HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW
Reforming heritage designations
Introduction
The Government recognises the need for change to the current system of heritage
protection designation. The recent Heritage Protection Review (HPR) undertaken by
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has recommended unification of
the current regimes of listing buildings, scheduling archaeological sites and
monuments and registering parks, gardens and battlefields into a new Register of
Historic Sites and Buildings of England (the Register). These heritage protection
reforms should be seen alongside research by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
(ODPM) into the potential unification of planning consents and proposed changes to
marine environment legislation being considered by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as a step towards making the whole system of
natural, historic and environmental designation more understandable to the public and
its protections appropriate to the individual requirements of the assets.
This paper should be read in conjunction with a further three papers addressing linked
aspects of the HPR. These cover: reforming the heritage consent regimes; Heritage
Partnership Agreements; and local delivery.
The current system
Historic assets are currently designated under a number of different regimes which
have been developed over time, the earliest being the Schedule of Ancient
Monuments, which dates back to 1882 and the most recent the Battlefields Register,
created in 1995.
The main designation regimes cover around 400,000 historic assets in England,
broken down as follows:
Listed buildings
Scheduled ancient monuments
Registered parks and gardens
Registered battlefields
Protected wrecks
World Heritage Sites
Areas of archaeological importance
372,000 list entries (approx)
19,500 (approx)
1,450
43
57
16
5
These designation regimes are applied according to different criteria, with different
decision-making processes. Each designation carries a different level of protection
and associated management regime.
In addition to these specific designations, there are also designations relating to the
local planning system (e.g. conservation areas), the natural environment (e.g. Sites of
Special Scientific Interest) and military remains which impact upon the historic
environment.
1
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
The case for change
Current designation systems have worked well over the past hundred years to protect
England’s historic assets. Despite these protections, however, responses to the 2003
DCMS consultation on the protection of the historic environment show that the current
designation system is perceived by many as a barrier to the effective management,
proper understanding and appropriate development of historic sites.
The number of separate designation systems, and the different basis on which
designation decisions are made, makes the system difficult to understand, particularly
for non-professionals. Owners can find themselves with sites which incorporate
several different types of historic asset under several different designations. Some
sites are subject to multiple designations. This can be confusing and frustrating for
both owners and heritage conservation staff administering the system, particularly
given the different regulatory regimes attached to different designations.
The designation process itself is perceived by many to be opaque and secretive, with
little opportunity for dialogue with owners or for wide consultation. The wording of
designation documentation is seen as academic and hard to understand and there is a
lack of user-friendly access to information on what is designated.
Designation can also be a slow process. The average time taken to process a listing
application is six months, with widely varying response times – very urgent cases can
be turned around in a matter of days, whereas very complex cases can take years.
Similarly, the time taken to schedule an ancient monument can vary from weeks to
years. Clearly, some designation decisions need to be taken more quickly than
others, but administrative delays are a significant source of frustration to applicants
and operators of the system alike.
Characteristics of a new system
There are a number of options for reforming the current heritage designation regimes.
Whatever model is adopted, any new system will need to meet a number of core
policy objectives. Reform of the heritage designation system must:

Include all historic assets currently protected under current systems. The
Government has given a commitment as part of the HPR that any reforms to the
heritage protection system will not dilute the current levels of protection for historic
assets. Any unified system must maintain the levels of protection provided by the
current separate regimes.

Make the system more comprehensible. For non-heritage professionals, and for
owners and developers in particular, the current designation systems can be hard
to understand. Any reforms must be able to demonstrate that they are making the
system more comprehensible rather than adding to complexity. Improving the
understanding of sites and of the designation process among all relevant parties is
a key pre-requisite for allowing a more responsive and flexible management
approach to sites.
2
DCMS/ EH
August 2005

Reduce bureaucracy, streamline the system and make it more efficient. The
Government has made a commitment to streamlining and speeding up the
operation of the current heritage protection and planning systems. Any changes to
the current designation regimes relating to historic assets must be able to
demonstrate that they will simplify and streamline the system for operators, owners
and end users.
The beginning of the process
The designation system is the first element of a continuing process, identifying historic
assets that can then be managed through appropriate regulatory regimes. Improving
the designation system will also bring significant improvements to the associated
consent and management regimes:

Improving information about what is designated and why will lead to better
informed and better quality consent applications.

Improving information about what is designated and providing more contextual
information about sites as a whole will enable owners and managers to become
more engaged in the management of sites.

