cranford conservation area - borough of kettering · later terraces mostly thatched, groups of...

Cranford Conservation Area (As reviewed March 2007) Produced for Kettering Borough Council by

Donald Insall Associates Architects and Historic Building Consultants

crose

Stamp

CRANFORD CONSERVATION AREA

Donald Insall Associates Architects and Historic Buildings Consultants March 2007 1

CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Planning Policy Context 3.0 Summary of Special Interest 4.0 Assessment of Special Interest 5.0 Location and Setting 6.0 Historical Development and Archaeology 7.0 Spatial Analysis 8.0 Character Analysis 9.0 Community Involvement 10.0 Boundary Changes 11.0 Local Generic Guidance 12.0 Particular Issues 13.0 Useful Information 14.0 Management Policies Maps 1 and 2

crose

Stamp



1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Cranford is one of four small villages, lying east of

Kettering Town but within the Borough’s jurisdiction, that could be affected by proposed expansion of the Town in that direction. Most of the village is included in a conservation area designated in 1982 and it is appropriate that the Borough Council commissioned an appraisal of the conservation area in the light of past, present and future trends. These trends are, in part, a reflection of socio-economic pressures and it has been necessary for us to be aware of these and of how they affect the life of the village.

1.2 Kettering Borough Council appointed Donald Insall

Associates to undertake this appraisal of Cranford Conservation Area in September 2006. The appraisal begins with a brief overview of the planning context and a summary of the special interest before looking in more detail at the setting, historic development and spatial and character analyses. Key issues affecting the area and changes adopted for these then follow with sources for for further information.

1.3 No appraisal can ever be completely comprehensive and

omission of any particular building, feature or space in this document should not be taken to imply that it is of no interest.

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 This Appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with the

recommendations of the English Heritage publications, Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals and Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas.

2.2 The 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation

Areas) Act defines a conservation area as “an area of architectural or historic interest the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.” The Act places a duty on local authorities to designate conservation areas where appropriate and from time to time to review the extent of conservation area designation within their districts. It also requires the local authority to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of these areas.

2.3

The designation is seen as the first step in a dynamic process, to quote English Heritage “the aim of which is to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the designated area – and to provide a basis for making sustainable decisions about its future through the development of management policies”. Designation gives the local authority additional powers to stop, for example, removal of significant features and to encourage sensitive new development. This particular study needs to be seen as part of the series of planning documents which already exist serving Kettering: These include the Kettering Local Plan, 1995; Kettering Development Framework, Kettering



Masterplan 2005, the North Northamptonshire, Statement of Community Involvement and the Borough Council’s Issues and Options for Urban Extension.

2.4 Government policy set out in Planning Guidance Note

No.15 (PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment) includes: “The general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character of appearance of a conservation area.” The appraisal reflects the values expressed in Power of Place – The Future of the Historic Environment, by English Heritage, 2000 and Towards an Urban Renaissance, 2001.

2.5 Additionally, some changes that do not normally require

planning permission (known as permitted development rights) have been identified as detrimental to the special interest of the conservation area. These are discussed in section 12.0

3.0 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INTEREST 3.1 Cranford, pop.414 (2001), is the largest of the four villages

in this study and is the only one not part of the Boughton Estate. It is of special interest as a village still retaining strong evidence of its medieval origins as twin parishes, the manorial estate of St Andrews’s – now Cranford Hall – still flourishing from the 18th Century and owning vast tracts of land around both parishes.

3.2 Not only is the medieval plan of the village still very clear,

but Cranford is surrounded by traces of a now-vanished ironstone extraction industry and the village is centre for several very traditional rural pursuits.

3.3 Unlike the other three villages, it has a relatively high

proportion of council-owned or built houses and of recent privately-owned houses, mostly displaying vernacular materials.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL INTEREST 4.1 Cranford is a spacious inward-looking village with broad

tracts of meadow or pasture land in the bowl through which flows the Alledge brook. Boundaries north and south of the village are clearly defined by the relatively recently planted ‘Kingston’s Spinney’ north of Cranford Hall Livery’s exercising paddocks and by the less welcome A14 trunk road supplanting the old Kettering to Cambridge railway line on the south side. East and west boundaries are less visibly defined, but the village is bound by old ironstone workings on both sides.

