February 2013 - Amazon S3€¦ · February 2013 . A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Outline...

A21 TONBRIDGE TO PEMBURY DUALLING

Outline Statement of Case

In Respect of Applications for the Demolition of Listed Buildings

under the Provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation

Areas) Act 1990

Appeal References: APP/M2270/V/10/2126410 & APP/M2270/V/10/2127645

February 2013

A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling

Outline Statement of Case, February 2013

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 THE LISTED BUILDINGS APPLICATIONS 4

3 NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PolicY IN RESPECT OF lISTED bUILDINGS 5

4 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LISTED BUILDINGS 7

5 THE NEED TO DEMOLISH THE LISTED BUILDINGS 8

6 OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 10

7 OUTLINE OF CASE 12

Appendix A –Location Plan 13


Page 1 Outline Statement of Case

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Outline Statement of Case replaces the version that was published in May 2010

prior to postponement on 10 June 2010 of the proposed Public Inquiry (the PI)

pending the outcome of the Government’s October 2010 Spending Review (SR).

1.2 In December 2009 the Secretary of State for Transport (“the Secretary of State”)

published proposals for the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury (“the A21 Tonbridge

to Pembury Dualling”) in Kent, including an application for the demolition of Listed

Buildings. He received objections, representations and letters of support with respect

to the proposals and consequently determined that it would be necessary to hold a

Public Local Inquiry. The PI was due to take place in July 2010 but was cancelled

pending the results of the Government’s October 2010 Spending Review.

1.3 On 14 December 2012 the Secretary of State published a notice of his intention to

resume the statutory process and to hold a PI. Statutory objectors and other

interested parties had previously been informed of this intention by letter or email

dated 3 December 2012.

Purpose of the Inquiry

1.4 The Public Inquiry will consist of concurrent Public Inquiries (“the Inquiries”) for the

scheme proposals contained in the draft Orders and Compulsory Purchase Order under

the Highways Act 1980, described in the separate statement mentioned in paragraph

1.8 below, and the applications for the demolition of listed buildings under the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 described in this

statement.

1.5 The Inquiries will be held by an independent Inspector to be appointed by the

Secretary of State on the nomination of the Planning Inspectorate and will be held

under the Inquiry Rules mentioned in paragraphs 1.7 below and 1.8 below. The date

and place for the Inquiries will be announced later.

1.6 The Inspector will hear evidence relating to the draft Orders and the listed building

consent applications from the Highways Agency (on behalf of the Secretary of State);

from supporters and objectors and any counter objections to alternative proposals

received and will report the proceedings, including findings and recommendations, to

the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and

Local Government. The Secretaries of State jointly will consider all supporters and



objections to the draft Orders and listed buildings applications and counter objections

to alternative proposals together with the Inspector’s Report of the Inquiries before

deciding whether or not the draft Orders should be made and, if made, with or

without modifications, and if consent should be given for the demolition of listed

buildings.

Statutory Background

1.7 This document is published pursuant to Rule 5(2) of the Town and Country Planning

(Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (“the 2000 Rules”). It outlines the principal

submissions the Secretary of State proposes to put forward at the Inquiries in respect

of the applications for demolition of listed buildings in connection with the A21

Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling (“the scheme”) and is known as the Outline Statement

of Case (“the statement”).

1.8 A separate statement has been published pursuant to Rule 5(4) of the Highways

(Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994 (“the 1994 Rules”) and Rule 5(2) of the Compulsory

Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 (“the 2007 Rules”). It outlines the principal

submissions the Secretary of State proposes to put forward at the Inquiries in respect

of the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling and is also known as the Outline Statement

of Case.

1.9 Full Statements of Case, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the 1994 Rules, Rule 7(1) of the

2007 Rules and Rule 6(3) of the 2000 Rules will be issued later. These will contain full

particulars of the case which the Secretary of State proposes to put forward at the

Inquiries and a list of documents that may be referred to in evidence at the Inquiries.

Documents to be used in Evidence

1.10 The documents which the Secretary of State will use in supporting evidence during the

Inquiries will be listed in the full Statements of Case. They will be placed on deposit at

a location to be advised when the Rule 6 / 7 Statements are published and will

subsequently be available at the Inquiries.

The Proposals

1.11 The need for the scheme, a brief history of the scheme, a description of the existing

road and the new road and the treatment of side roads included in the draft Orders

are included in the statement mentioned at paragraph 1.8 above. That statement also



includes a summary of the results of the environmental and economic assessments

carried out, including how the scheme complies with national, regional and local

policies and plans. It also includes a brief summary of objections, representations and

letters of support made to the Secretary of State with respect to the scheme.