Improving information about designated sites will give greater clarity and
confidence to local professionals dealing with consent and management issues.
Elements of the new Register
The 2004 DCMS decision document on heritage protection reform1 set out the core
elements of a new designation system comprising:



A new statutory definition of historic assets in England;
Detailed selection criteria for designating different types of asset;
A single heritage designation system based on a new Register of Historic Sites
and Buildings in England, supported by new documentation and new processes.
Following the publication of the decision document, English Heritage (EH) has
undertaken a series of pilot projects to test out aspects of the proposed new system in
detail. The rest of the paper draws on findings from the pilot projects to consider each
of these three elements in turn.
A new statutory definition of historic assets in England
The new statutory definition of historic assets in England will need to cover all types of
asset requiring designation and protection, from extensive landscapes to single pillar
boxes. The definition will also need to be sufficiently flexible in order to allow future
changes to the detailed operation of designation and protection regimes without the
need for changes to primary legislation.
1
Review of Heritage Protection: the Way Forward DCMS 2004
3
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
At the same time, the new Register is likely to distinguish between various types of
designated asset. These have yet to be finally determined, but are likely to be along
the lines of archaeological sites and monuments, buildings, and landscapes. The new
statutory definition may therefore provide a broad definition of historic assets based
around these three asset types.
The new statutory definition will also define what makes a historic asset ‘nationally’ or
‘locally’ important in order to underpin the creation of national and local Registers.
Detailed selection criteria for designating different types of asset
In order to designate assets, the new statutory definition will need to be underpinned
by detailed selection criteria for designating different types of asset. At present, each
designation regime has its own criteria. These vary greatly in terms of level of
prescription and detail provided. The selection criteria for scheduling ancient
monuments, for example, are extremely detailed, while until recently the selection
criteria for listing buildings were very broad.
Once the statutory definition has established the distinction between various types of
historic asset – archaeological sites and monuments, buildings, and landscapes,
existing designation criteria will need to be revised in order to bring them to a common
standard. The DCMS has recently published a public consultation on proposed new
designation criteria relating to listing buildings. This consultation proposes a threetiered approach to designation: statutory criteria, backed up by broad principles of
selection and detailed selection criteria for a range of building types. Initial responses
to this approach have been very positive and it may be that the revised listing criteria
can provide a model for revised selection criteria under the new designation regime.
In addition to selection criteria for national designations, companion criteria will need
to be established for local designations. National criteria will also need to set out an
explanation of the new two-tier grading system.
The new Register of Historic Sites and Buildings in England
The new Register will need to incorporate all types of designated sites, from single
milestones, to complex World Heritage Sites such as Maritime Greenwich. The
Register will need to be a flexible designation tool that can provide information on both
very simple and very complex sites in an easily comprehensible way. It will need to be
backed up by processes that can deliver high numbers of designations to an
appropriate standard within reasonable timescales.
Structure of the Register
Simple entries
For the majority of sites, a simple entry on the register will define what is designated
and why. This will include a written element, describing what is included with a
summary of importance linked to the designation criteria, and a GIS map defining the
extent of the designation. For many sites, this will offer a much more comprehensive
approach than the current designation. For example, the original list description for
4
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
Southgate underground station (Annex A) is fairly cursory, at just 5 lines long. It is
mostly descriptive detail with a reference to the architect. A new style Register entry
runs to 3 pages, written in a more accessible way, with historical and contextual
references, and a more detailed description of the significant elements of the station.
The Register will also address the issue of sites which are currently both listed and
scheduled, or administratively messy. Higher New Bridge (Annex B), in North
Cornwall, has two list entries, one for each end of the bridge in different parishes, at
different grades, and is also scheduled. Under the new Register, this bridge would
simply require one entry, and one grade.
Complex sites
Work on the pilots has suggested that for complex sites with multiple designations that
relate closely to each other, a two-tier approach to designation will be needed in order
to provide a more comprehensive assessment. For such complex sites, each
individual asset will be designated in the same way as a simple Register entry (written
element, including summary of importance linked to the designation criteria plus GIS
map). These individual assets will be accompanied by an overarching description of
the site as a whole. This approach allows a more contextual description of the way
the assets relate to each other and the way the site has developed as a historic entity.
This is demonstrated effectively at the Holkham Estate in Norfolk. This is a large
historical estate, the seat of the Earl of Leicester. In terms of designation, the main
house, outbuildings, greenhouses and surrounding park and garden can be gathered
under a single Register entry that explains the development of the estate and its
history, allowing the underlying assets to be described individually in separate records.
At Kenilworth in the Midlands, as part of the pilot the individual components include
the castle, which is the most well known element, but also the mere and pleasance,
the abbey, fishponds and church. These are grouped together under one Register
entry which explains the context of this medieval landscape and how each element
relates closely to each other. The pilot partners believe this will help them to manage
the site as a whole, particularly since it is now dissected by a road, and the context is
not as obvious as it could be.
At Langdale, a remote site in the Lake district, we can take a simple approach to very
dispersed collection of Neolithic axe factories across a landscape, internationally
significant but difficult under the current regime to designate. We have identified
groups of axe factories, but have also been able to explain the importance of the wider
landscape which is of a large scale. The pilot partners have been positive about this
approach, believing it will help them to manage the landscape effectively, whilst
identifying the core areas of significant archaeological deposits.
As demonstrated in the examples, by using a GIS approach it is possible to identify
clearly different components of a designated site and use this information to inform
future management decisions. The approach set out here will enable varying levels of
control to be assigned to various elements of a complex site as appropriate.
5
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
The operation of the Register
The 2004 decision document set out new arrangements for the operation of the
Register designed to make the designation process more open and more streamlined.
National responsibility for designation will be transferred from the DCMS to EH,
though this will require primary legislation. At the same time, new notification,
consultation and appeal processes will be introduced to support the designation
process, and interim protection measures put in place for sites under consideration.
These operational changes have already begun to be implemented. On 1st April 2005
responsibility for the administration of the listing system was transferred from DCMS to
EH. Over the course of 2005/06, EH will introduce new notification and consultation
arrangements for listing, and Owners Packs for the owners of newly listed properties.
DCMS has also introduced a more formal review process for people who are unhappy
with the process or outcome of any listing decision. These interim changes to the
listing process will provide a useful steer for the development of the new statutory
processes to support the Register.
Some operational changes, particularly the removal of administrative ‘double handling’
between the DCMS and EH are likely to speed up the designation process. At the
same time, the interim protection provided for sites while they are being considered for
designation is likely to intensify the pressure for a quicker timescale for decisionmaking. However, most of the proposed amendments to the system involve new
processes that will take time to complete, particularly the new consultation
arrangements. It may be that the overall times taken to process listing cases are not
significantly quicker.
Another significant issue will be the transfer of around 400,000 existing designations,
mainly listed buildings, to the new designation system. Legally, existing designations
can be transferred to the new system, so assets will continue to be designated. The
question is how existing designations, many of which have inadequate information,
descriptions and mapping, can be brought up to the standard of new Register entries.
There are a number of options for addressing this:

