Cornwall Site Allocations DPD Heritage Assessment: Heamoor › media › 26898603 › appendix-1-wsp-pb-heamo… · WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB) was commissioned by Cornwall

Cornwall Site Allocations DPD

Heritage Assessment:

Heamoor

Appendix 1 – Heamoor Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

Revised November 2015

HEAMOOR HERITAGE DESK-BASED

ASSESSMENT

Cornwall Council

[3513000JA-HLV][Issue 2]

Heamoor Heritage Desk-BasedAssessment

3513000JA-HLV

Prepared forCornwall CouncilCooksland Road

WindwhistleBodmin

CornwallPL31 2RH

WSP|Parsons BrinckerhoffManchester Technology Centre

Oxford RoadManchester

M1 7ED www.pbworld.com

Report Title : Heamoor Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

Report Status : Issue 2

Job No : 3513000JA-HLV

Date : November 2015

DOCUMENT HISTORY AND STATUS

Document control

Prepared by Charlotte Vallance Checked by(technical)

Approved by Alison Plummer Checked by(quality assurance)

Revision details

Version Date Pagesaffected Comments

2.0 November2015

CONTENTSPage

List of Abbreviations 8

Executive Summary 9

1 Introduction 101.1 Circumstances of the Project 101.2 Location, Topography and Geology 10

2 Policy, Approach and Guidance 102.1 Planning Background and Legislative Framework 102.2 Approach 132.3 Standards and Guidance 14

3 Assessment Process 153.1 Desk-based Assessment 153.2 Outline Method Statement 15

4 Baseline Condition 174.1 Data Collection 174.2 Historical and Archaeological Background 174.3 Archaeological Interventions 214.4 Development of the Study Area 21

5 Gazetteer of Heritage Assets 25

6 Statement of Importance/Sensitivity 32

7. Setting Assessment 347.1 Introduction to the Concept of Setting 347.2 Assessing the Importance of Setting to the Significance Heritage Assets 387.3 Landscape Character 387.4 Scheduled Monuments 397.5 Conservation Areas 427.6 Grade II* Listed Buildings 437.7 Grade II* Park and Gardens 47

8 Cultural Heritage Significance 508.1 Introduction 508.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance 50

9 harm to significance and potential impact 539.1 Harm to Significance 539.2 Assessment of Harm 54

10 Mitigation Strategy 5610.1 Policy Recommendations 56

11 Conclusion 59

12 Bibliography 60

12.1 Cartographic Sources 6012.2 Documentary Sources 6012.3 Online sources 61

List of Figures

Figure 1: Proposed development area location Plan

Figure 2: Plan showing non-designated heritage assets within the inner study area

Figure 3: Plan showing designated heritage assets within the inner and outer study area

Figure 4: Concept Master Plan

List of Plates

Plate 1: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1878, showing the location of theproposed development area

Plate 2: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1908 showing the location of theproposed development area

Plate 3: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1936 showing the location of the proposeddevelopment area

Plate 4: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1962-63, showing the location of the proposeddevelopment area

Plate 5: View from Lesingey Round west towards the proposed development area

Plate 6: View from within the proposed development area, facing Lesingey Round (defined by a slightrise in the tree line)

Plate 7: View south from the Stone Cross (1004313) towards the proposed development area s alongits associative footpath

Plate 8: View north from the footpath in the proposed development area towards the village of Madronand the Stone Cross (1004313)

Plate 9: View north towards the proposed development area from the edge of Madron ChurchtownConservation Area

Plate 10: View west towards the proposed development area and the setting of Rosehill Manor andRosehill Park

Plate 11: Nancealverne House set within Nancealverne Park as viewed from its approach to the east

Plate 12: View north-west towards the proposed development area from the rear of RosecadgehillHouse and Rosecadgehill Cottage

Plate 13: View west across the proposed development area from the western approach toRosecadgehill House and Rosecadgehill Cottage

Plate 14: View from the rear of Castle Horneck towards the proposed development area

Plate 15: The proposed development area, to the left, does not engage with the entrance toTrengwainton (1143584) due to the bend in Boscathnoe lane in the distance (facing west)

Appendices

Appendix 1. WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2015 Trengwainton Impact Assessment

FINAL Heamoor Heritage Impact Assessment edited.docx Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffOctober 2015 for Cornwall Council

8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CC Cornwall Council

DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government

DCMS Department of Culture, Media and Sport

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

HE Historic England

HA Heritage Asset

HER Historic Environment Record

CIfA The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

LB Listed Building

NGR National Grid Reference

NMR National Monuments Record

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

OS Ordnance Survey

SM Scheduled Monument

FINAL Heamoor Heritage Impact Assessment edited.docx Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffNovember 2015 for Cornwall Council

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB) was commissioned by Cornwall Council (CC) to undertake acultural heritage desk-based assessment for a proposal known as Heamoor, as part of CornwallCouncil’s Allocations Development Plan Document.

This was duly undertaken in August and September of 2015, with a visit to the proposed developmentarea in August.

Of the heritage assets identified, which range from the prehistoric to modern periods, only three liewithin the immediate area of the proposed development (the sites of a medieval settlement and post-medieval farmstead, and historic field boundaries). Archaeological evidence from the surroundingarea suggests there is potential for unknown assets to also be present within this area and possiblyfrom the prehistoric period.

Of the designated assets present (scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas)none will be physically impacted upon by the proposals. However, there will be harm to thesignificance of the setting of fourteen of these assets (two scheduled monuments and twelve listedbuildings).

An outline mitigation strategy is presented to reduce the level of harm to the significance of thesettings to be affected, and this makes reference to the Concept Masterplan presented in theWSP|PB Trengwainton Impact Assessment report, 2015.


10

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Circumstances of the Project

1.1.1 Cornwall Council is currently preparing an Allocations Development Plan Document(DPD). This document seeks to allocate sites within the Penzance and Newlyn areato demonstrate the delivery of the Local Plan’s housing and employment targets. TheLocal Plan has set a delivery target of 2150 dwellings between the years 2010 and2030 within Penzance and Newlyn.

1.1.2 One such site identified by Cornwall Council as potential urban extension is Heamoor.It is estimated that this 18ha area will accommodate approximately 450 dwellings,together with public open space. The site, known hereafter as the ‘proposeddevelopment’ would extend the existing Heamoor suburb.

WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB) was commissioned by Cornwall Council toundertake a cultural heritage desk-based assessment of the proposed developmentarea in support of the DPD. This follows a targeted setting assessment of the NationalTrust property Trengwainton House, which lies to the northwest of the proposedscheme (WSP|PB 2015).

1.2 Location, Topography and Geology

1.2.1 The proposed development is located to the west of Heamoor centred on NGR SW45550 30914 (Figure 1). It is partly located on the north-facing slope of an east/westaligned ridge. Some of Luthergwearne Farm lies within it, and comprises semi-regularfields of rough pasture bounded by stone-faced embanked walls. It is bounded to thenorth by Boscathnoe Lane and reservoir, and to the east by residential developmentat Heamoor and land belonging to a local primary school. The Larriggan River flowsto the west and to the south is a small area of mature woodland.