4.2 The topography is such that each former parish regards the

other – across the brook – still with an underlying rivalry that can make decisions on provision of amenities difficult. On the other hand, both parts overlook an idyllic scene of sheep grazing in parkland presided over by Cranford Hall.

4.3 The mix of building types, mostly residential, is a

microcosm of Middle England from Cranford Hall and its



establishment (St. Andrew’s) to the Manor (St John’s) and other distinguished detached residences, 17th Century and later terraces mostly thatched, groups of council-built houses and small clusters of modern stone-faced dwellings

5.0 LOCATION AND SETTING 5.1 Cranford lies against one of the principal radial routes

running eastwards, some 3 miles from Kettering. The A604 road which runs through the village has largely been superseded by the A14 dual carriageway trunk road which also ‘swallowed’ most of the route of the former single railway line that ran between Kettering and Cambridge from 1866 to 1963 with a station at Cranford. This was one of the few stations on the line close to the village it served. The Red Lion was probably a coaching stage-post before the railway arrived.

5.2 The main features of the village setting derive from the

large tracts of parkland, or former parkland, around Cranford Hall, and earthworks – partly tree covered – left over from ironstone mining and open-cast quarrying.

5.3 The main areas of parkland, those north of the Hall now

partly used as livery paddocks, are still run by the Cranford Hall Estate which has a continuing programme of tree planting. It is interesting that, by comparison with the Enclosure map (NRO Map 4446), some land to the north was un-enclosed in the 19th Century during Cranford Hall’s enlargement of its landscaped parkland.

5.4 Extensive earthworks survive, partly tree-covered, of open-

cast ironstone quarries north-east of the village and of ironstone mining to the west.

5.5 The course of the former Midland Railway Line is a

significant landscape feature bordering the south side of the village, a tree-lined embankment to the west changing to a deep cutting where crossed by the A604 at the south-east corner of the conservation area.



6.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHAEOLOGY

6.1 History 6.1.1 The name ‘Cranford’ (Craneford in the Domesday Book)

appears self-explanatory as a site where cranes fished in the shallow waters of the brook flowing through the village. There is now no ford through the brook (although one still exists some way to the east near Woodford), which – however – is crossed by several bridges including a listed stone structure, as well as the Jubilee (1897) and Millennium (2000) footbridges.

6.1.2 The manors of Craneford St. Andrew and Craneford St.

John are both listed in the Domesday Book (1086) with references to Asmund the Dane. The two churches were both administered by the abbey of St. Peter at Peterborough, although the abbeys of St. Peter in Westminster and St. Edmundsbury are also mentioned at Cranford St. Andrew. Both churches currently date from the 12th or early 13th centuries, but there is evidence that St. John’s may incorporate material from an earlier Norman building.

6.1.3 The twin villages each have a manor house. St. John’s Manor House dates from the 17th century. At St Andrew’s, Cranford Hall was the seat of the Fossebrok’s in the 15th century, but the Robinson’s acquired the estate during the 17th century and rebuilt the Hall in the early 18th century. Enclosure of the medieval field system was completed in 1775 and 1805 (very late) at St Andrew’s and St. John’s respectively, later ironstone workings leaving very little evidence of the characteristic ‘ridge and furrow’, now remaining only south of Alledge Brook east of Duck End.



6.2 Archaeology 6.2.1 Scattered Roman settlements have been uncovered from

time to time, most recently 200m east of Cranford Hall in the 1960s.

6.2.2 In the 19th century it seems the field north-west of Cranford

hall was re-landscaped as parkland, which remains to this day – the open field being used as Cranford Hall Livery Stables’ exercise paddocks. The north-east boundary of this field is a small stream dammed, possibly in medieval times, to provide a chain of fish ponds of archaeological significance.

6.2.3 Archaeologically important, also, are the remains of the ironstone workings. On the west side, Sir John Robinson (of Cranford hall) opened an ironstone mine in 1873. This closed in 1888 but was re-opened 20 years later by the Clay Cross Co. who continued mining by the ‘pillar and stall’ method until 19211. Since then the sites have become overgrown with trees and bushes, but they present a spectacular sight where scores of craters and gullies have appeared in chequer-board formation, each crater some 20 feet across and nearly as deep, where pit props have collapsed. It is said tractors have been known to fall in craters which have opened up without warning.

