A21 TONBRIDGE TO PEMBURY DUALLING In Respect of Applications for the Demolition of Listed Buildings under the Provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Appeal References: APP/M2270/V/10/2126410 & APP/M2270/V/10/2127645 February 2013
CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 THE LISTED BUILDINGS APPLICATIONS 4 3 NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PolicY IN RESPECT OF listed buildings 5 4 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LISTED BUILDINGS 7 5 THE NEED TO DEMOLISH THE LISTED BUILDINGS 8 6 OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 10 7 OUTLINE OF CASE 12 Appendix A Location Plan 13, February 2013
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This replaces the version that was published in May 2010 prior to postponement on 10 June 2010 of the proposed Public Inquiry (the PI) pending the outcome of the Government s October 2010 Spending Review (SR). 1.2 In December 2009 the Secretary of State for Transport ( the Secretary of State ) published proposals for the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury ( the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling ) in Kent, including an application for the demolition of Listed Buildings. He received objections, representations and letters of support with respect to the proposals and consequently determined that it would be necessary to hold a Public Local Inquiry. The PI was due to take place in July 2010 but was cancelled pending the results of the Government s October 2010 Spending Review. 1.3 On 14 December 2012 the Secretary of State published a notice of his intention to resume the statutory process and to hold a PI. Statutory objectors and other interested parties had previously been informed of this intention by letter or email dated 3 December 2012. Purpose of the Inquiry 1.4 The Public Inquiry will consist of concurrent Public Inquiries ( the Inquiries ) for the scheme proposals contained in the draft Orders and Compulsory Purchase Order under the Highways Act 1980, described in the separate statement mentioned in paragraph 1.8 below, and the applications for the demolition of listed buildings under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 described in this statement. 1.5 The Inquiries will be held by an independent Inspector to be appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Planning Inspectorate and will be held under the Inquiry Rules mentioned in paragraphs 1.7 below and 1.8 below. The date and place for the Inquiries will be announced later. 1.6 The Inspector will hear evidence relating to the draft Orders and the listed building consent applications from the Highways Agency (on behalf of the Secretary of State); from supporters and objectors and any counter objections to alternative proposals received and will report the proceedings, including findings and recommendations, to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Secretaries of State jointly will consider all supporters and Page 1
objections to the draft Orders and listed buildings applications and counter objections to alternative proposals together with the Inspector s Report of the Inquiries before deciding whether or not the draft Orders should be made and, if made, with or without modifications, and if consent should be given for the demolition of listed buildings. Statutory Background 1.7 This document is published pursuant to Rule 5(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 ( the 2000 Rules ). It outlines the principal submissions the Secretary of State proposes to put forward at the Inquiries in respect of the applications for demolition of listed buildings in connection with the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling ( the scheme ) and is known as the Outline Statement of Case ( the statement ). 1.8 A separate statement has been published pursuant to Rule 5(4) of the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994 ( the 1994 Rules ) and Rule 5(2) of the Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 ( the 2007 Rules ). It outlines the principal submissions the Secretary of State proposes to put forward at the Inquiries in respect of the and is also known as the Outline Statement of Case. 1.9 Full Statements of Case, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the 1994 Rules, Rule 7(1) of the 2007 Rules and Rule 6(3) of the 2000 Rules will be issued later. These will contain full particulars of the case which the Secretary of State proposes to put forward at the Inquiries and a list of documents that may be referred to in evidence at the Inquiries. Documents to be used in Evidence 1.10 The documents which the Secretary of State will use in supporting evidence during the Inquiries will be listed in the full Statements of Case. They will be placed on deposit at a location to be advised when the Rule 6 / 7 Statements are published and will subsequently be available at the Inquiries. The Proposals 1.11 The need for the scheme, a brief history of the scheme, a description of the existing road and the new road and the treatment of side roads included in the draft Orders are included in the statement mentioned at paragraph 1.8 above. That statement also Page 2
