Heritage Statement for Proposed Alterations and Extensions ... · The rooms to the W were probably...

Heritage Statement: Oxendale Hall, Osbaldeston

Heritage Statement for Proposed Alterations and Extensions at Oxendale Hall, Osbaldeston

Hinchliffe Heritage6.1.20

Plate 1. Front (S) elevation of Oxendale Hall

1


Contents

1. Introduction

2. Brief Description of the Site and its Setting

3. Brief History of the Site and its Setting

4. Heritage Designations

5. Statement of Significance of the Site and its Setting

6. Heritage Policies and Guidance

7. The Proposal

8. Assessment of the Impact of the Proposal

9. Conclusion

Select Bibliography

Appendices

2


1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this Heritage Statement is to provide:

i) an overview of the history and evolution of Oxendale Hall and its settingii) an assessment of the significance of Oxendale Hall and its settingiii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed alterations and extensions at Oxendale Hall

on its heritage significance .

1.2 This Heritage Statement has been prepared following pre-application consultations on the proposal with Ribble Valley District Council and Historic England.

1.3 This Heritage Statement has been informed by inspections of the site and its setting on 18th July 2019, research at Clitheroe Library, the Oxendale Hall Heritage Statement (2017) by The Architectural History Practice Ltd and further desk-based research.

1.4 In preparing this Heritage Statement, regard has been paid to the advice in Para.s 189and 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019:

189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require anapplicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including anycontribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to theassets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impactof the proposal on their significance….

190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significanceof any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by developmentaffecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidenceand any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account whenconsidering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimiseconflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

1.5 Oxendale Hall is a Grade II* listed building and so any extensions or alterations to it have the potential to affect its heritage significance and/or its setting. Para 193 of the NPPF states:

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of adesignated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation(and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be).

Accordingly, great weight has been given in the design of the proposal to the conservation (and enhancement) of Oxendale Hall’s heritage significance.

1.6 This Heritage Assessment has been undertaken by John Hinchliffe of Hinchliffe Heritage .

3


Plan 1. Location Plan (NTS)

4


2. Description

2.1 Introduction

Oxendale Hall is a prestigious historic country house standing in its own extensive landscaped grounds on the broad S valley bottom of the River Ribble in Lancashire, approximately 5 miles NW of Blackburn. and 11 miles SW of Clitheroe. The hall dates back to around 1656 when it was built by Laurence Osbaldeston, whose family home had historically been Osbaldeston Hall, which lies approximately 0.5 mile to the NW, closer to the River Ribble, at an historic ferry-point across the river.

Oxendale Hall was comprehensively restored and extended in the 1990s, when much decayed masonry around the windows was replaced and extensions were constructed in matching natural materials in an historicist style. It is in good structural and decorative condition and is used as a single family home. A range of ancillary buildings and landscape features are spread round the hall and its grounds.

Oxendale Hall is within Osbaldeston, which is a small dispersed settlement of low density, consisting of a mix of farms and historic and relatively new houses, mostly laid out in ribbon development along Osbaldeston Lane. The area is primarily open countryside, with a historic field pattern and areas of woodland, many within the glades of minor tributaries of the River Ribble (Plate 4).

Oxendale Hall is one of only three buildings in Osbaldeston which gets a mention in Pesvner’s Buildings of England: North Lancashire (the other two being Osbaldeston Hall and St Mary’s RC Church). It is briefly described:

1m. N. 1656. Most windows alas new, but a nicely varied gabled facade

On the A59, to the S of the hall, the focal point of the settlement is formed by the Bay Horse Public House, and the RC Church of St Mary (1837-8) with its presbytery and its associated school (1845), which were built shortly after the A59 had been formed as the new turnpike road from Whalley to Preston.

Plate 2. Aerial photograph of Oxendale Hall and Osbaldeston Hall

5


2.2 Exterior

Oxendale Hall is sited on an approximate E-W axis, with the main roof ridge following that axis and the principal front elevation (Plate 3) facing S, directly in view down the current orientation of the long approach drive (Plate 7), along which it is framed by an avenue of trees and clipped shrubs. The original building is limited to the front range only, but it was extended to the rear in the 1990s, with structures which are out of sight along this main approach to the building.

The original hall is built of coursed local sandstone with ashlar quoins. It has a roof covering of riven stone slates. The 4-bay south front has four asymmetrical gables in three planes. The wide cross-wing to the L (W) projects slightly from the small adjacent bay. A 3-storey gabled porch on the 2nd bay from the R (E) projects furthest forward. The porch has a segmental stone lintel with hood mould and is inscribed 1656 LRO. The mullioned windows are arranged in a hierarchy so that the ground floor hall and W wing windows are the largest (6-lights), reducing to 5-light first floor windows and 3-light attic floor windows above. Both the hall and wing windows have lowered cills. The porch has 3-light windows to first and attic floors. The E bay has 4-light windows to ground and first and a 3-light attic windows. The windows in the E bay are offset to the W, possibly as there is large internal chimney breast against the E wall. All front windows have

Plate 3. Principal S elevation of Oxendale Hall

Plate 4. St Mary’s RC Church Plate 5. St Mary’s School Plate 6. Bay Horse

6


stone hood moulds and the fenestration is a combination of iron casements and fixed leaded lights with diamond quarries. All gables are terminated by flat stone copings, surmounted by stone balls.

The E gable end has a recent timber gothic-style oriel window to first floor and two recent mullioned windows to the ground floor, the S one in place of an inserted door. Behind the original E gable (to the N) is the large stone built extension of the 1990s which includes: a two storey projecting porch with stone doric columns; two garage door openings with shallow segmental arches and portcullis-type inverted railings, one of which is now converted into a kennel and; a range of 1990s single storey buildings. The rear extensions and outbuildings are built in matching materials and approximately matching historicist style but create a slight visual confusion between the original and the additions. To the E of the building is a generous parking area, with a surface of buff stone gravel.

The W gable end of the original building has a large projecting stone chimneystack and two blocked mullioned windows (Plate 8). Behind, to the N, the 1990s extension has a complex plan and elevation. It is substantially two storeys and is partly recessed but it is dominated by a painted timber gothic-style conservatory.

The original rear elevation is substantially obscured by the 1990s additions, but part of the upper floors remain exposed and can be seen from a distance where there are mullioned windows towards the W end. The rear extensions and single storey buildings are built in matching materials and an approximately matching style but they create a slight visual confusion between the original building and the additions . They have no aspect to the rear and no designed articulation.

Plate 7. View of Hall down the approach driveway

7


Plate 8. W side elevation of original building

Plate 8a. 1990s single storey extensions/buildings at rear

Plate 9 E side elevation and car park Plate 9a. Rear (N) elevation of 1990s extensions/outbuildings

Plate 10. W side elevation of 20th C extensions and outbuildings

Plate 11. W side elevation of 20th C extensions

8


2.3 Interior

Inside, the original part of the house substantially retains its original floor plan, albeit with some minor changes. The porch has a mosaic floor, of probably early 20th century date, and recent doors lead into the hall and parlour. The hall has a large stone open 17th century fireplace on the E side with moulded and corbeled jambs, lintel and cornice. The 17th century ceiling beams are ovolo-moulded. The timber-framed partition to the W side retains a jointed doorway with cambered head towards the south end. A second door in this partition has been removed. The staircase is oak with newel posts with carved spirals and turned balusters but is a later insertion. The ground floor landing has a parquet floor which is probably early 20th C.

The rooms to the W were probably service rooms, with a kitchen at the front utilising the large external chimney and an unheated larder or scullery to the rear but these have been combined to form a drawing room with later decoration.

On the first floor the staircase landing is separated from the central first floor room by a timber-framed partition. Although some historic timber partitions are in evidence, the floor plan has probably been much changed over the years.

The W bedroom contains a fireplace (Plate 1) with naïve 17th century moulded plaster decoration above the lintel with the inscription 1657 LRO. The chimney piece itself is 18th century and much of the plaster work in the room is modern, although stylistically it is similar to that over the fireplace. The bedroom is separated from a bathroom to the N by a timber-framed partition with framed doorway which appears to be an original feature. The room to the E end of the first floor was originally heated by a fireplace on the E wall and entered by a door from the central room.

In the NE corner of the wing a tight winding staircase leads to the substantially open attic where the room extends into the front gables with some exposed roof structure.

Plate 12. E side elevations of 20th C extensions Plate 13. View of W elevation in its setting

9


2.4 Landscape and Ancillary Buildings

Oxendale Hall was originally a farm house with associated agricultural buildings and presumably a farmland setting but it is now a private house within a domestic setting. Although some of the farm buildings remain, notably a 17th C cruck-framed barn, the over-riding character of the setting is domestic, with garages, gardens, patio, garden structures, parking area, a tennis court and walls.

In addition to the stone-built cruck-framed barn, there is: a small stone former farmhouse of the early 20th C; a brick built garage block with a blue slate roof and; various storage buildings - all to the W of the hall.

To the immediate W of the hall is a small formal garden and patio, enclosed by stone walls, and beyond that is a tennis court. To the immediate E of the hall is a large orthogonal area which is used as a car park and which has a surface of buff gravel but the edge of the car park is not defined above surface level. Beyond the formal garden, tennis courts and parking area, the grounds are more informal and are maintained as parkland, with mown grass, individual trees and a narrow wooded valley to the NE, which forms a pleasing backdrop to the hall. The entrance to the grounds is marked by: a gateway of stone piers with stone ball finials; stone walls with sweeps and stone copings and; metal security gates.

A public footpath formerly ran through the grounds but it has been formally diverted to the S of the hall to improve its privacy and security.

