shepperton studios planning application for growth 2018

AUGUST 2018

DOCUMENT

Shepperton Studios Planning Application for Growth 2018

Heritage Statement

17

Shepperton Studios Heritage Statement

Shepperton Studios Limited August 2018

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. The Heritage Assets 4

3. Assessment of Significance 7

4. Impact Assessment 38

5. Summary and Conclusions 47

Appendix 1: List Entry – Church of St Mary Magdalene

Appendix 2: Relevant Statutory Duties, Planning Policy and Best Practice Guidance/Advice

Contact Marc Timlin [email protected]

Client Shepperton Studios Limited

Our reference PINR3003 August 2018

1

1. Introduction

1.1 This Heritage Statement has been prepared by Turley Heritage on behalf of Shepperton Studios Ltd (hereafter referred to as SSL or the applicant), to provide a proportionate understanding of the significance of the relevant heritage assets that may be affected by the application proposals. The Heritage Statement also assesses the impact of the outline planning application at Shepperton Studios (‘the Shepperton Studios site’), and the adjacent land (‘the Expansion site’) for the reconfiguration and expansion of facilities for film production and high end TV and associated services and industries on the particular significance of the relevant heritage assets.

1.2 The Site comprises c.60ha of land and relates to the existing Shepperton Studios site and the adjacent proposed expansion land (the ‘Expansion site’) located to the south-west and west of the existing Studios site (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Site Plan

1.3 The description of development is:

“Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access) for the redevelopment and expansion of Shepperton Studios, comprising the partial demolition and replacement of existing accommodation; construction of new sound stages, workshops, office accommodation, entrance structures and reception, security offices and backlots; creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from Shepperton Road and the relocation of existing access off Studios Road; with associated car parking; landscaping and ecological enhancements.”

2

1.4 The Shepperton Studios site contains a single formally identified heritage asset requiring assessment as part of this report; Littleton House, a Locally Listed Building that is a non-designated heritage asset for the purposes of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). In addition, the Grade I listed Church of St Mary Magdalene (Appendix 1 for list entry) is located within the vicinity of the Shepperton Studios site and requires consideration as part of this report.

1.5 This report should be read in conjunction with the following documents:

• Planning Statement, prepared by Turley;

• Parameter plans, prepared by FaulknerBrowns Architects;

• Illustrative material, prepared by FaulknerBrowns Architects;

• Design and Access Statement, prepared by FaulknerBrowns Architects; and,

• Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, prepared by LUC.

1.6 The requirement for this report derives from the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which places a duty upon the local planning authority in determining applications for development or works that affect a listed building to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. There is, however, no corresponding statutory duty regarding non-designated heritage assets or their settings, albeit the effect of development on their significance is a material planning consideration1.

1.7 The Framework provides the Government’s national planning policy on the conservation of the historic environment. In respect of information requirements for applications, it sets out that:

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.“2

1.8 Paragraph 190 then sets out that local planning authorities should also identify and assess the particular significance of heritage assets that may be affected by proposals. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of proposals in order to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

1 DCLG, Revised National Planning Policy Framework 2018 – para.197 2 DCLG, Revised National Planning Policy Framework 2018 – para.189

3

1.9 In accordance with these legislative and policy requirements, Section 2 of this Statement firstly identifies the relevant heritage assets within the vicinity of the Site that may be affected by the proposals.

1.10 Section 3 then provides a proportionate assessment of the significance of the identified heritage assets, including the contribution made by setting (and the Shepperton Studio and Expansion sites as elements of setting) to that significance. This assessment is carried out on the basis of the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and the local heritage interest of the non-designated heritage asset, and is undertaken using existing published information, on-site visual survey and archival research.

1.11 The relevant heritage statutory duties of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, national policy in the revised Framework and supported by the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014, and local planning policy and guidance for the historic environment is set out in full at Appendix 2.

1.12 Section 4 provides an assessment of the likely, potential impacts on the significance of these heritage assets arising from the application proposals. The illustrative material prepared by FaulknerBrowns Architects has informed this assessment of outline planning application.

1.13 Section 5.0 then provides a summary and conclusion of the findings of this report.

4

2. The Heritage Assets

Introduction

2.1 The Framework defines a heritage asset as:

“A building, monument, site, place, area, or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest”3.

2.2 The relevant heritage assets, identified in this Section, are identified on Figure 2.1, relative to the boundaries of the Shepperton Studios and Expansion sites.

Figure 2.1: Relevant Heritage Assets (Red – designated heritage asset; Blue – non-designated heritage asset)

Designated Heritage Assets

2.3 Designated heritage assets are those which possess a level of heritage interest that justifies designation under relevant legislation and are then subject to particular procedures in planning decisions that involve them.

Statutorily Listed Buildings 2.4 The Church of St Mary Magdalene is located in close proximity to the Shepperton

Studios site and was added to the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at grade I on 11th September 1951. The list entry is set out in full at Appendix 1, however, the list description is set out below for ease of reference:

3 DCLG, Revised National Planning Policy Framework 2018– Annex 2: Glossary

5

“Church. C12 origins, with chancel and south aisle C13, north aisle C14, clerestory C16 and tower raised in C18. North chancel chapels (now vestries) of 1705 and c1730, all restored in C19 and C20. Ragstone, chalk and conglomerate on nave with brown brick to lower stages of tower, russet brick to top, orange/red brick to clerestory and chequerboard brick work with vitrified headers on north chancel chapel. Plain tiled roofs. Tower to west, nave with clerestory and pentice aisles, porch to south, chancel to east and vestries to north. Four stage tower with plat bands across each stage and on plinth below; battlemented parapet above. Quatre- foil windows to upper stage of each face in rebuilt section. One 3-light diamond brick mullion lancet window on west side of second stage, two-light windows on north and south. Four-centre,arched-head and chamfered surround to lancet windows on north and south sides of first stage, three-light window to west. West doors in 4-centred arched surround with impost blocks. Buttressed pentice - roofed aisle to north with C19 fenestration; restored lancet on west face, one ogee section 2- light and one blocked window either side of buttress. Parallel hip-roofed and gable end ranges to north east, originally burial chapels for the Wood family. South side of nave with deep coved plaster eaves. Buttresses to south side of chancel to east. One 2-light trefoil-head lancet to east, chamfered 2-step surround to pointed-arch lancet window east of pentice pier. Two lancets, in place of older windows, the surrounds of which are still visible, to west of pier. C19 window to east end, earlier squint window in old surround, in angle with chancel. Double gable to east end with C19 3-light lancet window under brick relieving arch with hood moulding and human head corbels. C18 gable to right with plat band and square sundial. Porch to south gabled with 4-centre arched-head window to each return wall. C16 roof with moulded spine-beam and cross beams on braces; chamfered joists. Studded double doors in chamfered surrounds. Interior:- Two original lancets to north of chancel with deep splays, crown post roof above. Old work in chancel arch with two pointed orders and chamfered arches. Early C14 octagonal centre column to north nave arcade with moulded strings on inner order only. Large circular column to south arcade with two pointed and chamfered orders with semi-octagonal responds. Pointed C14 doorway in north wall now blocked by window. Fittings:- late medieval locker in south wall of south aisle. C15 choir stalls with cusped ogee arches and panelling in the spandrels said to have come from Winchester. Complete set of late medieval pews, restored, and very restored rood screen of circa 1500. Fine Flemish altar rails with C- scroll carving on the newels and very deep rich carving depicting the 10 command- ments and eagles in chancel; circa 1700. Early C18 wooden pulpit with arcaded tracery and small narrow high window into the south-east angle between nave and chancel to provide light. Octagonal stone font with elaborate quatrefoil pierced and crocketed font cover of ogee domed section above,on square pier. Hatchment on North tower wall. On north and south wall at the west end of the nave an Italian Trecento painting of six panels with six saints. Three bells by W. Eldridge 1666.”

2.5 There are other statutorily listed buildings located within the vicinity of the Shepperton Studios site, including:

• Littleton Manor (Grade II* listed building);

• Entrance walls and gate piers, Squires Bridge Road (Grade II listed building); and

• Bridge, Squires Bridge Road (Grade II listed building).

6

2.6 The nature of the particular heritage significance of these heritage assets, the contribution made by existing setting and the interposing development and landscaping means that there will be no impact on their significance arising from the development of the Shepperton Studio and/or the Expansion sites requiring consideration as part of this report, except insofar as they may be elements of setting of the Church of St Mary Magdalene and/or Littleton House (see below).

