Heritage Statement resolving a dispute over historic fabric.

Correcting a misattribution of fabric dating.

The property owner obtained planning drawings relating to applications in the 1960s, however the conservation officer, who had also not visited the property, was not convinced by the evidence presented and advised them to engage a heritage consultant. Heritage Unlimited visited the property and assessed the fabric of the wall in question and along with reviewing other primary and secondary sources such as historic maps, planning history and census records, we produced an addendum to the Heritage Statement.

Our document focused on the morphology of the building, which combined with the age of the fabric in question overwhelmingly provided evidence that this development phase of the building dated after c.1923 and before 1939. Our report concluded that the works would satisfy the statutory test provided by section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as the special interests of the building would be preserved. Furthermore, the significance of the building would not be harmed thereby meeting the test provided in section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Unfortunately, the conservation officer was not convinced by our comprehensive document and suggested opening up works on the wall despite the brick work being visible in the loft along with loose elements of the hard early 20th century roughcast render. They requested sections of wall were opened up by removing the hard cement in order to see the brickwork.

Opening up works providing conclusive evidence.

Following opening up works, a member of the LPA’s Heritage Team visited the property to review the fabric, which was brickwork laid in a stretcher course and laid on cement. These elements which are seen in the loft provided conclusive evidence to substantiate the map regression overlays we had produced for the addendum, that the wall was constructed with post-1919 construction method and materials.

Understanding the morphology of a building through physical and documentary evidence obtained from primary and secondary sources are paramount to providing substantive and quantifiable arguments to justify changes to the historic environment. Missing one of these factors can lead, as was the result in this application, to a significant amount of delay in time along with increased costs to get an application determined with a successful outcome.