EH might run a thematic re-designation programme identifying priorities for
intensive work, such as ‘double designations’ (assets that are currently both
listed and scheduled), regeneration areas or particular asset types;

Local authorities or other bodes might be asked to amend designations in their
area, with quality assurance provided by EH;

A consent application might trigger re-designation, though the volume of annual
consent applications (around 32,000) might make this difficult to achieve without
local authority input.
In reality, a combination of approaches is likely to be adopted, though all will have
resource implications.
6
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
Access to the Register
At present, information on designated assets is available from a number of sources –
from local authorities, from EH, from the DCMS and from the National Monuments
Record (NMR).
Under the proposed HPR reforms, EH will become the body responsible for
designation at national level. It is therefore appropriate that EH is the body
responsible for the creation, maintenance and access to the new Register.
A wide variety of individuals and organisations are likely to require access to the new
Register - owners and managers of sites, local planning authorities, other local
authority departments, developers, archaeologists, central government staff in the
regions, local communities and interested individuals. The new Register will be
available in electronic form, and there is a question as to how this information can best
be accessed by these various interests.
Under HPR proposals, local authority Historic Environment Records (HERs), the
general record of the historic environment in a particular local area, will be made a
statutory requirement. HERs currently vary in their depth, consistency and adherence
to standards - not all are based on GIS systems, and not all include information on all
designated sites in an area. There is a case for requiring local access to the national
Register through the HERs. DCMS, EH, the Association of Local Government
Archaeological Officers (ALGAO), and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation
(IHBC) are currently undertaking a programme of research to define appropriate
standards that would enable HERs to deliver HPR requirements and identify the
resource requirements of meeting these standards. In addition to this local access,
national access to the Register might be provided electronically though the proposed
EH-managed Heritage Gateway portal currently under development.
Next steps
In addition to continuing work on the pilot projects, the following steps will be needed
in order to develop the new designation system. Some will be needed to inform the
2006 White Paper, others are longer-term issues of implementation:

A review of the current designation criteria and drafting of revised criteria for
designating different types of asset and determining grading;

Detailed proposals for an overarching statutory definition of historic assets;

Developing outline proposals for the new designation process, including interim
protection, consultation and appeals;

Developing proposals for the content and status of local registers;

Developing a strategy for transferring existing designations to the new Register.
7
DCMS/ EH
August 2005