Non-Designated Heritage Assets

2.7 The Framework identifies that heritage assets include both designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). For the purposes of the Framework, the locally listed buildings are considered to constitute non-designated heritage assets.

2.8 Spelthorne District Council (SDC) maintains a ‘Local List of Buildings and Structures of Architectural or Historic Interest’. Littleton House is located within the Shepperton Studios site. The Council’s Local List entry provides a summary description of the building, which is provided below for ease of reference:

“Date 1896, much altered. Essentially classical, red brick in Flemish bond, parapetted with dressed stone detailing. Plain tiled roofs, many dormers; a full third storey appears behind crenellations to the right of the east garden front. Glazed lantern. Generally round arched windows to ground floor. The longer ones very fine with delicate single vertical glazing bars and slim meeting rail. Flat or segmental arched sashes above large Cast Iron verandah on east front. South front has projecting entrance bay with moulded brickwork, venetian window over arched entry. Eastern end of south front retains some old brickwork at the point where the 17th Century house would have joined. Also north facing wall of NW corner/window openings in old brickwork. SE corner, rainwater head date 1780 and south front coat of arms dated 1766. Conservatory, entrance hall, NE corner block, balcony on east front and projecting bay (south elevation) post 1895.”

2.9 There are no other formally identified heritage assets within the Shepperton Studios or the Expansion sites or local context that require consideration as part of this report, except insofar as they may be elements of setting of the Church of St Mary Magdalene4 and/or Littleton House5.

4 Memorial cross in churchyard and The Lodge, Squires Bridge Road 5 The Lodge, Squires Bridge Road

7

3. Assessment of Significance

Significance and Special Interest

3.1 The Framework defines the significance of a heritage asset as:

“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”6

3.2 Listed buildings are defined as designated heritage assets that hold architectural or historic interest. The principles of selection for listed buildings are published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and supported by Historic England’s Listing Selection Guides for each building type7.

3.3 Historic England has prepared best practice advice for Local Heritage Listing8. Locally listed buildings are chosen based on a set of criteria for determining their heritage significance. The criteria used by the Council9 are based on those used in the national statutory listing process; however, significance is judged on their local rather than national importance. The Council’s local listing criteria, against which the Council consider the inclusion of a building/item on the local list states that it is not intended that buildings in every category in the criteria should be included on the list as relative quality is important.

3.4 Historic England has published advice10 in respect of the setting of heritage assets, providing detail on understanding setting, managing change within the setting of heritage assets and information for assessing the implications of development proposals affecting setting.

Assessment

3.5 The following summary assessments of significance are proportionate to the importance of the relevant heritage assets and provide a sufficient level of description to understand their particular heritage significance. The assessment is based on existing published information, focussed archival research and on-site visual survey.

Historic Development of the Site 3.6 Littleton is not mentioned in Domesday Book of 1086, when it likely formed part of the

parish of Laleham to the east. It is first mentioned by name c.1166, when it was held in the barony of William Blunt, Baron of Ixworth, passing to the Abbey and Convent of

6 DCLG, Revised National Planning Policy Framework 2018 – Annex 2: Glossary 7 Historic England. Designation Listing Selection Guide: Places of Worship (2017) 8 Historic England Advice Note 7: Local Heritage Listing (2016) 9 Spelthorne Borough Council, Local List of Buildings and Structures of Architectural or Historic Interest SPG (2004, updated December 2016) 10 Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Second Edition 2017)

8

Westminster in 1316.11 In the reign of Edward III, the Lord of the Manor was Guy de Brien, standard-bearer to the King.12 The village of Littleton had, by this time, grown around the church of St Mary Magdelene, which is thought to have 12th century origins. Littleton Manor House was constructed in the 15th century and extended in the 16th and 17th centuries.

3.7 Littleton passed hands many times, coming in the early 18th century to the family of Lambell, who sold the manor in 1749, to Thomas Wood, whose family had held the Manor of nearby Astlam since 1660.13 At that time, Littleton Manor House and much of the surrounding area fell under the ownership of the Wood family; however, their residence had been, since c.1689, Littleton House. This was a large brick mansion, surrounded by a park and grounds of some 600 acres, built in the reign of William III, by the workmen who were employed at Hampton Court.14 The first Thomas Wood to live at Littleton held the appointment of Ranger of Hampton Court15, and, therefore, these workmen would have been known to him. This association with Hampton Court has also led to the suggestion that Littleton House was designed by Christopher Wren16, who was engaged on the rebuilding of Hampton Court at that time, however, no evidence to substantiate this attribution has been found.

3.8 The earliest visual evidence of Littleton House is a map of 1757, illustrating the development of Littleton, as well as Littleton House and Littleton Manor (Figure 3.1). This can be seen more clearly on a map of 1804, where the villages of Littleton and Shepperton Green are defined and where the parkland associated with Littleton House, including an ice house (this survived into the 20th century) within the grounds, is also clearly evident (Figure 3.2). This map also demonstrates a clear pattern of field boundaries in the surrounding area at this time.

11 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 2, 1911 12 Richard Newcourt, An Ecclesiastical Parochial History of the Diocese of London, 1708 13 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 2, 1911 14 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 2, 1911 15 London Metropolitan Archives, ACC/1302 16 Surrey Archives, 9154

9

Figure 3.1: John Rocque, A Map of the County of Middlesex, 1757

Figure 3.2: William Stanley, Ordnance Survey, 1804

3.9 Further evidence of the appearance and form of the original Littleton House can also be gained from early to mid-19th century sources, including a c.1820 watercolour image of Littleton House (also known as Littleton Park or Littleton Park House) (Figure 3.3) and the Tithe Map of 1848 (Figure 3.4). The Tithe Map of 1848 provides the first clear evidence of the plan form of the building at this time, and suggests that the house had been constructed in two parts, with the principal eastern block; an extended range

10

immediately to the north west; and, ancillary buildings (perhaps stable) to the west and north.

Figure 3.3: John Oldfield, Littleton Park House, c.1820 (assumed to be looking south)

Figure 3.4: Detail from the Littleton Parish Tithe Map, 1848

3.10 The associated Tithe Apportionment indicates the surrounding land was almost entirely owned by Colonel Edward Wood, describing the house and land immediately surrounding it as ‘Culver How gardens’, with waterside walks; ‘Meads Piece’; ‘19 acres of pine apple Temple’; pine acres; and, arable land. To the east, surrounding the church, this area is noted as ‘Kitchen Gardens’. The residential development of Littleton is situated primarily to the north east of Littleton House along with a farm and Blacksmith’s House. To the east of the Parish church is the Rectory and Littleton Manor

11

(then known as White House) with associated farm. At this time, Littleton had a population of approximately 111, remaining relatively consistent until the turn of the 20th century when the population reached approximately 320.17

3.11 In December 1874, disaster struck when Littleton House was partially burnt down. The event was recorded in newspapers of the time, including The Dundee Courier and Argus and Northern Warder, which reported on the fire on December 22nd 1874:

“Littleton Hall, Laleham, the seat of the late General Wood, for sometime the Chairman of the Conservative Association in Surrey, was burned to the ground on Saturday morning. The fire was discovered about one o’clock, but the house being an old one, lined with panelling, burned so rapidly that the fire-engines from Staines, Chertsey, &c., could gain no hold upon it, although any amount of water was at hand. Nothing is now left of the house but the outside walls and the tottering chimney-stacks, except two windows, which, although in the midst of the fire, have escaped uncracked. Most of the pictures were saved; a chef d’ouvre, however, of Raphael, valued at £1500, was burned. The fire is said to have been caused by the carelessness of some painters, who made a fire and left it covered with turfs, hoping to extinguish or hide it, the breeze, however, fanned it up and so Littleton Hall was burned down.”

3.12 An undated photograph appears to show the 17th century building before it was burnt down (Figure 3.5), whilst historic Ordnance Survey (OS) maps indicate that this portion of the building to the east was entirely destroyed (or later demolished) (Figure 3.6). The western portion and the ranges to the rear of these buildings seemingly remained intact after the fire.