6.2.4 To the north-east, extensive and abandoned open-cast

Eric S Tonks: The Ironstone Railways and Tramways of the Midlands, 1959

workings remain with quarry pits up to 18m in depth. The writer recalls the extensive railway lines serving the pits which closed only in the 1960s. A small brick building that was part of the steam engine shed complex survives by the A604 east of the village.

6.2.5 In development terms over the centuries, there has been

very little growth since medieval times, the earliest terraces in both parts of the village dating from the 17th century. St John’s stretched to and expanded along the A604, especially in the 19th century. In the mid to late 20th century a group of Council houses was built along the south side of this road, with another small Council estate – Top Dysons – extending westwards from St. Andrew’s up to the ironstone mine workings. More recently small clusters of modern houses have infilled back land in both parts of the village, including 3 large bungalows on the west side of the Green.

7.0 SPATIAL ANALYSIS 7.1 Spatially, the two main built-up areas border and define the

parkland between them, with Cranford Hall and St. Andrew’s Church adjacent being jointly the focal point of the village. Rising ground southwards, and the bund partially protecting housing from the A14 traffic noise, restrain any views in this direction. The visual impact of buildings around a large open space, Cranford Hall Park, gives the village its special character.



7.2 Boundary walls along the streets and bounding properties elsewhere are considered in detail in paragraph 8.3.1, but many were rightly identified as significant spatially on the original conservation area appraisal plan. Most of these remain, but some have been reduced in height during repair and this disrupts the sense of continuity and enclosure they provided.

7.3 Trees are an important element shaping the village and

conservation area environment. A band of trees importantly defines the western entry to the village along the A604 and another swathe, known as the New or Kingston’s Spinney, marks the northern edge of the park and village from Rectory Hill in the west towards Sandy Spinney and the old quarries in the east. Trees also surround The Green (which in fact is a private garden to the Manor House) and thus add streetscape interest to the High Street (the A604). Individual trees are an essential ingredient in the central parkland and although loss of old trees in storms (as recently) is inevitable, it is good to know that the Estate has a policy of tree planting and renewal.

8.0 CHARACTER ANALYSIS 8.1 Generally 8.1.1 Cranford derives its special character from its two distinct

and complementary communities. In the centre Cranford Hall, with its stable yard adjoining, still serves the purpose for which it was built – the seat of the Robinson family, who have lived there for some four centuries and who still own the majority of the land in and around the village. The stables are still fully utilised for livery purposes, there being also two other liveries in the village. The Hall itself hosts many functions through the year, with gymkhanas and other village activities taking place in the park.

8.1.2 Although there is now only one working farm (Home

Farm) there are several other distinguished stone-built farmhouses and yeoman’s houses including Duck End Farm and Dairy Farm with its circular stone dovecot.



8.1.3 Cottages in St. Andrew’s Street and Rectory Hill, facing south and west respectively, are typically of the mid-Northamptonshire vernacular with limestone walls below thatched or tiled roofs. The Council houses, on the other hand, bear little affinity with the rest of the village scene, being of ‘standard’ designs seen throughout the country. Cottages 9-17 High Street, built by the Estate in the late 18th or early 19th Centuries, are noteworthy in retaining their detached privies. Dormitory House , at the west end of the High Street and built 1849, is distinguished by its tall lancet windows with ironstone surrounds, as well as through having provided boarding house accommodation for older children of overflowing village families.

8.1.4 The 1982 conservation area plan identified several sites in St Andrew’s ‘in need of enhancement’ and it is good to see these sites have now recently been developed with stone-built houses of reasonably sensitive design. The need for such sensitivity was less recognised when Orchard Fields, Battle Close and The Green bungalows were built.

