CONSERVATION CONSULTATION
Application No.: 15/00216/OUT
Date of response: 17 July 2015
Case Officer: Tim Ball
Location: Hotel Van Dyk And Land South Of Plantation On North Side Of Worksop Road
Clowne
Proposal: Hotel extension (including details of access); and erection of 52 residential
properties (including details of all reserved matters) on land north of Worksop Road with
new access roundabout junction to serve both developments. |
Considerations
Local Plan Policies Con1, Con 10
NPPF Paragraph 132
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or
development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or
loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of
a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to
or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings,
grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be
wholly exceptional.
NPPF Paragraph 131
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:


The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and
putting them into viable uses consistent with their conservation
The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to
sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local
character and distinctiveness
Paragraph 137
Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within
conservation areas and world heritage sites and within the setting of heritage assets to
enhance or better reveal their significance.
English Heritage Guidance – The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011)
2.2 THE EXTENT OF SETTING
From the definition provided above, it can be understood that setting embraces all of the
surroundings (land, sea, structures, features and skyline) from which the heritage asset
can be experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not
have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially
bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset. Views on what
comprises a heritage asset’s setting may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve,
or as the asset becomes better understood. Construction of a distant but high building;
development generating noise, odour, vibration or dust over a wide area; or new
understanding of the relationship between neighbouring heritage assets may all extend
what might previously have been understood to comprise setting.
Reference is sometimes made to the ‘immediate’ and ‘extended’ setting of a heritage
assets, but the terms should not be regarded as having any particular formal meaning.
While many day-to-day cases will be concerned with the immediate setting of an asset,
development within the extended setting may also affect significance, particularly where it
is large-scale, prominent or intrusive.
2.3 VIEWS AND SETTING
The contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by
reference to views – a view being a purely visual impression of an asset or place, obtained
from, or by moving through, a particular viewing point or viewing place. The setting of any
heritage asset is likely to include a variety of views of, across, or including that asset, and
views of the surroundings from or through the asset. A long-distance view may intersect
with, and incorporate the settings of numerous heritage assets. Views from within
extensive heritage assets can also be important contributors to significance: for example,
views from the centre of an historic town, through the townscape to its surrounding
countryside, or from an historic house, through its surrounding designed landscape to the
countryside beyond.
The main considrations are the potential impact upon the listed buildings and their setting
and the character of the conservation area.
Case Law relating to the setting of heritage assets
There are three ways to examine the proposal.
There is substantial harm to a heritage asset
There is less then substantial harm to a heritage asset
There is no impact or harm to a heritage asset
The level of harm to a heritage asset (resulting from development) is a matter for the
decision making authority. Clearly in determining harm, proximity of the development
proposal to the heritage asset is key. Development in the setting of an heritage asset can
consitute substantial harm. The housing development opposite the hall and the
extensions to the hall clearly have an impact on the heritage assets.
The latest correspondence questions the quality of the listed buildings and the setting, but
the simple fact is that the buildings are listed (Grade II) which renders them designated
heritage assets. There is nothing of substance in the correspondence to undermine the
assessment of the setting, for example the attempt to construct a distinction between
‘private’ views and ‘public’ views is false and has no basis in national guidance or decided
cases. See Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice, Advice in Planning,
Note 3 – The setting of Heritage Assets, views and setting (p 3).
The proximity to heritage assets, means that the proposed development will either be
determined to result in substantial harm or less than substantial harm. If the close
proximity of the proposed development resulted in substantial harm, then paragraph 133
NPPF, would apply. In which case the application should be refused, unless it can be
demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm
to the heritage asset.
It could be argued that the proposal represents less than substantial harm to the heritage
asset, in which case paragraph 134 NPPF would apply (..,”this harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use”). In
my opinion, the current proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the
heritage assets. In such cases the decision making authority is again required to
consider the balance between harm to the heritage asset and the benefit of the
development.
In Barnwell Manor Wind Energy ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council & others
(2014) the Court of Appeal held that the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed
building should not simply be carefully considered, but setting should be given,
'considerable importance and weight', when the decision making authority is deciding on
the balance between harm and public benefit.