Figure 3.5: Littleton House, undated but assumed to be c.1870s, showing the 17th century portion looking north from the south side of the River Ash

17 Friends of Spelthorne Museum, The Spelthorne Book II: An Alphabetical History of the Borough Spelthorne, 2010

12

Figure 3.6: Comparison of the 1876 (left) and 1895 (right) Ordnance Survey Maps

Figure 3.7: Plan of the Valuable Freehold Property known as the Littleton Estate, 1892

13

3.13 In 1892, archival records indicate that the entirety of the Littleton Estate, thought to still be in the possession of the Wood family was put up for sale by public auction as a number of separate lots (Figure 3.7). This demonstrates the vast holdings of the Littleton Estate, held for over two hundred years by one family, which was now broken up into separate holdings.

3.14 The record of the sale and subsequent purchasers are unknown, but a plaque within Littleton House records that by 1907, there was a new Lord of the Manor; Sir Richard Burbridge, then managing director of the department store, Harrods. Archival records indicate that various parcels of land were sold to Sir Richard Burbridge from at least 1902 until 1907.18 It is, therefore, assumed that Burbridge took ownership of Littleton House in the late 19th or early 20th century and was likely responsible for the rebuilding of the house.

3.15 Concurrently, in 1902 the Metropolitan Water Board was formed to improve the supply of water to the rapidly expanding capital, and quickly commenced a programme to vastly increase unfiltered water storage capacity. As part of these new plans, a reservoir at Littleton was authorised in 1911. Construction began in 1914 but was paused due to the onset of the First World War. Work recommenced in 1920, however, a pocket of ‘running sands’ necessitated moving construction to the south east.19 This was to lead to the demolition of a substantial portion of the village of Littleton, including the Post Office, twelve houses (replaced in New Road) and half of the Village Green. Astlam, a hamlet that formed part of the manor of Littleton was also removed at this time, including a medieval hall house reputed to have hosted King Henry VIII. Sir Richard Burbridge, as Lord of the Manor, paid for the manor to be moved to a new location near to Littleton House, but it has since been relocated to the Chiltern Open Air Museum.20

3.16 The parish of Littleton, prior to the construction of the Queen Mary Reservoir, was described in A History of the County of Middlesex in 1911. This describes:

“The ground falls gradually towards the Thames, and the higher and more northerly parts are well wooded, while two stretches of common, known respectively as Astlam and Littleton Common, fall within the northern boundary. The village is one of the least spoilt in the county. It is built almost entirely of red brick, and presents a cheerful and peaceful aspect as it clusters about the church. There has never been either publichouse or shop in the parish, and the only trade represented is that of the blacksmith.”

3.17 The significant impact the construction of the reservoir had on the village of Littleton, the largest reservoir at the time of its construction, and the wider Littleton estate is demonstrated in Figures 3.8 and 3.9. Despite this intervention, the area of the Site remained relatively unchanged since at least the 18th century. The only new addition was the Astlam medieval hall house, which was relocated to the north east corner of the Site.

18 Surrey Archives, 9154 19 http://www.villagematters.co.uk/sunbury-matters/sunbury-matters-articles/2014/02/history-of-the-queen-mary-reservoir 20 Friends of Spelthorne Museum, The Spelthorne Book II: An Alphabetical History of the Borough Spelthorne, 2010

14

Figure 3.8: 1920 Ordnance Survey Map


15

3.18 In rebuilding Littleton House, Sir Richard Burbridge appears to have moved it to the north, east and west (Figure 3.10) during his tenure as Lord of the Manor. However, Burbridge did not live to see the completion of the reservoir and, following his death in 1917, his son Sir Woodman Burbridge sold Littleton House, and surrounding land, to Sir Edward Nicholl in 1918. Sir Edward, who following a successful naval career was, for many years, MP for Falmouth. At Littleton, Sir Edward erected what was reported to be one of the most complete model railroad systems ever constructed and this can be seen in aerial photography of the 1930s (see below).21


3.19 Ten years later, Sir Edward sold Littleton House and 70 acres of land to Norman Laudon, who founded Sound City Film Producing and Recording Studios in 1930, converted the house into a hotel and intended to build a pleasure park and zoo in the grounds.22 Although plans for a pleasure park and zoo were later abandoned, the film studios grew rapidly with six stages constructed before the onset of the Second World War along with a sunken pool next to Littleton House (Figures 3.11 to 3.13).

3.20 Parts of the Expansion site, were noted in earlier maps to form part of a deer park, however, this was purchased in 1933 by Joseph John Cheeseman and became Littleton Park Nurseries. The property was passed to Cheeseman’s sons, Frank and Radium, and the nurseries did not close until 1980 and the death of Radium, at which point the nurseries were purchased by the film studios (then Shepperton Studios, discussed in more detail below), to be used as part of their backlot.23

21 Popular Science Monthly, June 1926 22 Friends of Spelthorne Museum, The Spelthorne Book II: An Alphabetical History of the Borough Spelthorne, 2010 23 Surrey Archives, 9154

16

Figure 3.11: Plan of the Studios, c.1935

Figure 3.12: Littleton House, c.1936

17

Figure 3.13: Littleton House, c.1938

3.21 During the Second World War, the stages were taken over by the government as emergency food storage depots, primarily sugar. In 1939, the studios also became the headquarters of Colonel Sir John Turner, who was in charge of the Air Ministry’s Decoy Programme. Many mock-up tanks, aircraft and other military equipment were built at the studios and helped to confuse the enemy during the war.24

3.22 After the war, rehabilitation was slow and five years of decoy work, damage from at least two air raids, sugar storage and aircraft servicing had left the Sound City studios a ‘battered shell’. Despite this parlous condition, the Sound City studios reopened in 1945, with two large stages and one small stage.

3.23 In November 1946, the studios were bought outright by British Lion Films and the studio was renamed the British Lion Studio Company Ltd. Following this, a rebuilding programme was undertaken and new facilities were built. A slump in production soon followed, however, by the early 1960s there was a rapid upsurge in production and a further rebuilding programme looked to herald a new prosperous era (Figure 3.14). At some point, the block to the west of Littleton House, was redeveloped for staging and has since been rebuilt.

24 Friends of Spelthorne Museum, The Spelthorne Book II: An Alphabetical History of the Borough Spelthorne, 2010

18

Figure 3.14: Aerial photography of the Site, c.1964

3.24 In 1972, Bentley Securities purchased the studios with the intention to redevelop it for residential development. This was resisted as a result of a tree preservation order and an energetic campaign to save the studios. As a result, in January 1973, Bentley offered the studio workforce a 50% stake in a new company, Shepperton Studios Ltd., if they agreed to forty six acres of the studio site being sold for redevelopment, retaining fourteen acres for production, plus a further fifteen to be leased from the Metropolitan Water Board. In March of that year, agreement was reached for a twenty acre site retained all production facilities and stages, including Littleton House (Figure 3.15), but losing the then studio backlot. The studios then underwent a period of reconstruction. This was followed in 1984 by the purchase of the studios by Lee International who began a programme of refurbishment, including the planning and construction of new workshops, completed in 1987 (Figure 3.16).

19

Figure 3.15: Littleton House in 1974, showing the south elevation (top), east elevation (middle) and conservatory (bottom)

20


3.25 Ridley and Tony Scott acquired Shepperton Studios in 1995, and in 2001, Pinewood Studio bought Shepperton from the Scott brothers to offer a larger studio complex. In 1999, a new orangery was erected to the west of Littleton House as a rebuilding of an earlier structure.

Church of St Mary Magdalene (Grade I Listed Building)

Architectural Interest 3.26 The church consists of a chancel (13th century); nave (plan, perhaps, 12th century);

north aisle (14th century); south aisle (13th century); west tower (16th and 18th centuries); and, some buildings on the north of the chancel, which were burial places for the Wood family, built in 1705, but since converted into vestries.

3.27 A significant element of the architectural interest of the church is derived from the patchwork layers of fabric, illustrating and providing evidence of the phases of development and, as such, is closely linked to historic interest. In those terms, the building is a palimpsest with successive layers and phases legible to trace the relative waxing and waning of the building’s (and areas) relative fortunes (Figure 3.17). The overall result is a picturesque and iterative composition.

21

Figure 3.17: Eastern Elevation of Church of St Mary Magdalene

Figure 3.18: Church Tower of Church of St Mary Magdalene

3.28 The prevailing material is red brick, with the early 16th century tower (heightened in the early 18th) being the most striking and dominant element of the overall external composition (Figure 3.18). This dominant materiality has led to the church being characterised as a ‘study in brick’25. The addition of a church tower in the 16th century is comparatively unusual in Surrey, as elsewhere in England, as church building largely

25 Nairn, I and Pevsner, P. The Buildings of England: Surrey. London: Yale University Press

22

ceased in the decades following the Reformation and Dissolution. Most church building work of the period tended to be repair and minor alterations in a spare Gothic style26.