Further detailed work on the information and communication technology systems
to accompany the new Register.
Questions for discussion
1. Is the new approach to designation set out in this paper likely to deliver a system
that is more open, simpler and more efficient?
2. Is the two-tier approach to designating complex sites the right one?
3. How will the local section of the Register complement the national section? What
should be included on local registers?
4. What is the best strategy for transferring existing designations to the new
Register?
8
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
This file was created by Oracle Reports.
Please view this document in Page Layout
mode.
HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW
Annex A
Reforming heritage designations
The current list description for Southgate underground station is fairly cursory:
CHASE SIDE N21
(South Side)
SOUTHGATE
Southgate Station
(surface buildings)
TQ 29 SE 22/79
II
2.
1932/4 by Charles Holden. Multi-coloured stock brick and tiled internal wall
surfaces. Reinforced-concrete flat roofs with projecting eaves. Low circular
booking hall with roof carried by central column, and with continuous clerestory
windows. Paragoda-like lantern with bronze finial centrally over booking hall.
1st storey shopping arcade around booking hall
Listing NGR: TQ2967194270
A new style Register entry is more accessible in tone, and has historical and
contextual references:
TITLE/ADDRESS
Southgate Station, Southgate Circus
National Grid Reference
TQ 2967094270
Asset number
County
Greater
London
District
Enfield
Parish
Grade 1
Summary of Importance/Criteria Decision
Southgate Underground Station, opened in 1933 to the designs of Charles
Holden meets the criteria for listing at Grade I for two reasons. First, its
exceptional architectural and planning interest, demonstrating through its bold
massing, logical planning, exquisite attention to detail, and dramatic interior
spaces, the consciously modern aesthetic that was so well suited to this
distinctive building type, but to a degree greater than that at the other stations.
9
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
It superbly integrates bus and Underground transport in a group of buildings of
exceptional richness and completeness. The detailing of the station is
exceptionally rich and well preserved and the exterior is unique in Holden’s
work, with detailing such as the ball finial motif taken from the 1930 Stockholm
Exhibition that would influence British architecture for the next twenty years as
the prime source of the Festival of Britain style. Second it has particular historic
importance as one of the best components of the finest single group of Holden’s
Underground stations, designed in partnership with Frank Pick of the London
Transport Passenger Board, which are among the first and most widely
celebrated examples of fully modern architecture in Britain, also significant for
bringing this new idiom to the general public, and for imposing a brand image to
buildings and design when this was still novel. Southgate Station is the most
strikingly individual of Holden’s designs, and in originality, completeness and for
its position at the centre of a group of related transport buildings it fully merits
the highest grade.
Historic Asset Description
EXTENT OF DESIGNATION
At street level the building comprises a circular drum set in a roundabout, with
high central booking hall surrounded by lower offices and kiosks. Thence
escalators lead underground to central concourse flanked by platforms set in
short sections of tunnel – the ends of the tunnels are visible from the platforms.
The shops at No.1-8 (consecutive) Station Parade and No.1 Chase are listed
separately.
DESCRIPTION
MATERIALS: Reinforced concrete frame, the street-level entrance building clad
in red and brown brick on Cornish granite plinth; high concrete cornices and
oversailing flat roofs.
EXTERIOR: The exterior of the drum is surprisingly complex in its detailing.
Cast-iron dado in geometric Greek key pattern around vent covers. Steel
window frames in timber surrounds, a pair set either side of blind timber poster
boards. Projecting illuminated sign band standing proud of narrow glazing
band. Broad projecting eaves formed of a slim concrete slab; high clerestory
with strongly horizontal pattern of steel glazing bars under shallow concrete slab
roof topped by distinctively Scandinavian style finial of five swirling bands
between opal light fittings (they slide to open) with a ball top. The letters to
each shop unit Many of the signs, particularly the roundels, are late-C20
replicas of 1930s originals.
INTERIOR: Booking hall has bronzed framed information panels in entrances;
stepped ceilings incorporating specially designed inset lights. A passimeter is
set around a central concrete pier, cylindrical with flat eaves incorporating
floodlights upwards and round inset lighting projecting downwards; glazed
above linoleum-coated timber lower section, cupboards and shelving below
dado level within. The main drum has black curved plinth, with black tiles and
fretwork decorated soffit panels below shop fronts and ticket counter (modified
in 1987). Shopfronts with contemporary bold signage in individual letters.
10
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
Above runs the concrete ring beam, here tiled with fluted cornice band; exposed
concrete roof above clerestory forming ripples of concrete around the top of the
central pier. A sign denotes: ‘TO THE TRAINS’ over the head of the escalator
hall; reached through tiled reveals, this plastered hall is segmental arched with
long escalators flanking central stair; these were sensitively modernised in 1991
retaining the eight pairs of bronze uplighters that are a special feature of
Southgate. Two further uplighters in the lower hall, with bronze manager’s door
flanked by windows at end of hall and, to either side, segmental arched
openings to the platforms. Suspended illuminated signs (two feathers to their
arrows) give directions. All this area is tiled to cornice height in cream tiles with
dark yellow roll mouldings at entrances and narrow surrounds to poster areas.
Vertical flutings to the passageways. Cream terrazzo flooring with black
subdivisions. The tile pattern is repeated on the cylindrical and slightly curved
platforms, with roof soffit on platform side, black plinths and precast concrete
paving. Yellow surrounds to tunnel entrances. Fixed timber benches with,