1.12 This statement in respect of the applications for the demolition of listed buildings

includes a summary of national, regional and local policies in respect of listed

buildings, a description of the listed buildings and their significance, the need for their

demolition and objections and representations received.

1.13 Plans showing the location and layout of the listed buildings are in Appendix A at the

end of this statement.



2 THE LISTED BUILDINGS APPLICATIONS

2.1 On the dates given below the Secretary of State made applications for Listed Building

Consent to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council under section 10 of the Planning (Listed

Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;

a) On 11 December 2009, for the demolition of Grade II listed buildings, Burgess Hill

Farmhouse (also known as May Day Farm) and Barn (ref: TW/09/03911/LBCDEM);

b) On 8 April 2010, for the demolition of buildings, the Oast House, Garages (also

known as storage building) and the Stables (also known as the Byre), attached to or

within the curtilages of Burgess Hill Farmhouse and Barn (ref:

TW/10/01219/LBCDEM).

2.2 In relation to the A21 Trunk Road as proposed to be improved at Tonbridge,

Fairthorne and Pembury in the County of Kent.

2.3 On 22 April 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

notified Tunbridge Wells Borough Council that the applications will be called in under

the provisions of section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)

Act 1990.



3 NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY IN RESPECT OF

LISTED BUILDINGS

Legislation Relating to Listed Buildings

3.1 The principal legislation relating to Listed Buildings is the Planning (Listed Buildings

and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy Relating to Listed Buildings

3.2 The following national, regional and local policies are relevant to Listed Buildings.

a) National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

3.3 Section 12 of NPPF recognises heritage assets as an “irreplaceable resource”, that

requires to be conserved “in a manner appropriate to their significance” (Para 126).

3.4 The level of detail presented in the application should be proportionate to the heritage

asset’s importance (Para 128).

3.5 The relevant sections of the NPPF include Section 12, paras. 126, 128 to 136, and 141.

Of particular relevance are the policy requirements set out in paras. 132 and 133

which are quoted below:

3.6 Paragraph 132 of NPPF states that:

“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated

heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important

the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through

alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage

assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.

Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably

scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings,

grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly

exceptional”.

3.7 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that:

“Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of

a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be

demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public

benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:



The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through

appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is

demonstrably not possible; and

the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.’

b) The Regional Spatial Strategy: The South East Plan, 2009 (A proposal

for its abolition is currently subject to consultation)

3.8 Policy BE6: Historic Environment states that the historic environment should be

managed through policies and proposals, stating:

“When developing planning frameworks and considering applications for development consent

local authorities and other bodies will adopt policies and support proposals which support the

conservation and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the historic environment and the

contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place. Regionally

significant historic features and sites are listed in paragraph 12.18. Proposals that make

sensitive use of historic assets through regeneration, particularly where these bring redundant

or under-used buildings and areas into appropriate use should be encouraged”

c) Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Core Strategy (June 2010) and saved

policies of the Local Plan (2006)

3.9 Saved Local Plan Policy EN10 states the principles in relation to developments

affecting sites of archaeological interest other than those covered by Policy EN9,

saying that they:

“will be determined having regard to the desirability of preserving archaeological remains and

the setting of visible remains and according to all of the following criteria:

1. The intrinsic archaeological and historical value of the remains;

2. The design, layout and opportunities to minimise damage to remains and their setting,

preferably through preservation in their original location;

3. The need for the development;

4. The availability of suitable alternative sites; and

5. -The potential benefits of the proposals, particularly to education, recreation or tourism.

Where permission is to be granted for development resulting in the damage or destruction of

archaeological remains and the developer has not entered into a planning agreement, or

made equivalent arrangements, for the excavation and recording of the remains and the

publication of the results, conditions will be attached to the permission to ensure that no

development takes place until this work has been carried out”.

3.10 Local Plan Policy EN11 states that:

“Proposals which would be likely to affect a historic park or garden will only be permitted

where no significant harm would be caused to its character, amenities or setting”.



4 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LISTED BUILDINGS

Description

4.1 The complex comprises the following buildings, as shown on the plans in Appendix A

of this statement:

a) The Farmhouse (Grade II listed)

b) The Barn (Grade II listed)

c) The Stables (also known as a Byre) (Grade II listed as attached to the Barn);

d) The Oast House (curtilage listed structure pursuant to section 1(5) (b) of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990);

e) The Garages (also known as a storage building) (curtilage listed structure pursuant

to section 1(5) (b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990);

4.2 All of these buildings were subject to a detailed historic building survey in 2009,

undertaken to Level 3 in accordance with English Heritage’s Understanding Historic

Buildings, a guide to good recording practice, 2006. A Farm Characterisation Study has

also been prepared for the farm.