3.29 The building’s exceptional architectural interest is also defined by the quality and relative rarity of some of the surviving internal fittings. These include:

• A complete set of 15th century (restored) pews in the nave, said to come from Winchester;

• An iron-bound chest/locker of the reign of Henry VIII, ornamented with leather and nail work;

• 18th century pulpit, which has an unusual window in the southeastern angle between the nave and chancel to allow sufficient light to reach it;

• c.1500 rood screen (restored);

• Altar rails of an elaborate Flemish or French Baroque design, dating from c.1700; and

• There are several later monuments to the Wood Family, with connections to Littleton House.

Historic Interest 3.30 The historic interest of the church is derived, at the most basic level, from its age as a

building of medieval origins and fabric. At the local scale, as the oldest remaining built element within the former historic settlement of Littleton it has particular historic interest. The church formed part of the high-status core of the settlement along with the manor house and Littleton House (see later in this Section). This historic interest is amplified by the retention of extensive areas of historic fabric as evidence of the successive phases of alteration and adaptation (see earlier). Accordingly, there is a high-degree of integrity in the surviving fabric as part of the building’s historic interest.

3.31 The building remains in its original use and derives historic interest from the continuation of a long-established religious foundation. For the same reasons, it also has a degree of communal interest from this continued use.

3.32 The church also derives historic interest from its associations with notable local families, including lords of the manor and the Wood and Burbidge Families, both of whom had connections and lived at Littleton House.

Contribution made by Setting to Significance 3.33 The church retains its historic churchyard, enclosed by historic brick boundary walls

(albeit the eastern section appears to have renewed) and containing a range of historic graves and mature trees. This boundary wall retains a sense of the original distinction between the sacred/consecrated spaces associated with the church, as a place of worship and commemoration, and the secular areas beyond. The graveyard has a reciprocal, functional relationship with the church and provides an attractive space in which it is possible to appreciate and understand its heritage significance (Figure 3.19).


23

The churchyard is also likely to contain archaeological/evidential material associated with the function of the church (including any earlier structures); in addition to information about the parishioners it served. In those terms, it is a strongly contributing positive element of setting.

Figure 3.19: St Mary Magdalene Churchyard

3.34 Beyond the graveyard, however, the setting and context of the church has significantly changed during the course of the 20th century, accelerating from the mid-20th century onwards with the construction of the Queen Mary Reservoir; erection of residential development; and, the expansion of Shepperton Studios. The church is now experienced as part of a varied and strongly contrasting context, which is very different from the historic condition, which has radically changed the basis of understanding and appreciating its heritage significance.

3.35 The extensive and ongoing development and redevelopment of Shepperton Studios has had a transformational impact on a large area of the church’s setting. The church is no longer appreciated and understood as being located on the edge of a polite landscape associated with Littleton House. Nor are there any functional connections between the two buildings. Moreover, the erection of substantial buildings on a pragmatic basis to facilitate an effective operational layout has severed any meaningful visual links to/from Littleton House. Whilst the historic brick boundary wall retains a physical and spatial barrier, the extent and proximity of buildings of contrasting scale and character is often dramatic and discordant. The majority of buildings within that part of the Site located in close proximity to the church are generally of a utilitarian and non-descript character; consistent with their function as part of a working film studio (Figure 3.20). The existing redundant and semi-derelict car park structure is notable in terms of its unrelieved, utilitarian and monolithic character and creates unattractive prospects from the churchyard (Figure 3.20), a relationship criticised at the time of construction27. Whilst there are views of the church and spire from within


24

the Site, these are experienced in the studio context and are very different from the historic experience (Figure 3.21). In those terms, Shepperton Studios does not contribute positively to the special interest of the listed building and some of the structures within the Site detracting from an appreciation of its particular heritage significance.

Figure 3.20: Views North from Churchyard

Figure 3.21: View from Shepperton Studios to Church of St Mary Magdalene

3.36 The remaining elements of the historic hamlet, including the manor house and Littleton House (and associated structures, such as the former lodge to Littleton House that adjoins the churchyard28) formed the high-status nuclei of the settlement and

28 A locally listed building

25

have a degree of group value in those terms (Figure 3.22). The functional, visual and spatial relationships between these buildings have, however, undergone significant change, for instance, with the construction of a school to the east of the church and the 20th century development of Shepperton Studios. In addition, the rectory (c.1700), which would have formed part of this high-status group and have particular functional associations with the church, was demolished in 196629. Thus, whilst the group value remains a positive element of setting, its overall contribution to special interest has been reduced.

Figure 3.22: Remaining Elements of Group Value

3.37 The former hamlet of Littleton, which the church used to serve, has been irrevocably changed by the process of 20th century development and intervention. Much of the historic settlement was cleared to make way for the Queen Mary Reservoir and the road patterns altered to take account of its southern boundary. This degree of change is reinforced by the presence and awareness of the substantial retaining embankment as part of the existing townscape experience. In addition, there has been extensive 20th century residential development in the immediate context of the church, of an ordinary quality, which has significantly changed the way in which the listed building, with its origins as a rural parish church, is experienced. These 20th century elements of setting do not contribute positively to an understanding or appreciation of the heritage significance of the church. Notwithstanding this degree of change, the distinctive church tower is a distinctive landmark in the approach from the south along Squires Bridge Road, once the listed bridge has been crossed (Figure 3.23), as well as in the kinetic approach on New Road (Figure 3.24), albeit with a full awareness of the degree of contextual change.


26

Figure 3.23: View North along Squires Bridge Road

Figure 3.24: View West along New Road

3.38 In addition, there has been extensive gravel workings in the surrounding context, including the Expansion site, where some restored areas of land now used as backlots for the studio. These later uses of that part of the church’s wider context are sufficiently separated by interposing built form and landscaping that they have no bearing on an appreciation of the church’s special interest. In those terms, they are neutral elements of its setting.

3.39 Accordingly, in overall terms, setting makes a comparatively minor contribution to the special interest of the listed building and is not sensitive to further change.

27

Littleton House (Locally Listed Building)

Local Architectural or Historic Interest 3.40 Littleton House is a high-quality, attractive and substantial late 19th former country

house, built in an eclectic classical style in red brick with dressed stone detailing (Figure 3.25). The scale and quality of the house and careful use of detailing and materiality reflects the wealth and status of the Burbridge family, with their connections to Harrods Department Store. The principal elevations are the southern (entrance – Figure 3.26) and eastern (garden – Figure 3.27) facades, which are treated in the most elaborate and richly decorated manner, with the remaining elevations being comparatively plainer, perhaps, reflecting a historic distinction in status and function.

Figure 3.25: Eastern and Southern Elevations of Littleton House

Figure 3.26: South Elevation of Littleton House

28

Figure 3.27: Eastern Elevation of Littleton House

3.41 Whilst the interior of the building is not subject to control via the planning system, it is comparatively lavish, with stained glass windows and wood panelling in many places. When the house was rebuilt by Sir Richard Burbidge, reclaimed timber was purportedly brought in from the old Houses of Parliament, along with marbles depicting the victories of Nelson and Wellington from Westminster Abbey and placed in the conservatory (subsequently rebuilt). The entrance hall has a dramatic chequered floor with a gallery above. The walls are lined with wood panelling to half height.

3.42 Whilst essentially a late Victorian country house, it seemingly retains elements of the preceding houses in the form of isolated fabric, providing a tangible connection to the earlier phases of development, stretching back to the original house built in 1689 by Thomas Wood. This legacy of earlier houses may also account for the complexity of the building’s plan and roof form. The physical evidence of the history of the building’s development is an important element of the building’s historic interest.

3.43 As a late 19th century replacement house, bought by Sir Richard Burbidge along with the estate, it was part of the wider national trend of country houses. The late Victorian period saw a shift in function from being the centre of a functional estate dependent on an agricultural economy to being a house in the country, with the owner reliant on alternative sources of income, often related to a profession or industry i.e. as Managing Director of Harrods, in the case of Sir Richard Burbidge, or as a shipping magnate and MP in the case of Sir Edward Nicholl. In those terms, the property derives a degree of historic interest, albeit in the national context, where such buildings and trends, often earlier and of a higher architectural quality, is well-represented.

