CD.E04)
3.22 The Wiltshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document was adopted in January
2015.
3.23 Core Policy 58 relates to the conservation of the historic environment and seeks to
conserve and where possible enhance it. The Policy includes similar wording for
designated and non-designated heritage assets, failing to maintain the difference
between the two which the Framework requires. I am surprised such wording should
have made it through an examination in such terms. Plainly, and as a matter of
planning policy and law, the two sorts of asset do not enjoy the same level of
protection and neither harm to these different categories of asset attract the same
weight. Harm to a non-designated asset is merely one material planning
consideration. Harm to a listed building is a much more serious matter.
3.24 Core Policy 51 primarily concerns landscape but also seeks to conserve and enhance
landscape features of cultural, historic and heritage value (v) and important views and
visual amenity (vi).
3.25 Core Policy 57 relates to high quality design. This policy requires proposals to
enhance local distinctiveness by responding to the historic environment (i) and be
sympathetic to historic buildings and landscapes (iv).
West Wiltshire District Local Plan, adopted 2004
3.26 The West Wiltshire District Local Plan was adopted in 2004. In 2009 a number of
policies were ‘saved’ until they are replaced by policies in a subsequent plan. The
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 15 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
saved heritage policies concern conservation areas and alterations to listed buildings
so are not relevant to the appeals.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012, and Government’s Planning Objectives (CD.E01)
3.27 In preparing this Evidence I have had regard to the Framework as a whole, and in
particular section 12 on the historic environment.
3.28 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out at paragraph 14, and
its accompanying footnote.
3.29 Footnote 9 to that paragraph dis-applies the presumption in favour of sustainable
development in relation to sensitive land, and designated heritage assets are
included on that list.
3.30 I am aware of the recent High Court decision Forest of Dean v SoS ex parte
Gladman, which challenged an Inspector’s decision to allow a section 78 housing
appeal on the basis, amongst other things, that development which caused any harm
to the sensitive land was not sustainable development. See Appendix 4, where I
reproduce this case. That list, as the Inspector is aware, includes designated
heritage assets. I understand the judgment was not appealed and so stands, I
believe, as the latest authority on the dis-application of the presumption in favour.
3.31 The Framework identifies the concept of ‘significance’ as being central to decision-
making on the historic environment, so that decisions should be informed by an
understanding of the significance of a heritage asset and the impact that a proposal
would have on its significance (para 129).
3.32 The Framework seeks to extend the strong presumption against development that
causes harm in the setting of a designated asset (see paragraph 132).
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 16 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
3.33 The point is made explicit in the Annexe which defines conservation of the historic
environment as:
“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a
way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance.”
3.34 Cultural significance is defined in the Framework’s Annex as comprising:
“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its
heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic
or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical
presence, but also from its setting.”
3.35 Significance is commonly defined in relation to different characteristics and the
Framework Annexe identifies the following values under the heading ‘Significance’:
Archaeological,
Architectural,
Artistic, or
Historic.
3.36 The NPPF defines setting in the Annexe 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. 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 [my emphasis]
or may be neutral.”
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 17 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
3.37 The highlighted text makes the critical point. It allows one to carry out an assessment
that may be expressed in this way: ‘If the development is completed, will it reduce
someone’s ability to appreciate what is special about the asset’. If what is special
about the asset includes a positive interaction with its setting, and an element of that
setting is harmed, then our ability to appreciate that value is undermined. That harm
may be negligible or so significant as to lead the decision maker, reasonably, to
refuse consent.
3.38 There is a lot of debate at inquiries as to how one construes ‘appreciate’. Do we
understand it to mean ‘to see or experience directly’ or does it mean something more
nebulous, such as ‘to understand intellectually’ including in memory, in other words in
more abstract terms.
3.39 The guidance is clear that visual perception matters a great deal. It is, after all, an
objective measure. Impacts on intellectual understanding will vary and are usually
less objective. As a matter of law, and of practice, the setting of a listed building
includes views from private land. This is noted in the PPG (see following) and in HE’s
best practice guidance, GPA3.
National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) (CD.E02)
3.40 On 6 March 2014 Government published the National Planning Practice Guidance.
This has a section on heritage. For my purposes I need only cite the advice on
setting:
Why is ‘significance’ important in decision-taking?
Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in
their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance
of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 18 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of
development proposals.
Revision date: 06 03 2014 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 18a-010-20140306
What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into
account?
The “setting of a heritage asset” is defined in the Glossary of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account,
and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under
consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract
from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.
Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may
therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage assets have a
setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are
designated or not.
The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to
visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an
important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also
influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration
from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic
relationship between places. For example, buildings that are in close
proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic
connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 19 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset
does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or
experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to
circumstance.
When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting
of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the
implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact
that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance may
also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening
its ongoing conservation.
Revision date: 06 03 2014 Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 18a-014-20140306
Other Material Considerations
GPA3: the Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, March 2015, republished July 2015) (Appendix 6)
3.41 GPA3 comprises Historic England advice on how one assesses the effects of
development in the setting of an asset on its significance or cultural value.
3.42 This amplifies the approach in the Framework and the PPG, advising assessment
proceed by set stages, using different criteria to determine the contribution setting
makes to significance and the impact of development in that setting on significance.
3.43 Paragraph 3, page 1 states that “Setting is separate from the concepts of curtilage,
character and context”, which it then defines.
3.44 At paragraph 4, page the potential “extent of setting” is considered:
While setting can be mapped in the context of an individual application or
proposal, it does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and
permanently described for all time as a spatially bounded area or as lying
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 20 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
within a set distance of a heritage asset because what comprises a heritage
asset’s setting may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve or as the
asset becomes better understood or due to the varying impacts of different
proposals; for instance, new understanding of the relationship between
neighbouring heritage assets may extend what might previously have been
understood to comprise setting.
Extensive heritage assets, such as landscapes and townscapes, can include
many heritage assets and their nested and overlapping settings, as well as
having a setting of their own. A conservation area will include the settings of
listed buildings and have its own setting, as will the village or urban area in
which it is situated (explicitly recognised in green belt designations).
The setting of a heritage asset may reflect the character of the wider
townscape or landscape in which it is situated, or be quite distinct from it,
whether fortuitously or by design (e.g. a quiet garden around a historic
almshouse located within the bustle of the urban street‐scene).
Setting in urban areas, given the potential numbers and proximity of heritage
assets, is therefore intimately linked to considerations of townscape and
urban design and of the character and appearance of conservation
areas. The character of the conservation area, and of the surrounding area,
and the cumulative impact of proposed development adjacent, would suggest
how much impact on the setting should be taken into account
3.45 Views and setting are discussed at paragraph 5, page 3. The Note states:
“The contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often
expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or
place which can be static or dynamic, including a variety of views of, across,
or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the
asset, and may intersect with, and incorporate the settings of numerous
heritage assets.”
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 21 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
3.46 The Note confirms that setting is not of itself a heritage asset, nor a heritage
designation at paragraph 9, page 4. A setting’s importance lies in its contribution to
significance.