above, station roundels with black edgings and ‘WAY OUT’ signs; the arrows
with four feathers, a sign of their being contemporary with the station – so are
the arrows on the direction boards towards Cockfosters and central London.
Staff letter boxes, water and fire service points (while not themselves included)
are outlined in the coloured slip tiles used elsewhere. Bronze doors at ends
and, on the eastbound platform, a former bronze sales point.
PYLONS: A pair of pylons, comprising lamp standards, station sign and a seat,
1933 to the designs of Stanley A. Heaps for the London Passenger Transport
Board, based on a design by Charles Holden of Adams, Holden and Pearson.
Reinforced concrete, with timber seat and glazed sign. Octagonal shaft has as
its plinth a timber seat with back, and an upswept concrete canopy over. Above
this a tapering shaft incorporates a sign – ‘UNDERGROUND’ – the central nine
letters set within dashed tracks. At the summit is a steel halo supporting five
pendant lights. This feature is a landmark denoting the presence of the slightly
set back station, and it forms an integral part of the station, bus stop and
shopping parade complex, demonstrating Pick’s determination to integrate
London’s transport and attention to every detail of good design – and his
architect’s attention to that brief.
LAMP POSTS: four each side of the road between the station and shops (q.v.),
also of 1933 and by Holden. Tapered polygonal concrete posts surmounted by
narrow bronze fixing supporting circular glass dome. A good example of the
attention to every detail demanded by Frank Pick of his designers. See also the
entry for Station Parade and its four lampposts, related structures but given
separate list entries because in separate management and separated by the
road.
HISTORY
Southgate Underground Station was approved in 1930 and opened in 1933 on
the northern extension of the Piccadilly Line. This seven mile extension beyond
the original terminus of Finsbury Park required a parliamentary act and was to
serve the enlarging suburban areas in north and west Middlesex. The first
section of the line, from Finsbury Park to Arnos Grove, which included the
stations at Manor House, Turnpike Lane, Wood Green and Bounds Green, was
11
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
opened on 19 September 1932. Southgate and Enfield West (now Oakwood)
followed in March 1933 and the terminus at Cockfosters opened on 31 July
1933. The London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB) was created on 1 July
1933. This group of stations was commissioned by Frank Pick (1878-1941) and
designed by architect Charles Holden (1875-1960), who together created
something remarkable. Pick worked for London Passenger Transport Board
(LPTB) from 1906-1940, throughout his career striving to promote high-quality,
well-detailed design that he believed was essential for serving the public.
Holden was a distinguished Arts and Crafts architect in the Edwardian period
who uniquely made the move to modernism, following a 1930 study tour (with
Pick) of continental railway stations and modern architecture. Together they
firmly promoted functionalist modernism for the new station designs, taking
advantage of newly available materials, and adopting the continental and
American idea of a primary concourse as circulation space, with the ticket hall
as the dominant element of the new buildings. The station was restored in the
1990s.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANCE
Southgate Underground Station, opened in 1933 to the designs of Charles
Holden for the London Transport Passenger Board meets the criteria for listing
at Grade I for its exceptional architectural and planning interest, demonstrating
through its bold massing, logical planning, exquisite attention to detail, and
dramatic interior spaces, the consciously modern aesthetic that was so well
suited to this distinctive building type. It superbly integrates bus and
Underground transport in a group of buildings of exceptional richness and
completeness, their curves relating to each other closely. The detailing of the
station is exceptionally rich and well preserved – in external windows, doors and
dados, and internally in the ticket hall. Moreover, the short section of tunnel
means that there is a real escalator hall – complete with bronze uplighters on
the escalators and freestanding in the lower hall, and fine tiled platforms. The
exterior is unique in Holden’s work, moreover, for some of its detailing occurs
nowhere else – notably the ball finial that is the prime manifestation on the
system of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition – which was to influence British
architecture for the next twenty years as the prime source of the Festival of
Britain style. It also has historic importance as a key component of the finest
single group of Holden’s Underground stations, in partnership with Frank Pick of
the London Transport Passenger Board, which are among the first and most
widely celebrated examples of fully modern architecture in Britain, also
significant for bringing this new idiom to the general public, and for imposing a
brand image to buildings and design when this was still novel. The
Underground stations are perhaps unique in the admiration they attracted from
more experienced foreign architects and critics, for Britain was elsewhere
backward in modern architecture and design. Southgate Station is the most
strikingly individual of Holden’s designs, and in originality, completeness and for
its position at the centre of a group of related transport buildings it fully merits
the highest grade.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Laurence Menear. London's Underground Stations: a social and architectural
12
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
study. Tunbridge Wells: Midas, 1983.
David Leboff. London Underground Stations. Surrey: Ian Allan Publishing,
1994.
David Lawrence. Underground Architecture. Harrow: Capital Transport, 1994.
Desmond F. Croome. The Piccadilly Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow:
Capital Transport, 1998.
Susie Barson. ‘A Little Grit and Ginger’: The Impact of Charles Holden on the
Architecture of the London Underground, 1923-40’ in The Architecture of British
Transport in the Twentieth Century. edited by Julian Holder and Steven
Parissien. New Haven, London: Yale University Press for the Paul Mellon