Plate 14. Staircase, parquet floor and fireplace

Plate 15. Ovolo oak beams and replica plasterwork

Plate 15a. Fireplace on 1st floor with inscription “1657 LRO” in plasterwork

Plate 16. Cruck-framed barn Plate 17. Interior of cruck-framed barn

10


Plate 18. Former farmhouse Plate 19. Tennis court and enclosed garden

Plate 20. Gated entrance Plate 21. Parkland setting

Plate 22. Outbuildings to W of hall Plate 23. Glade to NE of hall

11


3. History

3.1 Brief History of Osbaldeston and Oxendale Hall

A detailed history of Oxendale Hall is provided in the Oxendale Hall Heritage Statement (2017) by the Architectural History Practice and does not need to be repeated in full here. However, a timeline of its history and recent evolution and some additional information is set out below.

Oxendale Hall and its grounds have been associated with the Osbaldeston family of Osbaldeston Hall since Saxon times. The family and the estate escaped the dispossession by the Normans but the estate was within the “fee of Clitheroe”, bestowed upon the de Lacys. According to in Ribble-land, the Osbaldestons “always took high rank among the county families…” due to their “…wealth, fearlessness and courteous bearing”! At the time of the reformation, the Osbaldestones declined to depart from the Catholicism and suffered for it.

1508 - William Osbaldeston held the estate of Osbaldeston and by 1524 his son Robert was the owner. There may have been a small house at Oxendale at this time as, although no house is marked on Speed’s Map of 1610 ( Map 1), records show that “Robert Osbalderston de Oxenden” was buried in Blackburn in 1624.

1610 - Speed’s Map illustrates that “Osbaston” had its own deer park

c.1656 -The Oxendale estate was inherited by Robert Osbaldeston’s oldest son Lawrence, who built or rebuilt Oxendale Hall in 1656-57. NB. The datestone above the front doorway is inscribed LRO 1656; R for his wife Rosamund. The last Osbaldeston to inherit the estate was Lawrence’s son, also named Lawrence.

1714 - Oxendale estate sold to William Fox of Goosnargh and his son John inherited the estate following his death. Another William Fox owned the estate in the 1760s (his initials are on a lead hopper on the hall), and it remained in this family until 1846. Oxendale Hall was then tenanted to a succession of farming families.

1786 - Yates’s map (Map 2) fails to specifically identify Oxendale Hall

1818 - Greenwood’s Map (Map 3) identifies Oxendale Hall and some outbuildings

1829 - Hennet’s map (Map 4) identifies Oxendale Hall and further outbuildings

1848 - the first OS Map (Map 5) suggests that the hall had been extended to the E and W and sub-divided into separate units

Early 1870s - the hall reported to be in poor condition. In A day amongst the ancient mansions of Blackburnshire (1872), the hall is described as being in a state of fast decay. Internally, the walls were propped in two places and parts of the roof were missing.

1874 - the estate sold to Messrs. John, Edward and Joseph Dugdale of Blackburn for £5,139. The estate consisted of 76 acres of land of which 17 acres were woodlands, Oxendale Hall was then occupied as a farmhouse with barn, shippon, stable and outbuildings.

1877 - A History of Blackburn, Town and Parish describes the hall:

“quaint-looking old house of the seventeenth century, with a wide frontage, with four gables on the roof line, and a gabled porch in the centre bay… On the leaden easing pipe at the side of the porch are the letters ‘WF’ William Fox and the date 1763.”

1890 - the OS Map (Map 6) shows the large farm building (the cruck barn) with a large extension

1911 - The Victoria County History describes it: 12


‘It is a picturesque three-story stone-built house with low mullioned windows and stone slated roofs. The front, which faces south, is about 60 ft. in length and has a wide projecting gable at its west end with three smaller gables in the remaining length, the middle one over a projecting porch which goes the full height of the building. The front has been very much restored, and all the windows are new with the exception of those in the top floor in the gables and that over the porch. At the back, however, the original 17th-century windows remain. The walling is of rough stone with large quoins at the angles, and over the door, which has a four-centred arch, are the initials of Lawrence and Rosamund Osbaldeston and the date 1658. A lead spout head on the side of the porch is dated 1763 and has the initials W. F. (William Fox)’.

1914 - Blackburn Belgian Relief Sub-committee received donations to house Belgian refugees and Joseph Dugdale offered Oxendale Hall to house sixteen refugees.

1924 - Joseph Dugdale dies and the estate auctioned in separate lots in 1926.

1930 - OS Map shows further outbuildings to the W and extensions to the rear of the hall. The driveway to the hall is still via the farm buildings, in a direct line SW-NE from the site entrance

1936 - Oxendale Hall and the dairy farm advertised for sale again in 1936. The sales particulars reported on:

‘…a stone built residence and farm known as Oxendale Hall and dairy farm comprising an area of 148 acres, 3 roods and 12 perches or thereabouts. Of the land over 81 acres is pasture and meadow and 67 and half acres of wood. There is a frontage of about 260 yards to the River Ribble with fishing rights…the accommodation of the hall comprises three large entertaining rooms, 6 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, dairy and scullery.”

Mid 20th C - Ownership of Oxendale Hall split from the farm

1980s - Harold and Marjorie Pendlebury purchased the hall and made some improvements and repaired external masonry.

1995/6 - The hall acquired by the present owners and since then: much of the farmland and farm buildings have been purchased by them to reunite the estate; the hall has been comprehensively restored in a historicist style; extensions have been built (with consent) in a historicist style and; the car parking area on the E side has been created. A new driveway is created to approach the hall initially along an W-E axis and then a long S-N driveway

2017/8 - the cruck-framed barn is restored and converted to occasional private banqueting use

13


Map 1. Speed 1610 Map 2. Yates 1786

Map 3. Greenwood 1818 Map 4. Hennet 1829

Map 5. 1848 OS Map Map 6. 1892 OS Map

14


1910 OS Map 1930 OS Map

Plate 23. Sir Edward Osbaldeston

15


4. Heritage Designations

4.1 Listed Buildings

4.1.1 Oxendale Hall and the Cruck-Framed Barn at Oxendale Hall are both Grade II* Listed Buildings. Their locations are identified by Historic England on Plan 2 by small blue triangles.

The listing descriptions (for identification only) are:

1. Oxendale Hall (Listed 1952)

OSBALDESTON SD 63 SE 5/32

Oxendale Hall 27-8-1952 GV II*

House, 1656. Sandstone rubble.with stone slate roof. 2 storeys with attic. Facade has cross-wing at left, and a bay with gabled attic dormer on each side of a porch of 2 storeys with attic. Windows mullioned with ovolo moulding and chamfer, with hoods. Much of the stonework of the windows has been renewed, and some of the sills have been lowered. The cross-wing has a 6-light window on the ground floor, one of 5 lights above, and a 3-light attic window. The bay to the left of the porch has windows with a similar number of lights. To the right the windows are of 4 lights to the ground and 1st floors and 3 lights to the attic. The porch has 3-light windows on the 1st floor and to the attic. The door has a worn moulded stone surround with segmental head and lintel inscribed: '1656 LRO'. Gables coped with kneelers and finials. Chimneys at left, to right of porch, and on right-hand gable. Quoins of right-hand gable wall appear to have been replaced. Inside, the door opens against a firehood baffle. In the room to the left of the porch the firehood bressumer remains, as do 2 ovolo-moulded axial main beams. The cross-wing is divided by a wall of timber and wattle-and-daub and is entered by 2 timber doorways. On the 1st floor of the cross-wing is a blocked moulded stone fireplace with a plaster overmantel with plant decoration and various motifs including deer and flowers. In the centre it has the inscription: '1657 LRO'. A 1st floor window at the rear of the house includes a diamond pane painted with the inscription: 'LOR 1658'. This appears to be genuine.

2. Barn at Oxendale Hall Farm, SW of Oxendale Hall (Listed 1986)

OSBALDESTON SD 63 SE 5/33

Barn at Oxendale Hall Farm, south- - west of Oxendale Hall GV II*

Barn, possibly c.1600. Cruck-framed with walls of sandstone rubble and brick replacing timber framing, and with slate roof. The east wall has an open corrugated iron lean-to between 2 wide entrances, the left-hand one with plain reveals and concrete lintel, the right-hand one with brick reveals. At the right is a lean-to addition with stone slate roof. Against the west wall is a lean-to shippon with corrugated asbestos roof. Interior has 3 large cruck trusses with outriders, the blades joined by yokes below the ridge, with spurs tying them to wall posts. The southern truss has had a high collar removed. It is not clear whether the other trusses had collars or tie beams. Against the north gable wall is a former closed truss with straighter cruck blades of lighter scantling, a collar which continues across to meet the outriders, a sill beam, and other timber framing with evidence for wattle infill. The 2 southern bays of the barn are divided by an open king post truss with raking queen struts and jowled wall posts. Some straight wind braces remain, and remaining sections of wall plate show that the walls were once of timber framing.

4.1.2 Grade II* listed buildings are defined as buildings of “more than special interest” and, nationally, they within the top 8% of the most important listed buildings.

16


4.2 Section 1 (5) of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:

…for the purposes of this Act—

(a) any object or structure fixed to the building;(b) any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948,

shall be treated as part of the building.

Thus the listing protects the whole of the listed buildings and any object or structure which has been within its curtilage or which has formed its curtilage since 1948, including walls.

4.3 There are no other heritage designations affecting the site

Plan 2. Listed Buildings (with small blue triangles), as identified by Historic England

17


5. Statement of Significance of the Site and its Setting

5.1 Introduction - Understanding Heritage Significance

5.1.1 The Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 refers to listed buildings as buildings “of architectural of historic interest”.