Description and Significance of the Listed Buildings

4.3 The Grade II listed Farmhouse is a two storey brick faced building with an attic lit by

two dormers. It has a partially surviving internal timber frame with two storey gabled

rear extension and single storey extension to the north. The earliest parts of the

building date to the 17th century, although the brickwork was added in the 18th century

and extensions constructed between the late 19th and late 20th century.

4.4 The Grade II listed Barn is a three bay timber framed structure with weatherboard

cladding, a brick plinth and gabled queen post truss roof. It is probably 18th century in

date and has been extended to the south once in the late 19th century and again in

the mid 20th century.

4.5 The Stables are a low timber framed weatherboarded building which is attached to the

southwest corner of the barn’s latest extension. They are listed as they are attached to

the barn.



4.6 The Oast House was originally constructed in the 19th century but much of the

structure was rebuilt in the 20th century. It is a two storey building with circular brick

tower and conical roof. It is a curtilage listed structure as it forms part of the farm

complex.

4.7 The garage is a simple single storey weatherboarded structure with corrugated steel

roof. It is a curtilage listed structure.

4.8 The Farmhouse and Barn are of architectural and historic interest for their 17th and

18th century origins, the evidence of change displayed by the buildings (although this

is not an uncommon feature for agricultural buildings of this date), the relatively intact

nature of the farm complex group and its relationship with the local landscape. The

Stables are a locally interesting example of an 18th century structure, although altered

and of simple construction. The Oast House and Garages are of very limited value.

5 THE NEED TO DEMOLISH THE LISTED BUILDINGS

The Need for the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Scheme

5.1 The history of the scheme and the overall need for the scheme are set out in the

separate statement mentioned in paragraph 1.8 above.

The Need to Demolish the Listed Buildings

5.2 The alignment of the route of the scheme reflects the need to meet the requirements

of design speeds and safety standards set out in the Design Manual for Roads and

Bridges (DMRB).

5.3 The alignment has been designed to follow as closely as possible the alignment of the

existing route while meeting the requirements of design standards. Towards the

summit of Castle Hill this results in a pinch point between the Burgess Hill Farm

complex to the east of the existing A21 and the Castle Hill Fort Scheduled Monument

to the west.

5.4 An objective of the scheme is to minimise the adverse impact on the Scheduled

Monument. The scheme would meet this objective and would not have a direct impact

on the Scheduled Monument but as a result would require demolition and removal of

all the buildings within the Burgess Hill Farm complex as they lie within the footprint of

the Scheme.



5.5 In response to consultation in 2002 English Heritage recognised there would be a

negative impact on one or other of the Scheduled Monument and the Burgess Hill

Farm complex. EH stated that while it is never easy to accept the proposed demolition

of a listed building nevertheless the scheme correctly addresses the relative

significance of the two statutorily designated features, i.e. the Scheduled Monument

and the listed buildings.

Relocation Options

5.6 The DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2, Annex 6 Section 6.11.3 suggests range of

options for mitigating the loss of historic buildings. These include.

(a) Moving the entire building;

(b) Rebuilding for re-use (commercial/domestic) or as a museum exhibit;

(c) Partial recovery of historic fabric for museum use;

(d) Recording prior to demolition or damage.

5.7 These have all been explored. It should be noted that a full building recording

programme will accompany the proposed demolition; this will build on the existing

survey work.

5.8 In terms of relocation it is technically feasible to dismantle and re-build the barn at

another location. This process would not conserve their special architectural and

historic interest and would remove their setting and relationship to the historic

landscape. It would however retain the majority of their fabric and given the technical

feasibility of the process it is considered a worthwhile option. A suitable location for

rebuilding the barn is therefore being sought and discussions are continuing with third

parties.

5.9 The Oast House and Garages are of very limited value and their relocation cannot be

justified.

5.10 The farmhouse is a complex structure. It is not feasible to relocate it whole. The

dismantling and re-erection of the farmhouse would result in the loss of significant

elements of its fabric and character and would very substantially degrade its

architectural and historic value and its authenticity and integrity. It would also remove

its setting and group value. Given the technical issues, the complexity of the operation

and the fact the resultant structure would be of very limited historic and architectural

interest, the dismantling and re-erection of the building is not considered a worthwhile



option. However, discussions are being held with a third party to ascertain if, even

given these factors, there would be interest in receiving the structure.