8.2 Building Materials 8.2.1 Overall, the palette of building materials is sensibly

limited. Limestone is the indigenous building material with many of the older buildings constructed of limestone rag, often coursed, but the churches and more important houses having ashlar quoins, chimneys and window dressings. Following discovery of ironstone beds below the limestone, this dark red stone began to be incorporated more generally as window dressings, to especially striking effect in 4 High Street (Dormitory House), sometimes in



quoins (Dairy Farmhouse), and most unusually in Chapel Cottage, dated 1834, marks the introductiondecorative bands as in 20 Church Lane. of Welsh slates, this material having replaced thatch on

several other buildings.

8.2.2 Roofs would originally have been thatched and many houses still retain this covering. Unfortunately this has been replaced by interlocking concrete tiles on a significant number of listed buildings. Vivid red pantiles have also been used on a few buildings (6 St Andrew’s Lane and 6 The Green). Two of the more important dwellings – Duck End Farmhouse and The Little House – possess Collyweston slated roofs. Plain clay tiles are found on a few buildings, also the delightful fish-scale scalloped tiles made in the 19th century. The former Baptist Chapel (now

8.2.3 Cast-iron casement windows are a noteworthy feature in a

number of dwellings, deriving from local industry, that should be preserved. Luckily, so far, plastic replacement windows are little in evidence here.



8.3 The Street Scene 8.3.1 Boundary walls form important links between groups of

buildings and it is sad to see that in relatively recent years, increasingly, wall-tops have been poorly rebuilt or the walls themselves reduced in height! Stone-on-edge is the traditional topping, but in supposed interests of economy this has often been replaced by brick, sometimes with a harsh flat tile coping. St. John’s churchyard, on the other hand, has a part-natural stone coping and a matching part-cast concrete coping. The latter has by now attracted lichens which make it almost indistinguishable from the natural stone original coping and can surely have cost no more than the less sightly brick copings seen elsewhere.

8.3.2

Footpaths form a useful and important communication network throughout the village, but especially in St. Andrew’s where there is no public east-west road connecting the two principal parts of this community. The Estate roads are private to vehicular traffic but notices permit passage for pedestrians. These are bridleways for the numerous horses but cyclists are not acknowledged!



8.3.3 Bridges across the Alledge brook are necessary but minor features of the central area. The westernmost stone-built bridge is listed grade II, originally dating from the 18th century and since widened, has alongside it the modern Millennium footbridge. Another footbridge, commemorating the 1897 Jubilee and with pleasant white-painted ironwork, carries the footpath which runs across the centre of the Park. The easternmost road bridge is a modest brick structure mostly shrouded by trees.



8.3.4 A few spring-heads remain built into the village walls, but

prominent and distinctive in Cranford are the well-maintained (but now redundant) water hydrants. The village is also proud of the Gilbert Scott red-painted telephone kiosk, examples of which are being listed elsewhere. Less visually acceptable, but all too prevalent in English villages, are the overhead electricity and telephone cables, modern regulations tending to promote an increasing number of their poles. Incongruously modern street lighting posts are also regrettable in the conservation area.



9.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 9.1 Statement of Community Involvement 9.1.1 The ten Principles enumerated in North

Northamptonshire’s Statement of Community Involvement are being followed, the Parish Clerk having convened a meeting at which parishioners and local landowners gave their views on topics affecting life in the village, including:

History and evolution, including farms, market gardens, local crafts, industry

Estate policy and development The village community: local organisations, clubs Commerce (or lack): post office, shops, pubs, cafes Housing, old and new Provision for the young: schools, playgroups Recreation space Provision for the elderly: sheltered housing, care

homes Accessibility: public transport, roads, footpaths,

bridleways The street scene: bridges, trees, boundary walls,

hedges and fences, street furniture, paving materials

9.2 Community Facilities and Activities 9.2.1 The village hall was built in 1896 as a Reading and

Recreation Room in memory of Sir Frederic Laud Robinson and was ‘improved’ as a World War II Memorial. Standing prominently on the edge of the park, it

is well used and is the only communal building accessible to all in the village. The local branch of the Women’s Institute meets there, also an Over 60’s and a coffee group. A pre-school play group has met there in recent years, but this activity has currently ceased.



9.2.2 Of the two medieval churches, only St. John’s is now in parochial use, with a parish room recently having been formed in the north chapel. A Church Youth Group meets there as well as the Sunday School. A team of bellringers rings the six bells. St. Andrew’s Church is now in the care of the Redundant Churches Trust and there are moves afoot to re-hang the four bells in the tower.