5.1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) requires that:

189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require anapplicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including anycontribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to theassets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance….

190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

5.1.3 The Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) defines “Significance” (for heritage policy):

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.

5.1.4 In assessing the heritage significance of Oxendale Hall and its setting, regard has been had to the potential heritage interest of the building as identified in the NPPF and the heritage values, as defined in Historic England’s Conservation Principles (2008). This document asserts that a tangible heritage asset can have the following four values:

Evidential value - the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.

Historical value - the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present.

Aesthetic value - the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place.

Communal value - the meaning of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.

5.1.5 Conservation Principles also clarifies that:

The significance of a place embraces all the diverse cultural and natural heritage values that people associate with it, or which prompt them to respond to it. These values tend to grow in strength and complexity over time, as understanding deepens and people’s perceptions of a place evolve.

In order to identify the significance of a place, it is necessary first to understand its fabric, and how and why it has changed over time; and then to consider:

18


- who values the place, and why they do so - how those values relate to its fabric - their relative importance - whether associated objects contribute to them - the contribution made by the setting and context of the place - how the place compares with others sharing similar values.

Understanding and articulating the values and significance of a place is necessary to inform decisions about its future. The degree of significance determines what, if any, protection, including statutory designation, is appropriate under law and policy.

5.1.5 Conservation Principles goes on to state that:

4.1 Change in the historic environment is inevitable, caused by natural processes, the wear and tear of use, and people’s responses to social, economic and technological change.

4.2 Conservation is the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations. 4.3 Conservation is achieved by all concerned with a significant place sharing an understanding of its significance, and using that understanding to:

- judge how its heritage values are vulnerable to change - take the actions and impose the constraints necessary to sustain, reveal and reinforce

those values - mediate between conservation options, if action to sustain one heritage value could

conflict with action to sustain another - ensure that the place retains its authenticity – those attributes and elements which

most truthfully reflect and embody the heritage values attached to it.

4.4 Action taken to counter harmful effects of natural change, or to minimise the risk of disaster, should be timely, proportionate to the severity and likelihood of identified consequences, and sustainable.

4.5 Intervention may be justified if it increases understanding of the past, reveals or reinforces particular heritage values of a place, or is necessary to sustain those values for present and future generations, so long as any resulting harm is decisively outweighed by the benefits.

4.6 New work should aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued both now and in the future. This neither implies nor precludes working in traditional or new ways, but should respect the significance of a place in its setting.

5.1.6 In Historic England’s Informed Conservation, Kate Clark advises that:

Significance lies at the heart of every conservation action, which for the historic environment means the recognition of a public value in what may well be private property. Historic buildings and their landscapes are significant for many different cultural reasons: for their architecture, for their archaeological significance, for their aesthetic qualities, for their association with people and memories, beliefs and events or simply because they are old. They can tell us about technology, innovation, conflicts and triumphs. Their interest may lie in the materials used or in the decorative finishes, in the grouping of landscape, building and place. That significance may be personal, local, regional, national or international; it may be academic, economic or social…

19


5.1.7 Important considerations when assessing levels of significance are the authenticity and integrity of the heritage assets. These are defined as:

Authenticity is a measure of truthfulness. Understanding of the concept of authenticity is guided by ICOMOS’s Nara Document on Authenticity (1994)

Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of cultural heritage and its attributes

5.2 Levels of Significance

5.2.1 There is no definitive grading system or methodology for assessing the levels of significance or values but the most reliable methodologies have clearly defined criteria for grading, based upon the designations and other values of the heritage assets.

5.2.2 The assessment of heritage significance of the heritage asset which might be affected by the current proposal has been undertaken using the general methodology recommended in Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2 (Cultural Heritage) of Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 22016 (DMRB). The DMRB recommends that heritage assets should be assessed into one of five categories, based upon specified criteria. The categories are:

• Very High;• High;• Medium;• Low;• Negligible.

Although the DMRB itself has been withdrawn by the government, the methodology for assessing impact on heritage assets and the definitions for levels of significance remain valid. The levels of heritage significance are in the DMRB are also recommended in BS 7913:2013 Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings for use in Heritage Impact Assessments.

The criteria for assessing the level of significance of historic buildings and historic areas is provided in the annex to the DMRB and is provided in Appendix 1 to this report.

5.2.3 Australia ICOMOS’s The Burra Charter (The Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Updated 2013) provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance and is widely regarded as an exemplar in understanding and conserving heritage significance. In Article 1, it states:

Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.

Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.

Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.

5.2.4 It is important to recognise that levels of significance are not permanently fixed and a current low designation of significance does not necessarily imply that a feature is expendable. Future research and improved understanding of heritage assets could result in raising or lowering the ascribed level of significance, especially where there is a lack of information or understanding at the moment.

20


5.3 Statement of Heritage Significance of the Application Site

The Oxendale Hall, Osbaldeston, Lancashire Heritage Statement (2017) by the Architectural History Practice provides an assessment of the heritage significance of Oxendale Hall and its setting (provided below) and there is no reason why this should not still be accepted as an accurate assessment:

Oxendale Hall is listed grade II* and was first listed in 1952. This high listing grade means that it is among the top 10% of all listed buildings in England, and reflects its outstanding importance nationally. The hall is of high significance for its architectural and historic value as a fine example of a vernacular house, built in the Lancashire stone tradition but with a timber-framed interior. It is associated with a Lancashire yeoman family the Osbaldestons, who also owned the earlier Osbaldeston Hall. The significance of the house has been affected by some losses to historic fabric during the successive refurbishments, but overall the building has high significance.

All the original historic fabric is of high significance. This includes the exterior masonry, the internal timber-framed walls, floors and roof. All the late 20th century additions and internal fabric and fittings are of low heritage significance. Various later features within the building such as parquet floor in the hall and the porch floor have medium significance.

The house is of high significance for archaeological and evidential value as the fabric (historic structure and finishes) retains evidence of primary phase construction. Historical significance is also high, as evidence for the local vernacular tradition and development of historic domestic plan form. There is high aesthetic value in the architectural character of the gabled frontage and the general appearance of the building from the south. The character and aesthetic value of the rear of the building was probably always relatively low, reflecting the lower status of the rear of the house, and the recent additions have not altered this.

Oxendale Hall has a much altered setting; the recent drive and landscaping has no heritage value but does have aesthetic value in framing views of the hall from the south; this contributes to significance. The cruck barn associated with the 17th century house has high significance, as a good example of a former timber-framed cruck barn, typical of regional farm buildings of this date. Views of the house from the public road are not possible; the most important views are from within private land; from the new drive from the south and from the south-west near the barn.

21


6. Relevant Heritage Policies and Legislation

6.1 National Legislation

6.1.1 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990

This is the primary legislation for heritage assets. S.66 of the Act places a statutory duty on Local Planning Authorities to:

…have special regard to the desirability of preserving the (listed) building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

6.2 National Policy

6.2.1 National Planning Policy is provided by the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF). Three over-arching objectives of the planning system for achieving sustainable development set out at Para 8, are:

a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitiveeconomy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in theright places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improvedproductivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, byensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meetthe needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designedand safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces thatreflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social andcultural well-being; and

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing ournatural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land,helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimisingwaste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, includingmoving to a low carbon economy.

In Section 16 “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” it states, inter alia:

193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of adesignated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation(and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This isirrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total lossor less than substantial harm to its significance.

200. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within

Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritageassets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve thoseelements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or whichbetter reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

6.2.2 The NPPF effectively identifies three levels of harm to heritage assets: Total Loss; Substantial Harm and; Less Than Substantial Harm. It states:

196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the

22


significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed againstthe public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

6.3 National Guidance

6.3.1 Historic England issues national guidance to assist LPAs in making decisions about their own cultural heritage at a local level. The key Historic England guidance which is relevant to this proposal are listed below:

a) Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment

This is an over-arching document which seeks to establish good policies and practice.

b) Making Changes to Heritage Assets Historic England Advice Note 2

This document provides principles and guidance on good practice in repairs, restoration, additions and alterations to heritage assets. It is intended to assist local authorities, planning and other consultants, owners, applicants and other interested parties in implementing historic environment legislation, the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the related guidance given in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

c) The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice PlanningNote 3. (December 2017)

i) This document reinforces the importance of the setting of heritage assets and provides guidanceon managing development that may affect the setting of heritage assets. It begins bystressing the importance of setting and its careful management:

The significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence andhistoric fabric but also from its setting – the surroundings in which it is experienced.The careful management of change within the surroundings of heritage assetstherefore makes an important contribution to the quality of the places in which welive.

ii) It defines setting:

…as ‘the surroundings in which [the asset] is experienced. Its extent is not fixed andmay change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting maymake a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affectthe ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’.

iii) It sets out key principles for the understanding of setting:

- Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced…- The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visualconsiderations…- Setting will, therefore, generally be more extensive than curtilage…- The setting of a heritage asset can enhance its significance whether or not it wasdesigned to do so. The formal parkland around a country house… may…contribute tothe significance.- The contribution that setting makes to the significance does not depend on there beingpublic rights or an ability to access or experience that setting.

iv) It provides guidance on assessing proposed and past changes:23


11. Protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change; indeed changemay be positive, for instance where the setting has been compromised by poordevelopment. Many places are within the setting of a heritage asset and are subject tosome degree of change over time. NPPF policies, together with the guidance on theirimplementation in the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), provide the framework for theconsideration of change affecting the setting of undesignated and designated heritage assets as part of the decision-taking process (NPPF, Paragraphs 131-135 and 137).

v) In providing guidance on the management of development affecting the setting ofheritage assets, it recommends the following broad approach:

Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected;Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contributionto the significance of the heritage asset(s);Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial orharmful, on that significance;Step 4: explore ways of maximising enhancement and avoiding or minimising harm;Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.

