<p>This report needs to be read in conjunction with the DATE INSPECTED: Decision Notice.</p><p>Ribble Valley Borough Council </p><p>DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT - APPROVAL</p><p>Ref: AD/CMS Application No: 3/2014/0343/P (LBC) Development Proposed: Recovering and repair of roof. Repair of some windows as per plans. Rewiring of property. Replacement of door/screen to lounge with door at Hayhurst Cottage, Pendleton CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council Parish Council - No objections to this proposal.</p><p>CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies Historic amenity societies – Consulted – no representations received.</p><p>RVBC Countryside Officer – Standard bat protection during works condition required.</p><p>CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations. No representations have been received.</p><p>RELEVANT POLICIES: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. NPPF. NPPG. Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan: Policy ENV20 - Proposals Involving Partial Demolition of Listed Buildings. Policy ENV19 - Listed Buildings. Policy ENV16 - Development Within Conservation Areas. Policy G1 - Development Control.</p><p>Pendleton Conservation Area Appraisal.</p><p>Ribble Valley Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft – Post Submission Version (including proposed main changes): Policy DME4 – Protecting Heritage Assets. Policy DMG1 – General Considerations.</p><p>COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION: Hayhurst Cottage and Hayhurst Farmhouse is a Grade II listed (13 February 1967) ‘probably late C17th and originally one house’ (list description) pair of houses prominently sited within Pendleton Conservation Area. Site inspection suggests that the property has been the subject of inappropriate repair works in the recent past – cement ribbon pointing throughout, painted window stone surrounds (including C17 mullioned) and concrete tiles. The site is within the setting of Schofield Farmhouse and Dock Hillock and Barn (both Grade II) and is adjoined and faced by Buildings of Townscape Merit (Pendleton Conservation Area Appraisal, The Conservation Studio consultants 2005; subject to public consultation) which make a positive contribution to Pendleton Conservation Area.</p><p>Pendleton Conservation Area Appraisal identifies: (i) particularly Important Views along the Pendleton Brook (Appraisal Map);</p><p>(ii) Prevalent use of local stone as a building material ; Architectural and historic interest of the conservation area’s buildings, including 12 listed buildings; Interesting historic townscape of the western part of the village on either side of Pendleton Brook (Summary of Special Interest);</p><p>(iii) Hayhurst Cottage and Bulcocks House, both grade II, also date from the 17th century, the former with distinctive 17th century mullioned windows (Listed Buildings);</p><p>(iv) Insensitive alterations to historic buildings spoiling the conservation area’s strong historic character and appearance (SWOT analysis: The principal negative features of the Pendleton Conservation Area);</p><p>(v) Continuing loss of original architectural details and use of inappropriate modern materials or details (SWOT analysis: Threats to the Pendleton Conservation Area).</p><p>Relevant Planning History</p><p>No pre-application advice has been sought in respect of the proposed development.</p><p>Legislation, policy, guidance and information</p><p>Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that when considering applications for listed building consent, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.</p><p>Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in the exercise of planning functions special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.</p><p>Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall 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.</p><p>Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - the Governance and Legal Director of English Heritage (‘Legal Developments’ Conservation Bulletin Issue 71: Winter 2013) states that the courts have said that these statutory requirements operate as ‘a paramount consideration’ and ‘the first consideration for a decision maker’.</p><p>The recent Barnwell Manor Court of Appeal ruling has provided further clarity on consideration and weighting of these statutory requirements within the ‘planning balance’. In the original judgment, Mrs Justice Lang confirmed that ‘desirability’ means ‘sought-after objective’ and that ‘in order to give effect to the statutory duty under section 66(1), a decision-maker should accord considerable importance and weight to ‘the desirability of preserving … the setting’ of listed buildings when weighing this factor in the balance with other ‘material considerations’ which have not been given this special statutory status’. In respect to the Court of Appeal decision, Gordon Nardell QC and Justine Thornton (‘Turbines, heritage assets and merits’, Local Government Lawyer, 24 April 2014) state “the key point is that once a decision-maker finds harm to setting, there must be some express acknowledgement of the ‘considerable’ weight to be given, in the balance, to the desirability of avoiding that harm. It is not enough to ask in a general sense whether benefits outweigh harm, but whether they do so sufficiently to rebut the strong presumption against permission”. Furthermore and in respect to considerations of ‘less than substantial harm’, the Secretary of State’s decision on Lane Head Farm, Cumbria (recovered appeal; decision 16 April 2014; paragraph 11) is noted “having regard to the judgment in the Barnwell Manor case, the Secretary of State takes the view that it does not follow that if the harm to heritage assets is found to be less than substantial, then the subsequent balancing exercise undertaken by the decision taker should ignore the overarching statutory duty imposed by section 66(1). He therefore sees a need to give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings”.