alston hall - ribble valley · alston hall | 10/10/2017 planning, design and access statement...

Architecture + Building Surveying + Town Planning

Alston Hall Planning, Design and Access Statement

on behalf of Mr I Patel

CASSIDY + ASHTON | 7 East Cliff, Preston, PR1 3JE

Alston Hall | 10/10/2017 Planning, Design and Access Statement

CASSIDY + ASHTON | 7 East Cliff, Preston, PR1 3JE | www.cassidyashton.co.uk II | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

SITE CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................... 2

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ....................................................................................................................... 4

PLANNING POLICY .................................................................................................................................... 5

PLANNING ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 8

DESIGN AND ACCESS .............................................................................................................................. 10

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 11


CASSIDY + ASHTON | 7 East Cliff, Preston, PR1 3JE | www.cassidyashton.co.uk 1 | Page

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Cassidy + Ashton has been instructed to prepare a Planning, Design and Access Statement in support of

a full planning and listed building consent application for the replacement of the roof, the omission of

the original small dormers, the introduction of a number of conservation-type rooflights to provide

improved lighting, replacement of all glazing and the making-good of internal areas at the Grade II listed

Alston Hall. These applications have been necessitated by damage caused by a fire that occurred in

March 2016, which destroyed most of the roof and also affected other parts of the building.

1.2 In order to satisfy the requirements of planning policy, the application is accompanied by:

Application form and certificates

Full plans and elevations

Planning, Design and Access Statement

Heritage Statement

1.3 This statement has been prepared by Cassidy + Ashton Architects, Building Surveyors and Town

Planners who are accredited Conservation Architects and have been working with Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas for over 50 years including on a number of sites within Ribble Valley, including

Stonyhurst College.

1.4 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that in determining applications, local planning authorities should

require an applicant to describe the significance of the heritage assets affected, including the

contribution made by their setting. This Statement takes into account the accompanying heritage

assessment, which has evaluated the significance of the building and the impact of the works upon this

significance.



SITE CONTEXT

Figure 1 – Site Location

2.1 The application site is owned by Mr I Patel and serves as his dwelling house.

2.2 The site is accessed from Alston Lane, which also serves a number of other rural properties and farms

in separate ownership.

Planning History

2.3 The Ribble Valley web site shows three planning applications. These are:

Application 3/2016/1028

Application for full consent – Change of use from class D1 (educational facility) to class C3 (residential

dwelling). Planning permission granted 19th December 2016


Application for full consent – 2 Storey Extension to the Garden Room Block to Provide New Lift and

Disabled Toilet Facilities Together With 4no Disabled Car Parking Spaces and New Ramped Access to

the Main Entrance Area. Planning permission granted 2nd March 2004




Application for planning permission – Demolition of Existing Greenhouse and External Store and

Provision of a Single Storey Art/Recital Block Incorporating Facilities for the Disabled. No objection 24th

January 2003



DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

3.1 As set out in the Heritage Statement, the proposals seek consent for replacement of the roof in a like-

for-like manner, with the exception of omitting the original small dormers on the west, south and east

elevations, and their substitution with conservation-type rooflights. A number of additional rooflights

are also to be introduced in order to provide improved lighting to the roofspace and all glazing damaged

during the fire will be replaced with appropriate, timber-framed equivalents in order to facilitate the

practical and sustainable use of this element of the listed building.

3.2 While the proposals departs to a degree from the original appearance of the roof, the harm involved is

limited and considerably outweighed by the proposal’s wider benefit in forming the first stage of the

listed building’s restoration following the fire damage, and by making the structure watertight as winter

approaches.



PLANNING POLICY

4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning

permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material

considerations of which the NPPF, together with emerging development plans are the most significant,

indicate otherwise.

Development Plan

4.2 For the purposes of this application, the Development Plan comprises the Ribble Valley Core Strategy

as the 2005 Local Plan is considered to be too outdated to be of significant relevance. The emerging

Housing and Economic Development Plan Document is currently at Examination and therefore being at

an advanced stage of preparation could be considered to be a material consideration in the

consideration of these applications. Notwithstanding this, there are no policies of relevance in the latter

document.