6.4 Local Heritage Policy

The Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 A Local Plan for Ribble Valley Adoption Version was adopted by Ribble Valley Borough Council in December 2014 and is the principal component of the Development Plan for the borough. It includes:

1. KEY STATEMENT EN5: HERITAGE ASSETS

There will be a presumption in favour of the conservation and enhancement of the significance of heritage assets and their settings. The Historic Environment and its Heritage Assets and their settings will be conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance for their heritage value; their important contribution to local character, distinctiveness and sense of place; and to wider social, cultural and environmental benefits.

This will be achieved through:- Recognising that the best way of ensuring the long term protection of heritage assets is to

ensure a viable use that optimises opportunities for sustaining and enhancing its significance.- Keeping Conservation Area Appraisals under review to ensure that any development proposals

respect and safeguard the character, appearance and significance of the area.- Considering any development proposals which may impact on a heritage asset or their setting

through seeking benefits that conserve and enhance their significance and avoids any substantial harm to the heritage asset.

- Requiring all development proposals to make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness/sense of place.

- The consideration of Article 4 Directions to restrict permitted development rights where the exercise of such rights would harm the historic environment.

and

2. POLICY DME4: PROTECTING HERITAGE ASSETS

10.15 IN CONSIDERING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THE COUNCIL WILL MAKE A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF THE CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND THEIR SETTINGS.

1. CONSERVATION AREAS

24


PROPOSALS WITHIN, OR AFFECTING VIEWS INTO AND OUT OF, OR AFFECTING THE SETTING OF A CONSERVATION AREA WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSERVE AND WHERE APPROPRIATE ENHANCE ITS CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE AND THOSE ELEMENTS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS ITS SIGNIFICANCE. THIS SHOULD INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHETHER IT CONSERVES AND ENHANCES THE SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE AREA AS SET OUT IN THE RELEVANT CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL. DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAKES A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION AND CONSERVES AND ENHANCES THE CHARACTER, APPEARANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA IN TERMS OF ITS LOCATION, SCALE, SIZE, DESIGN AND MATERIALS AND EXISTING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, TREES AND OPEN SPACES WILL BE SUPPORTED.

IN THE CONSERVATION AREAS THERE WILL BE A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF THE CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF ELEMENTS THAT MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.

2. LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER BUILDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE INTEREST

ALTERATIONS OR EXTENSIONS TO LISTED BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS OF LOCAL HERITAGE INTEREST, OR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON SITES WITHIN THEIR SETTING WHICH CAUSE HARM TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HERITAGE ASSET WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED.

ANY PROPOSALS INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OR LOSS OF IMPORTANT HISTORIC FABRIC FROM LISTED BUILDINGS WILL BE REFUSED UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST.

3. REGISTERED HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST AND OTHER GARDENS OF SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE INTEREST

PROPOSALS WHICH CAUSE HARM TO OR LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE TO REGISTERED PARKS, GARDENS OR LANDSCAPES OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST OR OTHER GARDENS OF SIGNIFICANT LOCAL HERITAGE INTEREST, INCLUDING THEIR SETTING, WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED.

4. SCHEDULED MONUMENTS AND OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN HARM TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A SCHEDULED MONUMENT OR NATIONALLY IMPORTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED.

DEVELOPERS WILL BE EXPECTED TO INVESTIGATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NON DESIGNATED ARCHAEOLOGY PRIOR TO DETERMINATION OF AN APPLICATION. WHERE THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE IS EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF DESIGNATED ASSETS, PROPOSALS WHICH CAUSE HARM TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NON DESIGNATED ASSETS WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED.

WHERE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ANY PROPOSALS OUTWEIGH THE HARM TO OR LOSS OF THE ABOVE, THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO ENSURE MITIGATION OF DAMAGE THROUGH PRESERVATION OF REMAINS IN SITU AS THE PREFERRED SOLUTION. WHERE THIS IS NOT JUSTIFIED DEVELOPERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR EXCAVATION AND RECORDING OF THE ASSET BEFORE OR DURING EXCAVATION.

25


PROPOSALS SHOULD ALSO GIVE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF HOW THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION OF SUCH SITES COULD BE IMPROVED.

IN LINE WITH NPPF, RIBBLE VALLEY AIMS TO SEEK POSITIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE FOLLOWING:

A) MONITORING HERITAGE ASSETS AT RISK AND;

I) SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT/RE-USE PROPOSALS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR CONSERVATION;

II) CONSIDERING USE OF LEGAL POWERS (BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICES, URGENT WORKS NOTICES) TO ENSURE THE PROPER PRESERVATION OF LISTED BUILDINGS AND BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREAS.

B) SUPPORTING REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WHICH BETTER REVEAL THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE ASSETS OR THEIR SETTINGS.

C) PRODUCTION OF DESIGN GUIDANCE.

D) KEEPING CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE UNDER REVIEW.

E) USE OF LEGAL ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO ADDRESS UNAUTHORISED WORKS WHERE IT IS EXPEDIENT TO DO SO.

F) ASSESS THE SIGNIFICANCE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENHANCEMENT OF NON DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS.

26


7. The Proposals

7.1 The current proposals do not involve any direct intervention in the historic fabric of Oxendale Hall.

7.2 The current proposals involve:

a) Partial demolition of rear extensions which were erected in the 1990s at the rear of the buildingb) Erection of new single and two storey domestic extensions at the rear of the building, attached

to the retained extensions of the 1990s:c) Reduction in size of the existing parking area at the E of the hall and its partial enclosure by a

garage block, wall and “architectural” hedged) Landscape works on the W side of the hall to relocate the tennis court and an extended

domestic garden on the site of the existing tennis court

The proposals are shown in detail, to scale and in accurate visualisations in drawings submitted with the application but some are provided below at low resolution and not-to-scale for reference.

Plan 3. Proposed W and S elevations

27


Plan 4. Proposed E and N elevations

Plan 5. Proposed Ground Floor plan, with proposed extensions in blue and proposed demolitions of non-original extensions shown with dashed lines

28


Plan 6. Proposed First Floor Plan

29


Plan 7. Proposed masterplan for the house and gardens

30


8. Assessment of the Proposal

8.1 The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Methodology

8.1.1 This heritage impact assessment has been undertaken to comprehensively, systematically and transparently assess the impact of the proposed development on the appearance and heritage significance of the heritage assets at Oxendale Hall and their setting, using a simplified version of the general methodology recommended in Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2 (Cultural Heritage) of Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 22016(DMRB). Although the guidance was withdrawn in 2017, it still represents a comprehensive, systematic and transparent methodology. It is similar to the methodology recommended by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) in its Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (2011). Oxendale Hall and its setting are not a “cultural world heritage property” but again in this case, the ICOMOS methodology has validity in guiding a systematic, comprehensive and transparent methodology for assessing the impact of change on the significance of heritage assets.

8.1.2 The ICOMOS Guidance accepts that:

In any proposal for change there will be many factors to be considered. Balanced and justifiable decisions about change depend upon who values a place and why they do so. This leads to clear statement of a place’s significance and with it the ability to understand the impact of the proposed change on that significance.

8.1.3 The assessment process is in essence in three very simple stages:

1. What is the heritage at risk and why is it important?

This stage of the assessment has been undertaken through Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Heritage Statement. In summary, the heritage assets are Oxendale Hall and the cruck-framed barn

2. How will change or a development proposal impact on the significance of the heritage asset?

This stage of the assessment is provided in section 8.2 below.

3. How can these effects be avoided, reduced, rehabilitated (mitigated) or compensated?

This stage is provided in Section 8.3.7 below.

8.1.4 The methodology will also incorporate an assessment of the impact of the development, where relevant, on the setting of heritage assets, using the staged-approach recommended by Historic England in its The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Planning Note 3. (2017).

8.2 Stage 2 of HIA. How will change or a development proposal impact on the significance of the heritage asset?

8.2.1 Introduction

The assessment of heritage significance of the heritage assets which might be affected has been undertaken using the general methodology recommended in Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2 (Cultural Heritage) of Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 22016(DMRB). It recommends that heritage assets should be assessed into one of five levels of significance, based upon specified criteria. The categories are:

31


• Very High;• High;• Medium;• Low;

• Negligible.The criteria for assessing the level of significance of historic buildings and historic areas is provided in the annex to the DMRB and is provided in the Appendix 1 of this report. Oxendale Hall and the barn are both assessed as being of High heritage significance.

8.2.2 The assessment of the magnitude of impact and significance of effects used in this HIAs have also followed the methodology recommended in the DMRB, which recommends:

5.34 The magnitude of the impact (degree of change) can be negative or positive, and should be ranked without regard to the value of the asset. The total destruction of a Low Value asset will have the same magnitude of impact on the asset as the total destruction of a High Value asset; the value of the asset is factored in when the significance of the effect is assessed. The magnitude of impact should be ranked according to the following scale:

• major; • moderate; • minor; • negligible; • no change.

and

5.36 Assessing the significance of the effects of the scheme brings together the value of the resource and the magnitude of the impact (incorporating the agreed mitigation) for each cultural heritage asset, using the matrix illustrated in Table 5.1 (below). The adverse or beneficial significance of effect should be expressed on the following scale:

• very large;• large;• moderate;• slight;• neutral.

Table 1 – Significance of Effects Matrix (Table 5.1 in DMRB)

32


The assessments below have been undertaken in the context of: national policy on the conservation of heritage assets as set out in the NPPF; national guidance on the management of heritage assets from Historic England, which is the national advisory body on the conservation of England’s cultural heritage and; the policies of Ribble Valley Borough Council, which is the Local Planning Authority for the site.