includes a summary of the results of the environmental and economic assessments carried out, including how the scheme complies with national, regional and local policies and plans. It also includes a brief summary of objections, representations and letters of support made to the Secretary of State with respect to the scheme. 1.12 This statement in respect of the applications for the demolition of listed buildings includes a summary of national, regional and local policies in respect of listed buildings, a description of the listed buildings and their significance, the need for their demolition and objections and representations received. 1.13 Plans showing the location and layout of the listed buildings are in Appendix A at the end of this statement. Page 3
2 THE LISTED BUILDINGS APPLICATIONS 2.1 On the dates given below the Secretary of State made applications for Listed Building Consent to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council under section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; a) On 11 December 2009, for the demolition of Grade II listed buildings, Burgess Hill Farmhouse (also known as May Day Farm) and Barn (ref: TW/09/03911/LBCDEM); b) On 8 April 2010, for the demolition of buildings, the Oast House, Garages (also known as storage building) and the Stables (also known as the Byre), attached to or within the curtilages of Burgess Hill Farmhouse and Barn (ref: TW/10/01219/LBCDEM). 2.2 In relation to the A21 Trunk Road as proposed to be improved at Tonbridge, Fairthorne and Pembury in the County of Kent. 2.3 On 22 April 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government notified Tunbridge Wells Borough Council that the applications will be called in under the provisions of section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Page 4
3 NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY IN RESPECT OF LISTED BUILDINGS Legislation Relating to Listed Buildings 3.1 The principal legislation relating to Listed Buildings is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Planning Policy Relating to Listed Buildings 3.2 The following national, regional and local policies are relevant to Listed Buildings. a) National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 3.3 Section 12 of NPPF recognises heritage assets as an irreplaceable resource, that requires to be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance (Para 126). 3.4 The level of detail presented in the application should be proportionate to the heritage asset s importance (Para 128). 3.5 The relevant sections of the NPPF include Section 12, paras. 126, 128 to 136, and 141. Of particular relevance are the policy requirements set out in paras. 132 and 133 which are quoted below: 3.6 Paragraph 132 of NPPF states that: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. 3.7 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that: Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: Page 5
The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. b) The Regional Spatial Strategy: The South East Plan, 2009 (A proposal for its abolition is currently subject to consultation) 3.8 Policy BE6: Historic Environment states that the historic environment should be managed through policies and proposals, stating: When developing planning frameworks and considering applications for development consent local authorities and other bodies will adopt policies and support proposals which support the conservation and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place. Regionally significant historic features and sites are listed in paragraph 12.18. Proposals that make sensitive use of historic assets through regeneration, particularly where these bring redundant or under-used buildings and areas into appropriate use should be encouraged c) Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Core Strategy (June 2010) and saved policies of the Local Plan (2006) 3.9 Saved Local Plan Policy EN10 states the principles in relation to developments affecting sites of archaeological interest other than those covered by Policy EN9, saying that they: will be determined having regard to the desirability of preserving archaeological remains and the setting of visible remains and according to all of the following criteria: 1. The intrinsic archaeological and historical value of the remains; 2. The design, layout and opportunities to minimise damage to remains and their setting, preferably through preservation in their original location; 3. The need for the development; 4. The availability of suitable alternative sites; and 5. -The potential benefits of the proposals, particularly to education, recreation or tourism. Where permission is to be granted for development resulting in the damage or destruction of archaeological remains and the developer has not entered into a planning agreement, or made equivalent arrangements, for the excavation and recording of the remains and the publication of the results, conditions will be attached to the permission to ensure that no development takes place until this work has been carried out. 3.10 Local Plan Policy EN11 states that: Proposals which would be likely to affect a historic park or garden will only be permitted where no significant harm would be caused to its character, amenities or setting. Page 6