In Forest of Dean District Council v SSCLG (2014) the court added that a 'convincing
justification', should be required in cases where there heritage assets suffer any harm or
loss. (Mr Justice Lindblom).
In summary:



The decision making authority determines the level of harm.
Once the level of harm has been determined, then either paragraph 133 or
paragraph 134 will apply.
Whichever level of harm is determined, the presumption is against development
resulting in harm, unless the harm is necessary to achieve a public benefit, or there
is a convincing justification. The courts have set a high level for developers to pass
the test and counterbalance the weight placed on preserving the heritage asset.
Comments:
Housing development:
Southgate House, although not designated as a registered park and garden, has been
recognised a
s an important historic house with an associated landscape.
The Historic Environment SPD pg 11 paragraph 1.13 recognises the significance of
historic houses and their associated landscape:- “Historic estates and their landscape
quality are recognised with the designation of conservation areas for……. Southgate
House and Barlborough Hall. The long retention of these parks in single private ownership
has led to the survival of many archaeological and designed landscape features”
The Southgate House conservation area was designated on 8th November 1989 and
comprises an area of 28 hectares. The area includes:1) Southgate House (now Van Dyk’s Hotel) is a substantial GII listed building
comprising of a late 18th – early 19th century villa with later 19th century chapel. Map
evidence shows that the house originally stood in a formal landscape with an
associated walled garden. The garden area and walled garden was developed for
use as a nursery and garden centre in the 20th century. The architecture of the
house is polite and it clear from historic evidence that the house was intended to
stand isolated in a landscaped setting occupying a visually prominent position on
the main Chesterfield to Worksop Road.
2) Pair of cottages, stables and coach house and walls enclosing stable yard. This
ensemble of buildings are listed GII and are converted to residential use, in single
ownership. The buildings date from mid 19th century and are constructed in
magnesian limestone with welsh slate roof. At present the stables sit in an isolated
position in a countryside setting. The range of buildings are typical estate buildings
of significant architectural and historic merit. The properties form a courtyard and
face inwards. There are windows on the rear elevation of the coach house
3) The woodland around the House, including the square plantation, part of which is
covered by tree preservation order TPO BOL/2
4) The landscaped approach to Southgate House from the west
5) Southgate nursery and four modern dwellings
The character of the area is essentially open countryside with scattered isolated estate
buildings with pockets of dense woodland. The Derbyshire Landscape Character
Assessment (produced by Derbyshire County Council) defines the character type of this
area as “Limestone Farmlands” which is summarised as “an open arable landscape
populated by the occasional very large plantation woodland, often on ancient woodland
sites, with small tree groups around farmsteads and settlement”
An analysis of the historic plans dating back to 1875 endorses this definition of the
character.
It is clear that the landscape setting contributes to the significance of the designated
heritage assets i.e conservation area and listed building.
An assessment of degree of harm caused to the character and appearance of the area
and the setting of the listed buildings will be required (less than substantial or substantial).
It is my view that he introduction of 52 residential units in this landscape setting will
significantly alter the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of
the listed buildings. The introduction of the new dwellings will transform the area into a
small hamlet. The prominence of the main house and the outbuildings will be
overshadowed by the development. I am of the opinion the level of harm is less than
substantial.
Whilst I can appreciate the wider regeneration benefits of the enhanced hotel facilities for
the District as whole, I feel that it would be very difficult to argue that these benefits
outweigh the level of harm caused to heritage asset.
The submitted heritage statement makes no reference to the conservation area and
potential impacts, it does recognise potential impact to southgate house and its setting
(5.22 proposals) and proposes mitigation with strategic planting. I do not consider that
this proposed mitigation will be sufficient to allieviate the harm caused to the conservation
area and to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings.
Hotel extension:
I understand that permission has already been granted for the hotel extension but the
detailed design has yet to be approved. I have concerns about the scale of the
extensions, three storeys next to the main house will be too dominant, also the design
does not relate to the existing group of buildings. There are too many architectural
elements at present, I think it should be simplified so that the main house remains the
dominant and most important building on the site.
Based on the above I object to the current housing proposal and have concerns about the
design of the hotel extensions. With regard to the proposed housing, I do not conisder
that a convincing justification for development over harm has been provided by the
applicant.
Deborah Woodcroft
Heritage Conservation Manager (part time)