Comprehensive and objective assessments of the impact of each principal component of the development proposal the significance the heritage assets have been undertaken and are summarised in Table 2 below. A brief commentary on the impacts and a summary of the impacts is provided below.

Change in the Historic Environment

8.2.3 The assessment has been undertaken on the principle that change in the historic environment is not necessarily harmful to the significance of heritage assets.

The NPPF (2019) acknowledges the potential for new development to enhance a heritage asset or its setting. It states:

185. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: …

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and …

Similarly, Historic England adopts this approach to change in the historic environment, as set out in its over-arching document, Conservation Principles.

It states at 4.1:

Change in the historic environment is inevitable, caused by natural processes, the wear and tear of use, and people’s responses to social, economic and technological change.

and asserts at 4.2 that:

Conservation is the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations.

Conservation Principles states at Para 138 that:

New work or alteration to a significant place should normally be acceptable if: a. there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place; b. the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed; c. the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now and in the future; d. the long-term consequences of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in the future.

Historic England adds further guidance on “Additions and Alterations” to heritage assets in its Making Changes to Heritage Assets Historic England Advice Note 2. It states at Para 41:

33


The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets, including new development in conservation areas, aside from NPPF requirements such as social and economic activity and sustainability, are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, durability and adaptability, use, enclosure, relationship with adjacent assets and definition of spaces and streets, alignment, active frontages, permeability and treatment of setting. Replicating a particular style may be less important, though there are circumstances when it may be appropriate. It would not normally be good practice for new work to dominate the original asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset’s significance and its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate.

There is thus no objection in principle by Historic England to change in the historic environment, provided that the criteria in Para 138 of Conservation Principles are met and the advice in Para 41 of Making Changes to Heritage Assets is followed.

8.3 The Heritage Impact Assessment

8.3.1 Assessment of Impact on Historic Fabric of Oxendale Hall

The proposals involve the partial demolition of some of the 1990 extensions to Oxendale Hall but as these have no heritage significance, their demolition will have no adverse impact on the heritage significance of Oxendale Hall. Importantly, the current proposals do not include any direct physical interventions in the historic fabric of Oxendale Hall. The proposals thus will have a No Change Magnitude of Impact on the historic fabric.

Significance of Impact - Neutral

8.3.2 Assessment of Impact of Proposed Domestic Extensions on Oxendale Hall

Impact on South Elevation

The proposed domestic extensions are all at the rear of Oxendale Hall and will not be seen in the context of the principal S elevation when viewed on the approach to it along the main driveway (Plates 3 and 7). The proposed domestic extensors will thus have a No Change Magnitude of Impact whatsoever on the appearance or heritage significance of the principal elevation.

The impact of the domestic extensions on Oxendale Hall are thus restricted to views from the W, N and E. The proposal is: to partly demolish and replace some of the 1990s extensions, to remodel other parts and to construct some new components. A fundamental design of the proposals is to create a clearer distinction between the original building and the extensions.

Impact on West Elevation

It is proposed that, on the W side, the existing pseudo-historic conservatory and extensions from the 1990s will be demolished and replaced with new extensions which are more clearly expressions of the 21st C but which are constructed primarily in match natural stone and with natural stone slate roofs. The proposed new conservatory will be more subdued in appearance with a simple expanse of glass in four panels within sliding anthracite grey PC aluminium frames and a copper spandrel. The proposed new two storey link building behind will also be highly recessive and set back behind the rear wing which is attached to the hall. The proposed two storey gabled extension for the family room (at grounds floor) will project towards the W but, crucially, will not extend beyond the chimney breast of the original hall. It will have: a similar bold expanse of glass doors in PC aluminium frames and an ashlar finish at ground level; a string course and; a large three-light window within an ashlar surround at first floor, where the wall material will be

34


random coursed stone to match the existing. The roof/wall junction will be a simple traditional pointed verge, and thus a slight contrast to the existing coping stones on the hall.

To the N of the two storey element will be a substantial square stone chimney stack and then a single storey wing for the new kitchen, again with a similar bold expanse of glass doors in PC aluminium frames an ashlar finish at each side and a copper spandrel panel above to give a synergy with the conservatory and the family room.

It can be seen from the proposed elevation (Plan 3) that, although the combined extensions are sizeable, they step down from the original building and are subservient to it in a contemporary but respectful manner and do not challenge its dominance. The visual and heritage significance of this elevation of Oxendale Hall is not harmed by the proposal. It can also be seen by comparing the visualisation (Plate 24) with the existing (Plate 25) that the proposal creates a clearer distinction between the original and the new but that the proposed extensions sit comfortably with the original and integrate harmoniously with it, when seen at close range.

Historic England advised in a pre-application consultation response (Appendix 2) in May 2019, that

There is a great opportunity to enhance the listed building by re-considering the 1990 extensions, particularly the wing with eastern porch, dormers and integral garages….

The proposal has since been amended to take advantage of this opportunity which was identified by Historic England to make a beneficial change.

The mid-distant views of the hall in its landscape setting, when viewed from the W, are substantially obstructed by the existing buildings to the W but a narrow view can be seen between the brick outbuildings and trees, with a backdrop of further trees behind to the E (Plate 25a). However, although the proposed interventions and extensions will be seen in this view their impact will be further reduced at this distance but will still be seen as stepping down slightly from the hall and being subservient to it.

As such, the proposed interventions will have a net Moderate Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on the overall appearance of the W elevation of Oxendale Hall and its heritage significance in these views.

Plate 24 Visualisation of W elevation Plate 25. Existing W elevation

35


East Elevation

The proposed intervention and extensions in the domestic extensions in the E elevation are mostly limited to a single storey extension for service/utility uses at the rear but these will be almost wholly screened by the proposed garage block and link to it (assessed separately below) in close-range views. Consideration was given to replacing the 1990s extensions but the structures are substantial, have embodied energy within them and can be easily adapted to meet the current demands and so their demolition would not be sustainable and could not be justified. However, it is proposed that the two segmental-headed garage door openings will be remodelled by removing the pseudo-portcullis railings, garage doors and kennel enclosure and the insertion a simple glazed panel. As such, the proposals for domestic extensions will have a minimal, but Slight Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on this elevation when seen from close range.

The mid-distance views of the proposed domestic extensions from the E will be effectively screened by the proposed garages, enclosing wall and hedge. The impact of the proposed garages, enclosing wall and hedge is assessed separately below.

Plate 25a Mid-distance view of the hall from the W

Plate 26. Proposed visualisation of E elevation Plate 26. Existing E elevation

36


North Elevation

The existing N elevation of the extension is very much the rear elevation of the hall and is at present a utilitarian elevation of single storey service rooms, with little architectural composition or merit, and no aspect to the N. However, the E part of the roof of the original building can still be seen beyond the extensions from a distance (Plate 27a). The proposals retain the N elevation as a subsidiary elevation of single storey buildings but importantly: do not extend any further N than the existing buildings (apart from the fully glazed oriel-type window); introduce some cohesion to it and; introduce some visual interest to its with increased fenestration, notably an intriguing asymmetrical “oriel-type” window for the kitchen/dining area. This window will also create an aspect out from the hall and enable appreciation of its landscape setting. Most importantly, the existing sight of the E part of the roof of the original building beyond will be retained. As such the proposals for domestic extensions will have a minimal, but slight beneficial impact on this elevation when seen from close range. Part of the single storey rear extensions will have a flat roof but it will have a substantial stone coping to give a strong definition to the termination of the wall and enable sight of the first floor window behind.

The mid-distant views of the hall in its landscape setting when viewed from the N (Plate 27a) are across an open area of grassed parkland, with a backdrop of further trees behind to the S and to the L (E) and in the context of the whole group of buildings to the W. However, although the proposed interventions and extensions will be seen in this view their impact will be reduced at this distance. It will be seen that: the proposed extensions do not extend further Wand; that they will have a better articulation and composition than at present. Importantly, the existing limited view of the roof of the original building and its gable chimney will still be legible. As such, the proposals for domestic extensions will have a minimal, but Slight Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on this elevation when seen in its landscape setting from mid-distance.

Cumulatively the proposed domestic extensions will have a Minor Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on the appearance and heritage significance of Oxendale Hall.

Moderate/ Slight Beneficial Significance of Impact

Plate 27a. Distant view of rear (N) elevation

37


8.3.3 Assessment of Impact of Proposed Garage Block and Enclosed Courtyard on Oxendale Hall

The proposal is to construct a four-car garage off the NE corner of the domestic extensions and to create a courtyard which is partially enclosed by the garages, a wall and an “architectural” hedge with a reduced area in comparison to the existing parking area.

At present, the car parking area appears somewhat over-sized for the building but lacks clear definition of its boundaries, as the gravel merges into the grass without a vertical boundary. The proposal is that a new brick/stone wall will be constructed around an area smaller than the existing parking area, so that it has definition and is more in scale with the hall. The garages will be built into the wall, with the wall continuing over them as a ridge, in a clever technique which will give the impression that the garages are small lean-to structures on to the wall, whereas they will actually extend beyond the wall. The effect of this technique will be to reduce the visual impact of the garages and to suggest that they could be simple garden structures built into the wall, as is often found historically in walled kitchen gardens at mid and high status historic country houses.

The garages will be visually separated from the hall but will be connected to it by a low link building. Thought was given to fully glazing the link building but ultimately, it is considered that it is preferable for it to be a solid wall so that it reads visually as part of the enclosing wall (Plate 26).