3.44 The historic association of the property with significant figures and historic events/trends is an important element of its local historic interest. These include the Wood, Burbidge and Nicholl families, who had particularly strong and well-documented connections to the house, albeit it is only the latter, which have a direct connection to the property’s existing iteration. In addition, the connections to the

29

Second World War efforts are an element of the Site’s historic interest, albeit that there is no strong connection to fabric to illustrate this role and contribution.

3.45 Littleton House also derives historic interest from its associations with Norman Loudon and the development of Shepperton Studios as one of the early centres of the British film industry. This historic interest is amplified by the use of the property for film related activities, including as a set, as part of the ongoing success of Shepperton Studios as one of the centres of the Britain’s film industry.

Contribution made by Setting to Significance 3.46 The purchase of Littleton House and estate by Norman Loudon in the early 20th century

as a new centre for British film production was the catalyst for significant changes in the setting of the locally listed building. The formerly extensive designed grounds and rural context have been eroded to a large extent following the construction of studios, workshops, offices and area of external hardstanding (Figures 3.7, 3.10, 3.12, 3.16, 3.28 and 3.29), which have adversely impacted on an ability to understand an important element of its local heritage significance as a late 19th century house set in a complementary landscape, with associated reciprocal relationships. Where positive elements of historic setting do remain (see later in this Section) it is generally in a fragmentary and altered condition.

Figure 3.28: Existing Typical Condition of Shepperton Studios

30

Figure 3.29: Existing Typical Condition of Shepperton Studios

3.47 The disposition of buildings and spaces around Littleton House is pragmatic and determined by the functional and operational considerations of Shepperton Studios. As a result, there are now strong contrasts in scale, character and materiality between the locally listed building and its surrounding densely developed studio context (Figures 3.16, 3.30 and 3.31). There is a general awareness of this substantial and contrasting built form when approaching the locally listed building and when appreciating its external architectural qualities.

Figure 3.30: Existing Contrast between 20th Century Buildings and Littleton House

31

Figure 3.31: Existing Contrast between 20th Century Context and Littleton House

3.48 The area formerly containing the domestic gardens has been altered with the construction of extensive vehicular hardstanding and new structures (Figures 3.10, 3.12, 3.15, 3.32 and 3.33). Whilst the general sense of openness to the south and east of Littleton House maintains some connection to these gardens and an appreciation of the principal elevations, they now exist in an altered state, unrelated to their historic condition.

Figure 3.32: View of 20th Century Structures in Close Proximity to Littleton House

32

Figure 3.33: 20th Century Context to Littleton House

3.49 Whilst the 20th century change to a film studio context has eroded the historic country house landscape context, some of the earlier structures associated with Sound City (principally Stages A-D, designed by Connell, Ward and Lucas) reflect the significant shift to an early centre of the British film industry. In those terms, the earlier remaining elements of the Site, which relate to Sound City, particularly where their original character remains legible, contribute positively to the building’s historic interest. The later elements of the Site, whilst reflecting the development of Shepperton Studios and broader trends in the British film industry, do not contribute to Littleton House’s local heritage significance, generally being prosaic, functional structures that do not have the same strong associations to individuals of national interest or strongly legible links to the property.

3.50 In addition to these changes within the Shepperton Studios site, there have been major changes in the wider local context, with extensive late 20th century residential development in close proximity to the historic boundaries of the estate, eroding an ability to appreciate its origins as a house located in a rural context (Figure 3.34). Much of this residential development has its origins with the disposal of part of Shepperton Studios in the late 20th century as part of efforts to raise funds to ensure its ongoing function. Whilst this residential development illustrates one phase of the studio’s relative fortunes, there is nothing that distinguishes this housing from other speculative residential development of the period, aside from its proximity. This is an element of setting that detracts from an ability to understand and appreciate the local heritage significance of the Littleton House.

33

Figure 3.34: Late 20th Century Residential Development in Context of Littleton House

3.51 Accordingly, due to the nature of enclosing built form and landscaping, Littleton House is now largely obscured from the public realm. It is also physically and visually separated from most of the remaining historic elements of setting, where these survive.

3.52 More widely, there has been significant change in the context of the heritage asset. Most notably, this includes the construction of the large Queen Mary Reservoir to the north, which removed a large element of complementary rural context, including the demolition of a substantial portion of the old village of Littleton and up to three quarters of Littleton Green. The magnitude of this change is amplified by the scale of the retaining embankment.

3.53 In addition, there has been extensive gravel workings in the surrounding context, including to the south and west of the Site and on the Expansion site, with some restored areas of land now used as backlots for the studio. These later uses of the land have further altered the traditional rural context in which the locally listed building would have been experienced as part of the historic estate of which it formed a part. In its current condition, the Expansion site is no longer legible as part of the former historic estate. Accordingly, the Expansion site does not contribute positively to the local heritage significance of Littleton House.

3.54 Whilst these 20th century changes have had a significant and, in places, adverse impact on the local heritage significance of Littleton House, there are remaining elements of setting, which have historic and functional connections to the locally listed building and allow a better understanding and appreciation of its significance, albeit often fragmented and separated by interposing later built form. These elements include:

• Historic street pattern and alignment of Squires Bridge Road, albeit diverted in the 1920s to form New Road with the construction of the Queen Mary Reservoir;

34

• The church of St Mary Magdalene, the historic parish church, which contains the family burial of the Burbidge Family (Figures 3.18 and 3.19). Together with the Old Manor House and Littleton House, these buildings formed the historic high-status nuclei of the historic settlement;

• Late 19th century structures associated with the re-building of Littleton House and its designed landscape i.e. the grade II listed bridge and gate piers and locally listed lodge (Figures 3.35 and 3.36);

Figure 3.35: Listed Gate Piers and Gates

Figure 3.36: Listed Squires Bridge

• Remnants of the designed landscape and water management system in the Ash River Ecological Corridor, which seemingly includes retaining ponds, cascades

35

(possibly composed of pulhamite, or another artificial stone) and pools, albeit that large elements remain in a partial condition (Figures 3.37 and 3.38). More generally, this is one of the few remaining elements of Littleton Houses’ ancillary landscape and rural context, which may also include elements of former sets, associated with the operation of the studio;

Figure 3.37: River Ash Ecological Corridor

Figure 3.38: Remaining Garden Feature

36

• Late 19th century ancillary building (Building 223), which has a plaque containing the monogram ‘RB’, likely associated with Sir Richard Burbidge (Figures 3.39 and 3.40). The contribution to significance of the locally listed building has been affected by the substantial 20th century extension and visual separation caused by contrasting, interposing built form; and

Figure 3.39: Late 19th Century Ancillary Building

Figure 3.40: Late 19th Century Ancillary Building with Later Extensions

• Examples of veteran trees, which may be remnants of the historic designed landscape of Littleton House, albeit they are no longer experienced as part of a coherent historic landscape.

37

3.55 In overall terms, having regard to the degree and extent of change, setting does not make a strong or important contribution to the local heritage significance of Littleton Hall.

38

4. Impact Assessment

Introduction

4.1 There are two heritage assets in the local vicinity of the Shepperton Studios and the Expansion sites; a statutorily and locally listed building (Section 2). A proportionate assessment of significance of these heritage assets, and the contribution made by setting to this significance is contained at Section 3 of this report.

4.2 In considering the impact of the Proposed Development upon the significance of the relevant heritage assets, it is important to note that impacts are indirect, via change in their setting.

Statutory Duties and National Planning Policy Context

4.3 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty upon the local planning authority in determining applications for development or works that affect a listed building to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The setting of a locally listed building, a non-designated heritage asset for the purposes of the Framework, is not protected by statute and therefore does not attract the same weight afforded to the setting of listed buildings.

4.4 Paragraph 185 of the Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment within their Local Plan. In so doing, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner proportionate to their significance. This paragraph identifies four aspects that Local Planning Authorities should take into account when preparing their strategies:

(a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

(b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

(c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

(d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

4.5 Paragraph 192 provides a positive emphasis with regard to determining such planning applications, stating that local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them into viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can made to sustainable communities, including their economic viability; and, the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

39

4.6 Paragraph 193 further outlines that local planning authorities should give great weight to the asset’s conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset. The more important the heritage asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

4.7 Paragraph 194 states that any harm to, or loss, of significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. It notes that substantial harm to or loss of grade II designated heritage assets should be exceptional and assets of highest significance should be wholly exceptional

4.8 Paragraph 195 then states that local planning authorities should refuse consent where a proposal will lead to substantial harm or total loss of significance, unless it can be demonstrated that this is necessary to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh such harm or loss, or a number of other tests can be satisfied. Paragraph 196 concerns proposals which will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. Here harm should be weighed against the public benefits, including, where appropriate, securing the optimum viable use.