</p><p>Robin Purchas’ QC recent judgement in North Norfolk is also noted “inspector’s approach seems to me at this level to have balanced the relative harm and benefit as a matter of straightforward planning judgement without that special regard required under the statute” (paragraph 73). </p><p>The Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (June 1998) is particularly relevant at Policies ENV20, ENV16, ENV19 and G1.</p><p>The NPPF is particularly relevant at paragraph 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 115, 126, 128 -134, 137 – 138, 186 - 190, 192, 196 -197, 215 - 216 and Annex 2.</p><p>The NPPG (6 March 2014) is particularly relevant in stating:</p><p>Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and effective conservation delivers wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits.</p><p>Distinctiveness is what often makes a place special and valued. It relies on physical aspects such as: building forms; details and materials; style and vernacular.</p><p>The HEPPG is particularly relevant at paragraph 149, 152, 165, 179, 182 and 189. </p><p>HEPPG paragraph 149 states “Original materials normally only need to be replaced when they have failed in their structural purpose. Repairing by re-using materials to match the original in substance, texture, quality and colour, helps maintain authenticity, ensures the repair is technically and visually compatible, minimises the use of new resources and reduces waste. However, alternative approaches may be appropriate if it can be demonstrated that the technique will not cause long-term damage to the asset and results in less overall loss of original fabric and significance. An example may be the use of resin or steel reinforcements to stabilise structural timbers without loss of historic fabric. Repairs to a listed building may require consent. One would expect that the loss of historic fabric following repairs, and alteration, would be proportionate to the nature of the works”.</p><p>HEPPG paragraph 179 states “the fabric will always be an important part of the asset’s significance. Retention of as much historic fabric as possible is therefore a fundamental part of any good alteration or conversion, together with the use of appropriate materials and methods of repair. It is not appropriate to sacrifice old work simply to accommodate the new”.</p><p>HEPPG paragraph 189 states “although some works of up-grading, such as new kitchens and bathroom units, are unlikely to need consent, new services, both internal and external can have a considerable, and often cumulative, effect on the appearance of a building and can affect significance. The impact of necessary services can be minimised by avoiding damage to decorative features by carefully routeing and finishing and by use of materials appropriate to the relevant period, such as cast iron for gutters and down-pipes for many Georgian and Victorian buildings”.</p><p>HEPPG paragraph 152 states “doors and windows are frequently key to the significance of a building. Change is therefore advisable only where the original is beyond repair, it minimises the loss of historic fabric and matches the original in detail. Secondary glazing is usually more appropriate than double-glazing where the window itself is of significance. As with the building as a whole, it is more appropriate to deal with timber decay and similar threats by addressing the cause of the decay rather than treating the symptoms, but where remedial works are shown to be necessary, minimum interference to achieve reasonable long term stability is the most sustainable approach”.</p><p>HEPPG paragraph 165 states “Replacement of one material by another, for example on roofs, may result in a loss of significance and will in those cases need clear justification. Therefore, while the replacement of an inappropriate and non-original material is likely to be easily justified, more justification will be needed for changes from one type of thatch, slate or tile to another”.</p><p>HEPPG paragraph 182 states “the plan form of a building is frequently one of its most important characteristics and internal partitions, staircases (whether decorated or plain, principal or secondary) and other features are likely to form part of its significance. Indeed they may be its most significant feature”.</p><p>The Ribble Valley Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft is particularly relevant at Policy DME4 and DMG1.</p><p>‘Constructive Conservation in Practice’ (English Heritage, 2008) states:</p><p>“Constructive Conservation is the broad term adopted by English Heritage for a positive and collaborative approach to conservation that focuses on actively managing change. </p><p>The aim is to recognise and reinforce the historic significance of places, while accommodating the changes necessary to ensure their continued use and enjoyment …</p><p>… The Principles also underline the importance of a systematic and consistent approach to conservation. In order to provide this consistency, we are guided by a values-based approach to assessing heritage significance”.</p><p>‘ Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (English Heritage, 2008) identifies four groups of heritage values: Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic and Communal.</p><p>Paragraph 91 states: “Evidential value, historical values and some aesthetic values, especially artistic ones, are dependent upon a place retaining (to varying degrees) the actual fabric that has been handed down from the past; but authenticity lies in whatever most truthfully reflects and embodies the values attached to the place (Principle 4.3)”.