9.2.3 Surprisingly in a village of this size with only 61 children

(5-16), the Church of England Aided village primary school currently takes in about 70 pupils, many from the surrounding district. The original school building in Church Street is still in use, with several prefabricated temporary classrooms on land to the south. Its survival must depend upon the quality of the teaching, which can fluctuate.

9.2.4 Closure some years ago of the Woolpack in St. Andrew’s Lane now leaves the Red Lion in the High Street as the only public house in the village. This has recently been renovated with ‘gastro-pub’ dining facilities and, like such establishments countrywide, its survival must depend on income from this source.



9.2.5 The Old Forge, at the corner of St. Andrew’s Lane and Rectory Hill, has been operating until recently as a kind of craft centre but this has now closed and its future use is uncertain.

9.2.6 The Post Office on The Green closed some 10 years ago

and there is now no Post Office or shop of any kind in the village. The nearest ‘local’ shops are at Barton Seagrave some 2 miles away, but with sparse public transport most shopping has to be reached by car.

9.2.7 Thirteen bungalows in Orchard Field immediately south of

the High Street, originally all Council owned, provide 1-2 bedroom accommodation (not sheltered) for the elderly.

9.2.7 The principal village activities are essential rural. The 3

livery stables are very busy, but riders are concerned that future nearby development will curtail the number of bridleways. Shooting very traditionally is centred on Cranford Hall, the spinneys surrounding the village providing good cover for game.

9.2.8 There are no other organised recreational facilities for

children (or adults), but cycling away from the High Street is relatively safe, especially in the cul-de-sac on the north side of The Green, and parkland is available when weather permits. The old ironstone mine areas on the west side of the village are a popular, if somewhat hazardous, ‘adventure playground’ for mountain cyclists and the like.

9.2.9 Public transport has thinned in recent years, now with only

a 2-hourly service between Kettering and Thrapston. As in many villages, there is a CATS (Community Action Transport Service) facility for the ‘socially disabled’ and the ‘elderly disabled’, but this is not available for recreational use and villagers with no access to private transport can feel very cut off, both socially and from shops and other community services.

9.2.9 Concern has been expressed at the density and speed of traffic through the village, both along the main A604 road and along ‘rat-runs’ northwards towards Grafton Underwood. There is also a problem with continual traffic noise from the A14. This is bunded immediately south of the village, but noise intrusively ‘leaks’ in at the east and west ends of the bund.



10.0 BOUNDARY CHANGES 10.1 The 1982 Conservation Area Appraisal noted that the

boundary of the Conservation Area had been drawn “to include all the buildings and significant features which contribute to the character of the village”. Similarly, it also noted that “the importance of open land and its contribution to village character and appearance is demonstrated by the inclusion of open parkland within the boundary of the Conservation Area”

10.2 However, it is not clear why a more or less arbitrary strip

of land (not following land boundaries) has been included east of Duck End Lane, whilst the western boundary runs closely along Grafton Road. The meadowland west of this road contributes greatly to the character of the village, as also does former parkland north of Cranford Hall.

10.3 As noted in paragraph 6.2.2, an historically important chain

of medieval fish ponds lies along the north-east boundary of this land. The deep former railway cutting at the south-east corner of the village is also historically significant; so, too, are the ironstone mine workings north-west of Top Dysons.

10.4 For these reasons the Conservation Area boundary is

extended to include these features. Northwards, Kingston's Spinney forms a natural boundary and this iscomplemented by an extension southwards to include theline of the old railway, thus encompassing the whole of the

High Street, where progressive improvements could enhance the Conservation Area. Westwards, the C.A. boundary includes the entry to the village beyond the Top House, together with the meadow west of the Listed stone bridge and woodland including the site of old ironstone mines west of Top Dysons. Eastwards and north of Alledge Brook, the scarp of the old quarry workings forms a natural boundary, whilst south of the brook surviving ridge and furrow and the now woodedformer railway cutting is included.