3.47 The guidance emphasises that the absence of public access to the setting of an asset
does not mean that the setting is unimportant:
‘Appreciating setting
Because setting does not depend on public rights or ability to access it,
significance is not dependent on numbers of people visiting it; this would
downplay such qualitative issues as the importance of quiet and tranquillity as
an attribute of setting, constraints on access such as remoteness or
challenging terrain, and the importance of the setting to a local
community who may be few in number.’
3.48 Thus, even leaving aside public views of the listed former warehouse south of OL’s
land, that land is within the setting of the warehouse. The proposed new access is
also in the setting of the workhouse.
3.49 A staged approach to proportionate decision-taking is set out in paragraphs 10-31,
pages 6-13.
3.50 The criteria to be applied when considering the contribution of setting to significance
are set out below in full. Not all will be applicable to every case but I list them here for
the sake of completeness.
“Topography; other heritage assets (including buildings, structures,
landscapes, areas or archaeological remains); definition, scale and ‘grain’ of
surrounding streetscape, landscape and spaces; formal design; historic
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 22 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
materials and surfaces; land use; green space, trees and vegetation;
openness, enclosure and boundaries; functional relationships and
communications; history and degree of change over time; integrity; issues
such as soil chemistry and hydrology.”
3.51 The guidance lists potential attributes relating to the experience and associations of
the asset in relation to its setting as follows. Again, I reproduce the full list
recognising, however, that only some may be applicable to any case.
“Surrounding landscape or townscape character; views from, towards,
through, across and including the asset; visual dominance, prominence or
role as focal point; intentional intervisibility with other historic and natural
features; noise, vibration and other pollutants or nuisances; tranquillity,
remoteness, ‘wildness’; sense of enclosure, seclusion, intimacy or privacy;
dynamism and activity; accessibility, permeability and patterns of movement;
degree of interpretation or promotion to the public; the rarity of comparable
survivals of setting.”
3.52 And in relation to the asset’s associative attributes:
Associative relationships between heritage assets; cultural associations;
celebrated artistic representations; traditions.
3.53 There is a further interpretive ‘sieve’ on page 11, providing criteria for assessing the
impact of development on setting. These comprise a series of headings which I
reproduce below.
Location and siting of development, including:
Proximity to asset; extent of the development; position in relation to
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 23 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
landform; degree to which location will physically or visually isolate asset;
position in relation to key views.
The form and appearance of the development, including:
Prominence, dominance, or conspicuousness; competition with or distraction
from the asset; dimensions, scale and massing; proportions; visual
permeability (extent to which it can be seen through); materials (texture,
colour, reflectiveness, etc.); architectural style or design; introduction of
movement or activity; diurnal or seasonal change.
Other effects of the development, including:
Change to built surroundings and spaces; change to skyline; noise, odour,
vibration, dust, etc; lighting effects and ‘light spill’; change to general
character (e.g. industrializing); changes to public access, use or amenity;
changes to land use, land cover, tree cover; changes to archaeological
context, soil chemistry, or hydrology; changes to communications/
accessibility/permeability.
Permanence of the development, including:
Anticipated lifetime/temporariness; recurrence; reversibility longer term or
consequential effects of the development; changes to ownership
arrangements; economic and social viability; communal use and social
viability.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 24 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Summary of Statutory and Policy Considerations
3.54 Therefore, and in summary, I conclude the critical considerations for the Inspector in
this case are:
There is a statutory duty to protect the setting of listed buildings, and setting
extends to private land.
Recent case law as clarified that any harm to a listed building or conservation
area, including to its setting, is a matter of considerable importance and
weight. There is a strong presumption against granting planning permission
for development that it harmful to the setting of a listed building.
Case law has also confirmed that development which causes any harm to a
designated heritage asset is not sustainable development.
Harm to an asset, including harm that arises from development in its setting,
may be acceptable provided there is a clear and convincing justification for it.
The provision of housing can clearly provide one such justification and does
figure in heritage cases.
Wiltshire Core Policy 58 seeks to conserve and where possible enhance the
historic environment, although it does not recognise that the conservation of
designated heritage assets is of greater weight than non-designated heritage
assets.
The setting provisions do not extend to a setting. In other words, the impact
of a development on an element of setting is not an impact on a listed
building’s significance. I make the point because Dr Edis’ analysis raises the
issue to cover the eventuality that his interpretation of the extent of listing is
wrong.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 25 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
4.0 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF SEMINGTON
4.1 This section of my evidence outlines the historic development of Semington to place
the heritage assets in context. A more detailed account of the history and significance
of the Aqueduct, former workhouse and pill boxes is provided in section 5.0.
4.2 The village of Semington has medieval origins, although most of the buildings along
the High Street date from the C18 and C19, with considerable C20 infill. The most
prominent historic buildings in the historic core of the village are St George’s Church
(C16), the Manor House (late C17) and Semington House (late C18). The village is
located to the south of Semington Brook, which is a tributary of the River Avon; the
River is to the north-west.
4.3 In 1794-1810 the Kennet and Avon Canal was constructed to the north of the village.
This forms the northern boundary of the RE site. The Semington Aqueduct was
constructed to carry the canal over Semington Brook, and is grade II listed.
4.4 In 1837-38, consequent on the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 (also known as the
New Poor Law), a workhouse was constructed outside the village, to the south-west.
As I will explain, the majority of New Poor Law Workhouses, as they were known,
were built in edge of settlement locations. Land here was more plentiful and cheaper,
and the separation from the settlement reflected social mores of the time.
4.5 The extent of physical separation of the workhouse from the village is clear from the
1886 OS map (Appendix 8). This survives as the former St George’s Hospital and is
grade II listed; it is located immediately to the south-east of the OL site.
4.6 I scroll forward now rapidly to pick up on the next relevant phase of history.
4.7 A number of defensive structures were constructed in Semington in 1940-1.
Semington was located on the General Headquarters (GHQ) Blue Line, one of 50
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 26 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
lines of defence to protect London and central England from invasion during WWII.
The GHQ Blue line defended the Kennet and Avon Canal, a piece of transport
infrastructure, with pill boxes, anti-tank obstacles and road blocks. A Type 22 Pill Box
is located on the RE site, and a Type 28a Pill Box is located on the OL site. These
were among c. 400 pill boxes and anti-tank gun emplacements built along the Canal.
4.8 Analysis of historic OS maps (in Appendix 8) shows that by 1942 the extent of the
village was broadly the same as in 1886. In 1948 the workhouse was converted into a
hospital for the care of the elderly and patients with mental health issues. This passed
to the newly created National Health Service, which was the case for the majority of
New Poor Law Workhouses.
4.9 By 1970-78 the by-pass was under construction and a number of cul-de-sac
developments had been constructed to the west of the High Street, both to the north
of Pound Lane (adjacent to the RE site) and south of St George’s Road. The hospital
remained physically separate from the village.
4.10 By 1987 the village has expanded further, with more cul-de-sac development to the
west of the High Street, filling the land between Pound Lane and St George’s Road,
infilling a number of gaps and to the south. Although development had spread west
along St George’s Road, the hospital remained physically separate from the village.