Centre for Studies in British Art and the Yale Center for British Art, 2004.
Twentieth Century Society/ Victorian Society, End of the Line? The Future of
London Underground’s Past, London, 1988.
Architects’ Journal, 26 March 1942, p.233
Ownership
London Underground Limited, in succession to the London Passenger
Transport Board.
Management History
Since 2003 managed by Tube Lines Ltd.
Heritage Protection History
Listed grade II, 19 February 1971.
Consents and Constraints
Date of decision record entry
13
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW
Annex B
Reforming heritage designations
Higher New Bridge in Devon has two list entries, one for each end of the bridge, in
different parishes, with different names and grades. It is also scheduled:
List entry 1
SX 38 NW
9/132
ST STEPHENS BY
LAUNCESTON
22.11.60
Higher New Bridge (previously
listed as part in Werrington parish
and part in Broadwoodwidger)
GV
I
Road bridge over River Tamar. Part of the bridge is situated in Broadwoodwidger
parish Devon. Circa 1504. Ashlar granite with some local rubble stone. 3 slightly
pointed arches of approximately 25 feet span with two cutwaters between on each side.
Fourth smaller arch for floodwater. Dressed granite arch rings and impost mouldings.
Putlog holes above imposts suggested by Henderson to have previously held wooden
hatch or sluice gates.
Roadway 11 feet wide. The stone rubble parapets have been partly rebuilt in the C19
and C20 and the cutwaters continue up to form refuges.
Stone rubble C20 buttresses on west bank.
In 1504 Bishop Oldham was induced to grant an indulgence of 40 days to all penitents
who contributed to the 'Pons Novus de - juxta Launceston'. Described by John Leland
in 1539 who stated that the bridge was built and maintained by the Abbots of
Tavistock.
Henderson, C. and Coates, H. Old Cornish Bridges and Streams, 1928 reprinted 1972.
Listing NGR: SX3489186691
List entry 2:
SX 38 NW
ST GILES ON THE HEATH
6/35
Nether Bridge
II*
Road bridge over the River Tamar. Medieval core but thoroughly rebuilt. Stone
rubble and granite ashlar. 3-span with an additional flood span and 2 tall cutwaters
terminating in refuges. The arches spring from plain imposts, the central arch is
slightly pointed, the outer arches are rounded. The arch rings are granite and
slightly recessed and the bridge is granite ashlar below the imposts. The flood arch
is probably an addition, a granite string course above the arches does not continue
above the flood arch which is separated from the main spans by a buttress. Granite
milestone on centre of bridge with "L 2" for Launceston 2 miles.
A good example of a large medieval bridge.
Listing NGR: SX3489286693
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
14
Scheduling documentation:
DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT BATCH NUMBER: 11320
FILE REFERENCE: AA 71156/1
SCHEDULE ENTRY COPY
ENTRY IN THE SCHEDULE OF MONUMENTS COMPILED AND MAINTAINED BY THE SECRETARY
OF STATE UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS
ACT 1979 AS AMENDED.
MONUMENT: Higher New Bridge
PARISH: ST GILES ON THE HEATH/ ST STEPHENS BY LAUNCESTON RURAL
DISTRICT: NORTH CORNWALL TORRIDGE
COUNTY: CORNWALL DEVON
NATIONAL MONUMENT NO: 15572
NATIONAL GRID REFERENCE(S): SX34888668
DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT
The monument includes Higher New Bridge across the River Tamar, on the
boundary between Cornwall and Devon at a point 2.5km north east of
Launceston in east Cornwall. The bridge is largely of late medieval date
with some later modification. The monument also includes a post-medieval
milestone and a boundary marker stone. Higher New Bridge is Listed Grade I.
Higher New Bridge spans the River Tamar north east-south west by three
substantial arches, to which a masonry faced causeway rises at each end. The
south western causeway includes a small floodwater arch, part of the
bridge's original design. The arches are each very slightly pointed, almost
rounded in form. The three main arches range from 7.8m to 8.5m in span, each
with double arch-rings: the inner rings have granite voussoirs and are
slightly recessed, separated by a granite string-course from outer rings
largely of local metamorphic stone. The floodwater arch, 5.3m in span, has
only a single ring of granite voussoirs on each face. Between the large
arches, the two piers have pointed cutwaters to each side and are faced
mostly by dressed granite slabs, called ashlar, as are the masonry abuments,
though some later rebuilding is shown by local stone facing the upstream
cutwaters above the level of the arch springing. Similar differences occur
in the facing of the sides of the bridge above the arches: largely of
granite ashlar downstream but of local stone upstream. The exposed base of
the north eastern abutment reveals its stepped foundation courses. The line,
called the impost, along which each arch springs is marked by a granite
string-course; immediately above this under the three large arches (though
not the floodwater arch) is a row of spaced rectangular slots considered to
have held the posts of a timber structure, possibly a sluice-gate, included
in the bridge's original design. The causeways approaching the bridge from
each side are unequal: short and steep on the north east but long with a
more gentle slope on the south west side. Both causeways are faced by local
slate masonry and both are steeply buttressed along much of their length.
Much of their visible masonry facing is clearly of post-medieval build but
their core will preserve remains of the bridge's original causeways and an
area of earlier masonry facing survives around the floodwater arch. The
parapets rise along the sides of the bridge from a granite string-course
15
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
above the two outer main arches, though this is absent from the later fabric
along the causeways. Above the central arch, the string course is replicated
by the edge of a concrete raft inserted to stregthen the bridge during the
20th century. All of the piers' cutwaters are carried up into the parapets
as refuges. The parapets, of local stone, are generally 0.3m wide and 1m1.15m high though slightly wider over the causeways where they are of most
recent build. Where the bridge crosses the river, the parapets are capped
largely by a chamfered granite coping, with a coping of local stone on the
south western refuges. Along the causeways the parapets have a varied