4.9 Paragraph 197 outlines that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining an application. It encourages that a balanced judgement should be made which considers the assets significance and the scale of any harm or loss.

4.10 Paragraph 200 states that local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of a heritage asset should be treated favourably.

The Proposed Development

4.11 The Planning Statement, prepared by Turley, confirms the extent and nature of the proposed development. The description of the proposed development is:


Relevant Planning History

4.12 As outlined in the Planning Statement, prepared by Turley, the Shepperton Studios site has been in use for film production since 1932; accordingly, it has a long planning history associated with that use. Of particular relevance to the current application proposals, Spelthorne Borough Council previously granted outline planning

40

permission30 in March 2006 for a masterplan to regenerate the Shepperton Studios site. This planning history confirms that it is possible for the Shepperton Studios site to accommodate significant change, whist having an acceptable impact on the heritage significance of the Church of St Mary Magdalene and Littleton House.

Impact Assessment

4.13 The assessment contained in this section is based upon the parameter plans and access plans submitted for approval. Other information, principally the documents which accompany the planning application, including the Design and Access Statement and illustrative masterplan, has been used to inform the assessment. This approach allows for a balanced assessment that considers all the relevant material and allows for judgements to be made on design quality and potential mitigating effects.

4.14 As the proposed development comprises an application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access), the following assessments of impact on the particular significance of the heritage assets, considers the impact arising from the principle of development, with the associated changes of the Sites; the siting of proposed built form and landscaped areas; and, the proposed disposition of height/density of development within the Shepperton Studios and Expansion sites.

Extent of Proposed Demolition 4.15 The application submission31 identifies the structures proposed for demolition within

the Shepperton Studio’s and the Expansion sites. In the first instance, as neither site is located in a conservation area, nor contains any statutorily listed buildings (or buildings that could be considered to be listed via curtilage or attachment), there is limited planning controls, in heritage terms, over demolition of these structures.

4.16 There is an opportunity via comprehensive redevelopment of the Site to deliver more considered relationships between built form within the Shepperton Studio site and the relevant heritage assets through their relative disposition and improved design quality.

4.17 In heritage terms, the application proposals retain the existing structures that make a positive contribution to the significance of Littleton House as elements of setting i.e. Building 223 and Stages A-D are retained. With regard to the Church of St Mary Magdalene, the proposed development retains the positive elements of setting within the boundaries of the Shepperton Studio site, namely Littleton House.

Impact on Heritage Significance of the Church of St Mary Magdalene 4.18 The application proposals will result in a significant change to part of the setting of the

listed building. It has been established in Section 3 that the setting of the church has undergone extensive 20th century change and now makes a comparatively limited contribution to its significance and is not sensitive to further change. This change in setting will be consistent with the existing character and function of Shepperton Studios, which is now an established part of the varied townscape context. The application proposals, however, seek to take opportunities to minimise and mitigate the strength of contrasts and impacts on the significance of the listed building.

30 Application ref.: 04/00499/OUT 31 Parameter Plan 2Demolition (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.2)

41

4.19 In general terms, the proposed development reduces heights at the sensitive boundary edges and focuses maximum heights in the depth of the plot, in order to minimise visual impact32. Where the boundaries of the Shepperton Studios site interface with the churchyard of the church of St Mary Magdalene the parameter plan33 identify a 10m ‘development free’ zone (Figure 4.1), with height restricted to 15m (Figure 4.1). This approach also ensures the retention of mature trees and landscaping in close proximity to the boundaries of the church, thereby maintaining the character of landscaping enclosing the churchyard34. The illustrative material contained in the Design and Access Statement shows one way in which the height of the proposed development could be delivered at the reserved matters stage (Figures 4.2 to 4.4).

Figure 4.1: Extract from Parameter Plan 5: Heights (NTS)

Figure 4.2: Illustrative Proposed Section 135

32 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5) 33 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5) 34 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5) 35 Design and Access Statement prepared by Faulkner Brown Architects

42

Figure 4.3: Illustrative Proposed Section 5

Figure 4.4: Illustrative Proposed Section Key36

4.20 At the reserved matters stage, having regard to the relevant statutory duty37, this approach will allow for a detailed design that replaces the existing poor quality and/or non-descript buildings in the church’s immediate context, including the semi-derelict car park, whilst providing sufficient separation distances to retain and potentially enhance an appreciation of the significance of the listed building. Matters such as materiality, articulation and modulation of scale at the reserved matters stage will be important in delivering an overall improvement to the setting of the listed building i.e. ability to appreciate church towers in local views (Section 3). The illustrative masterplan38 indicates one way in which the parameter plans can be interpreted to deliver an appropriate form of development that will provide a more considered and enhanced interface between the Shepperton Studios site and the listed building (Figure 4.5).

36 Design and Access Statement prepared by Faulkner Brown Architects 37 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 38 Illustrative Masterplan (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DRA-05_10-007)

43

Figure 4.5: Extract from Illustrative Masterplan (NTS)

4.21 It has been established in Section 3 that the Expansion Site does not contribute positively to the significance of the church as an element of setting. The proposed development of the Expansion site will have no impact on an appreciation or understanding of the church, due to separation distances, the scale of development proposed, relative disposition and interposing built form.

4.22 In overall terms, the application proposals provide an appropriate framework for a detailed design at the reserved matters stage that will preserve and have the potential to enhance the setting of the church of St Mary Magdalene.

Impact on the Heritage Significance of Littleton House 4.23 As established in Section 3, the setting of the locally listed building has been

significantly altered in the course of the 20th century and is now embedded in a long-established studio context. As a consequence, there are significant existing contrasts in scale and materiality between the functional structures associated with the studio and the domestic scale and high-quality of Littleton House, as a former country house. In overall terms, the application proposals will retain the existing and long-established film industry of the Shepperton Studios site as part of the functional historic setting and use of Littleton House; an integral part of the studio operation.

4.24 In general terms, the proposed development proposes reduced heights in close proximity to Littleton House and focuses the maximum heights in the depth of the plot, where the existing layout concentrates the densest and most substantial structures39. The parameter plans40 demonstrate that development in closest proximity to the locally listed building is restricted to 15.5m (Figure 4.6).

39 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5) 40 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5)

44

Figure 4.6: Extract from Parameter Plan 5: Heights (NTS)

4.25 The disposition and scale of proposed studio development will result in a significant change in the altered setting of Littleton House. There will be contrasts in scale as part of the experience of the locally listed building; however, this is consistent with the existing pattern of development and experience of setting and the operation of Shepperton Studios, of which Littleton House forms a part. The proposed development, outlined by the parameter plans41 (Figure 4.6), demonstrates that an area of open space, including lawns, will be retained around Littleton House as part of the site layout. These areas are the elements of setting that remain the closest in character to the historic domestic grounds of Littleton House and continue to allow the principal elevations to be appreciated. In addition, this approach also ensures the retention of mature trees and landscaping in close proximity to the boundaries of Littleton House, thereby retaining likely remnants of the former parkland setting42.

4.26 The proposed development also includes the retention and enhanced management of the Ash River Corridor43, improving public appreciation and understanding of the ecological value of this area. As established in Section 3, it is likely that this area forms part of the designed landscape historically associated with Littleton House as well as elements of former studio sets. There is an opportunity to better reveal and appreciate the historic landscape structure and remaining elements of designed landscape as part of the wider management/enhancement strategy. In those terms, the application proposals provide an opportunity to enhance a positive element of the historic setting of Littleton House.

41 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5) 42 Parameter Plan 5: Heights (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.5) and Parameter Plan 6: Green Infrastructure (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.6) 43 Parameter Plan 6: Green Infrastructure (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.6)

45

4.27 It has been established in Section 3 that the Expansion site does not contribute positively to the significance of Littleton House as an element of its setting. The proposed development of the Expansion site will have no impact on an appreciation or understanding of the locally listed building, due to the scale of development proposed, and interposing landscaping of the River Ash Corridor44.