4.11 In 1999 planning permission was granted to convert St George’s Hospital into 25 flats
and construct 25 new dwellings (W/98/01760/FUL), which were constructed c. 2002-
3. This involved the demolition of some ancillary parts of the hospital to the rear, and
the construction of new housing in another cul-de-sac development in the curtilage of
the former workhouse to the south and west. The Independent Living Centre, a
nursing home, was presumably constructed at this time to re-provide some of the
hospital functions on the site (although the full detail of the planning records are not
available online).
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 27 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
4.12 Analysis of the recent aerial photo (in Appendix 1) illustrates that the former
workhouse remains physically separate from the village, with open space to the north
and east. There is a recent consent nearby for the erection of up to 24 dwellings, 4
November 2016, LPA reference 16/01678/OUT. I take this into account in forming my
opinion on the OL proposals. That land is located to the side of the workhouse and
not across the main elevation.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 28 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
5.0 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEMINGTON AQUEDUCT, FORMER ST GEORGE’S HOSPITAL AND WWII STRUCTURES
5.1 This section of my evidence considers the significance of the two listed structures at
issue in this Appeal. As part of this I consider the contribution of setting to their
significance, and the degree to which that setting enables an appreciation of that
significance.
5.2 I also assess the importance of two unlisted WWII pill boxes under consideration, one
in each of the appeal sites, and so likewise look at the role setting plays in their
significance.
5.3 The canal itself is not a designated heritage asset and no party has referred to it as a
non-designated one. I think this is the right approach. The canal is a notable feature
with some historic associationsIts engineering design is clearly impressive but not
innovative.
Semington Aqueduct
5.4 The Aqueduct has two list entries because it is partly within the parish of Semington
and partly within the parish of Melksham. It was, accordingly, listed in two tranches, in
1985 and 1988 respectively (see Appendix 2).
5.5 The RE site and OL site are located respectively c. 150 and 470 metres to the south-
west of the listed Aqueduct.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 29 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Figure 5.1. North-west elevation of Semington Aqueduct
History
5.6 The Kennet and Avon Canal was constructed between 1794 and 1810 to connect the
Avon with the Thames to provide the first direct route by water from Bristol to London.
Originally a route further to the north was proposed by Robert Whitworth (1734-1799),
a surveyor and canal engineer, via Hungerford, Marlborough and Calne. The noted
civil engineer John Rennie the Elder (1761-1821) recommended an alternative route
to the south through Devizes, with branches to Marlborough, Calne and Chippenham,
and a broad rather than a narrow canal.
5.7 John Rennie was an accomplished and prolific civil engineer, whose works include
numerous canals, docks, lighthouses and bridges, including Hull, Liverpool and
London Docks (East India and West India), Waterloo Bridge and Plymouth
Breakwater, although the extent to which he was directly involved in the design of the
Semington Aqueduct is not clear to me. For my purposes, I am happy to assume his
office was involved in it.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 30 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
5.8 The Kennet and Avon Canal joined the former Wilts & Berks Canal at Semington, to
the east of the RE site. The Wilts & Berks Canal connected to the River Thames at
Abingdon, but was formally closed in 1914. The bridge over the junction is now
blocked.
5.9 The Semington Aqueduct was constructed to carry the Kennet and Avon Canal over
the Semington Brook, and dates from 1794-1810.
5.10 In 1841 the construction of the Great Western Railway (GWR) provided a quicker
route between Bristol and London. The canal was in fact sold to the GWR in 1852,
and the company continued to operate it until 1948 when the railways were
nationalised. After decades of decline, the canal was fully reopened for leisure use in
1990 after a programme of restoration.
5.11 The matter between Mr Edis and myself is the extent of the listed aqueduct and the
value of the earth embankment.
Description
5.12 The Aqueduct is a single segmental arch constructed from limestone ashlar with
some engineering brick patching. There are channelled voussoirs, with a rectangular
moulded panel, without an inscription, swept revetment walls and an ashlar parapet.
It is an elegantly designed, handsome built, robust structure typical of civil
engineering design of this period, and using locally available materials. Canal
Aqueducts, as a form of engineering, had been pioneered by James Brindley, notably
in the Bridgewater Canal which opened in 1761.
5.13 The list description (Appendix 2) does not mention the embankment either side of the
stone structure, and I am not surprised. The structure is the canal, and the Aqueduct
is an element forming part of it.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 31 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Significance
5.14 The glossary of the NPPF defines significance as:
“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its
heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or
historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical
presence, but also from its setting.”
5.15 The Aqueduct is of architectural and engineering interest, for its technical design and
construction and for its association with John Rennie the Elder who surveyed the
route of the canal. It is not clear whether he was personally involved in the design of
the Aqueduct. He or his office may or may not have been. Often Rennie relied on
local surveyors, with connections to land owners and turnpike trusts, to design and
procure these pieces of infrastructure. Technologically, I understand it has no
particularly innovative structural features and it uses materials typical of the time, for
a structure of this nature.
5.16 ‘A Guide to the Industrial Archaeology of Wiltshire’ describes the Semington
Aqueduct as:
“A single low profile masonry arch carries the canal over Semington Brook. It
has a plaque space and string course, but architecturally is more modest than
either Avoncliff or Dundas”. p.10
5.17 They are grade II* and grade I listed respectively. The grade II listing of Semington
Aqueduct should be noted in that comparative context.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 32 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Extent of Listing
5.18 The nub of the issue between the parties in respect of this listed building is the extent
of the designation and the special interest or otherwise of related features (that is, the
earth embankment.
5.19 Dr Edis for the Heritage Collective, on behalf of OL, claim that the earth embankment
to the north of the canal is part of the listing designation. I include their report as my
Appendix 9; Heritage Collective have shaded this embankment in yellow on the
historic maps and aerial photograph in their Appendices 2, 3 and 4. This assertion
relies on S1(5) of the P(LBCA) Act 1990; for Dr Edis to be right the embankment is
listed by virtue of attachment
5.20 I strongly disagree with Dr Edis’ assertion and find the argument strained and artificial
for the following reasons:
The list description does not mention the embankment. Whilst it is true, as a
matter of law, that the discursive part of the list description is not
determinative of the extent of listing, the description shows what was in the
mind of the listing inspector and his or her colleagues who reviewed the
proposed designation, at the time it was proposed for listing.
If, carrying on with the first point, the perception of value in the asset had
extended to the obvious earthen embankment which one cannot fail to notice
looking at the feature, then the listing inspector would have included some
mention of it. S/he did not. I speak from experience, as someone who cut
their teeth in the early 1990s, when we were very careful in such cases to
specify the extent of what we were advising the SoS to list.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 33 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Historic England’s Listing Selection Guide for Transport which covers both
canals and railway bridges and viaducts does not mention embankments or
earthworks at all. I reproduce that guidance as my Appendix 12. Again, if Dr
Edis is right, then his reasoning would mean that the viaduct attached to a
listed railway bridge would be listed too, when plainly many railway bridges
are listed in their own right because they are discrete features.