Although the proposed garages and courtyard at Oxendale Hall will extend the built envelope to the E and slightly change the appearance of this side of the building, there is a tradition of areas adjacent to historic halls being enclosed by tall walls in many of Lancashire’s historic halls, such as Hoghton Tower (Plate 28), Heysham Old Hall (Plate 29) and Borwick Hall. The proposal at Oxendale is not attempting to copy these other examples but they illustrate a historic precedence for enclosed areas adjacent to historic halls. Furthermore, in the context of the extensive size of the grounds of Oxendale Hall, this relatively small outwards extension of a service building and wall is not out of proportion.

Long and mid-distance views of Oxendale Hall from the E are prevented by the substantial area of woodland to the E (Plate 29b) but of course the hall can be seen from the W edge of the

Plate 27. Visualisation of the proposed rear aerial view

38


woodlands. It is accepted that the proposed garages, hedge and courtyard wall will partially obstruct this view but the garages, wall and hedge will be relatively low-key features, in traditional materials and form and will appear as being appropriate to their context. In any event, the extent of the original building which can be seen in this view is limited to the E gable, with its inserted oriel window at first floor and altered openings at ground floor.

Glimpses of the garages and the entrance to the courtyard will be visible between the hall and the proposed hedge when approaching the hall from the S in a narrow view cone (Plate 29a) for a short distance but the hedge will appear as an appropriate garden feature and the garages will be set back in that view and will be highly recessive. The front elevation of the hall currently has an assertive presence in that approach, commends attention and will continue to do so.

The garages and courtyard wall will not be seen at all from the W, due to the intervening presence of the hall.

Only strongly filtered view of the rear (N) elevation of the garages and wall will be seen at mid-distance from the N due to the presence of the trees and shrubs (Plate 27a) and this filtering effect increases as a receptor moves further (Plate 29c). The erection of the proposed garages and courtyard wall will thus have a minimal impact on the views from the N and NE.

The reduction in the size of the existing parking area and the definition of the courtyard are positive enhancements and the design and materials of the garage and wall are quietly contextual. Cumulatively the proposed garages, courtyard wall and hedge will have a Minor Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on Oxendale Hall.


Plate 28. Enclosed forecourt at Hoghton Tower Plate 29 Area at RH side enclosed by a wall at Heysham Old Hall

39


Plate 29a Visualisation of view of architectural hedge, courtyard and garages from S

Plate 29b. Aerial view of Oxendale Hall with some plate viewpoints

40


8.3.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Proposals on Oxendale Hall

The individual impacts of the domestic extensions and the garages/courtyard on Oxendale Hall have been assessed separately above. The domestic extensions and the garages/courtyard will also have a cumulative impact on Oxendale Hall.

The cumulative impacts of the proposals will be substantially the sum of the individual impacts, which are either No Change or Beneficial. The advice in Historic England’s Making Changes to Heritage Assets is:

The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets… are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, durability and adaptability, use, enclosure, relationship with adjacent assets and definition of spaces … and treatment of setting. Replicating a particular style may be less important, though there are circumstances when it may be appropriate. It would not normally be good practice for new work to dominate the original asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset’s significance and its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate.

In this case, the design and materials of overall proposals has been strongly influenced by the historic character of the original building and the “… proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, durability and adaptability, use, enclosure, relationship with adjacent assets and definition of spaces…” have been carefully considered to relate to the original building in a respectful, subservient and yet more contemporary way. As such, although the proposals will increase the size of the building, they will: be predominantly at the rear; be an enhancement of the existing extensions and; not dominate the hall or its setting. The visual and practical relationship between the hall and the nearby listed barn will not be affected by the proposed extensions in any way. Oxendale Hall is a prestigious historic country house standing in its own extensive

Plate 29c. Strongly filtered mid-distant view of the hall from the NE

41


landscaped grounds and the proposals will provide enhanced family facilities which are commensurate with its prestige and setting. Importantly, the cumulative impact of the extensions will not harm the heritage significance of the hall, as identified in the Statement of Significance in any way.

Cumulatively the proposed domestic extensions, garages, courtyard wall and hedge will have a Negligible Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on Oxendale Hall.

Slight Beneficial Significance of Impact

8.3.5 Assessment of Impact of Landscape Proposals on Setting of Oxendale Hall

It is proposed that the landscape to the W of Oxendale Hall will be slightly altered with a light touch by: creating a formal lawn terrace to the N of the existing cottage garden W of the hall; creating an informal lawn area to W at a lower level approached via steps on the site of the existing tennis courts and; forming a new tennis court further to the W than the current one.

Historic England’s The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Planning Note 3. (December 2017) advises that the impact of proposals on the setting of heritage assets should be assessed in a staged methodology:

Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected;Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contributionto the significance of the heritage asset(s);Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial orharmful, on that significance;Step 4: explore ways of maximising enhancement and avoiding or minimising harm;Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.

Step 1.

The heritage asset is Oxendale Hall. Its key setting which will be affected is an area of former agricultural land to the W and NW, which was domesticated in the mid-late 20th C, as an informal open grassed area and a tennis court. The high fencing around the tennis court slightly filters the view of the hall and so is a marginally intrusive structure.

Step 2.

This open grassed area and tennis court are effectively undeveloped and create a pleasant aspect for the hall and enable reasonably unrestricted views of it from the NW but: they have no special heritage significance in their own right; they have no historic associative connection with the hall and; contribute only minimally to its visual setting.

Step 3.

The proposed landscape works will slightly formalise the area immediately NW of the hall but this will not harm its setting in any way. The intention is to create a larger tended garden which will be commensurate with the status and scale of the hall. The relocation of the tennis court and its enclosing fence further away from the hall will slightly improve its setting. The landscape proposal will thus have a Minor Beneficial Magnitude of Impact on the setting of the hall.


42


Step 4.

As the landscape proposal will not cause any harm to the setting of the hall, there is no need to avoid or minimise any harm.

Step 5.

It is for HE and RVBC to make the decision and monitor the outcomes

8.3.6 Assessment of Impact of Overall Proposals on Setting of Cruck-framed Barn at Oxendale Hall

Step 1.

The heritage asset is the cruck-framed Barn at Oxendale Hall. Its key setting which will be affected is an area of former agricultural land to the N and NW, which was domesticated in the mid-late 20th C, as an informal open grassed area and a tennis court. The existing use of the land around the house as domestic garden has already substantially changed the original agricultural setting of the barn. In any event the barn is no longer in agricultural use. The high fencing around the tennis court slightly filters the view of the barn and so is a marginally intrusive structure. The existing vegetation also creates filtered views between the barn and the site

Step 2.

This open grassed area and tennis court are effectively undeveloped and create a pleasant secondary setting for the barn but, although not appropriate for its historic agricultural use, they are appropriate for its current use. This setting to the N of the barn has no special heritage significance in its own right; has no historic associative connection with the barn and; contributes only minimally to its visual setting. The hall and the barn have an historic functional relationship as a farmhouse and farm building. They also have a slight visual relationship although they are separated by a reasonable distance and intervening vegetation, driveway and a later wall.

Step 3.

The proposed building works at Oxendale Hall are all on the N and E side of the hall and are thus separated from the barn by: the hall, the existing tall garden wall, vegetation and a considerable intervening distance (Plate 30). The barn is also separated from the proposed landscape works by the wall, intervening vegetation and a considerable distance. The proposed landscape works will slightly formalise the secondary setting N of the barn but this will not harm its setting in any way. The landscape works will effectively have No Change Magnitude of Impact on the setting of the barn.

Neutral Significance of Impact

Step 4.

As the landscape proposal will not cause any harm to the setting of the hall, there is no need to avoid or minimise any harm.

Step 5.

It is for HE and RVBC to make the decision and monitor the outcomes

43


8.3.7 Summary of Impacts

The above assessment of impacts of the proposals has found that they will have: no Adverse impacts; two Neutral impacts and; three Moderate/Slight Beneficial impacts on the heritage significance of the heritage assets. The key beneficial impacts for the heritage significance of Oxendale Hall are that: - the proposed domestic extensions and partial demolition and intervention in the 1990s

extensions will make a clearer distinction between the original building and the later extensions; - the proposals will be a positive architectural expression in their own right, as contemporary

additions whilst respecting their historic context, and thereby make a positive contribution to the overall composition;

- the proposals will reduce the size and harmful impact of the existing parking area by giving it greater definition and a sense of enclosure;

- the proposals will enhance the landscape setting of the hall and relocate the tennis court and its fencing further from the historic building.

Plate 30. View towards hall (and proposed extensions) from the barn

44


Table 2. Summary of Impacts

8.3.8 Step 3 of HIA: How can these effects be avoided, reduced, rehabilitated (mitigated) or compensated?

As the HIA has found that the proposal has no adverse impact on the heritage assets, there is no need to avoid, reduce, mitigate or compensate the effects.

8.4 Historic England’s Assessment of the Proposals

8.4.1.The design, scale and materials of the proposed extensions at Oxendale Hall have been under consideration by the applicants, their agents, the Local Planning Authority and Historic England for a considerable period. The initial consultation with Historic England took place in 2017, when Historic England provided its advice on an initial proposal in a letter dated 6th April 2017. The proposed floor plans and elevations of that initial proposal are shown in Plans 9 and 10. Historic concluded that:

The current scheme (2017) to extend Oxendale Hall cannot be said to meet the requirements (of the NPPF) set out above, and would result in a very high level of harm occurring to the significance of the Grade II* listed building. We could not support any formal application to Ribble Valley Council for the works.

8.4.2 The proposal was revised in May 2019 and a further consultation was undertaken. Historic England’s full response is provided at Appendix 2 but its advice included the comments:

The contemporary approach, though welcome, lacks conviction, is heavily detailed and awkwardly related to the more traditional language of the existing extensions. The garage block remains rather large and suburban in character.