2 POLICY, APPROACH AND GUIDANCE

2.1 Planning Background and Legislative Framework

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2.1.1 National planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment are set outin the NPPF, which was published by the Department of Communities and LocalGovernment (DCLG) in 2012. Sites of archaeological or cultural heritage significancethat are valued components of the historic environment and merit consideration inplanning decisions are grouped as 'heritage assets'. The NPPF states that "heritageassets are an irreplaceable resource" the conservation of which can bring "widersocial, cultural, economic and environmental benefits." (DCLG 2012, Section 12,paragraph 126). It also states that the "significance of any heritage assets affectedincluding any contribution made by their setting... should be understood in order toassess the potential impact (op cit, 128). In addition to standing remains, heritageassets of archaeological interest can comprise sub-surface remains and, therefore,assessments should be undertaken for a site with potential below-groundarchaeological deposits.

2.1.2 NPPF draws a distinction between designated heritage assets and other remainsconsidered to be of lesser significance; "great weight should be given to the asset'sconservation. Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building, park or gardenshould be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of


11

the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites,battlefields, Grade I and II* listed buildings and Grade I and II* registered parks andgardens and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional." (op cit, 132).Therefore, preservation in situ is the preferred course in relation to such sites unlessexceptional circumstances exist.

2.1.3 It is normally accepted that non-designated heritage assets will be preserved byrecord, in accordance with their significance and the magnitude of the harm to or lossof the asset as a result of the proposals to "avoid or minimise conflict between theheritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposals." (op cit, 129). Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest will also be subject to thepolicies reserved for designated heritage assets if they are of equivalent significanceto Scheduled Monuments (op cit, 132).

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (AMAA) 1979

2.1.4 The AMAAA largely relates to Scheduled Monuments and Section 61(12) definessites that warrant protection due to their being of national importance as 'ancientmonuments'. A monument is defined by the Act as "any building, structure or workabove or below the surface of the land, any cave or excavation; any site comprisingthe remains of any such building, structure or work or any cave or excavation; andany site comprising or comprising the remains of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft orother movable structure or part thereof.”

2.1.5 Section 61 of the Act states that deliberate damage to a monument is a criminaloffence and any works taking place within one require Scheduled Monument Consentfrom the Secretary of State.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (P(LBCA)) Act 1990

2.1.6 Section 1 of the P(LBCA) Act defines a listed building as a 'building which is for thetime being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under thatsection. For the purpose of the Act any object or structure fixed to the building, which,since on or before 1 July 1948, has formed part of the land and is comprised withinthe curtilage of the building is treated as part of the building. 'Building' is defined asincluding any structure or erection and any part of a building'. The key elements ofthis Act relevant to this assessment are outlined below:

· Section 66 places a responsibility upon the decision maker in determiningapplications for planning permission for Scheme that affects a listed building orits setting to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building orits setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which itpossesses; and

· Section 72 of the Act places a duty upon the decision maker in determiningapplications for planning permission within conservation areas to pay specialattention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character orappearance of that area.

Hedgerows Regulations 1997

2.1.7 The Hedgerow Regulations Act presents the following criteria for determiningimportant hedgerows (archaeology and history):


12

· The hedgerow marks the boundary, or part of the boundary, of at least onehistoric parish or township; and for this purpose “historic” means existingbefore 1850.

· The hedgerow incorporates an archaeological feature which is: (a) included inthe schedule of monuments compiled by the Secretary of State under section1 (schedule of monuments) of the Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalAreas Act 1979(7); or (b) recorded at the relevant date in a Sites andMonuments Record (Now Historic Environment Record).

· The hedgerow is: (a) is situated wholly or partly within an archaeological siteincluded or recorded as mentioned in paragraph 2 or on land adjacent to andassociated with such a site; and (b) is associated with any monument orfeature on that site.

· The hedgerow: (a) marks the boundary of a pre-1600 AD estate or manorrecorded at the relevant date in a Sites and Monuments Record or in adocument held at that date at a Record Office; or (b) is visibly related to anybuilding or other feature of such an estate or manor.

· The hedgerow is: (a) recorded in a document held at the relevant date at aRecord Office as an integral part of a field system pre-dating the InclosureActs(8); or (b) is part of, or visibly related to, any building or other featureassociated with such a system, and that system is (i) substantially complete;or (ii) is of a pattern which is recorded in a document prepared before therelevant date by a local planning authority, within the meaning of the 1990Act(9), for the purposes of development control within the authority’s area, asa key landscape characteristic.

Local Planning Policy

2.1.8 The Cornwall Local Plan: the Strategic Policies document was submitted to theSecretary of State on Friday 6 February 2015. Until the Cornwall Local Plan isadopted, the planning policies prepared by the former district councils have beensaved and used to determine planning applications, together with the guidanceprovided by the NPPF. Heamoor was formerly within Penwith District and is coveredby the following heritage policies adopted in 2004.

· Policy CC-15 Sites of Archaeological and Historic Importance: Proposals fordevelopment which would damage scheduled ancient monuments and othernationally important archaeological remains, or their setting, will not bepermitted.

· Policy CC-17 Historic Parks and Gardens: Proposals for development whichwould adversely affect historic parks and gardens and their setting will not bepermitted.

· Policy CC-16 Areas of Great Historic Value: Proposals for development withinthe areas of great historic value and those affecting archaeological remains ofcounty importance will not be permitted where it would harm: (i) the historiccharacter of the landscape, and (ii) the value, character or setting of theremains.


13

· Policy TV-10 Listed Buildings: Proposals for development which woulddirectly or indirectly affect a listed building will not be permitted unless theyrespect: (i) Its intrinsic architectural and historic value; (ii). Its design andparticular physical features, and (iii) its setting and contribution to the localscene.

2.2 Approach

Consultation

2.2.2 This is undertaken as necessary for fulfilling the aims of the assessment. As this is anoutline proposal no formal consultation, other than a commissioned search via the CCHistoric Environment Record Officer, was undertaken as part of this assessment. Theclient is advised to submit this report to both the Local Planning AuthorityArchaeologist and the regional representative of Historic England for comments.

Study Areas

2.2.3 Although the focus of the DBA is the proposed development, an essential historic andarchaeological contextual background is presented for the general area of thescheme. An inner study area of approximately 500m extending out from the limits ofthe scheme was applied for the identification of all heritage assets types (designated,non-designated and potential). A second, outer study area, was applied for the settingassessment of designated assets, and this extends up to 1km (Figure 3).

Terminology

2.2.4 The technical terminology applied to the assessment process is based on thatcontained within the NPPF Planning Practice Guide (DCLG 2014); The Setting ofHeritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3(Historic England 2015): and the Cultural Heritage Section (Volume 11, Section 3,Part 2) of the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) issued by the HighwaysAgency in 2007. This latter document has been widely adopted throughout theheritage industry as a baseline. However, the terminology has been enhanced asappropriate throughout this report. Professional judgement is applied throughout.

2.2.5 Cultural heritage comprises World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, ListedBuildings (Grades I, II* and II), Registered Parks and Gardens, Battlefields,Conservation Areas, buried archaeological remains and earthworks. For the ease ofpresentation in this document, cultural heritage features are referred to as heritageassets, and additionally for the purposes of clarity a minor distinction is madebetween standing remains and buried archaeology.

Limitations

2.2.6 This assessment is based on the development proposals as presented at the time ofcompiling this report. Any comments received on this document from Historic Englandor the relevant Local Planning Authority Archaeologist should be taken intoconsideration for future assessment or investigations.

2.2.7 No site visits are undertaken where it is judged that the safety or welfare of the projectteam members could be compromised.


