First Draft Local List Supplementary Planning Document

The draft Local List SPD is supported strongly overall. Requests for clarification or further exemplars are offered in the relevant sections in the draft SPD.

3.6 NDHAs will also be found in Neighbourhood Plans in defined character areas or where individual or groups of buildings are deemed to have 'townscape merit': open spaces and, particularly, trees or groups of trees may also be essential to the setting of DHAs. Trees and open spaces especially contribute in a towns with strong 'rus in urbe' characteristics like Knutsford. They could merit recognition as exemplars in the SPD. They may not qualify for TPOs on other grounds.

6.10 In the past, insufficient weight has been given to settlement patterns in relation to NDHAs. For example, the amalgamation of neighbouring plots, the approval of over-large dwellings on plots that are narrow or have restricted depth, the overdevelopment of backland have often overlaid the settlement pattern even within conservation areas. This has sometimes been to the point where it is no longer possible to 'read' the character of the area originally proposed for conservation status. Where the SPD gives such protection, it should be given the necessary weight in reaching the planning balance in a decision.

7.4 While this paragraph offers some clarity if a traditional approach is adopted, a contemporary style is left entirely to the aesthetic judgement of the applicant/architect. Blending contemporary with a building listed for its significance as an exemplar of a heritage style is much more difficult. These days Corbusier-lite is as common as arts-and-crafts pastiche and just as insensitive. What further guidance does the Authority propose to ensure that cotemporary extensions enhance the host building rather than demean it? What sources of good practice will be published to support contemporary new builds in heritage areas as well as additions and extensions? The Cheshire East Design Guide needs updating in these respects as the assumption is that traditional approaches will be the norm.

7.7 The SPD may need to be a bit more flexible on the use of modern materials for windows and doors. Heritage metal frames are already widely approved in Conservation Areas and 'Heritage' designs in UPVC widows are almost indistinguishable with narrow glazing bars and butt joints from timber originals. Without obvious aesthetic blemishes, the benefits they offer in energy saving, insulation and security outweigh the retention of less effective alternatives. After all, inhabitants of wattle and daub cruck-framed cottages didn't hesitate to infill with brick and swap shutters for glazed widows when the technology became affordable.

6.9 it is to be hoped that the wording of CELPS Policy SE7 (or its equivalent to meet NPPF requirements currently in place) will be retained. It provides an effective interpretation of the NPPF applicable across the Authority. It gives strength to the application of the SPD and a useful steer to neighbourhood planning in helping local communities to help identify, protect and where possible enhance their local heritage assets. Mention could usefully made in this paragraph of neighbourhood planning and the further guidance available in SADPD Policies HER1-13 and the CE Design Guide.

7.3 Drawing attention to neighbourhood plans as a further definition and layer of protection of locally listed heritage assets would be useful here.

7.4 The wording for Extensions requires clarification and strengthening. It is reasonably clear for ‘traditional’ styles of extension (presumably using designs and materials like the host building). It is less clear for ‘contemporary’ designs, particularly ‘modernist’ ones. The palette of materials (concrete, metal and glass) is more limited and designs have fewer opportunities for variation and adornment. Something more explanatory than ‘complement’ is needed. For example, ‘if a contemporary style is adopted the materials, quality, detailing and design should not detract or distract from the heritage asset(s), which is the main reason for the original listing’.

7.7 Current circumstances concerning energy efficiency and carbon reduction make resistance to non-traditional materials unrealistic. Significant improvements have been made in the design of various ‘heritage’ ranges of UPVC, metal and composite materials to make them more acceptable to use in locally listed buildings. It is also unrealistic to deter homeowners from making their homes and offices warmer, less costly in upkeep. The building may be a 15th Century cruck-framed cottage but subsequent generation of owners will have replaced wooden shutters with glazed fenestration at some point in the past. It would be better to phrase the guidance more positively. ‘Although timber joinery is preferred, the Authority will consider on a case-by-case basis the use of modern materials. The designs, whether UPVC, metal or composites, should blend with the listed building and offer significant energy efficiency gains. Designs that offer solar gain and heating from ground or air will be judged on a similar basis.’

7.9 It is worth saying that other buildings, less old than that locally listed, may contribute to its setting and hence its significance. Applications to alter or replace these other buildings may harm the setting. The effects should be considered in reaching a planning balance on such applications.