</p><p>‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ (EH, October 2011) states:</p><p>“the cumulative impact of incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the setting of a heritage asset as a large-scale development” (4.5)</p><p>“A conservation area that includes the settings of a number of listed buildings, for example, will also have its own setting, as will the town in which it is situated. The numbers and proximity of heritage assets in urban areas means that setting is intimately linked to considerations of townscape and urban design. 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” (page 6).</p><p>“ The setting of any heritage asset is likely to include a variety of views of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the asset. A long- distance view may intersect with, and incorporate the settings of numerous heritage assets. Views from within extensive heritage assets can also be important contributors to significance: for example, views from the centre of an historic town, through the townscape to its surrounding countryside” (page 6).</p><p>The Pendleton Conservation Area Management Guidance (The Conservation Studio consultants 2005; subject to public consultation) identifies:</p><p>Windows: Sliding sash and side-hung casements are the two principal window types. As a rule, windows in historic buildings should be repaired, or if beyond repair should be replaced 'like for like'. It is important that the design, scale and proportion of new windows should be sympathetic to the character of the building. Roofs: The roof is nearly always a dominant feature of a building and the retention of its original structure, shape, pitch, cladding and ornament is important. Traditional roofing materials should be retained. New materials should match existing. When a roof is stripped it is important that as much as possible of the original covering is re-used, preferably on the visible slopes, with matching new materials on other slopes. </p><p>Slates and tiles (general): Some slates and stone slates are laid to diminishing courses. The character of such roof coverings should not be damaged by a radical change in the range of slate sizes. The pattern and coursing of different roofing materials are distinctive features and should be retained and, where necessary, restored with matching materials. Stone roofing slates: Stone slate roofs are a fundamental part of the distinctive local character of vernacular buildings in Ribble Valley. The character of the roof is derived principally from the colour and texture of the stone slates, their size, thickness and roughness. They are often laid in courses diminishing in size from the eaves to the ridge.</p><p>Correct detailing of a roof – its pitch and the treatment of the eaves, valleys and ridges– not only creates the character of the roof but also ensures that the roof performs satisfactorily. The use of material salvaged from other old buildings should be avoided and new stone slates used wherever possible.</p><p>Chimney stacks and pots: Chimney stacks are both formal and functional features of the roofscape. In many cases chimneys also perform a vital structural function, and they should normally be retained, even when no longer required. If the stacks become unsafe, they should be taken down and rebuilt to the original height and design. Chimney pots can sometimes be valuable decorative features in their own right, but they are also functional features. A traditional roofscape can be damaged by their removal.</p><p>‘Timber Decay’ (Jagjit Singh, Building Conservation, 1996) states:</p><p>“Building materials are decayed by the effects of adverse environmental conditions and the extent of damage depends on both the materials and the conditions … Orthodox remedial treatments often entail the loss of irreplaceable decorative finishes, floors and ceilings. Furthermore, treatment of the infestations with insecticidal fungicidal chemicals is not only expensive, inconvenient, hazardous to the operatives and occupants but also environmentally unacceptable and usually unnecessary. Environmental control and preventative maintenance provide an alternative, less destructive solution, and remain the most widely used methods for preventing biological decay”.</p><p>‘The Need for Old Buildings to Breathe’ (Philip Hughes, SPAB, 1993) states: </p><p>“modern buildings will be damp without a barrier to moisture because the economy of design does not provide a massive and absorbent structure, but old buildings will become damp if an impervious layer is applied to them because this prevents water within the structure from evaporating ... as the moisture content of the wall increases, the likelihood of decay also increases. Timbers quickly succumb to wet or dry rot attack because their moisture content is too high. Timbers often occur in solid masonry walls in the form of lintels, spreaders for beam or joist ends, as bonding timbers or as fixing blocks …”.</p><p>Submitted Information</p><p>The application is limited in both an analysis of significance (see NPPF paragraph 128) and a description of proposed works [see section 10 (2)(b) of the P (LBs & CAs) Act 1990] . However, it is recognised that the extent of repair works cannot be ascertained until work commences.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Although the proposals are schematic, I am satisfied that the overall approach relates to the necessary repair and maintenance of the listed building and are guided by minimum intervention principles and a holistic consideration (a future application may include removal of cement ribbon pointing) of building problems. </p><p>RECOMMENDATION: That listed building consent be granted subject to conditions.</p>