14

2.3 Standards and Guidance

2.3.1 In addition to compliance with the NPPF this desk-based assessment has beencompiled in accordance with professional standards and guidance. The standardsand guidance which relate to this assessment are:

· Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) 2014, Standard and Guidancefor Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment;

· CIfA, 2014a, Code of Conduct;

· CIfA ,2014b Standards and Guidance for Consultancy Advice; and

· Historic England, 2015, The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic EnvironmentGood Practice in Planning: 3.


15

3 ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.1 Desk-based Assessment

3.1.1 This assessment consists of an analysis of existing written, graphic, photographic andelectronic information in order to identify the likely heritage assets and theirsignificance. In order to do this the character of the study areas, including aconsideration of the settings of the appropriate heritage assets, and the known orpotential archaeological, historic, architectural and artistic interest will be considered.The sensitivity or importance of the assets is judged in a local, regional, national orinternational context as appropriate (CIfA 2014).

3.1.2 The assessment concludes with a consideration of the potential harm to thesignificance of the identified heritage assets and their settings as appropriate. This isbased upon the predicted impact of the proposed scheme, and offers a mitigationstrategy as necessary (based on design data available to date).

3.2 Outline Method Statement

3.2.1 This section presents an overview and order of presentation of the assessment.Detailed method statements are included as appropriate within each sectionhighlighted below.

3.2.2 Aims and Objectives: The desk-based assessment will aim to gain an understandingof the cultural heritage resource in order to achieve the objectives state below:

· Assess the potential for heritage assets to survive within the proposeddevelopment;

· Assess the sensitivity/ importance and cultural heritage significance of the knownor potential heritage assets;

· Identify the potential harm to the significance of the assets and their settings as apredicted impact of the proposed scheme, and similarly for positive effects of thescheme.

· Provide strategies for further investigation where the nature, extent orsignificance of the resource is not sufficiently well defined;

· Suggest strategies to conserve the significance of the assets and their settings,and;

· Present proposals for archaeological mitigation where appropriate.

3.2.3 Baseline Condition (Section 4): This section presents a summary of the historical andarchaeological background of the general area. It is presented by historical period,and has been compiled in order to place the study area into a wider archaeologicalcontext.

3.2.4 Gazetteer of Heritage Assets (Section 5): This presents a tabulated list of assetsidentified by designation and within the respective study areas.

3.2.5 Statement of Importance/Sensitivity (Section 6): The importance or sensitivity of theheritage assets identified is judged in a neighbourhood, local, regional, national andinternational context. The importance or sensitivity of an asset informs the mitigationstrategy required in the event of predicted harm to the significance of the asset.


16

3.2.6 Setting Assessment (Section 7): The contribution of setting to the significance ofstatutory designated assets within the study areas is assessed. The effect of theproposed development on the settings is determined by consideration of the potentialattributes of the development affecting setting.

3.2.7 Cultural Heritage Significance (Section 8): A statement of cultural heritagesignificance is presented for those assets that will be subject to a harmful impact fromthe proposed scheme (Section 9). The NPPF specified heritage values: historical,aesthetic, architectural and archaeological interests are discussed.

3.2.8 Potential Harm (Section 9): The level of potential harm to the significance of theheritage assets as a result of the proposed scheme on built heritage or buriedarchaeological remains will be determined. Similarly, any positive impacts arepresented.

3.2.9 Investigation or Mitigation Strategy (Section 10): Suitable mitigation measures, wherepossible, to avoid, reduce, or remedy adverse impacts are presented. Suggestions forfurther investigation of significance are presented as appropriate.


17

4 BASELINE CONDITION

4.1 Data Collection

4.1.1 The principal sources of information consulted were historical and modern maps,although published and unpublished secondary sources were also reviewed. Thefollowing sources were consulted during the data-gathering process:

· Cornwall Council Historic Environment Record (CCHER);

· Historical maps including Ordnance Survey;

· Online sources.

Site Visit

4.1.2 The inner study area was visited in August 2015 in order to assess its character,identify any visible heritage assets and assess possible factors which may affect thesurvival or condition of known or potential assets (Figure 2). The outer study area wasvisited at the same time to allow an assessment of the potential for direct impacts(primary rather than secondary) on the significance of the setting of designatedheritage assets (Figure 3). The general topography was noted, as was the presenceof any large areas of plantation, and building complexes such as housing estates,industrial plant, and so forth. A photographic archive was compiled and a selection ofimages is presented as Plates 1 to 15 throughout this report.

4.1.3 All of the heritage assets identified through the data collection and the study area visitare described in detail in the Gazetteer (Section 5). Their locations are shown onFigures 2 and 3.

4.2 Historical and Archaeological Background

4.2.1 The following section presents a summary of the historical and archaeologicalbackground of the general area. This is presented by historical period (Table 4,below), and has been compiled in order to place the study area into a widerarchaeological context.

Table 1: Summary of British Archaeological Periods and Date Ranges

Period Date Range

Prehistoric Period:PalaeolithicMesolithicNeolithicBronze AgeIron Age

500,000 – 10,000 BC10,000 – 3,500 BC3,500 – 2,200 BC2,200 – 700 BC700 BC – AD 43

Romano-British AD 43 – AD 410

Early Medieval (Anglo-Saxon andViking periods)

AD 410 – AD 1066

Late Medieval AD 1066 – AD 1540

Post-medieval AD 1540 – c1750

Industrial Period cAD1750 – 1901


18

Modern Post-1901

Prehistoric Period (500,000 – AD 43)

4.2.2 The Land’s End peninsula is well known for its prehistoric remains, survivingespecially on the high moors and in wilder corners. Many of those areas have alwaysbeen marginal land, however, and prehistoric settlement was clearly densest in thesheltered and fertile coastal plains and the lowlands east of the hills, not least aroundthe site of modern Penzance (Cornwall County Council (CCC) 2003, 14).

4.2.3 The landscape around the proposed development is rich in prehistoric archaeologicalfeatures and findspots (areas where artefacts have been retrieved), and falls withinthe Penwith Moors and Coast Area of Great Historic Value (AGHV). This has beendesignated for its extensive archaeological remains, which form what is described asone of the greatest concentrations of Scheduled Monuments in Britain. It also hasgood surviving examples of ancient field systems and considerable industrial heritage.To the northwest of the outer study area is Trengwainton Carn and Hill. According toCCC (2013, 14) an archaeological assessment undertaken in 2010 identified 41 sitesand 31 historic field boundaries in this area of moor and heath. The sites includedmany prehistoric and medieval features, ranging from chambered tombs to asuspected post-medieval shooting stand. This evidence suggests dense, varied andlong-term use of the moor.

4.2.4 A number of prehistoric findspots are recorded as being within the inner study areaincluding a mottled grey flint scraper and blade at Castle Horneck (1143172), aprehistoric lithic scatter at the site of Lesingey Iron Age Round (1010844), and aNeolithic lithic scatter recovered from a field at Parc an Growes. Two Bronze Ageurns were discovered during grave digging in Penzance cemetery in 1886 (CC HER2015).