Core Strategy DPD

4.3 The Ribble Valley Core Strategy was adopted in December 2014 and therefore takes into account the

policies of the National Planning Policy Framework. Policy DS1 seeks to concentrate the majority, but

not all, of development in the larger settlements. Policy DS2 introduces the presumption in favour of

sustainable development. This fits comfortably alongside Policy EN5, which sets out a presumption in

favour of the conservation of and enhancement of heritage assets. Policy DMG1 sets out the general

considerations for determining planning applications including assessing design, access considerations,

impacts upon amenity and the environment.

4.4 The applications as they stand sit comfortably within this basic policy context. In particular, the

sympathetic repair of fire-damaged elements of the property in order to preserve the listed building as

a whole fits comfortably within the goal of sustainable development. As such there is a presumption in

favour of allowing works that enable the conservation of property, whilst enabling its continued use to

serve as a modern dwelling house.

4.5 Policy DME4 seeks to resist development that will result in harm to heritage assets. Conversely, and in

accordance with the principles of Policy EN5, development which retains and potentially enhances a

heritage asset, must therefore be supported.

4.6 Policy DMG1 sets out general considerations for the determination of planning applications, many of

which are not of relevance to these applications. It seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to

existing and proposed land uses in terms of size, intensity and nature together with scale, massing, style,



features and building materials. Flowing on from this is the need to ensure the visual appearance of

new development fits in with the surroundings, landscape character and existing amenity.

4.7 DMG1 also makes reference to the need to protect and enhance heritage assets.

National Planning Policy Framework

4.8 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for

England. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should

be seen as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking (paragraph 14).

For decision-taking this means:

…approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay

4.9 The application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is emphasised further at

paragraph 197.

4.10 At paragraph 7 the NPPF provides that there are three dimensions to sustainable development:

economic, social and environmental. The planning system is expected to perform economic, social and

environmental roles, and these should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually

dependent.

4.11 With regard to heritage issues, the following extracts are considered of particular relevance:

17: [Core planning principles] conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so

that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life for future generations.

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 to

viable use 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.

132: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated 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 though alteration or destruction of the heritage

asset or development within its setting.



134: Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a

designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal,

including securing its optimum viable use.



PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Key Planning Issues

5.1 The principle aim of the proposed development is to replace the fire-damaged roof in a like-for-like

manner, with the exception of omitting the original small dormers on the west, south and east

elevations, and their substitution with conservation-type rooflights. A number of additional rooflights

are also to be introduced in order to provide improved lighting to the roofspace and all glazing damaged

during the fire will be replaced appropriate, timber-framed equivalents in order to facilitate the

practical and sustainable use of this element of the listed building.

5.2 The proposals will form the first stage of the listed building’s restoration following the fire damage and

make the structure watertight as winter approaches.

5.3 In terms of the consideration of the planning issues that are of relevance to these applications, in

accordance with planning legislation, policy and guidance, the principal issue therefore relates to the

impact upon the heritage asset, with the remaining issues identified through the consideration of the

relevant planning policy in the previous section of this statement.

Heritage Asset

5.4 Planning policy in respect to how consideration is given to proposals that effect listed buildings, is

clearly set out in the NPPF, which is in turn reflected by the policies of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy.

The core principle [as enshrined by para. 17 of the NPPF] is that heritage assets should be conserved in

a manner appropriate to their significance in order that they can continue to be enjoyed for their

contribution to the quality of life for future generations.

5.5 Moving on from this requirement, in determining applications, the three key tests are set out in paras.

131, 132 and 134 of the NPPF, namely:

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 to

viable use 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.

132: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated 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 though alteration or destruction of the heritage

asset or development within its setting.

134: Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a

designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal,

including securing its optimum viable use.

