Ashwell Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 10310

Received: 10/08/2022

Respondent: Mr David Cook

There are a number of points I would want to make about the consultation proposals.

Things I agree with

1. Generally speaking, I can understand and empathise with the overall tone of the consultation document.

2. It was refreshing to see an acknowledgement that there may be property currently in the conservation area which does not belong there. (Example Townsend Meadow).

Things I take as Givens

Throughout planning law and case law, there is a clear thread that planning restrictions (which conservation areas bring, of course) should not be imposed lightly. They must be proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all other respects etc.

The national guidance on conservation area designation reinforces that conservation area status is not to be imposed lightly. In general terms, it provides that to be included within a conservation area, buildings need to be of special architectural or historic interest. Furthermore, inclusion areas which are not detracts and weakens the importance of conservation areas.

One can envisage there is a case for including a minority of property, which does not perhaps meet this bar, but is surrounded by properties that clearly do. However, if that ratio is reversed or there is a cluster of properties that do not meet the standard such as Townsend Meadow, then one might expect them not to be embraced by the conservation area.

Of course, one should also consider issues such as the definition and boundary of a conservation area. One should be able to notice by the special nature of the properties, that one might be in a conservation area.

NPPF

“When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest”.

Suggested Changes

The following are areas that do not seem to meet the criterion of being special architecturally or historically. I shall take each area in turn and provide photographs.

I have stratified my comments into those which I feel are relatively straight forward and clear-cut verses those which are less clear cut.

Clearer Cut Cases

1. Dixies Close (west)

Dixies Close has two parts. There is a footpath which dissects Dixies north to south. To the east of that footpath, towards the school, are a series of earlier properties. These are the ones referred to in the Consultation Document. To the west of that footpath are a series of later properties that have no architectural or historic merit at all. Please see photographs nos. D1 – D11 & also enclosed map.

There is no justifying narrative in the consultation document which covers the properties to the west of the footpath. It appears the Dixies Close net has been thrown a little too wide.

The properties to the west of the footpath should not be added into the conservation area. They do not meet the criteria.

2. Western entrance to the conservation area/West End

The western entrance to the conservation area from the Newnham Road includes a finger embracing a highway and 4 homes. There is only one building which is of a quality that might be considered to be of local interest, namely West Point (WE6). The other three properties, 30, 32 & 34 West End – (please see photos WE1 – WE5) remain designated as within the conservation area. None of these three properties can be argued to have special architectural or historical interest. Similarly, the street scene outside 30, 32 & 34 is festooned with signage and traffic management structures, which urbanise the area outside these properties. I welcome these highway improvements but they only add to the ordinary nature of the area.

A more natural and appropriate commencement to the conservation area comes from a line joining the western end of the charming long curving Cambridge brick wall boundarying the north of the highway (WE7) to the listed thatched property opposite (WE8). That represents a clear commencement to the conservation area, which is easily read.

It appears that in an attempt to embrace West Point within the original conservation area proposals, the obvious commencement of the conservation area has been artificially adjusted to wrap around West Point.

If one considered West Point to be an important building, it could (arguably should) find its way onto a local buildings of historic interest list.

West Point has unremarkable properties to its east, west and south.

Other important properties which might be considered historically interesting, but are outside the conservation area, e.g. the farmhouse at the end of Green Lane or Elbrook House) do not have an artificial finger of conservation area embracing areas of no special merit, just to reach them. West Point should not be so treated.

If it is considered vital to retain West Point in the conservation area, then 30, 32 & 34 should be excluded and a highway “bridge” be used to embrace West Point.

Personally, I believe excluding that western finger gives a stronger, clear-cut entrance to the conservation area and better meets the requirements of the NPPF. There are other more appropriate ways to recognise a single isolated property of merit amongst many other less noteworthy examples.

The western boundary of the conservation area should be moved to the village side eastern edge of number 34 West End, across to the western edge of the listed property opposite. (see enclosed map).

Failing that, nos. 30, 32 & 34 West End should be removed from the conservation area.

Less Clear Cut Cases

3. Area 3 – a field to the south of the ruddery

I have concerns about including this area. I do not see it as architecturally or historically special. It does have some historic features which bring their own protection in planning law. The field is outside of the village boundary and is land in open countryside. That also brings a particularly high level of protection.

I am aware the Parish Council proposed its inclusion. I fear there is a misunderstanding here that conservation area status is a way of providing protection against development. Irrespective of whether that is the case or not, I think it is problematic to designate this field as being in the Ashwell conservation area. Please allow me to explain why.

A land owner motivated to develop this area, may indeed, bring forward the argument that, although technically designated as land in open countryside, it ought to be considered as part of the Ashwell village settlement, not least because it is part of the Ashwell village conservation area! Certainly, if I were that landowner, I would be lobbying for a change in the village boundary to regularise the conservation area as within the settlement. There is, of course, also the issue of how “settings” are considered in planning law.

I do not have strong views either way, but I think as a general rule, one wouldn’t normally expect to see agricultural fields outside a settlement boundary as part of its conservation area. I think it brings as many, if not more problems and risks as it does returns.


4. Doctors Surgery & Woverley House

Personally, I can see no special historic or architectural merit to either of these buildings. Of course, the thatched wall bordering Woverley House, should remain with an appropriate buffer to the rear of it (as viewed from the highway).

General Comments

It appears to me that some individual properties in a conservation area might make a positive contribution; others perhaps a neutral or even a negative contribution. Perhaps if that type of graduated language were used more in reports from the planning authority and its consultants, it would help deepen understanding that all properties are not equal in a conservation area. That in turn might lead to a more appropriate and nuanced approach to the treatment of different properties within a conservation area. To paraphrase Orwell, just because all the properties are in the conservation area, does not mean al the properties make an equal contribution. We need to be more explicit about that to avoid blanket approaches being applied.
Apologies - correction on photos.

West End 1 - should read 34 West End

West End 3 - should read 30 West End