I can think of no other examples where embankments associated with bridges
and other similar civil engineering structures are listed. This is not to say
there are none, of course, but in 25 years of experience, including a lot of
time spent advising on industrial structures, I simply have not come across
such an example.
The Aqueduct is listed as an example of engineering prowess and the interest
of the features consists in its masonry form, the actual bridging element. The
embankment is no more than a heaped earth structure, involving no special
structural techniques or elan/elegance of form. The earth bank is typical in its
form, no more than expedient.
The embankment is different in its material (earth and turf), character and
appearance to the Listed Aqueduct.
This novel interpretation made by Dr Edis was a point not taken by the
planning authority. Officers there clearly did not think to over-interpret the list
description. They proceeded correctly, which is to take it at face value.
Finally, are the merits of applying 1(5) to this case. The Inspector will
appreciate that this provision relates to subordinate or ancillary structures.
The canal is a single structure, formed by cutting and embanking at various
points. The aqueduct is a single element which is part of a larger structure.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 34 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
For Mr Edis to be right the embankment would need to be listed by virtue of
attachment.
Setting
5.21 My observations on the setting of the Semington Aqueduct can be summarised as
follows:
The setting of the Aqueduct is formed by Semington Brook and the Kennet
and Avon Canal. The function of the Aqueduct is to carry the canal over the
brook so both these elements make a fundamental contribution to the
appreciation of the significance of the Aqueduct.
I leave it to Mrs Brockhurst to comment on landscape matters, but here I
record my view that the canal in this location runs through a settled
landscape.
The RE site is effectively screened from view by vegetation and makes no
meaningful contribution to the appreciation of the significance of the
Aqueduct.
For the sake of completeness I note the OL site is not visible from the
Aqueduct and makes no meaningful contribution to the appreciation to the
significance of the Aqueduct.
Dr Edis does entertain the proposition that the embankment is a setting
element, and I have no trouble with that analysis. An impact on an element of
a listed building’s setting is not an impact on a listed building. There is
protection accorded the setting of a setting.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 35 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
St George’s, Former Melksham Union Workhouse
5.22 St George’s was originally a workhouse. It was grade II listed in 1988. The list
description is included in Appendix 2.
5.23 The RE site is located c. 250 metres to the north of the listed former workhouse. The
OL site is located on the opposite side of St George’s Road from the former
workhouse, c. 20m to the north-west.
Figure 5.2. Main (north) elevation of Grade II listed former St George’s Hospital
History
5.24 St George’s was constructed as a workhouse in 1836-38 in response to the Poor Law
Amendment Act 1834. The Act primarily sought to reduce the cost of poor relief. It
established the Poor Law Commission, which had powers to create ‘unions’ of
different parishes, sufficiently large to support a workhouse, in this case the
Melksham Union.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 36 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
5.25 The workhouse was designed by Henry Edward Kendall (1776-1875) to a standard
cruciform plan, as illustrated by the model design by Sampson Kempthorne
reproduced in Figure 5.3.
5.26 Kendall had a successful and varied practice. His biography is summarised in the
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I include as Appendix 10.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 37 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Figure 5.3. 1835 model design of workhouse by Sampson Kempthorne (Source: Annual Report, Volume 1 by Great Britain, Poor Law Commissioners, p411 and 412 (1835); Wikipedia)
Figure 5.4. Aerial photograph of Semington workhouse from the north-east, 1970s (Source: Peter Higginbotham, www.workhouses.org.uk/Melksham/)
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 38 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
5.27 There are historical accounts of the Semington workhouse written by Liz Corfield in
2013 as part of the Wiltshire OPC Project and by Peter Higginbotham, which I include
as Appendix 11. These appear to be soundly researched and I have no reason to
doubt their accuracy as sources suitable to consider at a planning Appeal. I have, as
it happens, done a great deal of research on workhouses, because the subject of the
book I am working on, Gilbert Scott, was the most prolific designer of these in the
period 1835 to 1841, working with his then partner W. B. Moffatt. Kendall was another
workhouse specialist.
5.28 Like all New Poor Law Workhouses, Semington operated on what was known as the
strict separation system, where men and women, even married couples, were
segregated, and children too, even from their parents. This was met with some
objection particularly from Evangelical circles, and much popular sympathy. Dickens’
Oliver Twist, whilst set in an old poor law workhouse, was directed in large part at the
new system.
5.29 The historical accounts of Semington (Appendix 11) indicate that the workhouse had
a typical plan following the Kempthorne model where the poor were segregated, so
men, women, boys and girls were in separate buildings enclosing separate yards
created by the cruciform plan. The kitchen was located in the octagonal room at the
centre of the cruciform plan with the Master’s accommodation above. Generally day
rooms were on the ground floor with dormitories on the upper floors. By 1870 a
separate infirmary block had been constructed to the west. To the east was a block
for accommodating vagrants. To the north-east was a mortuary and small chapel.
This layout survives adding to the historical significance of the building.
5.30 Analysis of historic maps (see Appendix 8) indicates that the workhouse had been
extended and another building was constructed closer to the street frontage to the
west by 1942. In 1948 the workhouse became a hospital specialising in the elderly
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 39 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
and mental health. A further extension was added to the rear of the main building
between 1978 and 1987.
5.31 In 2002-3 the hospital was converted into 25 flats and 25 dwellings were constructed
on its grounds (under application W/98/01760/FUL). A number of the later extensions
and buildings were demolished when the building was converted, although the
original cruciform building and infirmary are retained.
Description
5.32 The main elevation of the former workhouse faces north. It has an impressive and
attractive street frontage, in a symmetrical Classical design and is faced in Limestone
ashlar. There is a central block of 9 bays, arranged over three floors, with the central
3 bays projecting forward slightly and surmounted by a pediment. Within this central
range there is a central door with a pediment on corbels. The ground and first floor
windows have keystones, and all the windows have corbelled sills. Further decoration
is provided by the quoins, corbelled eaves and pediment. The central block is flanked
by single storey wings. The central block connects with another 3 storey, 9 bay block
at an axis, with another block of the same scale, parallel to the front, with a shorter 2
storey, 9 bay range to the rear. The architecture of the ranges to the rear is simpler
and in dressed limestone. The roof is slate.
5.33 Like many of the workhouses built towards the end of the first parliamentary grant
(five years), this one has more architectural presence and quality than the very first
projects which tended to be utilitarian, even mean. This was in part, I believe (based
on my own research into Gilbert Scott’s workhouses), a response to concerns over
the inhumane regime implemented by the Act. In certain situations, grand
workhouses of this kind were considered as public buildings, seen as the signs of
modernising legislation.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 40 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Significance
5.34 The former workhouse is of historic significance as an example of a workhouse built
in response to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The harshness of the regime,
which separated families and was intentionally hard, indicates public understanding
and perception of poverty at this date.
5.35 The original plan form of the former workhouse survives and is clearly of both
architectural and historic interest because it is closely based on Sampson
Kempthorne’s model design. The design reveals the segregation of the paupers,
which was an important innovation of the Act.
5.36 The design of the front elevation is of particular architectural interest, and is a good
example of HE Kendall’s work a notable architect of the period. Pevsner is sniffy
about it.