10.5 Beyond this, it would be unrealistic for more land to be

given conservation area protection, but if medium density development approaches from the direction of Kettering a ‘buffer zone’ of economically viable farming land should be kept around the village, and a separate study should inform how a network of bridleways could be formed and maintained.

11.0 LOCAL GENERIC GUIDANCE 11.1 It is important that consistent policy guidance should be

available for all the villages, varied only by special circumstances in any particular village.

11.2 There are sites within some villages’ envelopes where

limited infill could advantageously be permitted, but only if the scale, form and materials are appropriate, repeating and echoing the values already established in the conservation areas.



11.3 Domestic buildings should follow one of the forms of good existing housing, either terraced or detached, but individual or semi-detached dwellings of ‘suburban’ character should not be permitted.

11.4 The extension of buildings, especially Listed buildings,

needs considerable design care. Where permitted extensions should be subservient to the main structure but following, for example, the same roof pitch.

11.5 Conservatories are a particular problem, but may discreetly

add useful space at the rear of properties; it is unlikely they would be permissible at the front.

11.6 The particular attraction of these villages is their use of

local limestone below thatched or tiled roofs. The presumption for any extension or new development within the conservation area should be for the use of these materials and a very strong case should be required for any departure from such guidelines.

11.7 The application of detailed design elements in each village

should be noted and followed: • The proportions and materials of windows,

avoiding bulky plastic frames. • Location of windows, for example, in gable-ends. • Shape and materials of dormer windows in

thatched, tiled and slated roofs. • Continuity of boundaries – walls, fences, hedges.

11.8 Where individual trees, groups of trees and large hedges contribute to the character of the Conservation Area these should be maintained, including re-placing aged, diseased or fallen specimens.

12.0 PARTICULAR ISSUES 12.1 New Buildings Pressure for residential development has resulted in more

new houses in Cranford than in any of the other villages being studied. Some recent examples of infill have appropriate materials, if a little heavily detailed, but others built over the past 20 or so years have little village context and these dilute the quality of the Conservation Area.



12.2 Boundary Walls The boundary walls along streets and parkland fulfil a vital

visual role in linking properties to form the village entity. Their partial replacement by fencing, use of inappropriate coping materials and changes in height destroys this continuity.

12.3 Highway Materials Unlike some villages, the paths and roads in Cranford are

mostly surfaced in ‘black top’ tarmacadam which signifies an urban rather than a rural setting.

12.4 Under-used Sites There are very few vacant or under-used sites in Cranford, but increasing pressure for desirable rural development and some unfortunate precedents already set here may make it difficult to resist more building. It is important, therefore, that the existing Conservation Area Development Control

policy ‘New buildings will only be permitted where the siting, layout and materials used are in harmony with the character of the area’ is strictly maintained.

12.5 Satellite Dishes and Other Aerials

These installations can be seriously detrimental to the

appearance, especially of Listed buildings. Television aerials are by now commonplace and are generally less obtrusive than satellite dishes. The ‘transparent’ dish is preferable to others. Dishes should be located on rear elevations wherever possible, below eaves level, and should not be allowed on chimney stacks.

12.6 The High Street

All of the High Street is included in the conservation area, this south boundary of the C.A. being visually the weakest part of the whole village. Although traffic density here must have been at least partially relieved by the A14, the speed of traffic is in inverse proportion to its density.



13.0 USEFUL INFORMATION AND CONTACTS 13.1 Planning Guidance Kettering Borough Council

Bowling Green Road, Kettering Northamptonshire’ NN15 7QX Tel. 01536 410333 E-mail:[email protected] Website:www.kettering.gov.uk

13.2 Amenity Groups

Kettering Civic Society

Paul Ansell (Chairman) Monica Ozdemir (Secretary)

01536 312 272 [email protected]

Victorian Society

The Victorian Society, 1 Priory Gardens London W4 1TT

020 8994 1019

Georgian Group

The Georgian Group 6 Fitzroy Square London W1T 5DX


SPAB

37 Spital Square London E1 6DY


CPRE Sue Baylis po box 7939 Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 9XW

01858 433136 [email protected]

13.3 Heritage Guidance

English Heritage Eastern England Office

East Midlands Region 44 Derngate Northampton NN1 1UH Tel. 01604 735400

Northamptonshire Sites and Monuments Record (archaeological Information)