There is a great opportunity to enhance the listed building by re-considering the 1990 extensions, particularly the wing with eastern porch, dormers and integral garages. We, therefore, urge you to look again at the proposals to achieve a simpler, more compact scheme that achieves a more

Heritage Assets/Proposal Magnitude of Impact Significance of Effect

Oxendale Hall (Grade II*) - High Heritage Significance

Direct impact of proposals on Historic Fabric

No change Neutral

Impact of proposed domestic extensions on Oxendale Hall

Minor Beneficial Moderate/Slight Beneficial

Impact of proposed garage and courtyard on Oxendale Hall


Cumulative impact of proposed domestic extensions, garages and courtyard on Oxendale Hall

Negligible Beneficial Slight Beneficial

Impact of proposed landscape works on setting of Oxendale Hall


Cruck Barn (Grade II*) - High Heritage Significance

Impact of proposals on setting of Cruck Barn

No change (net) Neutral

45


cohesive relationship between old and new. The rear porch/garage wing might be replaced entirely - this option is likely to be more cost effective too.

We also offer the following advice: · The expression of the contemporary elements within the design would benefit from more contrasting lightness and simplicity in both form and detail, utilising high quality materials and specification. · A more compact, less sprawling layout is needed, with existing and proposed spaces and rooms rationalised and a more ordered spatial hierarchy that reduces the amount of circulation space. · It is important that the kitchen is better related to the listed building. The ideal location seems to where the conservatory is located, which is much closer to the ground floor rooms of the Hall, yet could still be re-imagined in a contemporary way. · The new family room element projects too far to the west, beyond the gable of the listed building. We recommend that this element is removed entirely, with the family room replacing the proposed kitchen. This wing would benefit from a simpler form in a contemporary style.

8.4.3 The current submission has been further amended to address the concerns of Historic England, as expressed in the letters of 6th April 2017 and 22nd May 2019. In particular:

- the overall floor area and mass have been much further reduced

- the contemporary approach has been strengthened, implemented with greater conviction and now more boldly expresses the zeitgeist or spirit of the day, whilst respecting its traditional setting and materials

- the impact of the garage block has been reduced by visually setting the rear half back behind the new courtyard wall

- many of the 1990s extensions have been remodelled and the overall extensions now have a simpler, more compact and cohesive relationship with the original building

- the proposed kitchen and new conservatory have been re-imagined in a contemporary way and given synergy by the proposed copper spandrels and glazing

- the new family room now extends no further than the W gable of the original building and is in a simple form in a contemporary style

8.4.4 Historic England has been consulted on the current submission and has commented much more favourably. The full response is provided at Appendix 3 and it includes the comments:

An amended scheme has now been provided for our consideration and it is clear that our previous comments have been positively taken on board and have strongly influenced the current proposal, which is very much welcomed.

We consider that whilst the proposed addition would still be a sizable extension to what is a deceptively modest historic structure, tall but narrow, it has been designed so that its mass blends with the existing structures and would not be overly visible in key views of the building. As such, the increase in size is encompassed by the existing and results in a design which has minimal additional impact to the Grade II* listed building.

The architectural form of the extension has also been refined and strikes a good balance between being respectful to the forms and materials of the 16th century hall, whilst still be clearly modern and an extension of today. This is once again a really positive progression to the scheme, which adds to its overall sensitivity.

In previous comments, we have raised some concerns with the proposed garage wing and its location and orientation. Whilst the current scheme has not made changes to either of the aspects, significant improvements have been made to the landscaping treatment of this area, which sees the area of hardstand considerably reduced in scale and enclosed to form a courtyard to the side of the hall. We consider these alterations have created a sense of a

46


service courtyard to the hall, which would not be out of character for a building of this nature. It would also result in a notable improvement to the setting of the hall, softening the hardstanding and reducing the visibility of the garage, all of which has resulted in the proposed location of the garage to be now considered acceptable.

As part of the works extensive landscaping would be carried out to create gardens around the hall. Whilst the form of these gardens is probably somewhat grander then the grounds originally associated with the hall, gardens adapt and develop in the same way buildings do and the existing landscaping is not felt to carry any particular significance, other than the need to keep the setting ‘green’, as such we have no concerns with the proposal to create more structured gardens around the hall.

In conclusion, the currently proposed scheme is the result of considerable work by all those involved and is a positive example of collaborative working. The design is now a sensitive addition to the historic structure, one we no longer have concerns over and which can progress to formal application stage.

Plan 9. Comparative floorplans/sizes of proposals

47


8.5 Assessment of Proposals Against Historic England’s Generic Advice

8.5.1 Historic England’s The Setting of Heritage Assets makes it clear that:

…the surroundings of a heritage asset will change over time…

This is consistent with the NPPF which acknowledges the potential for new development to enhance a heritage asset or its setting. It states:

185. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: …

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and …

This Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposed development will make a positive contribution to local character of Osbaldeston and the significance of Oxendale Hall.

8.5.2 Historic England’s advice note on setting is also consistent with its approach to change in the historic environment which is set out in its over-arching document, Conservation Principles, which states:

Plan 10. Comparative elevations of proposals

48


4.1 Change in the historic environment is inevitable, caused by natural processes, the wear and tear of use, and people’s responses to social, economic and technological change.

4.2 Conservation is the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations.

This Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposed development and works will deliver change that sustains the heritage values of Oxendale Hall and the cruck-framed barn.

8.5.3 Conservation Principles goes on to state:

138. New work or alteration to a significant place should normally be acceptable if: a. there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place; b. the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed; c. the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now and in the future; d. the long-term consequences of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in the future.

This Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposals meet these criteria for acceptable change in the historic environment:

A. the submitted plans, this Heritage Statement and the other supporting documentation provide sufficient information to enable an understanding of the impacts of the proposal on Oxendale Hall and the barn

B. the proposal will not materially harm the values of the place as identified in the Statement of Significance and indeed, some of the visual values will be enhanced

C. the proposals aspire to a quality of design which will be valued now and in the future

In Para.143 of Conservation Principles, Historic England advises:

There are no simple rules for achieving quality of design in new work, although a clear and coherent relationship of all the parts to the whole, as well as to the setting into which the new work is introduced, is essential. This neither implies nor precludes working in traditional or new ways, but will normally involve respecting the values established through an assessment of the significance of the place.

Great care has been taken in the design of the proposed extension to work in “a new way”, following an assessment of the significance of the place, to ensure a coherent relationship with the surrounding buildings and to complement the character and appearance of the site. The aim is for the proposed extension to be seen as an impressive contemporary addition, rather than being pastiche or a poor copy of the original building. It aims to be respectful of its historic setting and that it will be “…valued now and in the future”.

This approach is fully consistent with current international and national advice for new buildings in historic settings.

UNESCO issued its Vienna Memorandum (2005) on “World Heritage Sites and Contemporary Architecture’ which strongly advocates contemporary designs in the most important heritage sites in the world. It states:

49


Para 21: …urban planning, contemporary architecture and preservation of the historic urban landscape should avoid all forms of pseudo-historical design, as they constitute a denial of both the historical and the contemporary alike. One historical view should not supplant others, as history must remain readable, while continuity of culture through quality interventions is the ultimate goal.

Para 31: …Historic and contemporary architecture constitute an asset to local communities, which should serve educational purposes, leisure, tourism, and secure market value of properties.

Similarly, Historic England and CABE issued “Building in Context - New development in historic areas” in 2001 to:

… stimulate a high standard of design when development takes place in historically sensitive contexts

The guidance includes many examples of contemporary architecture as positive case studies and importantly advises:

A successful project will:…- relate well to the geography and history of the place and the lie of the land- respect important views…

This Heritage Statement makes the case that the current proposal: avoids pseudo-historical design; will become an asset to the local community, as a symbol of positive change; constitutes high quality design; relates well to the geography and history of the place; respects important views and; complies with the relevant advice.

Furthermore, the NPPF (2019) places great emphasis on high quality design as a contributor to sustainable development. It states:

131. In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.

In summary, the strong generic advice from Historic England, CABE (now the Design Council) and UNESCO is that new buildings should generally express the “zeitgeist” or spirit of the day and avoid pastiche designs, even within historic settings, provided that they are of suitable quality and respect their historic setting. This Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposed extension aspires to a high quality of design and execution, respects its historic setting and that there is no justifiable reason to resist it.

D. the long-term consequences are benign.

8.6 Assessment against Ribble Valley BC’s Policies

8.6.1 The Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 A Local Plan for Ribble Valley Adoption Version’s KEY STATEMENT EN5: HERITAGE ASSETS aims to secure the conservation and enhancement of the significance of heritage assets and their settings in the borough.

This Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposals are consistent with this Key Statement on heritage assets as the proposals will “…conserve and enhance their significance and avoids any substantial harm to the heritage asset.” and will “…make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness/sense of place.”

50


8.6.2 Policy DME4: Protecting Heritage Assets seeks to protect listed buildings and their setting. This Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposals are consistent with this policy as:: the they will “…cause no harm to the significance of the heritage assets (or their setting”

51


9. Conclusion

9.1 This Heritage Statement makes the case that: the current proposals for the proposed extensions, garages, courtyard wall and landscape proposals at Oxendale Hall will cause no harm to the heritage assets or their setting and will in fact bring about an enhancement in the heritage significance and appearance of the buildings. The key heritage benefits of the proposal will be:

- the proposed domestic extensions and alterations to the 1990s extensions will make a clearer distinction between the original building and the later extensions;

- the proposed domestic extensions and alterations will be a positive architectural expression in their own right as contemporary additions, whilst respecting their historic context, and thereby make a positive contribution to the overall composition;

- the proposals will reduce the size and impact of the existing parking area by giving it greater definition and a sense of enclosure;

- the proposed landscape plan will enhance the landscape setting of the hall and relocate the tennis court and its fencing further from the historic building.