5.6 The accompanying Heritage Statement clearly identifies the significance of Alston Hall in the following

manner:

“The Grade II designation of Alston Hall denotes it is of national importance for its special architectural

and historic interest as a country house of 1874-1876 designed in a Tudor Gothic style by architect Alfred

Derbyshire for the colliery owner John Mercer. Its significance essentially derives from the reasons it was

listed, which are described in the National Heritage List for England as follows:

Design quality: with highly decorative elevations and interesting planning including a porte-

cochere beneath a tower, and comparing well with other listed examples of similar age;

Architect: as a good domestic design by the notable theatre architect Alfred Darbyshire;

Degree of survival: due to its little-altered appearance and interior, in particular the dining

room, drawing room and galleried stair hall, and with historic joinery, plasterwork, fireplaces

and light fittings throughout.

However this significance has been severely compromised as a result of the fire, in particular the degree

of survival of the historic details noted above.

5.7 Taking guidance from the NPPF, it is therefore clear that the significance of the building has been

fundamentally affected as a result of the fire and the proposed works would ensure that remaining key

historical elements are preserved, renovated or replaced, as appropriate. As such, the proposals will

not result in significant harm through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development

within its setting, fulling complying with para. 132 of the NPPF.

5.8 The planning requirements in respect to the heritage asset are therefore met in full.

Other Planning Issues

5.9 Although it is clearly the heritage that is of most significance, it is also appropriate consider the extent

to which the proposal complies with other planning policy requirements.

5.10 To this extent it has already been noted that the scheme is of a good quality and well designed.

5.11 As such the requirements of other planning policies are also met.



DESIGN AND ACCESS

6.1 In order to satisfy planning regulations, a short statement on design and access is set out below.

Use

6.2 The use of the building will continue as a dwelling house for domestic purposes only, as per the current

planning consent (ref: 3/2016/1028).

Scale

6.3 The scale of development closely reflects that of the previous, in that the replacement of the roof will

be undertaken in a like-for-like manner. As such, there will be no increase in floorspace and the overall

scale and height will be no different to that of the previous roof structure.

Appearance

6.4 The proposals involve the replacement of the roof in a like-for-like manner, with the exception of

omitting the original small dormers on the west, south and east elevations, their substitution with

conservation-type rooflights, the introduction of a number of additional rooflights in order to provide

improved lighting to the roofspace and the replacement of all glazing damaged during the fire.

6.5 Whilst some elements of the roof will departs from their original appearance to a degree, the harm

involved is limited and is considerably outweighed by the proposal’s wider benefit in forming the first

stage of the listed building’s restoration following the fire damage, and by making the structure

watertight as winter approaches.

Layout

6.6 The proposed works will not alter the general layout of the application site.

6.7 There will be the restoration of internal areas and the removal of elements too badly damaged to repair,

but these will not impact significantly upon the character of the property or wider site.

Access

6.8 The development will continue to use the existing access.



CONCLUSION

7.1 The works that have been undertaken and are proposed take full account of, respect and maintain the

significance of Alston Hall. As such they fully accord with heritage planning policy.

7.2 Furthermore, the proposed development fully accords with other relevant planning policy and will

ensure the continued appropriate use of the heritage asset, alongside its long-term preservation.

7.3 It is therefore considered that there are no reasons why planning and listed building consent cannot be

granted.

Architecture + Building Surveying + Town Planning

www.cassidyashton.co.uk

Cassidy and Ashton is a trading style of Cassidy and Ashton Group Limited Registered in England and Wales No. 2510645 – 7 East Cliff, Preston, PR1 3JE

Chester Office:

10 Hunters Walk, Canal Street, Chester, CH1 4EB

T: +44(0)1244 402 900

E: [email protected]

Preston Office:

7 East Cliff, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 3JE

T: +44(0)1772 258 356

E: [email protected]

Email us:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Follow us on:

http://www.rics.org/northwest

http://www.rics.org/northwest

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/

http://www.qmsuk.com/iso-14001.php




https://members.architecture.com/custom/bespoke/directory/dir_projects.asp?id=109668&type=O&dir=1

https://members.architecture.com/custom/bespoke/directory/dir_projects.asp?id=109668&type=O&dir=1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.facebook.com/CassidyAshton.Architects

https://twitter.com/Cassidy_Ashton

https://www.linkedin.com/company/cassidy---ashton-architects-and-building-surveyors

alston hall - ribble valley · alston hall | 10/10/2017 planning, design and access statement...

Documents