Christine Addison (Historic Environment Record Officer) Northamptonshire County Council PO Box 163 County Hall Northampton NN1 1AX

E-Mail: CAddison@ northamptonshire.gov.uk

13.4 Tourist Information Office

The Coach House Sheep Street Kettering NN16 OAN Tel. 01536 410266 E-mail: [email protected]



13.5

Further information Related Planning Documents Kettering Local Development Framework Kettering Local Plan, January 2005 Kettering Town Centre Master Plan, May 2005 Kettering Town Centre Conservation Area Document Extension to Kettering Town Centre Conservation Area, Draft Designation Document, 1988 North Northamptonshire Statement of Community Involvement, 2005 English Heritage, Streets for All: East Midlands, 2005 Glenn Foard and Jenny Ballinger Northamptonshire Extensive Urban Survey: Kettering, 2000 Historical Background Nikolaus Pevsner and Bridget Cherry, The Buildings of England: Northamptonshire, 2nd ed 1973 Tony Ireson, Northamptonshire, 1954 Eric S Tonks, The Ironstone Railways and Tramways of the Midlands, 1959



14.0 MANAGEMENT POLICIES

14.1 Planning Guidance The Council shall pursue policies that will retain and enhance the quality of Cranford conservation area, especially in the light of the proposed eastward expansion of Kettering. This conservation area appraisal highlights the need to manage the effects of proposed significant levels of new development north and east the village which, if unrestricted, will adversely affect the special character the designation was intended to conserve. In order to mitigate the effects of harmful change, policies set out appropriate standards for new development and for alterations to existing buildings, including specific design guidance. The policies contained in this appraisal plan accord with Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (PPG1), General Policy and Principles (1997). PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment, 1994 and The Future of the Historic Environment, produced for the Government by English Heritage in 2000.

14.2 Buildings at Risk

Most parts of the conservation area are in a good state of repair and, with continuing regular maintenance, are likely to remain in good health provided that they continue in sympathetic and active use. However, a few buildings of

merit are unoccupied and deteriorating and are therefore at increasing levels of risk. Such decay will not only lead to the loss of important structures, but will also blight the neighbourhood. A Buildings at Risk register will identify buildings for which action is most urgently needed and will set out the priorities for such action. This will provide the basis for a strategy for each building to include urgent works, supported by statutory provisions, where necessary, to halt further decay in extreme cases. The Council will maintain a register of Buildings at Risk, which will include buildings within the conservation area, and seek to secure their repair and re-use as assets which preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

14.3 Demolition The Council will not normally permit the demolition of

buildings in the Cranford Conservation Area. 14.4 Alterations The historic buildings of Cranford conservation area are its

primary asset. A few are statutorily listed as being of special architectural or historic interest while others contribute to their setting or to the group value of an ensemble of buildings. Few buildings within the conservation area fail to make a positive contribution to its character and appearance.



Those of greater architectural distinction most easily catch the eye but others are of equal importance, because of what their interiors contain or because of their special type. All of these factors contribute to the rich architectural and historical character of the conservation area. These unique qualities will be best maintained by keeping the buildings in good repair and in use. Proposals to alter buildings in ways which diminish their special character pose the greatest threat to the integrity of the conservation area. There will be a presumption against alterations to buildings which adversely affect their character and appearance or that of the conservation area.

14.5 Historical Research

The Council will require historical documentary research to be carried out in support of proposals for significant alteration or demolition within the conservation area.

14.6 Archaeology The areas of the former ironstone mining and quarrying,

although not all within the conservation area, affect its character and development will not be permitted in these areas.

14.7 Changes of Use The Council will not normally permit changes of use to a

building or land where the new use would adversely affect

its character, the appearance of the conservation area or the community life of the village. The Council will promote the re-use of obsolescent farm buildings for small businesses to encourage local employment, reducing the need for commuting. The special architectural and historic character of the conservation area reflects the historic development of the twin villages. These have produced the pattern of building types and forms which characterize Cranford. Both parts of the village have their own very distinctive quality derived from scale, building material, layout and use. The retention of existing uses contributes to character, quality and interest. This is an important part of conservation policy, addressing the character of the area and the quality of the village scene in the broadest sense as well as protecting individual buildings.