‘It is typical of the Victorian age how the classical and Grecian motifs get
clumsy and extremely heavy’. (Nikolas Pevsner, Revised by Bridget Cherry,
The Buildings of England. Wiltshire, Penguin: 1985)
5.37 But then Professor Pevsner was often sniffy about this kind of design and was no
expert in workhouses. The building is a very good example of its kind, with
architectural quality and high quality materials.
Setting
5.38 Traditionally workhouses constructed in the C18 and C19 were located at the edges
of settlements but for a number of different reasons. Some contained infirmaries, and
so were located outside settlements, but the real reason for their placement here had
generally to do with two considerations. Land was cheaper outside settlements, in
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 41 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
farmland, and so building here was more practical and drew less heavily on local
ratepayers, who contributed to the construction of these facilities. Furthermore, there
was a social stigma attached to the institution. For this reason too later asylums were
placed outside settlements, and for reasons of propriety, so the inmates would not be
subject to taunts and humiliation.
5.39 The traditional rural setting of the former workhouse has been partly eroded by the
construction of housing and a nursing home on its land to the west and south (see
Figure 5.6) and the tennis court immediately opposite, to the north. However, the
immediate setting to the north-west and north (beyond the tennis court) remains
open. Beyond its historic curtilage the hospital is still surrounded by open ground.
This is clear in the aerial photo in Appendix 1.
5.40 The hospital is located near the ridgeline, presumably to afford good views outwards
of the surrounding countryside and to give the building a visual prominence in the
landscape. This was not typical, and the care taken to select the site shows that the
workhouse board were interested in constructing a good quality building.
5.41 The photographs at Figures 5.7- 5.9 illustrate how the rural setting of the former
workhouse becomes more obvious and important as one moves west.
Photoviewpoints OS1 and OS3 in the shared Landscape and Heritage Appendix
illustrate this point clearly. I have prepared some comments on the experience of
these views in the next section, where I assess the impact of these proposals.
5.42 The rural setting is important not only to the appreciation of the history of the hospital,
which as I have explained were traditionally located on the edges of settlements, but
also to the appreciation of its architecture. In these views you can see clearly
appreciate the quality of the Palladian main elevation enhanced by the attractive
green foreground.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 42 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
5.43 The rural character of the OL site therefore makes an important contribution to the
appreciation of the historic and architectural significance of the former workhouse.
5.44 The former workhouse appears still quite distinct from the settlement in views from
the public footpath on the south side of the canal (see Figure 5.10 and also
Photoviewpoint OS5 in the shared standalone Photographic Volume: North of St
George’s Road)
Figure 5.5. The main hospital building is on the left of this photograph and the former infirmary in the background of the middle of the image. New housing development is the right.
Figure 5.6. The land to the west of the former workhouse was developed with housing and a nursing home c. 2002-3
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 43 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Figure 5.7. View from the north side of the canal looking south, just east of the swing bridge. Note that the former workhouse is on the ridge of the hill and the OL site forms setting to north and west. The second image is cropped and resized.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 44 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Figure 5.8. View from swing bridge over the canal, looking south. This is a similar location as Photoviewpoint OS1 in the Landscape and Heritage Shared Appendix. As one moves west the contribution of the OL site to the rural setting of the former workhouse becomes more pronounced. The second image is cropped and resized.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 45 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Figure 5.9. View from tow path on north side of the canal looking south-east. This is a similar location as Photoviewpoint OS3 in the Landscape and Heritage Shared Appendix. Development of the OL site would largely obscure the view of the former workhouse in this view. The second image is cropped and resized.
Figure 5.10. View from public footpath on the south side of the canal. This is a similar location as Photoviewpoint OS5 in the Landscape and Heritage Shared
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 46 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Appendix. The former workhouse is distinct and separate from the historic settlement in this view. The development of the OL site would change this aspect of the hospital’s setting. The second image is cropped and resized.
WWII Pill Boxes
5.45 There are WWII pill boxes located in both of the appeal sites. It is agreed by all
parties that the pill boxes are non-designated heritage assets, meaning that they
have a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.
Figure 5.11. OL site is on the left, looking north. The pill box is on the eastern boundary (red dot)
Figure 5.12. RE site on the opposite side of canal, looking south. The pill box is on the western boundary (circled in red)
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 47 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
History
5.46 The pillboxes located in both the RE and OL sites were constructed in 1940-1, during
WWII, as part of GHQ Blue Stop Line of defence along the Kennet and Avon Canal to
protect London and central England from a potential German invasion from the south.
Figure 5.12 illustrates the proposed GHQ Zones of Stops.
Figure 5.13. Proposed GHQ Zone of Stops - the GHQ Anti-tank Stop line. Red dot marks approximate location of Semington (Source: http://rexurbex.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/devizes-continuation-of-kennet-and-avon.html)
5.47 A number of defensive structures were constructed in and around the village, to the
south, east and west. Within 1 km of Semington and on both sides of the canal there
are six Type 28A pill boxes to accommodate 2-pounder anti-tank gun emplacements
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 48 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
and four Type 22 pill boxes which accommodated rifles and light machine guns. A
number of road and swing bridges over the canal were blocked with rows of concrete
cylinders to prevent the passage of tanks.
Description
Type 22 Pill Box in RE site
5.48 I have reviewed the description of the Type 22 Pill Box undertaken in the CgMS
Desk-based Assessment when preparing my evidence (CD.A19).
5.49 The Type 22 Pill Box was designed to be defended by infantry armed with rifles and
light machine guns and has a hexagonal form to enable fire in all directions. The pill
box in the RE site is located adjacent and south of the canal, to the west of the
Semington defences, with its entrance to the east. Although the pill box was capable
of defending all directions, the principal field of fire was to the west, to defend the
swing bridge, and to the south-west to protect the Type 28A pill box now in the OL
site from infantry attack. It is constructed from reinforced concrete. There is internal
graffiti but this does not appear to date from the 1940s.
Type 28a Pill Box in OL site
5.50 Cotswold Archaeology have produced a Level 2 Historic Building Survey of the pill
box as part of OL’s application material, which I have reviewed in preparing my
evidence.
5.51 The Type 28a pill box was a larger pill box and the only type with an anti-tank
capability. These pill boxes are similar to the Type 28 pill box but with a second
chamber; the larger chamber accommodated the anti-tank gun and the smaller
chamber, machine guns and rifles. The pill box is located c. 350m south of the canal
and was positioned so that the anti-tank gun defended the area to the west and north-
west, including the lane which provides access to the Swing Bridge. The smaller
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 49 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
chamber faces the Swing Bridge to defend it with machine guns and rifles. The pill
box is constructed from reinforced concrete with external brick cladding. There is
internal graffiti but this does not appear to date from the 1940s.
Significance
5.52 There are believed to be approximately 6,500 pillboxes surviving nationally and
among c. 400 pill boxes and anti-tank gun emplacements were built along the Kennet
and Avon Canal. Therefore neither pill box is rare.