6 OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 At the end of the objection period in March 2010 4 letters objecting to the applications

and 1 representation had been received.

Objections

6.2 English Heritage, by letter dated 3 February 2010, objected because of the omission

(from the 11 December 2009 application) of a case for demolition in the terms

required by PPG15 (then the relevant policy guidance).

6.3 3 members of the public objected to the proposed demolition.

Representation

6.4 The Campaign to Protect Rural England, Kent Branch did not oppose the application

but asked that demolition does not proceed until it is certain the road scheme will go

ahead and that all the buildings are subject to preservation by record prior to

demolition and that appropriate archaeological investigations is carried out at the site

prior to construction of the road.

Subsequent, Correspondence and Discussion

6.5 The application of 8 April 2010 (see Section 2) included a statement of the case for

demolition of all buildings, including those of the 11 December 2009 application, in the

terms referred to in English Heritage’s letter of 3 February 2010.

6.6 In a letter to the Planning Inspectorate dated 27 May 2010, English Heritage stated

that in view of the statement of the case for demolition of all buildings, they would be

able to withdraw their objection, subject to agreement of a statement of common

ground and the following conditions:

a) The proposed methodology for further analysis and recording of the buildings,

including a farmstead characterisation study, should be agreed in writing by English

Heritage and the Local Planning Authority.

b) The barn should be dismantled and recorded in such a way that it could be re-

erected on a new site and that money is allocated to cover the costs of storage for a

minimum of 5 years whilst a new location is sought and to cover the cost of re-

erection.



c) The listed buildings would not be demolished until a contract has been made and

work on site to implement the road scheme has commenced.

6.7 Prior to suspension of the scheme in June 2010 and since resumption of the Scheme

in 2012, the Highways Agency has been in discussion with an open air heritage

museum with the intention of being able to satisfy these conditions. The discussion

has not yet been concluded; details will be included in the Full Statement of Case

referred to in paragraph 1.9



7 OUTLINE OF CASE

7.1 The Scheme would require the demolition of two Grade II listed buildings, Burgess Hill

Farmhouse and Burgess Hill Barn with attached Stables (byre) and two curtilage listed

structures, which stand on the east side of the A21. This demolition would result in the

total loss of significance to the Farmhouse and substantial loss of significance to the Barn.

It is proposed to demolish the barn in a manner that would enable its re-erection at

another location.

7.2 An analysis of the proposals in relation to national planning policy demonstrates that in

this exceptional case the total loss of significance to the Farmhouse and substantial loss

to significance to the barn should be considered acceptable given the public benefits

associated with the scheme and the need to avoid significant adverse environmental

impacts on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Castle Hill Scheduled Monument

and other ecological assets. This view is supported by a number of consultees including

the English Heritage, Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Ancient

Monuments Society and Council for the Protection of Rural England (on behalf of the

Council for British Archaeology).



APPENDIX A –LOCATION PLAN

Figu

re 1

: Loc

atio

n m

ap to

sho

wB

urge

ss H

ill F

arm

, Ton

brid

ge

Key

NRe

prod

uced

from

the

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

1:5

0000

sca

le m

ap w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of t

he C

ontr

olle

r of

Her

Maj

esty

’s S

ta�o

nary

Offi

cer.

Crow

n co

pyri

ght.

AO

C A

rcha

eolo

gyG

roup

, Edg

efiel

d In

dust

rial

Est

ate,

Loa

nhea

d, M

idlo

thia

n, E

H 2

0 9S

Y. O

S Li

cenc

e no

. 100

0237

57

Loca

tion

of B

urge

ss H

ill F

arm

Site

pla

n sh

owin

g B

urge

ss H

ill F

arm

(pla

n pr

ovid

ed c

ourte

sy o

f Atk

ins

Her

itage

)

Site

(Pad

dock

)

Oas

thou

se(B

uild

ing

D)

Gar

age

(Bui

ldin

g E

)

Bar

n(B

uild

ing

B)

Sta

bles

(Bui

ldin

g C

)

Farm

hous

e(B

uild

ing

A)

0 0

100

km

100

mile

s

Lond

on

Oxf

ord

York

Man

ches

ter

Leed

s

Nor

wic

h

Hul

l

She

ffiel

d

Not

tingh

am

Cov

entry

Birm

ingh

am

Sou

tham

pton

Ply

mou

th

Cardiff

Bris

tol

Live

rpoo

l

Tonb

ridge

February 2013 - Amazon S3€¦ · February 2013 . A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Outline...

Documents

Transcript of February 2013 - Amazon S3€¦ · February 2013 . A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Outline...