coping, mostly of mortared edge-set slabs but also including concrete
capping and rows of small projecting end-set slabs cemented in place along
each face of some recent portions.
The parapets define the bridge's carriageway as 75.5m long overall
including the causeways and ranging in width from 3.65m in the section over
the river, to 3.95m wide at the north east end and 5m wide at the south west
end. Over the centre of the river, the bridge's downstream parapet contains
a 20th century granite boundary stone, set flush into the parapet facing the
highway and incised with a short vertical line on Cornwall and Devon county
boundary, from which two short lines project to the Cornish side. Situated
within the upstream refuge on the Cornish side is a late 18th century
milestone that served the Launceston to Holsworthy turnpike road. The
milestone is visible as an upright granite slab, 1.01m high, 0.31m wide and
0.16m thick, with a rounded upper edge. The upper end of the face towards
the highway is incised `L' (for Launceston), below which is incised `2'
(miles). Beneath that is an incised Ordnance Survey
height bench-mark. The milestone is painted white, apart from its face
towards the refuge, with the incisions highlighted in black.
Higher New Bridge has been identified with the `pons novus juxta
Launceston' for whose construction Bishop Oldham of Exeter granted an
Indulgence on 21st August 1504. This may have replaced an earlier bridge,
known as `Nether Bridge', which crossed the river upstream, beyond this
scheduling. The actual building and maintenance of Higher New Bridge was
attributed to Tavistock Abbey by John Leland who crossed it in the 1530s,
travelling to Launceston from Holsworthy. Leland described it as a `bridge
of stone having 3 arches and a smaul, caullid New Bridge, thorough the which
the ryver of Tamar rennith'. In the latter half of the 18th century the
route over the bridge became the turnpike road from Launceston to
Holsworthy, Bideford and beyond, mapped as a coaching road by 1771. In the
20th century this route remained part of the main road network, becoming
classified as the A388; reflecting this and the greatly increased quantity
and weight of traffic it had to carry, the bridge was strengthened by the
insertion of a concrete raft under the carriageway and parapets of the
central main arch. However the bridge's narrow width, steep profile and
sharply curving approach roads became increasingly inappropriate on such a
major road. Consequently in 1986 Higher New Bridge was taken out of the
route network on completion of a new concrete bridge which carries the
main road across the river 60m upstream, beyond this scheduling. During
construction of that concrete bridge, intact masonry was revealed below
water level on the Devon side and dressed blocks of granite and slate were
found on the riverbed, including a fragment of arch string-course: these are
considered the probable remains of the Nether Bridge, predecessor to Higher
New Bridge.
The modern road metalling, all post-and-wire and post-and-rail fences, the
modern materials blocking the floodwater arch and the modern notices and
their plinths are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath
them is included.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANCE
Multi-span bridges are structures of two or more arches supported on
piers. They were constructed throughout the medieval period for the use of
pedestrians and packhorse or vehicular traffic, crossing rivers or streams,
16
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
often replacing or supplementing earlier fords. During the early medieval
period timber was used, but from the 12th century stone (and later brick)
bridges became more common, with the piers sometimes supported by a timber
raft. Most stone or brick bridges were constructed with pointed arches,
although semicircular and segmental examples are also known. A common
medieval feature is the presence of stone ashlar ribs underneath the arch.
The bridge abutments and revetting of the river banks also form part of the
bridge. Where medieval bridges have been altered in later centuries,
original features are sometimes concealed behind later stonework, including
remains of earlier timber bridges. The roadway was often originally cobbled
or gravelled. The building and maintenance of
bridges was frequently carried out by the church and by guilds, although
landowners were also required to maintain bridges. From the mid-13th century
the right to collect tolls, known as pontage, was granted to many bridges,
usually for repairs; for this purpose many urban bridges had houses or
chapels on them, and some were fortified with a defensive gateway. Medieval
multi-span bridges must have been numerous throughout England, but most have
been rebuilt or replaced and less than 200 examples are now known to
survive. As a rare monument type largely unaltered, surviving examples and
examples that retain significant medieval and post-medieval fabric are
considered to be of national importance. Higher New Bridge survives well. It
retains much of its original form and structure despite some limited
rebuilding and strengthening, providing a good example of late medieval
bridge-building in south west England. Its near-contemporary description by
Leland is valuable and unusual in its detail, confirming the substantial
originality of the bridge's surviving
design and its links with Tavistock Abbey; a good illustration of the role
of medieval religious houses in bridge-building and maintenance. The
physical presence on the bridge of the turnpike milestone and the concrete
raft by which the bridge was later strengthened, together with the
documented development of the late medieval route to a turnpiked coaching
road, then a 20th century `A' class road and the bridge's eventual
replacement by a nearby concrete bridge, all serve to illustrate the
considerable development of the highway system and its river crossings since
the medieval period.
MAP EXTRACT
The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract. It includes a
2 metre boundary around the archaeological features, considered to be
essential for the monument's support and preservation.
SCHEDULING HISTORY
Monument included in the Schedule on 26th November 1928 as:
COUNTY/NUMBER: Cornwall 68
NAME: Higher New Bridge
The reference of this monument is now:
NATIONAL MONUMENT NUMBER: 15572
NAME: Higher New Bridge
SCHEDULING REVISED ON 24th July 2002
AUTHORISED BY: A R Middleton
On behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under batch
no:11320
17
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
The new register entry brings all this together in one place, with a single designation:
TITLE/ADDRESS
Higher New Bridge
CCC NAME/REF
Nether Higher New Bridge 20/349867
National Grid Reference
County
SX3489186691
CORNWALL
District
NORTH
CORNWALL
Asset number
6.021
HER number
169295
Parish
ST STEPHENS
BY
LAUNCESTON
RURAL
Grade 1 / 2 / Local / non-designation recommendation
Summary of Importance/Criteria Decision
Multi-span bridges were constructed throughout the medieval period and must
have been common throughout England, being used for pedestrian packhorse or
vehicular transport, but most have been replaced or rebuilt and less than 200
examples are known to survive.
Higher New Bridge survives well. It retains much of its original form and structure
despite some limited rebuilding and strengthening, providing a good example of
late medieval bridge-building in south west England. Its near-contemporary
description by Leland is valuable and unusual in its detail, confirming the
substantial originality of the bridge's surviving design and its links with Tavistock
Abbey; a good illustration of the role of medieval religious houses in bridgebuilding and maintenance. The physical presence on the bridge of the turnpike
milestone and the concrete raft by which the bridge was later strengthened,
together with the documented development of the late medieval route to a
turnpiked coaching road, then a C20 `A' class road and the bridge's eventual
replacement by a nearby concrete bridge, all serve to illustrate the
considerable development of the highway system and its river crossings since
the medieval period.
18
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
Historic Asset Description
Higher New Bridge is a road bridge across the River Tamar, on the boundary
between Cornwall and Devon. The bridge is largely of late medieval date with
some later modification. It is built of granite ashlar and rubble stone.
The bridge has three main, slightly pointed, arches and a smaller round flood
arch. The main arches have double arch-rings: the inner rings have granite
voussoirs and are slightly recessed, separated by a granite string-course from
outer rings largely of local metamorphic stone. The flood arch has a single ring of
granite voussoirs on each face. All the arches have coved stringcourses at the
impost; immediately above this under the three main arches is a row of spaced
rectangular slots considered to have held the posts of a timber structure, possibly
a sluice-gate, included in the bridge's original design.
The two ashlar piers form cutwaters both upstream and downstream which rise
up to form refuges on the bridge. The abutments are also mainly of ashlar, while
the causeways are mainly constructed of slate rubble.
The causeways approaching the bridge from each side are unequal: short and
steep on the north east but long with a gentler slope on the south west side. Both
causeways are faced by local slate masonry and both are steeply buttressed
along much of their length. Much of their visible masonry facing is clearly of postmedieval build but their core will preserve remains of the bridge's original
causeways and an area of earlier masonry facing survives around the floodwater
arch.
The rubble stone parapets rise along the sides of the bridge from a granite stringcourse above the two outer main arches, though this is absent from the later
fabric along the causeways. Above the central arch, the string course is
replicated by the edge of a concrete raft inserted to strengthen the bridge during
C20. Where the bridge crosses the river, the parapets have chamfered granite
coping, with a coping of local stone on the south western refuges. Along the
causeways the parapets have a varied coping, mostly of mortared edge-set slabs
but also including concrete capping and rows of small projecting end-set slabs
cemented in place along each face of some recent portions.
Over the centre of the river, the bridge's downstream parapet contains a C20
granite boundary stone. Situated within the upstream refuge on the Cornish side
is a late C18 milestone (HAR ???).
Higher New Bridge has been identified with the `pons novus juxta Launceston'
for whose construction Bishop Oldham of Exeter granted an Indulgence on 21st
August 1504. This may have replaced an earlier bridge, known as `Nether
Bridge', which crossed the river upstream, beyond this scheduling. The actual
building and maintenance of Higher New Bridge was attributed to Tavistock
Abbey by John Leland who crossed it in the 1530s, travelling to Launceston from
Holsworthy. Leland described it as a `bridge of stone having 3 arches and a
smaul, caullid New Bridge, thorough the which the ryver of Tamar rennith'. In the
latter half of C18 the route over the bridge became the turnpike road from
Launceston to Holsworthy, Bideford and beyond, mapped as a coaching road by
1771.
In C20 Higher New Bridge was strengthened by the insertion of a concrete raft
under the carriageway and parapets of the central main arch as a result of the
heavy increase of traffic crossing the bridge. The need for this can be seen in the
uneven and sagging shape of the main arches of the bridge. In 1986 it was taken
19
DCMS/ EH
August 2005
out of the route network on completion of a new concrete bridge which carries
the main road across the river.
During construction of that concrete bridge, intact masonry was revealed below
water level on the Devon side and dressed blocks of granite and slate were
found on the riverbed, including a fragment of arch stringcourse: these are
considered the probable remains of the Nether Bridge, predecessor to Higher
New Bridge.
SOURCES: Henderson, C and H Coates, Old Cornish Bridges and Streams
(1928, reprinted 1972) 44-5.
Ownership Cornwall County Council
Management History
Strengthened by insertion of a concrete raft, parapets and parts of causeways
rebuilt or refaced.
The modern road metalling, all post-and-wire and post-and-rail fences, the
modern materials blocking the floodwater arch and the modern notices and
their plinths are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground
beneath them is included
Heritage Protection History
Scheduled CO 68 26 November 1928, revised SM 15572 24 July 2002.
Listed Grade I 11 January 1989
Consents and Constraints
Date of decision record entry
20
DCMS/ EH
August 2005