5.53 Historic England’s Listing Selection Guide on Military buildings identifies the
characteristics of more significant pill boxes, including those that date from WW1,
those with strong ties to other defensive structures such as tank traps, of rare type,
with a built form of interest, with group value with other historic items such as forts or
bridges, where disguised as a civilian building or where fittings survive. Both pill
boxes have a historic relationship with the canal, but otherwise have none of these
characteristics so I conclude they are of relatively low significance and only of local
interest. I agree with their identification as non-designated heritage assets.
5.54 The pill boxes are primarily of historic significance as an example of the WWII
defences against land invasion, and the relationship with the Kennet and Avon Canal
is integral to their historic interest. There is some architectural interest in the
orientation of the embrasures, because this reveals the defensive strategy, but
otherwise the structures are no real architectural interest.
Setting
5.55 Both pillboxes are located in open fields adjacent to hedges. There is some housing
development immediately to the east of the Type 28a Pill Box in the OL site.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 50 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
5.56 The pill boxes were intended to create a defensive Stop Line at the Kennet and Avon
Canal to prevent invasion of London and central England. The setting relationship
with the canal and other WWII defensive structures in the immediate area therefore
makes an important contribution to their historic significance. It is their concentration
as a group and location across the area that make for their interest, appreciated in
association with the infrastructure they were meant to protect.
Kennet and Avon Canal
5.57 The Kennet and Avon Canal dates from 1794-1810 and so is not an early example of
canal construction and planning. For example the Sankey Canal, which connects St
Helens with the River Mersey, opened in 1757. The great age of canal building
commenced with Brindley’s canal for the Duke of Bridgewater, which opened in
stages from 1761, eventually tying the Duke’s coalfields to the Mersey.
5.58 I am aware of some canals that have been designated as conservation areas, such
as Staffs and Worcs Canal which spans several plan areas, and was constructed
much earlier than the Avon and Kennet Canal. There are some urban designations
too, for example, the Regent’s Canal (which is designated as separate conservation
areas in the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Camden). This was a
different kind of canal, than the earlier ones which were intended to transport freight
over longer distances. In London, the canals were industrial corridors and had a more
local purpose.
5.59 No party in this case has identified the canal as an asset, and I agree with that
approach. It is a landscape feature with historic associations. I bear this in mind as I
carry out my assessment.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 51 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.0 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITES
6.1 This section of my Evidence assesses the heritage impacts of each scheme,
individually and then comparatively.
6.2 The assessment applies Historic England’s guidance on setting (GPA3) I also
consider the impact of each proposal on the non-designated WWII pill boxes which
are located in both sites.
6.3 The assessment was carried out on site with reference to views produced as part of
the Landscape Visual Assessment and to inform Mrs Brockhurst’s Evidence on
landscape.
6.4 I discussed the Kennet & Avon Canal in the previous section, so for completeness,
before proceeding with the main substance of my assessment, will consider the
impact of the RE proposals on the canal. The RE proposals will enhance the setting
and appreciation of the significance of the canal, for the following reasons:
. The indicative masterplan has been carefully designed to respond to the
canal;
. There is a landscaped area, forming a canal side park, to respect the
setting of the canal and provide amenity space, including a playground, for
canal boat users;
. The built form faces the canal to form a positive relationship with the
landscape;
. The pill box and is retained and sightlines to the canal are preserved so
that people can understand and appreciate the historic relationship
between the two features.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 52 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.5 The Canal and River Trust is the guardian of 2,000 miles of historic waterways in the
UK. The Trust supports both the RE and OL applications, providing in both cases
some detailed comments on conditions and legal agreements.
RE Site, Land north of Pound Lane
Figure 6.1. View of RE Site from Semington Aqueduct. The red arrows denote the approximate extent of the RE site, behind the tree belt. It is largely screened from view by vegetation and the impact on the setting of the Aqueduct would be negligible.
6.6 There are no roads or public footpaths to the north where the Aqueduct and
Proposed Development could be seen together. Photoviewpoint 15 in the LVIA taken
from the footpath to the north of the canal illustrates that the Aqueduct cannot be
seen at this distance.
6.7 There is limited intervisibility between the RE site and the Aqueduct. When one
stands on the Aqueduct, the RE site is largely screened from view by vegetation
along the northern boundary of the site. Figure 6.1 illustrates this point.
Photoviewpoint OS6 in the shared Landscape and Heritage Appendix is from the
same position.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 53 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.8 The RE Illustrative Masterplan allows a set-back of at least 60 metres from the canal
to create a new landscaped park. This is a significant set back.
6.9 It is probable that roofs of some of the houses on the RE site would be visible
towards the left of this view, in the context of existing buildings already visible in the
view. There would therefore be a small change in the setting of the Aqueduct, but I do
not think this will be a noticeable change. I agree with the CgMS assessment
(CD.A19) that the effect of the RE proposals on the appreciation of the significance of
the Aqueduct would be negligible.
6.10 As I have explained earlier in my evidence, I disagree with The Heritage Collective’s
claim that the embankment adjacent to the Aqueduct is listed, for the reasons set out
in paragraph 5.21.
6.11 Having concluded that the earth embankment is not of special architectural interest,
as part of the Aqueduct, I find no harm to the significance of the listed building.
6.12 But even if a different view is formed, the setting back of the housing from this earth
feature will be effective. One would still be able to appreciate the embankment as an
embankment and understand its relationship to the canal. So even assuming the
embankment is listed (which I do not, but do so for argument’s sake only), its
significance as an engineering feature would not be harmed.
6.13 There is only limited inter-visibility from the section of the embankment identified by
Heritage Collective as listed and the RE site. This is illustrated by Figure 6.2;
because the viewpoint is closer to the field boundary the filtering resulting from the
vegetation is in fact greater than from the Aqueduct. Nevertheless it is likely that
some built form would be visible beyond the vegetation. I note although some
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 54 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
buildings are already visible. There would be a noticeable change in the setting of the
embankment, but it is not listed.
Figure 6.2. View of RE Site from southern extent of embankment that Heritage Collective claim is listed.
6.14 The Officer Report on the RE application (CD.D01) did not comment on the potential
effect on the listed Aqueduct, as the Council evidently thought this was not a material
consideration. I agree.
OL Site, Land north of St George’s Road
6.15 As I explained earlier the OL site makes an important contribution to our ability to
appreciate its historical and architectural significance. The workhouse board and its
architect took some care to site the building, which is my judgment based on
extensive experience of this building type. Its relationship to the hill and land form
lends it architecture dignity and character
6.15 The development of the OL site will erode the rural setting of the former workhouse
and detract from appreciation of significance particularly in views from canal tow path
to the north, and as one moves west, where the listed building is prominent. In some
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 55 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
cases the views of the former workhouse are likely to be entirely removed, see
Figure 5.9 and Photoviewpoint OS3 in the shared Appendix. The recently consented
Hannick scheme does not intrude into that important foreground setting
6.16 I have reviewed the heritage assessment of this impact prepared by Cotswold
Archaeology. I disagree with its findings in one important respect. It states that the
garden of the hospital to the north: ‘creates the main setting for the building’
(paragraph 5.7), that the ‘Listed Building is best experienced from within its
immediate proximity’ (paragraph 5.8). Accordingly, it concludes, ‘There is limited
visibility of the building from the wider surrounding landscape, largely due to the
presence of intervening vegetation and development’ (paragraph 5.10). The
photographs of the former workhouse from the towpath reproduced as Figures 5.6-
5.8 and contained with the separate photographic volume clearly demonstrate that
these statements are inaccurate. The towpath is a well-used public footpath, enabling
an appreciation of the building’s main façade. Even if that experience were not
intended expressly, it exists now and can be enjoyed by anyone using the canal by
boat or on foot by the towpath.