4.2.5 The wider setting exhibits substantial evidence of occupation during the Iron Age.During this period a new form of settlement appeared in the landscape. Thesettlements comprised groups of round houses and ancillary buildings formingfarmsteads or hamlets which were enclosed by a bank and ditch (sometimes with twoor more lines of bank and ditch). These enclosures are generally quite small – lessthan a hectare – with a simple entranceway formed by a gap in the circuit of the bankand ditch. Many are roughly circular or oval in shape but rectilinear enclosures arealso common. Enclosed settlements are frequently sited on hillslopes with theirentrance facing downhill (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk). One example located withinthe outer study area is Lesingey Round (1004400) situated at the summit of aprominent hill, overlooking Newlyn and Mounts Bay. The round survives as a circularenclosed area defined by a rampart bank standing up to 4.5m high with a largelyburied outer ditch (CC HER). The surrounding agricultural landscape, including theproposed development, is classed as Anciently Enclosed Land by the CornwallArchaeological Unit, recognising a field pattern and prehistoric finds that suggest theland has been farmed for thousands of years (CCC 2003, 31).

Romano-British Period (AD 43 – AD 410)

4.2.6 The Iron Age rounds continued to be built into the Romano-British period, with littlechange in settlement pattern. One development during this period was theappearance of courtyard house settlements in West Penwith and the Isles of Scilly.These were open settlements containing large stone-built oval houses with severalrooms arranged around a central courtyard (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk). There isevidence that Lesingey Round (1004400) continued to be occupied during this time.


19

Early Medieval (AD410 – AD1066)

4.2.7 After the Roman military withdrawal in 410, Saxons and other Germanic peoples wereable to conquer and settle most of the east of the island over the next two centuries.In the west, however, Devon and Cornwall held out as the British kingdom ofDumnonia. Early Christianity in Cornwall was spread largely by the saints, includingSaint Piran, the patron of the county.

4.2.8 One of the most common Christian artefacts from this time are wayside crosses,erected mostly from the 9th to 15th centuries AD and include the stone crosses atBoscathnoe Farm (1004313), Heamoor (MCO5343), Tremethick (1010844), and thewayside cross in Madron churchyard (1016157). The sites of medieval holy wells arealso known at Madron (MCO7017) and Nanceglos (MCO27815). In addition toserving the function of reiterating and reinforcing the Christian faith amongst thosewho passed the cross, and of reassuring the traveller, wayside crosses often fulfilleda role as waymarkers, especially in difficult and otherwise unmarked terrain. Thecrosses might be on regularly used routes linking ordinary settlements or on routeswhich might have a more specifically religious function, including providing access toreligious sites for parishioners and funeral processions. Wayside crosses varyconsiderably in form and decoration but several regional types have been identified.Over 400 crosses of all types have been recorded in Cornwall(historicengland.org.uk).

4.2.9 Settlement patterns during this period comprised the typical medieval hamlet,consisting of rectangular farmhouses arranged around a shared yard, known as atownplace. The settlements were closely related to the stream valleys to the east andwest of Penzance. Few settlements from the period of transition have been excavatedand little is known about how the development from rounds to prehistoric rounds tohamlets took place. Analysis of the medieval names of many Cornish farms impliesthat some early medieval hamlets were built on the site of former rounds; in othercases a round would be abandoned and a new hamlet established close by(www.historic-cornwall.org.uk).

Late medieval (AD1066 – AD1540)

4.2.10 Medieval settlement in the form of manorial sites continued into the Late Medievalperiod as demonstrated by local place-names such as Castle Horneck (1143172) andfarmsteads such as Nancealverne (MCO15792), Hea (MCO14782), Polgoon(MCO16355), Nanceglos (MCO15794), Boscathnoe (MCO13501), Lesingey(MCO15386) and Luthergwearne (MCO15593). Documentary sources suggestLuthergwearne settlement, the site of which lies on the southern boundary of theproposed development, was first recorded in 1560 as "Ladergwerne". Thesefarmsteads were surrounded by extensive areas of agricultural land being divided intolong narrow strip fields. The site of Luthergwearne resides amongst field systemsdefined as Anciently Enclosed Land. These field systems are evident as stone-facedembanked boundaries (PB1) and associated gate stoops and styles. It is unclear ifany of the field boundaries are original to the later medieval period but this possibilityshould not be ruled out.

4.2.11 As the population grew and the economy became more diversified, with commerceand specialisation, so larger settlements developed. By the fourteenth centuryCornwall was served by a network of small towns. Some grew up around earlyChristian centres, some developed as coastal or riverside trading ports, and otherswere established along major roads or at the crossing points of rivers (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk).


20

Post-medieval (AD1540 – c.1750)

4.2.12 Cornwall’s position guarding the western approaches to the English Channel was ofenormous strategic importance and from the sixteenth century onwards many phasesof coastal defence building were undertaken in response to successive threats fromabroad.

4.2.13 During the first half of the sixteenth century, when England’s coasts were subjected toFrench raids, Henry VIII built a string of artillery forts, known as blockhouses,stretching from Scilly in the west to Mount Edgcumbe in the east. During this time thedeep water harbour at Falmouth was protected with two larger fortresses atPendennis and St Mawes. There was further, internal conflict, with the outbreak ofCivil War in the middle of the seventeenth century. Cornwall was held by Royalistforces and there are a number of battlefield sites in east Cornwall. During the conflictmany fortifications were re-used, including medieval castles, Tudor forts, even IronAge hillforts. However, most of the defences built during the Civil War wereearthworks and few survive today (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk).

Industrial Period (c.1750 – 1901)

4.2.14 Cornwall’s rich mineral resources have been exploited on a large-scale sincemedieval times. Large reserves of tin coupled with local innovations in mining practicemeant Cornwall dominated the world market until the 1870s. Likewise, by the earlynineteenth century Cornwall was the pre-eminent copper producer in the world. Chinaclay has been quarried and refined in Cornwall for around 200 years and remains amajor industry. Cornish granite was exported all over the world and Cornish slate hasbeen quarried and exported from the medieval period.

4.2.15 The landscape of the medieval tin industry represents the most extensive remains ofpre-1700 mining in Britain. During this period a substantial amount of tin produced inCornwall came from tin streaming, a technique which involved washing away lightersands and wastes from tin-rich gravels to leave the heavier tin ores which were thencollected and smelted. Streaming was carried out on a massive scale and countlessvalleys were turned over for tin (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk).

4.2.16 Heritage assets known to date to this period include the Trengwainton Park andGarden (1000657) and associated buildings, and Poltair Hospital and House(1327673).

Modern Period (Post-1901)

4.2.17 Military installations from World War II were widespread and were constructed on aprodigious scale. Many of them are recorded on RAF aerial photographs taken afterthe war by air crews awaiting their return to civilian life. The development of aviationmeant that Cornwall had to face the threat from the air as well as the sea. This newthreat included aerial bombardment – and thousands of bombs fell on Cornwall in1940 and 1941 – and airborne landings of enemy troops. Several military airfieldswere constructed to counter the threat from the air and anti-aircraft guns werestationed around key strategic targets such as Falmouth docks. Decoy sites, laid outto resemble airfields and towns by night, were placed in open country to try and foolthe German bombers (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk).

Ports were heavily defended and beaches were mined and protected by barbed wire,gun emplacements and pillboxes in readiness to meet the expected seaborneinvasion force. The speed of twentieth century warfare meant that if a landing was


21

successful it would be followed by a rapid advance through the countryside. Thewhole of Cornwall became a fortress, with fortified lines of pillboxes, anti-tankobstacles and defended road blocks (www.historic-cornwall.org.uk).

4.3 Archaeological Interventions

4.3.1 During a geophysical survey and watching brief carried out in advance ofdevelopment at Mount’s Bay School, located in the inner study area, noarchaeological remains other than the remains of former field boundaries wereobserved. There are no recorded archaeological interventions within the proposeddevelopment.