9.2 This Heritage Statement makes the case that the current proposals are consistent with national and local heritage policies and guidance and that there are no grounds for resisting them. Historic England has also advised that the current proposals have:

…been designed so that its mass blends with the existing structures and would not be overly visible in key views of the building. As such, the increase in size is encompassed by the existing and results in a design which has minimal additional impact to the Grade II* listed building.


The case in favour of support for the current proposal, as set out in this Heritage Statement and and provided by Historic England, is thus exceptionally strong.

9.3 The NPPF, in Section 16 on Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, places great weight on the conservation of heritage assets and their setting. It provides advice to local authorities on decision-making in respect of proposals which will cause some level of harm. It states at Para 196:

196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to thesignificance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed againstthe public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing itsoptimum viable use.

However, the Heritage Impact Assessment in this Heritage Statement and the assessment by Historic England conclude that the proposal will cause no harm to the heritage assets or their setting. Therefore, the advice on The presumption in favour of sustainable development in Para. 11 of the NPPF (2019) is more relevant. It states:

Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment.

52


…For decision-taking this means:…

c) approving development proposals that accord with the development planwithout delay;…

9.4 The proposals represent sustainable development and accord with the development plan and so this Heritage Statement makes the case that the proposals should be considered favourably and that the applications should be approved without delay.

This Heritage Statement was prepared by:

John Hinchliffe BA (Hons), BPl, MSc (Building Heritage & Conservation), IHBC, RTPIHinchliffe Heritage,5 Lincoln Drive,WallaseyCH45 7PL

[email protected] 970396 6th January 2020

Select Bibliography

Buildings of England: North Lancashire Pevsner 1969 Penguin

History of Blackburn WA Abraham

Lancashire’s Architectural Heritage John Champness 1989 Lancashire County Council

Oxendale Hall, Osbaldeston, Lancashire: Heritage Impact Statement for Cruck Barn Marion Barter 2017 Architectural History Practice

Oxendale Hall, Osbaldeston, Lancashire: Heritage Statement Marion Barter 2017 Architectural History Practice

Victoria County History of Lancashire Vol 6

Ribble-Land Joseph Baron

53


Appendices

Appendix 1. Levels of Heritage Value and Definitions, from DMRB

Appendix 2. Historic England’s Pre-Application Response dated 22nd May 2019 on previous proposals

Thank you for our recent meeting and for showing me around to help me understand the revised proposals for extension and alteration to the grade II* listed Hall.

Our previous letter on 6 April 2017 outlined the significance of the Hall and provided comments on the overly ambitious earlier scheme. Our principal concern was that the listed building should remain the dominant component in the composition and hierarchy of accommodation. The sheer scale of the proposed extensions meant that the listed building became an ancillary element.

The new proposals are certainly more restrained than the original scheme, which we welcome. It is positive that the listed building would now accommodate principal bedrooms, which helps to ensure its remains at the heart of the home. The new extensions to the rear are much reduced in mass and appear less dominant than before.

However, the scale of extension remains large, with a footprint that almost doubles the existing house, albeit now largely single storey. The rather sprawling layout results in a less than cohesive plan form, with significant space wasted in circulation corridors and a rambling assortment of ancillary rooms. The new contemporary accommodation of kitchen, dining room and family room still feels like a separate entity that it is poorly linked to the main house. The location of the new kitchen, in particular, is very remote from the historic core of the building. Our concern is that the rooms within the listed building would become less used over time if they are not well related to the family kitchen.

Very High • Structures inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites.• Other buildings of recognised international importance.

High • Scheduled Monuments with standing remains.• Grade I and Grade II* (Scotland: Category A) Listed Buildings.• Other listed buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations not adequately reflected in the listing grade.• Conservation Areas containing very important buildings.• Undesignated structures of clear national importance.

Medium • Grade II (Scotland: Category B) Listed Buildings.• Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations.• Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute significantly to its historiccharacter.• Historic Townscape or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures).

Low • ‘Locally Listed’ buildings (Scotland Category C(S) Listed Buildings).• Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association.• Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures).

Negligible • Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of an intrusive character.

Unknown • Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance.

54


The architectural character of the proposals reflects the plan and result in further elaboration and complexity of form and style that lacks coherence. The contemporary approach, though welcome, lacks conviction, is heavily detailed and awkwardly related to the more traditional language of the existing extensions. The garage block remains rather large and suburban in character.

There is a great opportunity to enhance the listed building by re-considering the 1990 extensions, particularly the wing with eastern porch, dormers and integral garages. We, therefore, urge you to look again at the proposals to achieve a simpler, more compact scheme that achieves a more cohesive relationship between old and new. The rear porch/garage wing might be replaced entirely - this option is likely to be more cost effective too.

We also offer the following advice: · The expression of the contemporary elements within the design would benefit from more contrasting lightness and simplicity in both form and detail, utilising high quality materials and specification. · A more compact, less sprawling layout is needed, with existing and proposed spaces and rooms rationalised and a more ordered spatial hierarchy that reduces the amount of circulation space. · It is important that the kitchen is better related to the listed building. The ideal location seems to where the conservatory is located, which is much closer to the ground floor rooms of the Hall, yet could still be re-imagined in a contemporary way. · The new family room element projects too far to the west, beyond the gable of the listed building. We recommend that this element is removed entirely, with the family room replacing the proposed kitchen. This wing would benefit from a simpler form in a contemporary style. · Ancillary rooms and services should be rationalised if possible (plant, electrics, boiler, cloakroom, laundry, pantry, 4 x WCs) to avoid so many rooms with separate functions. For example the plant room/store could be combined with electrics and boiler and instead become the pantry, greatly improving the circulation. · The garaging might be better designed as a detached block within a walled courtyard, rotating the building 90 degrees and siting this to the east. This would help to enclose the existing poorly defined gravel area. If it is essential for a covered link to the house from the garage then a pergola, with a discrete roof, along the northern side of this space could serve this function.

I hope this advice is helpful and please call if you wish to discuss the proposals further. We can offer further advice under our Enhanced Advisory Service, which involves a fee to recover our costs. An estimate of our charges would be provided and agreed beforehand.

Yours sincerely

David James Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas

Appendix 3. HE Pre-Application Response dated 14th November 2019 on current proposals

Oxendale Hall is a stone built house of 1656, three storeys in height and originally one room deep. It is of particular significance as a relatively unaltered lobby entry. This planned form was favoured by the yeoman’s of Lancashire, for mid status houses, often owned by free-holding farmers. Interestingly the hall flirts with the idea of symmetry, likely being influenced by higher status houses locally.

Internally the house largely retains its original planned form as well as elements of stylistic 17th century plasterwork. Oxendale Hall formed part of the Osbaldeston Hall estate, and functioned as a secondary residence until the mid19th century, which is perhaps the reason for its relative unaltered form.

55


Oxendale Hall is of historic and architectural interest due to its date, planned form, architectural detailing and links to the Lancashire landowning families. Its particular interest is recognised in its designation as a grade II* listed building, placing it in the top 5% of England’s listed buildings. We have been involved in discussions to extend Oxendale Hall for a period of time, providing comments on a number of schemes and principally raising concerns with the overall size of the addition and the impact it would have on the dominance of the significant 16th century Oxendale Hall.

An amended scheme has now been provided for our consideration and it is clear that our previous comments have been positively taken on board and have strongly influenced the current proposal, which is very much welcomed.

We consider that whilst the proposed addition would still be a sizable extension to what is a deceptively modest historic structure, tall but narrow, it has been designed so that its mass blends with the existing structures and would not be overly visible in key views of the building. As such, the increase in size is encompassed by the existing and results in a design which has minimal additional impact to the Grade II* listed building.


In previous comments, we have raised some concerns with the proposed garage wing and its location and orientation. Whilst the current scheme has not made changes to either of the aspects, significant improvements have been made to the landscaping treatment of this area, which sees the area of hardstand considerably reduced in scale and enclosed to form a courtyard to the side of the hall. We consider these alterations have created a sense of a service courtyard to the hall, which would not be out of character for a building of this nature. It would also result in a notable improvement to the setting of the hall, softening the hardstanding and reducing the visibility of the garage, all of which has resulted in the proposed location of the garage to be now considered acceptable.

As part of the works extensive landscaping would be carried out to create gardens around the hall. Whilst the form of these gardens is probably somewhat grander then the grounds originally associated with the hall, gardens adapt and develop in the same way buildings do and the existing landscaping is not felt to carry any particular significance, other than the need to keep the setting ‘green’, as such we have no concerns with the proposal to create more structured gardens around the hall.

In conclusion, the currently proposed scheme is the result of considerable work by all those involved and is a positive example of collaborative working. The design is now a sensitive addition to the historic structure, one we no longer have concerns over and which can progress to formal application stage.

It is important to stress, however, that the current scheme is the maximum enlargement Oxendale Hall could accommodate without impacting on its significance, and we advise against any future plans to enlarge the building further. However, the hall is fortunate to sit within a wider complex and we aren’t discounting the possibility for further accommodation within the secondary grouping of structures.

Next Steps Thank you for involving us at the pre-application stage. We consider your proposals have now reached a stage where they address any heritage considerations we may have.

Yours sincerely 56


Marie Smallwood Principal Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas

57

Heritage Statement for Proposed Alterations and Extensions ... · The rooms to the W were probably...

Documents

Transcript of Heritage Statement for Proposed Alterations and Extensions ... · The rooms to the W were probably...