APPENDIX 1 - Conservation Area Review Prioritisation Methodology
Introduction
The Prioritisation Methodology has been developed to identify those conservation
areas that are under the greatest level of pressure from development and have been
subject to the greatest level of change and potentially harm to their character and
appearance. The methodology has also been designed to identify the level of
inaccuracy evident in the existing conservation area appraisals through analysis of
boundaries, notable buildings, important trees, spaces and character areas. Where a
conservation area receives a high score it signals a more urgent need for review.
Due to the number of conservation areas and the level of resource available, a desk
based assessment of the existing appraisals was undertaken. This included the use
of all available information available at the Council, as follows:
 The original designation maps, where available;
 Conservation Area Appraisals and accompanying maps;
 Historic OS maps, aerial photographs and heritage designation layers on the
councils’ GIS system;
 Google Street View.
The desk based assessment approach has its limitations. It is, for example, more
difficult to understand the importance of topography or the general condition of
buildings and spaces when compared to a site survey of an area. In addition, not all
of the original designation maps survive and therefore the level of change within a
number of conservation areas has been extrapolated from other mapping sources.
Google Street View does not provide access to many of the minor lanes and access
tracks and quite often only provides limited views onto buildings. However, the
overall results demonstrate that those areas identified as of high priority are
consistent with expectations.
1 - Date designated
The designation of conservation areas within the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane
has been undertaken over more than 4 decades; the earliest, Kingsclere, in 1969
and the most recent, South View, in 2006. The older designations are likely to have
been subject to greater levels of change. Higher scores are therefore given for
earlier designations. Conservation areas that were designated in the 1970s are given
a score of 3, 1980s a score of 2 and designations after 1990 are given a score of 1.
Where conservation areas have been reviewed the score will refer to the date of
review. These areas include Basingstoke Town (1992), Laverstoke (1981),
Newnham (1984), Old Basing (1981), Overton (1987) and Upton Grey (1989). These
all relate to boundary extensions but there are no surviving documents justifying why
the changes were made.
Designated in the 1970s
points
3
Designated in the 1980s
points
2
Designated in the 1990s
point
1
2 - Degree of change since designation/review
The aim of this section is to identify the level of change since the original
designation. The methodology for assessment includes comparison of the original
designations maps and 2003 – 2004 appraisal maps with the up to date planning
information held on the Council’s GIS. The scale of development identified within
each conservation area has been divided into three categories: small (individual
developments), medium (larger developments of up to 9 units) and large (major
planning applications of 10+) developments. Medium and large developments
outside the margins of a conservation area boundary have been included to identify
impacts on their setting. Points should be added for each occurrence identified.
Small developments (individual plots)
1 point
Medium developments (up to 9)
2 points
Large development (10+)
3 points
Medium developments outside boundary
1 point
Large developments outside boundary (10+)
2 points
3 - Boundaries
The purpose of the review is to ascertain how the conservation area has changed
and to confirm or redefine the special interest that warrants designation. This
typically includes a review of the boundaries and the potential for extension or
reduction of the conservation area as appropriate. This section sets out the type and
complexity of potential boundary revisions likely to be required as identified in the
desk based assessment. Each query identified is categorised following the headings
set out in the Forum Heritage Services guidelines (2010): administrative, recent
development and alternative means of protection and development. These
categories are defined as follows:



Administrative –best practice requires boundaries to be visible on the ground
and logical, such as taking in the entire boundaries of private properties such
as gardens, not dissecting through them. These are relatively straight forward
changes and are given a low score of 1 accordingly;
Recent development – the original interest of parts of older designations
may have been eroded by the cumulative effect of piecemeal change or by
single examples of poorly designed development. Boundary revisions may
therefore be required to exclude these areas that are no longer considered to
be of sufficient merit to remain within the conservation area;
Alternative means of protection and management – Changes due to an
unexplained inclusion of the wider setting of a settlement. Conservation area
designation is not intended as a tool to protect the wider natural environment.
Setting may be better protected by the identification of strategic views or key
characteristics within the appraisal. Consideration should also be given to
established protection (e.g. green belt, AONB, nationally or locally registered
park and garden or curtilage of a listed building). These considerations will
potentially result in exclusions from a conservation area. Conversely there is
the potential for important areas of development which are the outcome of the
evolution of the settlement, such as estate workers cottages, a railway station
with associated structures or a particularly good example of a modern
movement housing scheme or factory group, should be considered for
inclusion in the conservation area.
Points should be added for each occurrence identified.
Administrative
1 point
Recent development
2 point
Alternative protection
3 point
Inaccuracies
This section quantifies the number of queries generated for notable buildings and
boundary features (walls, hedges etc.), open areas of townscape significance and
trees. Typical queries include the merit of existing notable buildings, the potential to
include previously unidentified and erroneous ‘positive’ buildings, the erroneous
identification of open areas of townscape significance and the potential omission of
important trees. These are each given equal weight as they are likely to require a
similar level of assessment. Points should be added for each occurrence identified.
Positive buildings
1 point
Open areas of townscape significance
1 point
Trees
1 point
Character areas
The identification of character areas is predominantly absent from the existing
conservation area appraisals and, where present, inconsistently applied and poorly
drawn/analysed. Points are awarded accordingly on the merits of the existing
information (see below). The potential for sub-areas has been identified as part of
the conservation area review process and a point is awarded for each of these
areas.
Character areas identified within the text that
are accurate but not shown on the appraisal map.
1 point
Character areas identified but are inaccurate.
2
No character areas identified.
3 points
Potential character areas
points
1 point for each area
Other considerations
There are a number of exceptions within the priority list (as highlighted in red at
Appendix 2) that relate to development pressure in specific areas, as demonstrated
by the degree of change since designation. For instance, Sherborne St John has a
high score for the level of development since designation and should be considered
as a higher priority than, for example, Newnham and Tadley which score highly as a
result of boundary issues and other inaccuracies within the existing appraisal
documents. Therefore, where areas have been identified as at greatest risk within
their tranche it is likely that they will be reviewed first within their tranche.
The potential for future development should also be taken into account as
information on new development sites becomes available. This will mostly derive
from allocated sites published in the emerging Local Plan and Neighbourhood Areas
as they are designated. For instance, Manydown has been identified as a major site
allocation that includes master planning for the immediate setting of the Worting
Conservation Area. Worting has the lowest score of the ‘medium group’ but as a
result of development pressure in this area Worting could be considered as a higher
priority. Equally, Bramley has been designated as a Neighbourhood Area and there
are therefore potential development pressures on Bramley and Bramley Green
Conservation Areas. These are both in the low scoring group but depending on the
details of any Neighbourhood Plan should potentially be considered as a higher
priority.
There will therefore be a degree of flexibility built into the priority list. It is
recommended that a review of the priority list is undertaken ahead of
commencement of each tranche of conservation area appraisals and management
plans.
In cases where the degree of change since designation has had a substantial impact
on the character and appearance of a conservation area and the potential for further
harm is low, conservation areas should be considered as a lower priority. For
example, Park Prewett has a high score for the degree of change since designation
which under the guidelines set out above would indicate that it should be considered
as a high priority. However, it is considered that there is no further potential for
development that would affect the character and appearance of the the conservation
area and for this reason it should be considered a low priority for review.