4.4 Development of the Study Area

4.4.1 Few of the historic maps consulted to formulate the development of the inner studyarea depicted notable changes to the nature of the landscape. Periods of change arediscussed below.

4.4.2 The first edition OS 1:2,500 map of 1878 (Plate 1) depicts an agricultural landscapecomprising enclosed fields and a north/south aligned footpath. Luthergwearnefarmstead is located in the south and it is approached from the west via a cart trackwhich adjoins further tracks to the south-west of the farmstead, which can be followedin the general direction of Penzance. Luthergwearne is shown as two rectangularbuildings and a well set within a small enclosure at the east end of the track. Theproposed development is bordered by Boscathnoe Lane and the Penzance WaterWorks reservoirs to the north-east, a trackway and footpath in the east and thesettlement of Rosecadghill including a park and plantation to the south-east.

Plate 1: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1878, showing the location of the proposed development


22

4.4.3 Luthergwearne farmstead is not shown on the OS 1:2,500 1908 map (Plate 2). Thislies in the same location as the earlier late medieval settlement of the same name. Anew and larger farmstead of the same name appears to the north of the proposeddevelopment and access to this is via a lane from the road to the immediate north.The cart track that led to original farmstead is extant; however it no longer connects tothe other trackways. The footpath through the proposed development remains in useand connects to the new Luthergwearne farmstead. The reservoir is now under theownership of Penzance Corporation Water Works.

Plate 2: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1908 showing the location of the proposed development

4.4.4 Subsequent mapping shows little change to the proposed development area , otherthan the division of a field south-east of Luthergwearne as shown on the 1936 1:2500OS map (Plate 3) and the introduction of overhead electricity lines on the 1961-621:2,500 OS map (Plate 4). The cart track and footpath remain and the fieldboundaries retain their earlier alignment.


23

Plate 3: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1936 showing the location of the proposed development

Plate 4: Extract from the Ordnance Survey map, 1962-63, showing the location of the proposeddevelopment


24

4.4.5 During the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the settlement of Heamoor expanded outto the eastern edge of the proposed development, and features social housing and anumber of amenities including Mount Bay’s School. The proposed development areahas not changed during this time.


25

5 GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS

5.1.1 A total of 43 heritage assets are present within the inner study. Of these 15 aredesignated and comprise two Scheduled Monuments, one Grade II* Listed Park andGarden, five Grade II* and seven Grade II Listed Buildings. Two non-designatedheritage assets (MCO15593 and PB1) are located within the proposed developmentarea. A list is presented in Table 2, below, and the locations of designated assets arepresented on Figure 2 and non-designated assets on Figure 3.

Table 2: Gazetteer of Heritage Assets with the Inner Study Area

HA Number Name Designation Sensitivity Period

1004400 Lesingey RoundIron Age HillFort.

Scheduledmonument

National Prehistoric

1004313 Stone Cross200yds (180m)NE ofBoscathnoeFarm (AlsoGrade II ListedBuilding1136710)

Scheduledmonument andgrade II listedbuilding

National Early/LateMedieval

1000657 TrengwaintonPark andGarden

Grade II*RegisteredPark andGarden

National Industrial

1143172 Castle Horneck Grade II*Listed Building

National Industrial

1291315 NancealverneHouse

Grade II*Listed Building

National Industrial

1327861 Rosehill Manor Grade II*Listed Building

National Industrial

1143171 RosecadgehillHouse

Grade II*Listed Building

National Industrial

1219748 RosecadgehillCottage

Grade II ListedBuilding

National Industrial

1210313 NancealverneLodge


National Industrial

1327673 Poltair Hospitaland PoltairHouse


National Industrial

1143583 The HeadGardeners'Cottages (WithinTrengwaintonPark andGarden)


National Industrial

1143585 Well with spout Grade II ListedBuilding

National Early/LateMedieval


26

1136854 The bothy andpottingshed(WithinTrengwaintonPark andGarden)


National Industrial

1143584 Lodge at mainentrance toTrengwaintonHouse (WithinTrengwaintonPark andGarden)


National Industrial

1136875 Garden Walls atapproximately400 metres eastsouth east ofTrengwaintonHouse (WithinTrengwaintonPark andGarden)


National Industrial

MCO15386 Lesingey – Siteof MedievalsettlementThe settlementof Lesingey isfirst recorded in1326 when it isspelt "Lysungy"

None Regional Late Medieval

PB1 Field system; aseries of stone-faced embankedearth walls andassociated gatestoops andstyles

None Regional Late Medievalwith potentialPrehistoricorigins

MCO14782 Hea – Site ofMedievalsettlement


MCO13914 Castle Horneck– Site ofMedievalsettlement


MCO16355 Polgoon – Siteof Medievalsettlement


MCO15794 Nanceglos –Site of Medievalsettlement


MCO15792 Nancealverne –Site of Medievalsettlement


MCO13501 Boscathnoe –Site of Medieval



27

settlement

MCO10872 A Post-medievalhouse atNancealverne

None Local Post-medieval

MCO16618 Rosecadghill –Site of Medievalsettlement


MCO27476 Site ofPolteggan CornMill

None Local Industrial

MCO37893 Remains ofgarden at Poltair


MCO37891 Remains of anornamentalpark at Rosehill


MCO37892 Remains of apark atNancealverne


MCO41553 Prehistoric lithicscatter at ParcAn Growes

None Local Prehistoric

MCO55987 A nineteenthcentury beehouse atTrengwainton


MCO51216 Remains of aridge and furrowfield system atHeamoor

None Local Early Medieval

MCO51219 Heamoor -Prehistoric fieldsystem,Medieval fieldsystem ( Aseries of linearand curvilinearfield boundariesare visible onaerialphotographs)


MCO52007 Prehistoric lithicscatter atLesingey


MCO52933 School atHeamoor

None Local Modern

MCO5343 Medieval crossat Heamoor

None Local Early/LateMedieval

MCO8170 Small univallateearthwork nowcovered inwoodland(maybe site of

None Regional Prehistoric


28

5.1.2 A total of 67 designated heritage assets lie within the outer study area (in addition tothose within the inner study area presented in Table 2 above). These compriseScheduled Monuments (Table 3), Grade I Listed Buildings (Table 4) Grade II* ListedParks and Gardens (Table 5), Grade II* Listed Buildings (Table 6), Grade II ListedBuildings (Table 7) and Conservation Areas (Table 8).

Table 3: Scheduled Monuments in the Outer Study AreaScheduled Monument Ref Name Description

1017586 Cross head inMadronchurchyard,south of thechurch.

Medieval cross-head which is alsoGrade II listed, situated to thesouth of the church at Madron.

1010844 TremethickCross, 760meast ofTremethickFarm

A stone cross with a granite basestanding on an artificial mound.The cross measures 1.7 metreshigh and is not in its originalposition.

1016157 Wayside Crossin Madronchurchyard,west of the

Medieval wayside cross situated tothe west of the church at Madron.

castle Hornek)

MCO9083 Site ofblacksmithsworkshop atHeamoor


MCO56946 A nineteenthcentury dippingwell atTrengwainton


MCO7017 Madron – Site ofMedieval holywell

None Local Late Medieval

MCO15593 Luthergwearne– Site ofFarmstead

None Local Late Medieval

MCO56490 Cropmark - adouble-ditchedcurvilinearenclosure isvisible as a faintoutline in aparched grassor cereal cropimmediately tothe NE ofLesingeyRound.