14.8 Repair and Maintenance The Council will provide guidance on materials,

techniques and finishes appropriate for the repair and maintenance of existing buildings within the conservation area, so as to preserve or enhance its special character.

14.9 The Design of New Development Permission for new development will only be granted

where it respects the scale, form and density of the historic



pattern of development, where it protects views and where it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area.

14.10 Design Guidance The Council will publish a design guide for village conservation areas as part of a series that will also include advice on:

The conversion of traditional farm buildings Residential extensions in rural areas New houses in villages Building materials in Northamptonshire villages

In particular, the Council will have regard to:

The scale and mass of new buildings – The Council will require new buildings to respect the scale and mass of traditional buildings within the locality.

The plan form, elevational treatment and materials of new buildings – The Council will require the plan form, elevational treatment and materials to complement the historic and architectural character of the conservation area.

The maintenance of the hierarchy of the historic street pattern – The Council will require new development to follow the hierarchy of the historic street pattern.

The height of new buildings – The Council will require new buildings to respect the height of traditional buildings within the locality.

Car Parking – The Council will not permit car parking spaces on

forecourts or in gardens in front of buildings.

The presence of uncharacteristic buildings in the conservation area does not provide grounds for allowing more like them and a further erosion of historic character. By seeking to conserve traditional buildings and adding new ones that reinforce historic character, the relative impact of negative elements will be diminished.

14.11 Links and Views The conservation area has visual, historical and traditional

links with the immediate surrounding areas which are evident on the roads leading into the area – particularly those giving views of St Andrew’s Church and Cranford Hall. The views and links will be protected and where appropriate enhanced. The Council shall also seek to protect other key views which contribute to the character of the conservation area.



14.12 The Street Scene

Policies for the street scene shall pay regard to the character of the area and to historic features. Original features such as the water hydrants should be retained and repaired and new features introduced in sympathy with the original. This includes new paving, street furniture, traffic signs and street lighting – which should all be designed or selected to enhance the unique character of the conservation area. In particular, paving should provide at least some of that interest provided by traditional features – such as setts for kerbs and bonded pea shingle for path and road surfaces – effects largely missing from the standardized black tarmacadam finishes. Landscaping strategy and design will recognize the predominance of parkland that characterizes the heart of the village. The contrast between this and the built up environment of each part of the village shall be maintained, but with appropriate forest trees selected for the south side of the High Street to provide a strong edge to the conservation area.

14.13 A Village Trail To encourage the use of footpaths the Council shall

identify a Village Footpath Trail with route markers, and publicize this in a pamphlet illustrating features to be noted along the route

15.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was produced by Alan Frost, with maps by Sandip Chudha and secretarial compilation by Isobel Chidley. Thanks are due to the following persons for their guidance and the information they provided: Paul Thomas and Lloyd Mills, Kettering Borough Council; Christine Addison, Northamptonshire Sites and Monuments Record; Peter Quincey and members of Cranford Parish Council

DONALD INSALL ASSOCIATES LIMITED

LISTED BUILDINGS

BOUNDARY BEFORE 30th MARCH '07

WATERCOURSES

WOODLAND

PARKLAND

FORMER IRONSTONE WORKINGS

COURSE OF FORMER RAILWAY

LEGEND

CONSERVATION AREA BOUNDARYSINCE 30th MARCH '07

RIDGE + FURROW FIELD

CRANFORD : CONSERVATION AREA APPROVED 30th MARCH 2007

crose

Stamp

N

SIGNIFICANT BOUNDARY WALLS

LEGEND

FOCAL POINTS

SIGNIFICANT VIEWS

SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE

FOOTPATHS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

SIGNIFICANT PLANTING

LISTED BUILDINGS & SCHEDULED LANDSCAPE

DONALD INSALL ASSOCIATES LIMITEDA r c h i t e c t s & H i s t o r i c B u i l d i n g C o n s u l t a n t s

CRANFORD CONSERVATION AREA APPROVED 30th MARCH 2007

CRANFORDST ANDREW

CRANFORDST JOHN

crose

Stamp