4 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LISTED BUILDINGS Description 4.1 The complex comprises the following buildings, as shown on the plans in Appendix A of this statement: a) The Farmhouse (Grade II listed) b) The Barn (Grade II listed) c) The Stables (also known as a Byre) (Grade II listed as attached to the Barn); d) The Oast House (curtilage listed structure pursuant to section 1(5) (b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990); e) The Garages (also known as a storage building) (curtilage listed structure pursuant to section 1(5) (b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990); 4.2 All of these buildings were subject to a detailed historic building survey in 2009, undertaken to Level 3 in accordance with English Heritage s Understanding Historic Buildings, a guide to good recording practice, 2006. A Farm Characterisation Study has also been prepared for the farm. Description and Significance of the Listed Buildings 4.3 The Grade II listed Farmhouse is a two storey brick faced building with an attic lit by two dormers. It has a partially surviving internal timber frame with two storey gabled rear extension and single storey extension to the north. The earliest parts of the building date to the 17 th century, although the brickwork was added in the 18 th century and extensions constructed between the late 19 th and late 20 th century. 4.4 The Grade II listed Barn is a three bay timber framed structure with weatherboard cladding, a brick plinth and gabled queen post truss roof. It is probably 18 th century in date and has been extended to the south once in the late 19 th century and again in the mid 20 th century. 4.5 The Stables are a low timber framed weatherboarded building which is attached to the southwest corner of the barn s latest extension. They are listed as they are attached to the barn. Page 7
4.6 The Oast House was originally constructed in the 19 th century but much of the structure was rebuilt in the 20 th century. It is a two storey building with circular brick tower and conical roof. It is a curtilage listed structure as it forms part of the farm complex. 4.7 The garage is a simple single storey weatherboarded structure with corrugated steel roof. It is a curtilage listed structure. 4.8 The Farmhouse and Barn are of architectural and historic interest for their 17 th and 18 th century origins, the evidence of change displayed by the buildings (although this is not an uncommon feature for agricultural buildings of this date), the relatively intact nature of the farm complex group and its relationship with the local landscape. The Stables are a locally interesting example of an 18 th century structure, although altered and of simple construction. The Oast House and Garages are of very limited value. 5 THE NEED TO DEMOLISH THE LISTED BUILDINGS The Need for the Scheme 5.1 The history of the scheme and the overall need for the scheme are set out in the separate statement mentioned in paragraph 1.8 above. The Need to Demolish the Listed Buildings 5.2 The alignment of the route of the scheme reflects the need to meet the requirements of design speeds and safety standards set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). 5.3 The alignment has been designed to follow as closely as possible the alignment of the existing route while meeting the requirements of design standards. Towards the summit of Castle Hill this results in a pinch point between the Burgess Hill Farm complex to the east of the existing A21 and the Castle Hill Fort Scheduled Monument to the west. 5.4 An objective of the scheme is to minimise the adverse impact on the Scheduled Monument. The scheme would meet this objective and would not have a direct impact on the Scheduled Monument but as a result would require demolition and removal of all the buildings within the Burgess Hill Farm complex as they lie within the footprint of the Scheme. Page 8
5.5 In response to consultation in 2002 English Heritage recognised there would be a negative impact on one or other of the Scheduled Monument and the Burgess Hill Farm complex. EH stated that while it is never easy to accept the proposed demolition of a listed building nevertheless the scheme correctly addresses the relative significance of the two statutorily designated features, i.e. the Scheduled Monument and the listed buildings. Relocation Options 5.6 The DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2, Annex 6 Section 6.11.3 suggests range of options for mitigating the loss of historic buildings. These include. (a) (b) (c) (d) Moving the entire building; Rebuilding for re-use (commercial/domestic) or as a museum exhibit; Partial recovery of historic fabric for museum use; Recording prior to demolition or damage. 5.7 These have all been explored. It should be noted that a full building recording programme will accompany the proposed demolition; this will build on the existing survey work. 5.8 In terms of relocation it is technically feasible to dismantle and re-build the barn at another location. This process would not conserve their special architectural and historic interest and would remove their setting and relationship to the historic landscape. It would however retain the majority of their fabric and given the technical feasibility of the process it is considered a worthwhile option. A suitable location for rebuilding the barn is therefore being sought and discussions are continuing with third parties. 5.9 The Oast House and Garages are of very limited value and their relocation cannot be justified. 5.10 The farmhouse is a complex structure. It is not feasible to relocate it whole. The dismantling and re-erection of the farmhouse would result in the loss of significant elements of its fabric and character and would very substantially degrade its architectural and historic value and its authenticity and integrity. It would also remove its setting and group value. Given the technical issues, the complexity of the operation and the fact the resultant structure would be of very limited historic and architectural interest, the dismantling and re-erection of the building is not considered a worthwhile Page 9