None Local PotentiallyPrehistoric

MCO51222 A series of linearfield boundariesare visible onaerialphotographs.

None Local PotentiallyPrehistoric


29

church

Table 4: Grade I Listed Buildings in the Outer Study AreaListed Building(LB) Ref

Name Description

1312533 Church of StMaddern

A C14 or C15 Parish church featuring aNorman font and nineteenth centuryalterations to the porch and window. Lies inMadron Churchtown conservation area.

Table 5: Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens in the Outer Study AreaListed Building(LB) Ref

Name Description

1000657 TrengwaintonPark andGarden

Early nineteenth century pleasuregrounds, parkland, and walled garden,with a woodland garden planted withrhododendrons, magnolias, and half-hardy trees and shrubs in the early andmid-twentieth century.

Table 6: Grade II* Listed Buildings in the Outer Study AreaListed Building(LB) Ref

Name Description

1143271 Treneere Manor A small mansion built in 1758 whichfeatures modillion eaves, cornice, andchamfered quoins.

Table 7: Grade II Listed Buildings in the Outer Study AreaListed Building (LB) Ref Name

Listed Buildings/structuresassociated with the Churchof St Maddern:

1327280 Lych gate and mounting block south-westof Church; 1312433 Churchyard walls and gatepiers; 1144381 Bodilly chest tombs; 1312484 twoThomas headstones, Bilkey headstone and twoother headstones at east end of south aisle;1137133 Nicholas chest tomb at 18 metres south ofwest end of church; 1312445 Armstrong monumentnorth- east of church; 1144380 Pengelly chest tomband headstone at 2 metres north of church;1327279 Vingoe chest tomb at 18 metres south ofwest end of church; 1137085 Gubbs chest tomb insouth-west angle of church; 1144379 Chest Tombat 2 metres west of church; 1144385 Trereife vaultnorth-east of church; 1144378 Hitchen’s chesttombs by east end of north aisle of church; 1137098headstone at 5 metres south of east end of church;1327277 Chirgwin headstone and footstone at 3metres south of west end of church; 1312428Phillips, Glasson and one other chest tomb in north-east corner of churchyard; 1137124 Borlase chesttomb at 14 metres south of west end of church;1327278 Chest tomb, headstone and lid at 8 metres


30

Listed Building (LB) Ref Namenorth of church; 1144383 Argal chest tomb at 16metres south of church; 1144384 Price mausoleumnorth-east of church; 1144382 Edward chest tombat 5 metres north of west end of church; 1137093Cross at 3 metres south of porch; 1144377 Crosswest of church; 1137090 Chest tomb 2 metres westof church;

1136966 Stables and earth closets at rear of Bellair house.Lies in Madron Churchtown conservation area.

1327830 Garden walls at Treneere Manor to south-west ofhouse

1143582 Coach house, stables, associated courtyard walls,gatepiers and mounting block

1144386 Tregoddick house, front garden walls and gate. Liesin Madron Churchtown conservation area.

1143183 Alverton Cottage

1143580 Parc an Growes Farmhouse

1327863 The Weeths

1144370 Nos 5 and 6 including front garden walls and gatepiers

1144375 Spout in front of Landithy Hall. Lies in MadronChurchtown conservation area.

1327458 Love Lane Farmhouse

1327667 Hendra Farmhouse including walls, gate piers andrailings to front

1219895 Alphington House (county planning office)

1291218 Alverton Manor

1144370 Nos 5 and 6 including front garden walls and gatepiers. Lies in Madron Churchtown conservationarea.

1136818 Trengwainton House

1327273 No 7 including front garden walls. Lies in MadronChurchtown conservation area.

1143590 Bellair House. Lies in Madron Churchtownconservation area.

1144371 Holly Cottage. Lies in Madron Churchtownconservation area.

1327273 No 7 including front garden walls. Lies in MadronChurchtown conservation area.

1327677 4, Bellair Road. Lies in Madron Churchtownconservation area.

1312629 Stables north of Parc an Growes Farmhouse

1144370 Nos 5 and 6 including front garden walls and gatepiers

1143582 Coach house, stables, associated courtyard walls,


31

Listed Building (LB) Ref Namegatepiers and mounting block

1143966 Clarence Cottage

1143141 Alverton House

1143181 Tredarvah Farm House

1327865 Hawk's Farm House

1143182 West Lodge

1408102 Boundary stone 47m north-west of the fire station

1144386 Tregoddick house, front garden walls and gate

1327667 Hendra farmhouse including walls, gate piers andrailings to front

1137116 Ley and Daniel chest tombs at approximately 5metres south of church of St Maddern. Lies inMadron Churchtown conservation area.

1312532 Two adjoining houses: Bosvean and wall at frontand Chy an Bara. Lie in Madron Churchtownconservation area.

1210312 York House

1327864 Alverne Hill

1143590 Bellair House. Lies in Madron Churchtownconservation area

Table 8: Conservation Areas in the Outer Study AreaHER Ref Name Description

DCO182 Penzance The surviving fabric of Penzance reflectsits historic diversity of economic andsocial activity and quality. The historictown contains development dating fromthe fourteen century through to themodern period.

DCO78 MadronChurchtown

The settlement of Madron contains anumber of designated assets associatedwith its early medieval origins (23 ofwhich are associated with the Church)and significant number of listed buildingsthat represent its economic and socialdevelopment since this time.


32

6 STATEMENT OF IMPORTANCE/SENSITIVITY

6.1.1 The sensitivity or importance of a heritage asset is judged in a neighbourhood, local,regional, national and international using the criteria presented below, Table 9, as aguideline.

6.1.2 Table 9: Criteria Used to Determine Importance/Sensitivity of Heritage Assets

CulturalImportance/Sensitivity Criteria

Statutory Designated Assets

International· World Heritage Sites;· Sites of International Importance.

National

· Scheduled Monuments;· All Grades of Listed Buildings;· Registered Parks and Gardens;· Conservation Areas;· Areas of Archaeological Importance;· Protected wreck sites;· Registered battlefields;· Non-designated heritage assets of

archaeological interest that are demonstrablyof equivalent significance to scheduledmonuments

Non-designated Assets

Regional / County

· Locally listed buildings;· Archaeological sites and remains which

contribute to regional research objectives;· Historic buildings/structures that contribute to

regional character either through architecturalinterest or a specific function.

· Assets which contribute to regional or culturalunderstanding of the area.

Local / Borough

· Archaeological sites and remains with a localor borough interest for education, culturalappreciation;

· Assets which contribute to local or culturalunderstanding of the area.

Neighbourhood /Negligible

· Relatively numerous types of remains, ofsome local importance;

· Isolated findspots with no context;· Areas in which investigative techniques have

revealed no, or minimal, evidence ofarchaeological remains, or where previouslarge-scale disturbance or removal ofdeposits can be demonstrated.

Uncertain / Potential · Potential archaeological sites for which thereis little information. It may not be possible to


33


determine the importance of the site based oncurrent knowledge. Such sites are likelyisolated findspots, place names or cropmarksidentified on aerial photographs.

6.1.3 The consideration of the sensitivity of statutory designated assets such as ScheduledMonuments, Listed Buildings, and Registered Parks and Gardens is reflected in theirGrade. For example, Grade I Listed Buildings are those which are considered to be ofexceptional national architectural or historic importance. Grade II* Listed Buildings areof particular national importance and special interest. Both Grade I and II* ListedBuildings are of great importance to the nation's built heritage and their importancewill generally be beyond dispute. Grade II Listed Buildings are usually designated fortheir architectural and historic interest. They make up around 95 per cent of all ListedBuildings.