6.17 The CA assessment appears not to take into account the visual impact of the
proposals in views from the towpath and its attributes no historical value to an open
setting. Finally, it considers the architecture of the former warehouse to be limited
interest, dismissing it as utilitarian. The north elevation is well composed and detailed
and very attractive.
6.18 Cotswold Archaeology recognises that the:
‘building stands on a slightly elevated position looking down to the north
across the Site to the wider landscape, however these views would only
be appreciated by those looking out of 1st and 2nd floor windows’
(paragraph 5.8).
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 56 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.19 However, CA have not considered the contribution of the public views looking in the
opposite direction to the setting of the hospital. Also by reference to the material in
Mrs Brockhurst’s Volume 2 material I note that the location is more than ‘slightly
elevated’.
6.20 This error is carried through to the impact assessment, which states:
‘development will affect the views associated with the northern elevation
as it may interrupt views across the site down towards the Kennet and
Avon Canal.’ (paragraph 5.11)
6.21 The assessment goes onto conclude that the development would not harm the setting
or significance of the listed building. This is not correct.
6.22 I agree with the professional assessment of the conservation officer in the Officer
Report that the development of the OL site would harm the setting and appreciation
of significance of the former workhouse, and that this level of harm would be ‘less
than substantial’. I note that the Officer did not consider the impact on views from the
towpath, perhaps because the Cotswold Archaeology report was deficient in this
respect and it had not been picked up.
6.23 I cannot say for certain but believe that officers would have given more weight to the
setting impact had they fully understood the relationship of the building to its wider
setting on this side. In any event Inspector has a statutory duty standing outside the
reasons to deal with section 66 (1) of the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990, and so I invite
him/her expressly to consider that impact and accord weight to the harm it causes if
that is their finding.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 57 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.24 The OL scheme has been revised since it was refused, so that the Inspector will be
considering a proposal for 50 dwellings with a new indicative layout. The revised
layout extends the open space around the pill box to the south. This is likely to have
been intended to improve the setting relationship with the listed former workhouse.
Although this preserves the open space immediately to the north of the former
workhouse site, it fails to resolve the main setting issues I have identified, namely the
visual intrusion on its wider setting as appreciated from the towpath. The access is
also in the same location, undermining the rural character of this part of the lane to
the south. :
6.25 I conclude that the revised OL scheme as revised will harm the significance of the
listed former workhouse, and that this harm is material. I conclude the harm falls on
the less than substantial scale.
Comparative Analysis of the RE and OL Proposals as Considered from the Towpath
6.26 I set out below some notes that I made during my site visit. These take the form of a
walk along the canal.
6.27 I respectfully suggest that the Inspector should walk east along the towpath from a
point c. 125 west of the swing bridge, marked on the OS. This is located at the bottom
of a lane that runs to the canal from the OL site.
6.28 From this point the vegetation on the south side of the canal opens up and there are
views up rising land, over enclosed fields, to the ridge line. The main façade of the
former workhouse is located on that ridge, roughly parallel the canal. One can see
development west of this, along the ridge line, and that, regrettably, has eroded its
setting but only to a degree and the workhouse is seen plainly in relation a broad area
of what I take to be parliamentary enclosure. Thus one can still appreciate its former
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 58 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
rural setting, which provides a foreground over which one can appreciate the
proportions of the main façade.
6.29 This is the principal distant view of that elevation, and in my opinion the architect of
the proposals took some care with the exact location of the building so that it could be
appreciated over this distance. The scale of the façade is well proportioned relative to
the scene as a whole.
6.30 Nearer to, approaching the site along St George’s Road from the east, the settlement
runs out near the workhouse and the land opens up, again revealing the rural setting.
The footpath than runs from St George’s Road to the north provides filtered views of
the main façade, albeit across the tennis court enclosure.
6.31 Despite that, one can understands the OL site is a field, and that, as a result, the path
is on the edge of the settlement.
6.32 Clearly, the OL proposals would intrude into views of the workhouse as seen from the
towpath to the north and northwest undermining our ability to appreciate its principal
façade. The main access to the site is off St George’s Road, just beyond the
workhouse frontage, through an otherwise unbroken hedgeline which doubtless
predates the workhouse. That engineered feature further undermines the rural setting
of the listed building further.
6.33 There is, I should add, an interesting layering of historic. There is the canal, enabling
efficient inland transport for commercial purposes. There is parliamentary enclosure,
enabling efficient agricultural use. There is also, then, the workhouse, enabling the
more effective control of paupers. And the three things are related. Each is the
product of legislation. And historically, the last one, the workhouse, was a response to
social change that the two former ones brought about, those changes the product of
more intensive use of the land in city and country.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 59 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.34 In views further north, from viewpoint 12 in the LVIA, the workhouse is not really
discernible amongst later development even in clear conditions such as I had. From
here I do not think the OL proposals, or RE’s for that matter, interfere with our
appreciation of the listed building’s special interest because of distance and the
direction of the view relative to existing development.
6.35 In the view from the towpath – returning to that important one – the RE proposals sit
well off the side, the left, of the workhouse and in a location where one already sees
development. The line of development would of course come nearer but with
landscaping will present a broken edge and not draw the eye, and in any event any
setting impact is peripheral. OL’s heritage expert does not take any point in relation to
these views, against the RE scheme.
Continuing the Journey to the Aqueduct
6.36 It is helpful to continue the walk I described above, eastwards on the towpath,
towards Semington Bridge, the lockkeepers house and lock beyond, to understand
the interaction of the RE scheme with the embankment and listed Aqueduct.
6.37 The first point to make is that the westernmost stretch of the canal at this point is
already embanked to some extent. The towpath stays on the level, or so it appears,
as one moves towards the Aqueduct, and all along the way one is aware of a level
difference with surrounding fields. Towards the listed structure, the land appears to
fall away more sharply and significantly, and it only at the Aqueduct, looking back
westwards, that one has any awareness of the significant scale of the embankment.
6.38 The listed building itself presents to the towpath as a smooth stone parapet. The
really significant scale of it, and its elegant arcing geometry, are only apparent when
one looks down over the parapet towards the brook it spans. The visitor’s attention is
drawn by the sound of the brook, and on the left is a timber stair and rail, leading
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 60 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
some way down to the streambed. I recommend the effort is made to descend,
because at the bottom one can really appreciate the engineering quality of the
Aqueduct. The embankment is simply there, plainly distinguished from the Aqueduct.
The RE land is nowhere in sight.
