February 2013 - Amazon S3€¦ · February 2013 . A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Outline...
Transcript of February 2013 - Amazon S3€¦ · February 2013 . A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Outline...
A21 TONBRIDGE TO PEMBURY DUALLING
Outline Statement of Case
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
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Outline Statement of Case, 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
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 1 Outline Statement of Case
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Outline Statement of Case 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
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 2 Outline Statement of Case
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 A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling 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
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 3 Outline Statement of Case
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.
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 4 Outline Statement of Case
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.
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 5 Outline Statement of Case
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:
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 6 Outline Statement of Case
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”.
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 7 Outline Statement of Case
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 17th century, although the brickwork was added in the 18th century
and extensions constructed between the late 19th and late 20th 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 18th century in
date and has been extended to the south once in the late 19th century and again in
the mid 20th 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.
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 8 Outline Statement of Case
4.6 The Oast House was originally constructed in the 19th century but much of the
structure was rebuilt in the 20th 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 17th and
18th 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 18th 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 A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling 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.
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 9 Outline Statement of Case
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) Moving the entire building;
(b) Rebuilding for re-use (commercial/domestic) or as a museum exhibit;
(c) Partial recovery of historic fabric for museum use;
(d) 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
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 10 Outline Statement of Case
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 re-
erected 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 re-
erection.
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 11 Outline Statement of Case
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
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 12 Outline Statement of Case
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).
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling
Page 13 Outline Statement of Case
APPENDIX A –LOCATION PLAN
Figu
re 1
: Loc
atio
n m
ap to
sho
wB
urge
ss H
ill F
arm
, Ton
brid
ge
Key
NRe
prod
uced
from
the
Ord
nanc
e Su
rvey
1:5
0000
sca
le m
ap w
ith th
e pe
rmis
sion
of t
he C
ontr
olle
r of
Her
Maj
esty
’s S
ta�o
nary
Offi
cer.
Crow
n co
pyri
ght.
AO
C A
rcha
eolo
gyG
roup
, Edg
efiel
d In
dust
rial
Est
ate,
Loa
nhea
d, M
idlo
thia
n, E
H 2
0 9S
Y. O
S Li
cenc
e no
. 100
0237
57
Loca
tion
of B
urge
ss H
ill F
arm
Site
pla
n sh
owin
g B
urge
ss H
ill F
arm
(pla
n pr
ovid
ed c
ourte
sy o
f Atk
ins
Her
itage
)
Site
(Pad
dock
)
Oas
thou
se(B
uild
ing
D)
Gar
age
(Bui
ldin
g E
)
Bar
n(B
uild
ing
B)
Sta
bles
(Bui
ldin
g C
)
Farm
hous
e(B
uild
ing
A)
0 0
100
km
100
mile
s
Lond
on
Oxf
ord
York
Man
ches
ter
Leed
s
Nor
wic
h
Hul
l
She
ffiel
d
Not
tingh
am
Cov
entry
Birm
ingh
am
Sou
tham
pton
Ply
mou
th
Cardiff
Bris
tol
Live
rpoo
l
Tonb
ridge