6.1.4 Table 9 is a general guide to the attributes of cultural heritage assets and it should benoted that not all the qualities listed need be present in every case and professionaljudgement is used in balancing the different criteria. The list is not exhaustive.

6.1.5 Of the assets (or their settings) to be affected by the scheme, the followingimportance or sensitivity is applied, as shown in Table 10, below.

Table 10: Importance/Sensitivity of Heritage Assets affected by the ProposedScheme


Statutory Designated Assets

International None

National

Lesingey Round, Stone Cross, Trengwainton Parkand Garden, Castle Horneck, NancealverneHouse, Rosehill Manor, Rosecadgehill Cottage,Rosecadgehill House, The Head Gardeners'Cottages, Well with spout, The bothy and pottingshed, Lodge at main entrance to TrengwaintonHouse, Garden Walls of Trengwainton House, andMadron Churchtown Conservation Area

Non-designated Assets

Regional / County Site of settlement at Luthergwearne andassociated field boundaries (PB1).

Local / Borough None

Neighbourhood /Negligible

None

Uncertain / Potential None


34

7. SETTING ASSESSMENT

7.1 Introduction to the Concept of Setting

7.1.1 The definition of setting used here is taken from the NPPF (DCLG 2012): setting isthe surroundings in which an asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and maychange as the asset and its surrounding evolve. Elements of a setting may make apositive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the abilityto appreciate that significance or may be neutral. Historic England (2015) in theirSetting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3considers that the importance of setting lies in what it contributes to the significance ofthe heritage asset. This depends on a wide range of physical elements within, as wellas perceptual and associational attributes pertaining to, the heritage asset’ssurroundings.

7.1.2 HE discusses several other general considerations including cumulative change;change over time; appreciating setting; buried assets and setting; designated settings;setting and urban design, and setting and economic and social viability.

7.1.3 HE (2015) has provided a stepped approach to the assessment of importance ofsetting to heritage assets. Following Step 1, which is the initial identification of theheritage assets as presented in Section 5, the subsequent steps comprise:

· Step 2: Assessing whether, how and to what degree the settings make acontribution to the significance of the heritage assets;

· Step 3: Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the setting, and theresulting implications for the significance of the heritage asset(s);

· Step 4: Maximising enhancement and minimising harm (mitigation).

7.1.4 Step 2: In assessing whether, how and to what degree the settings make acontribution to the significance of the heritage assets, a number of potential attributesof a setting are considered. These are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Step 2 - Determining the Contribution of Setting to the Significance ofthe Heritage Asset(s)

Contribution of Setting: Potential attributes / factors to consider

The asset’s physical surroundings:· Topography;· Other heritage assets (archaeological remains, buildings, structures, landscapes, areas

or archaeological remains);· Definition, scale and ‘grain’ of surrounding streetscape, landscape and spaces;· Historic materials and surfaces;· Land use;· Openness, enclosure and boundaries; functional relationships and communications;· Green spaces, trees and vegetation;· History and degree of change over time;· Integrity;· Issues, such as soil chemistry and hydrology

Experience of the asset:· Surrounding landscape and town character;


35

Contribution of Setting: Potential attributes / factors to consider· Views from, towards, through and across, including the asset;· Visual dominance, prominence or role as focal point;· Intentional intervisibility with other historic and natural features;· Noise, vibration and other pollutants and nuisances;· Tranquillity, remoteness, ‘wildness’;· Sense of enclosure, seclusion, intimacy or privacy;· Dynamism and activity;· Accessibility, permeability and patterns of movement;· Degree of interpretation or promotion to the public;· The rarity of comparable survivals of setting

The asset’s associative attributes:· Associative relationships between heritage assets;· Cultural associations;· Celebrated artistic representations;· Traditions

7.1.5 The attributes of the setting contribute to the sensitivity of the setting and itscontribution to the significance of the asset. Table 12 presents examples of definitionsfor the sensitivity of a setting but these should not be seen as exhaustive.

Table 12: Step 2- Definitions of Sensitivity for the Settings of Heritage AssetsExamples of settings Contribution to

significance of the assetA defined setting that is contemporary with andhistorically and functionally linked with the heritageasset, may contain other heritage assets ofinternational or national importance, has a very highdegree of intervisibility with the asset and makes avery substantial contribution to both the significanceof the heritage asset and to the understanding andappreciation of the significance of the asset.

Very substantial

Contemporary with and historically and functionallylinked with the heritage asset, with minor alterations(in extent and/or character), has a high degree ofintervisibility with the asset and which makes asubstantial contribution to both the significance of theheritage asset and to the understanding andappreciation of the significance of the asset.

Substantial

Contemporary with and/or historically and/orfunctionally linked with the heritage asset but withalterations which may detract from the understandingof the heritage asset, and/or with a moderate degreeof intervisibility with the asset and/or which makes amoderate contribution to the significance of theheritage asset and/or a moderate contribution to theunderstanding and appreciation of the significance ofthe asset.

Moderate


36

Examples of settings Contribution tosignificance of the asset

Largely altered so that there is very little evidence ofcontemporaneous and/or historic and/or functionallinks with the heritage asset, and/or with a low degreeof intervisibility with the asset and/or which makes aminor contribution to both the significance of theheritage asset and to the understanding andappreciation of the significance of the asset.

Minor

7.1.6 Step 3: Having assessed the contribution of the setting to the significance of theasset, the effect of the proposed scheme on the setting can be determined byconsideration of the potential attributes of the proposed scheme affecting setting.These are outlined in Table 13.

Table 13: Step 3 - Potential Attributes of the Proposed SchemeAttribute Factors to consider

Location and siting ofthe scheme

· Proximity to asset;· Extent;· Position in relation to landform;· Degree to which location will physically or visually isolate asset;· Position in relation to key views

The form andappearance of thescheme

· Prominence, dominance, or conspicuousness;· Competition with or distraction from the asset;· Dimensions, scale and massing;· Proportions;· Visual permeability;· Materials (texture, colour, reflectiveness, etc.);· Architectural style or design;· Introduction of movement or activity;· Diurnal or seasonal change

Other effects of thescheme

· Change to built surroundings and spaces;· Change to skyline;· Noise, odour, vibration, dust, etc.;· Lighting effects and ‘light spill’;· Change to general character (e.g. suburbanising or

industrialising);· Change to public access, use or amenity;· Change to land use, land cover, tree cover;· Changes to archaeological context, soil chemistry or hydrology;· Changes to communications/accessibility/permeability

Permanence of thescheme

· Anticipated lifetime/temporariness;· Recurrence;· Reversibility

Longer term orconsequential effectsof the scheme

· Changes to ownership arrangements;· Economic and social viability;· Communal and social viability


37

7.1.7 Once the sensitivity and contribution of the setting has been determined and thepotential attributes of the proposed scheme upon it have been identified, the level ofharm or beneficial impact of the potential scheme needs to be evaluated.

7.1.8 The criteria for assessing the level of harm of impacts on setting are presented below(Table 14). This presents definitions of varying scales of harm or benefit to thecontribution of the setting.