4.28 At the reserved matters stage, this approach will allow for a detailed design that will deliver an enhanced relationship between new buildings associated with the function of Shepperton Studios, whilst maintaining those elements of setting that contribute positively to the local heritage significance of Littleton House. Considerations such as materiality, articulation and modulation of scale of buildings, along with disposition of buildings to improve awareness and legibility of Littleton House at the reserved matters stage will be important in delivering an overall improvement to its setting. The illustrative masterplan45 indicates one way in which the parameter plans can be interpreted to deliver an appropriate form of development that will preserve the setting of the locally listed building and, potential opportunities to enhance the contribution made by setting to its significance (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7: Extract from Illustrative Masterplan (NTS)

4.29 In overall terms, the application proposals provide an appropriate framework to deliver a detailed design at the reserved matters stage that will preserve and have the potential to enhance the setting of Littleton House.

Summary of Heritage Impact

4.30 It has been demonstrated that the outline application proposals provide an appropriate framework in which the detailed design at the reserved matters stage can preserve, and potentially enhance the significance of the Church of St Mary Magdalene and Littleton House.

44 Parameter Plan 4: Development Zones (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR-PP.4) 45 Illustrative Masterplan (ref.: 3542-FBA-00-XX-DRA-05_10-007)

46

4.31 Accordingly, the outline application proposals are consistent with the objectives of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; paragraphs 189, 192, 193, 197 and 200 of the Framework; policy EN5 of Spelthorne Borough Council’s Core Strategy and Policies; and, other material considerations.

47

5. Summary and Conclusions

5.1 This Heritage Statement has been prepared by Turley Heritage on behalf of Shepperton Studios Ltd, the applicant, to provide a proportionate understanding of the significance of the relevant heritage assets. The Heritage Statement also assesses the impact of the outline planning application to extend Shepperton Studios (‘the Shepperton Studios site’) onto adjacent land (‘the Expansion site’) for the reconfiguration and expansion of facilities for film and high end TV and associated services and industries on the particular significance of the relevant heritage assets.

5.2 The description of development is:


5.3 As confirmed in Section 2, the relevant heritage assets requiring consideration as part of this report are the Church of St Mary Magdalene (a Grade I listed building) and Littleton House (a locally listed building). The application proposals will have an impact on their significance through change in part of their settings.

5.4 Section 3 contains a narrative of the historic development of Littleton and the Shepperton Studios and the Extension sites as context to the assessments of heritage significance for the Church of St Mary Magdalene and Littleton House. These assessments confirm that the settings of both heritage assets has been significantly altered during the course of the 20th century and now does not contribute strongly to significance and is not sensitive to further change.

5.5 At Section 4, it is demonstrated that the outline application proposals provide an appropriate framework in which the detailed design at the reserved matters stage can preserve, and potentially enhance the significance of the Church of St Mary Magdalene and Littleton House. Accordingly, the outline application proposals are consistent with the objectives of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; paragraphs 189, 192, 193, 197 and 200 of the Framework; policy EN5 of Spelthorne Borough Council’s Core Strategy and Policies; and, other material considerations.

Appendix 1: List Entry – Church of St Mary Magdalene

1

CHURCH OF ST MARY MAGDALENE

List Entry Summary

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

Name: CHURCH OF ST MARY MAGDALENE

List entry Number: 1377699

Location

CHURCH OF ST MARY MAGDALENE, SQUIRES BRIDGE ROAD

The building may lie within the boundary of more than one authority.

County: Surrey

District: Spelthorne

District Type: District Authority

Parish:

National Park: Not applicable to this List entry.

Grade: I

Date first listed: 11-Sep-1951

Date of most recent amendment: Not applicable to this List entry.

Legacy System Information

The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system.

Legacy System: LBS

UID: 288030

Asset Groupings

This list entry does not comprise part of an Asset Grouping. Asset Groupings are not part of the official record but are added later for information.

List entry Description

Summary of Building

Legacy Record - This information may be included in the List Entry Details.

2

Reasons for Designation


History


Details

TQ 06NE SUNBURY-ON-THAMES, FORMER UD SQUIRES BRIDGE ROAD Littleton 3/57 Church of St Mary 11/9/51 Magdalene I Church. C12 origins, with chancel and south aisle C13, north aisle C14, clerestory C16 and tower raised in C18. North chancel chapels (now vestries) of 1705 and c1730, all restored in C19 and C20. Ragstone, chalk and conglomerate on nave with brown brick to lower stages of tower, russet brick to top, orange/red brick to clerestory and chequerboard brick work with vitrified headers on north chancel chapel. Plain tiled roofs. Tower to west, nave with clerestory and pentice aisles, porch to south, chancel to east and vestries to north. Four stage tower with plat bands across each stage and on plinth below; battlemented parapet above. Quatre- foil windows to upper stage of each face in rebuilt section. One 3-light diamond brick mullion lancet window on west side of second stage, two-light windows on north and south. Four-centre,arched-head and chamfered surround to lancet windows on north and south sides of first stage, three-light window to west. West doors in 4-centred arched surround with impost blocks. Buttressed pentice - roofed aisle to north with C19 fenestration; restored lancet on west face, one ogee section 2- light and one blocked window either side of buttress. Parallel hip-roofed and gable end ranges to north east, originally burial chapels for the Wood family. South side of nave with deep coved plaster eaves. Buttresses to south side of chancel to east. One 2-light trefoil-head lancet to east, chamfered 2-step surround to pointed-arch lancet window east of pentice pier. Two lancets, in place of older windows, the surrounds of which are still visible, to west of pier. C19 window to east end, earlier squint window in old surround, in angle with chancel. Double gable to east end with C19 3-light lancet window under brick relieving arch with hood moulding and human head corbels. C18 gable to right with plat band and square sundial. Porch to south gabled with 4-centre arched-head window to each return wall. C16 roof with moulded spine-beam and cross beams on braces; chamfered joists. Studded double doors in chamfered surrounds. Interior:- Two original lancets to north of chancel with deep splays, crown post roof above. Old work in chancel arch with two pointed orders and chamfered arches. Early C14 octagonal centre column to north nave arcade with moulded strings on inner order only. Large circular column to south arcade with two pointed and chamfered orders with semi-octagonal responds. Pointed C14 doorway in north wall now blocked by window. Fittings:- late medieval locker in south wall of south aisle. C15 choir stalls with cusped ogee arches and panelling in the spandrels said to have come from Winchester. Complete set of late medieval pews, restored, and very restored rood screen of circa 1500. Fine Flemish altar rails with C- scroll carving on the newels and very deep rich carving depicting the 10 command- ments and eagles in chancel; circa 1700. Early C18 wooden pulpit with arcaded tracery and small narrow high window into the south-east angle between nave and chancel to provide light. Octagonal stone font with elaborate quatrefoil pierced and crocketed

3

font cover of ogee domed section above,on square pier. Hatchment on North tower wall. On north and south wall at the west end of the nave an Italian Trecento painting of six panels with six saints. Three bells by W. Eldridge 1666. PEVSNER: BUILDINGS OF ENGLAND, SURREY (1971) p.351-2. V.C.H. Middlesex (1911) Vol. II p.405. Listing NGR: TQ0706868639

Selected Sources

Books and journals

Cockburn, J S, King, H P F, McDonnell, K G T, The Victoria History of the County of Middlesex, (1911), 405 Pevsner, N, Nairn, I Rev. by Cherry, The Buildings of England: Surrey, (1971), 351-2

National Grid Reference: TQ 07068 68639

Appendix 2: Relevant Statutory Duties, Planning Policy and Best Practice Guidance/Advice

1

Statutory Duties

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the general duty with regard to the determination of listed building consent applications:

“In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

Section 66 imposes a “General duty as respects listed buildings in the exercise of planning functions.” Subsection (1) provides:

“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

It has been confirmed46 that Parliament’s intention in enacting section 66(1) of the 1990 Act was that decision-makers should give “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings, where “preserve” means to “to do no harm” This duty must be borne in mind when considering any harm that may accrue and the balancing of such harm against public benefits as required by national planning policy. Case law has confirmed that this weight can also be applied to the statutory tests in respect of conservation areas47. The Secretary of State has confirmed48 that ‘considerable importance and weight’ is not synonymous with ‘overriding importance and weight’.