option. However, discussions are being held with a third party to ascertain if, even given these factors, there would be interest in receiving the structure. 6 OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 At the end of the objection period in March 2010 4 letters objecting to the applications and 1 representation had been received. Objections 6.2 English Heritage, by letter dated 3 February 2010, objected because of the omission (from the 11 December 2009 application) of a case for demolition in the terms required by PPG15 (then the relevant policy guidance). 6.3 3 members of the public objected to the proposed demolition. Representation 6.4 The Campaign to Protect Rural England, Kent Branch did not oppose the application but asked that demolition does not proceed until it is certain the road scheme will go ahead and that all the buildings are subject to preservation by record prior to demolition and that appropriate archaeological investigations is carried out at the site prior to construction of the road. Subsequent, Correspondence and Discussion 6.5 The application of 8 April 2010 (see Section 2) included a statement of the case for demolition of all buildings, including those of the 11 December 2009 application, in the terms referred to in English Heritage s letter of 3 February 2010. 6.6 In a letter to the Planning Inspectorate dated 27 May 2010, English Heritage stated that in view of the statement of the case for demolition of all buildings, they would be able to withdraw their objection, subject to agreement of a statement of common ground and the following conditions: a) The proposed methodology for further analysis and recording of the buildings, including a farmstead characterisation study, should be agreed in writing by English Heritage and the Local Planning Authority. b) The barn should be dismantled and recorded in such a way that it could be reerected on a new site and that money is allocated to cover the costs of storage for a minimum of 5 years whilst a new location is sought and to cover the cost of reerection. Page 10
c) The listed buildings would not be demolished until a contract has been made and work on site to implement the road scheme has commenced. 6.7 Prior to suspension of the scheme in June 2010 and since resumption of the Scheme in 2012, the Highways Agency has been in discussion with an open air heritage museum with the intention of being able to satisfy these conditions. The discussion has not yet been concluded; details will be included in the Full Statement of Case referred to in paragraph 1.9 Page 11
7 OUTLINE OF CASE 7.1 The Scheme would require the demolition of two Grade II listed buildings, Burgess Hill Farmhouse and Burgess Hill Barn with attached Stables (byre) and two curtilage listed structures, which stand on the east side of the A21. This demolition would result in the total loss of significance to the Farmhouse and substantial loss of significance to the Barn. It is proposed to demolish the barn in a manner that would enable its re-erection at another location. 7.2 An analysis of the proposals in relation to national planning policy demonstrates that in this exceptional case the total loss of significance to the Farmhouse and substantial loss to significance to the barn should be considered acceptable given the public benefits associated with the scheme and the need to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Castle Hill Scheduled Monument and other ecological assets. This view is supported by a number of consultees including the English Heritage, Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Ancient Monuments Society and Council for the Protection of Rural England (on behalf of the Council for British Archaeology). Page 12
APPENDIX A LOCATION PLAN Page 13
N Leeds York Hull Liverpool Manchester Sheffield Nottingham Birmingham Coventry Cardiff Bristol Oxford London Southampton Plymouth 100 km 100 miles Key Location of Burgess Hill Farm Norwich Tonbridge Oasthouse (Building D) Barn (Building B) Garage (Building E) Site Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey 1:50000 scale map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty s Sta onary Officer. Crown copyright. AOC Archaeology Group, Edgefield Industrial Estate, Loanhead, Midlothian, EH 20 9SY. OS Licence no. 100023757 Figure 1: Location map to show Burgess Hill Farm, Tonbridge (Paddock) Stables (Building C) Farmhouse (Building A) Site plan showing Burgess Hill Farm (plan provided courtesy of Atkins Heritage) 0 0