6.39 I was not able to access to the other face of the Aqueduct, to the south, but surmise
the elevation is similarly dramatic. Of course from here, admiring that façade, one
would not be aware of the RE development either.
6.40 Standing on the Aqueduct, which is fairly level with the towpath, one can look towards
the RE site and I reckon one would see the roofs of houses on part of it, but then one
already is aware of nearby housing development.
6.41 The main element in the setting of the apparent parts of the listed structure – the
stone balustrades – cannot be perceived in relation to the dramatic Aqueduct faces
(north and south). What can be perceived is the canal, and at this part one is aware
particularly of the level difference, not of the embankment per se.
6.42 The canal is a significant setting element, and the land to one side of it has
development on it, albeit of varying densities. The land to the north of the canal is
open and rural.
6.43 I simply cannot see that housing on the RE land, seen in partly filtered views, on the
side of the canal which already has development, could undermine an appreciation of
the Aqueduct whose real interest is as an engineering design, appreciated nearer to
and from positions which would not be subject to the influence of housing on the RE
land.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 61 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
WWII Pill Boxes
6.44 I have explained why the relationship of the WWII pill boxes to the Kennet and Avon
Canal and to other WWII defensive structures is an important aspect of their historic
significance.
Type 22 Pillbox in RE site
6.45 The pill box in the RE site will be converted into a bat roost, to enhance the ecological
value of the site. This is an appropriate and sustainable long term use for the
structure. The Canal and River Trust welcome this use.
6.46 The illustrative masterplan for the RE Site has given careful consideration to the
setting of pill box and preserved the sightlines to the Swing Bridge and canal, so it will
still be possible to understand and appreciate the historic relationship between the pill
box and the canal and Swing Bridge which it defended, and the historic significance
of this relationship. The immediate setting of the pill box will be enhanced by an
attractive and well-designed canal side park. The material submitted with the
application shows one solution. The final design will be agreed through a landscape
condition in the usual way.
6.47 I therefore conclude that the RE proposals will preserve the appreciation of the
significance of the pill box. This is consistent with the professional assessment of the
Wiltshire County Archaeologist, who supported the proposals (following submission of
additional information during determination).
6.48 The Officer Report recommended conditions on interpretation and a written
programme of archaeological investigation, which would be published. I support both
recommendations which would enhance public appreciation of the significance of the
pill box.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 62 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
Type 28a Pillbox in OL site
6.49 The original illustrative layout for OL site (the 75 unit scheme) set back the built form
from the pill box by c. 35 metres. The revised layout for the 50 unit scheme does not
contain a scale bar, but clearly has a smaller buffer around the pill box, with more
open space to the south. Neither layout has given any consideration to the
preservation of sightlines from the pill box to the north and west. OL’s heritage
consultant, Cotswold Archaeology, recognises that:
‘development within the site will have a negative impact upon the
associated views of the pill box, particularly to the west and north-west in
which its principal anti-tank engagement envelope lay’. (paragraph 5.19)
6.50 I recognise that if there is a scheme of interpretation and the pill box is reused as a
bat roost as suggested by Cotswold Archaeology, this would be beneficial. There is a
greater impact overall on the asset than there is in the RE scheme but not an
unacceptable one.
Concluding remarks
6.51 Clearly, on my evidence, the OL scheme has a harmful impact on a listed building
and that harm is less than substantial. The RE causes no harm to any heritage asset,
and in fact finds a beneficial use for a non-designated one, providing it, the pillbox,
with an attractive new setting.
6.52 The claim that RE’s site harms the setting and significance of the Aqueduct is
baseless.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 63 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
6.53 It falls to others to advise on the relative planning merits of the co-joined schemes,
but all things being equal, from my perspective, the RE is clearly preferable because
it causes no harm to any designated heritage asset. That harm arising from the OL
proposals must attract considerable importance and weight. The proposals do not
bring any benefits to the conservation of the affected listed building. Hence, there is
residual harm and 134 applies.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 64 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
7.0 PERFORMANCE AGAINST POLICY
OL site, Land North of St George’s Road
7.1 I have explained why the revised OL scheme would harm the appreciation of the
significance of the listed former workhouse. For this reason the proposals do not
comply with Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy CP58, which seeks to conserve the
significance of designated heritage assets, nor with Policy CP51 (v), because the
proposals do not conserve important views of the former workhouse, nor Policy
CP57, which requires development to be sympathetic to historic buildings.
7.2 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF emphasises that there is a strong presumption against
harm to designated heritage assets.
7.3 Section 66(1) of the P(LB & CA) Act 1990 emphasises that the decision-maker must
have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting. I
therefore encourage the Inspector to dismiss the OL appeal.
7.4 Although the harm I have found is less than substantial, this does not, for my part,
amount to a less than substantial objection on heritage grounds (to borrow the
Barnwell formulation).
7.5 The loss of open views of the listed workhouse facade, undermining its intended
prominence in the landscape, is a very significant harmful impact attracting
considerable weight. Very good planning reasons are required to provide the clear
and convincing justification envisaged by paragraph 132 of the Framework.
RE site, Land North of Pound Lane
7.6 I have found that the RE proposals would not harm the historic environment and that
the allegation that they would harm the significance of the listed Aqueduct is
baseless.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 65 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
7.7 Thus, the proposals do not engage the set of Framework policies 132 and 134 at all,
and therefore from my perspective are to be preferred. I am very aware both parties
are arguing their cases from pressing housing need. That consideration falls outwith
my scope of evidence
7.8 The RE proposals are therefore consistent with the local and national planning
policies on the historic environment, including Wiltshire Core Strategy Policies CP58,
CP51 and CP57 and the NPPF. In allowing the RE appeal, the Inspector would be
discharging her statutory duty with respect to Section 66(1) of the Act.
Summary
7.9 This is bound separately.
LAND NORTH OF POUND LANE, SEMINGTON 66 CHRIS MIELE PROOF OF EVIDENCE RE HERITAGE MATTERS
8.0 SIGNED AFFIRMATION
8.1 I confirm that, insofar as the facts stated in my Proof of Evidence are within my own
knowledge, I have made clear which they are and that I believe them to be true, and
that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional
opinion.
8.2 I confirm that my Proof of Evidence includes all facts which I regard as being relevant
to the opinions that I have expressed and that attention has been drawn to any matter
which would affect the validity of those opinions.
8.3 I confirm that my duty to the Inspector and the Secretary of State as an expert
witness overrides any duty to those instructing or paying me, that I have understood
this duty and complied with it in giving my Evidence impartially and objectively, and
that I will continue to comply with that duty as required.
8.4 I confirm that I am neither instructed, nor paid, under any conditional fee arrangement
by the appellant.
8.5 I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest of any kind other than any already
disclosed in my Proof of Evidence.
8.6 I confirm that my Proof of Evidence complies with the requirements of the Royal
Town Planning Institute, as set down in the revised Royal Town Planning Institute
“Chartered Town Planners at Inquiries – Practice Advice Note 4”.
Dr Chris Miele MRTPI IHBC FRHS FSA Senior Partner, Montagu Evans LLP 30 May 2017