Importantly, the meaning of preservation in this context, as informed by case law, is taken to be the avoidance of harm.

National Policy

Revised National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) The Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework in July 2018.

Paragraph 184 confirms the broad scope of heritage assets and the underlying rationale that they should be considered in a manner appropriate to their significance:

“Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.”

46 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited and (1) East Northamptonshire District Council (2) English Heritage (3) National Trust (4) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments, Case No: C1/2013/0843, 18th February 2014 47 The Forge Field Society v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin); North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 279 (Admin) 48 APP/H1705/A/13/2205929

2

Paragraph 189 sets out the requirements for an applicant when their proposals affect the significance of a heritage asset:

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.#2

Paragraph 190 sets out the principles guiding the determination of applications affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets, and states that:

“Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

Paragraph 192 identifies matters that local planning authorities should take account of in the determination of applications:

“a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

Paragraph 193 states:

“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, irrespective of the degree of potential harm to its significance. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

Paragraph 194 confirms that any harm or loss to a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. It also provides clarity on the basis for considering substantial harm to designated heritage assets:

“Any harm or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

3

a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”

Paragraph 195 relates to substantial harm to designated heritage assets and states:

“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 total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

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

b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”

Paragraph 196 is engaged when proposals would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset:

“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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

Paragraph 197 concerns planning applications affecting non-designated heritage assets and states:

“The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”

Paragraph 198 confirms that local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.

Paragraph 199 relates to the process of proportionate recording and improving understanding of the significance of any heritage assets that may be lost:

“Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.”

4

Paragraph 200 identifies the matters that local planning authorities should look for when considering development in conservation areas, World Heritage Sites and the setting of heritage assets:

“Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.”

The Development Plan

The Development Plan for Spelthorne Borough Council comprises the Core Strategy and Policies DPD (2009), the Allocations DPD (2009) and the ‘saved’ policies of the Local Plan (2001). The Council is currently in the process of preparing a new Local Plan to cover the period 2020-2035. This replacement Local Plan is, however, at a comparatively early stage and does not require consideration as part of this report.

The Allocations DPD contains no policies or allocations which are of relevance to the determination of this planning application.

The Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Saved Policies was adopted in April 2001; a number of policies were ‘saved’ in 2007, subsequently updated in 2009, and therefore remain part of the Development Plan. There are no ‘saved’ policies which are relevant to the consideration of the current application for outline planning permission.

Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies DPD (2009) The Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies DPD was adopted in February 2009 and sets out the vision for how the borough will develop in the period to 2026.

Objective 1 of the Core Strategy states:

“1. To protect and improve the quality of the environment, including improving the landscape, promoting biodiversity and safeguarding the Borough’s cultural heritage.”

The Council’s Strategic Policy SP6 (Maintaining and Improving the Environment) states:

“The Council will seek to maintain and improve the quality of the environment of the Borough. It will:

a) ensure the design and layout of new development incorporates principles of sustainable development, and creates an environment that is inclusive, safe and secure, is attractive with its own distinct identity and respects the environment of the area in which it is situated,

b) contribute to improving air quality in the Borough,

c) protect and enhance areas of existing environmental character including sites of nature conservation value, areas of landscape value, the Borough’s historic and cultural heritage (including historic buildings and Conservation Areas) and open space of amenity and recreation value,

5

d) promote the improvement of poor quality environments both within the urban area and in the Green Belt.”

Policy EN5 (Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest) contains elements relating to both statutorily and locally listed buildings and states:

“The Council will seek to preserve its architectural and historic heritage by:

a) refusing consent for the demolition of a listed building unless it has been conclusively demonstrated that it is not physically possible to retain the building,

b) requiring alterations and extensions to listed buildings to respect the host building in terms of scale, design, and use of materials, and the retention of the structure and any features of special historic or architectural importance; and refusing consent for any alteration or extension to a listed building that will not preserve the building or its setting,

c) seeking to retain listed buildings in the use for which they were designed and built, normally only allowing changes of use where necessary to achieve the restoration or preservation of a building and where the character of the building and the amenities of the area are maintained,

d) encouraging the retention of buildings of local architectural or historic interest and seeking to ensure that their character and setting is preserved in development proposals,

e) providing advice to owners on the appropriate repair and maintenance of listed buildings, and on the appropriate form of development proposals, together with the use of available statutory powers to ensure listed buildings are kept in proper repair,

f) requiring development proposals for any sites affecting the setting of a listed building to have special regard to the need to preserve its setting,

g) applying the Council’s policies in a more flexible way where justified to ensure the preservation of a listed building.

Where, exceptionally, consent is granted for the demolition or alteration of a listed building, which would destroy features of historic or architectural importance, the Council will require an adequate record to be made of the features lost, to be funded by the developer.”

Other Material Considerations

DCLG, National Planning Practice Guidance (2014) National Planning Practice Guidance 2014 has been issued by the Government as a web resource, including a category on conserving and enhancing the historic environment. This is intended to provide more detailed guidance and information with regard to the implementation of national policy set out in the Framework.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport Circular: Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings (2010) The Principles of Selection for listing buildings sets out the general criteria for assessing the special interest of a building in paras. 9 and 10, as below:

6

“Architectural Interest. To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms;

Historic Interest. To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing.

10. When making a listing decision, the Secretary of State may take into account the extent to which the exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part. This is generally known as group value. The Secretary of State will take this into account particularly where buildings comprise an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example of planning (e.g. squares, terraces or model villages) or where there is a historical functional relationship between a group of buildings. If a building is designated because of its group value, protection applies to the whole of the property, not just the exterior.”

Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) This document provides advice on the implementation of historic environment policy in the Framework and the related guidance given in the PPG. For the purposes of this report, the advice includes: assessing the significance of heritage assets; using appropriate expertise; historic environment records; and design and distinctiveness.

It provides a suggested staged approach to decision-making where there may be a potential impact on the historic environment:

1. Understand the significance of the affected assets;

2. Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance;

3. Avoid, minimise and mitigate impact in a way that meets the objectives of the Framework;

4. Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance;

5. Justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development objective of conserving significance and the need for change;

6. Offset negative impacts on aspects of significance by enhancing others through recording, disseminating and archiving archaeological and historical interest of the important elements of the heritage assets affected.

Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) (2nd Edition) GPA Note 3 provides information to assist in implementing historic environment policy with regard to the managing change within the setting of heritage assets. This also provides a

7

toolkit for assessing the implications of development proposals affecting setting. A series of stages are recommended for assessment, these are:

• Step 1: identifying the heritage assets affected and their settings

• Step 2: assessing whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s)

• Step 3: assessing the effect of the proposed development

• Step 4: maximising enhancement and minimising harm

• Step 5: making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.

This advice note not only updates the first edition but also replaced the Historic England guidance document “Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage Significance within Views” from 2011, in particular in the light of recent planning cases and to provide further advice on views. It looks to reiterate existing advice that the heritage interest in views is a matter of the contribution of views to the significance of heritage assets, which aligns views in these terms closely with setting. It is also sought to underline the importance of consideration of views under Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013), while highlighting the distinction between analysis of setting and landscape analysis.

Historic England Advice Note 2: Making Changes to Heritage Assets (2016) This advice note illustrates the application of the policies set out in the Framework in determining applications for planning permission and listed building consent, as well as other non-planning heritage consents, including scheduled monument consent. It provides general advice according to different categories of intervention in heritage assets, including repair, restoration, addition and alteration, as well as on works for research alone, based on the following types of heritage asset: buildings and other structures; standing remains including earthworks; buried remains and marine sites; and larger heritage assets, including conservation areas, landscapes, including parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites. The contents of this advice note were first published as part of the Planning Policy Statement 5 Practice Guide in 2010. This edition has been revised following consultation in 2015.

Historic England: Advice Note 7: Local Heritage Listing 2016 Historic England have published a comprehensive guide to local heritage listing in England, which highlights good practice in the development of local heritage lists, and sets out. The guidance presents a set of commonly applied set of selection criteria used to assess the suitability of heritage assets for local listing.

Supplementary Planning Documents The Council have prepared a number of Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents (SPGs and SPDs) to assist in implementing policy contained in the Development Plan. The relevant documents for the purpose of this report are:

• Local List of Buildings and Structures of Architectural or Historic Interest (February 2004, updated December 2016).

Turley Office 8th Floor Lacon House 84 Theobald’s Road London WC1X 8NL T 020 7851 4010