Table 14: Step 3 - Criteria for Assessment of Magnitude of an Impact on theSetting of a Cultural Heritage AssetLevel of Harm or Benefit Guideline CriteriaMajor beneficial The contribution of setting to the cultural heritage asset’s

significance is considerably enhanced as a result of thedevelopment; a lost relationship between the asset and itssetting is restored, or the legibility of the relationship isgreatly enhanced. Elements of the surroundings thatdetract from the asset’s cultural heritage significance orthe appreciation of that significance are removed.

Moderate beneficial The contribution of setting to the cultural heritage asset’ssignificance is enhanced to a clearly appreciable extent asa result of the development; as a result the relationshipbetween the asset and its setting is rendered more readilyapparent. The negative effect of elements of thesurroundings that detract from the asset’s cultural heritagesignificance or the appreciation of that significance isappreciably reduced.

Minor beneficial The setting of the cultural heritage asset is slightlyimproved as a result of the development, slightlyimproving the degree to which the setting’s relationshipwith the asset can be appreciated.

Negligible The setting of the cultural heritage asset is changed bythe development in ways that do not alter the contributionof setting to the asset’s significance.

Less than substantial harm:

Minor harm The contribution of the setting of the cultural heritageasset to its significance is slightly degraded as a result ofthe development, but without adversely affecting theinterpretability of the asset and its setting; characteristicsof historic value can still be appreciated, the changes donot strongly conflict with the character of the site, andcould be easily reversed to approximate the pre-development conditions.

Harm The contribution of the setting of the cultural heritageasset to its significance is reduced appreciably as a resultof the development. Relevant setting characteristics canstill be appreciated but less readily.

Substantial harm The contribution of the setting of the cultural heritageasset to its significance is effectively lost or substantiallyreduced as a result of the development, the relationshipbetween the asset and its setting is no longer readilyappreciable.


38

7.1.9 Changes may occur in the surroundings of an asset that neither affects theircontribution to the significance of the asset, nor the extent to which its significancecan be experienced. In such instances it will be considered that there is no impactupon setting.

7.1.10 Step 4: Approaches to maximising enhancement and minimising harm to the settingand significance of the assets as appropriate are presented in Section 9 Mitigation.

7.2 Assessing the Importance of Setting to the Significance Heritage Assets

7.2.1 An assessment of the significance of the setting was carried out on designatedheritage assets within the inner and outer study areas. These were visited during thesummer months when tree foliage was dense and therefore, although the worst casescenario has been considered, the accompanying plates are not necessarilyindicative of the worst case. The impacts of the proposed scheme were based on theConcept Masterplan as presented in the WSP|PB 2015 report and may be subject tochange.

7.2.2 Each Scheduled Monument, Grade I and II* listed building was also visited to assessthe potential for harm to the significance of its setting. Grade II listed buildings wereassessed in clusters where possible, as these were often linked to ConservationAreas, which were also visited.

7.2.3 The assessment presented below is of those assets for which the setting is likely tobe affected by the proposed scheme. The settings for the remainder of the assetswere not considered to be at risk of harm due to landscape topography, distance andnatural screening. These assets do not have principal views from, towards, through oracross the proposed development; neither is a change to noise, movement or lightanticipated. Therefore no change to the setting of these assets as a result of theproposed scheme is expected.

7.3 Landscape Character

7.3.1 The majority of the proposed development area is classified as Anciently EnclosedLand with an essentially medieval pattern of enclosure and retaining boundaries ofthat period; most of which are likely to have prehistoric origins (Cornwall CountyCouncil 2008). A late medieval farm, Luthergwearne, was at its centre and is shownon late nineteenth century Ordnance Survey (OS) map. Remnant trackways boundedby ancient hedgerows are present and lead in the direction of the Boscathnoereservoirs. The modern Luthergwearne Farm is located further northeast than theearlier site. Higher up the ridge Rosehill and Roscadghill woodlands form part of anornamental estate. A post-medieval agricultural landscape exists in the wider area. Tothe west, at Lesigney, is a Round (small prehistoric hillfort) which is a prominent highpoint in the landscape and designated as a Scheduled Monument.

7.3.2 The proposed development has no landscape designations. An Area of GreatLandscape Value (St Buryan) lies to the west and includes the Trengwainton Estate.West Penwith Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lies to the north.

7.3.3 The proposed development lies adjacent to the Penwith Moors and Coast Area ofGreat Historic Value (AGHV), designated for its extensive archaeological remainswhich form one of the greatest concentrations of Scheduled Monuments in Britain. Italso has good surviving examples of ancient field systems and considerable industrialheritage.


39

7.3.4 In the immediate area of the proposed development the topography slopes slightly tothe south from Boscathnoe Lane becoming relatively flat before rising to a ridge at thesouth, then plateauing again before joining the mature woodland at the far south-east.The Proposed development area is crossed north/south by a public footpath and istraversed by overhead power lines.

7.3.5 The dwellings at Heamoor bordering the proposed development are two discretedevelopments: those radiating off Roscadghill Road and those off Boscathnoe Way.The dwellings off Roscadghill Road are largely of a social housing-type withproperties typified by rows of two-storied gabled terraces, rendered and often paintedwhite, with concrete roof tiles. There are stone walls/embanked walls present andthese are likely to represent retained former field boundaries.

7.3.6 The development centred around Boscathnoe Way is a mix of single storeyinterspersed with two-storied development. Broadly, the single storey properties arelocated closer to Boscathnoe Lane with the two storey development becoming moreprevalent towards Madron Road. Properties are either rendered and painted white,pebble-dashed or a combination of both with concrete tile roofs. Stone cladding is acommon architectural feature.

7.4 Scheduled Monuments

Lesingey Round (1004400)

7.4.2 The Round is situated on the summit of a prominent hill, south of the proposeddevelopment, taking advantage of the topography in order to create a prominentposition overlooking Newlyn and Mounts Bay. It is located within arable farmlandfeaturing little development other than the settlement of Lesingey, which lies at thefoot of the hill to the west (Plate 5). The access to the Round is through a gap in theinner enclosure via a farm track which snakes around the perimeter of the fields tomeet up with connecting roads such as Lesingey Lane or Castle Horneck Road. Asmall interpretation board is present but otherwise there is little interpretation of thesite. There are no signposts on nearby roads locating the site unlike other historicassets in the surrounding area.

Plate 5: View from Lesingey Round west towards the proposed development


40

7.4.3 The Round supports a growth of mature trees and vegetation obscuring the key viewsout from the asset. The key views towards Newlyn and Mounts Bay are appreciatedfrom the edges of the asset, looking south-eastwards towards the coast. To the north,the prominence of the asset contends with the rise and fall of natural undulations(Plate 5), which, when viewed from the proposed development, renders the asset arelatively indistinct feature, the presence of which is indicated by a slight rise in thetreeline (Plate 6). Long distance views towards the proposed development captureMount Bay’s Academy and the settlement of Heamoor, whilst mid and short distanceviews are characterised by farmland including the proposed development.

7.4.4 The setting is historically linked to the use of the Round as an agricultural settlementand provides the viewer with a sensory understanding of the communities that livedwithin and around it. The proposed scheme will comprise housing which will becaptured in mid-distance views from the Round. The encroachment of development tothe asset and change of land use from agriculture to housing will reduce itsinterpretability in the context of its wider setting. However, the key views out towardsNewlyn and Mounts Bay will be little degraded.

Plate 6: View from within the proposed development, facing Lesingey Round (defined by a slight rise in thetree line)

7.4.5 The setting of the heritage asset makes a significant contribution to the significance ofthe asset. The proposed development will cause some harm to the setting, althoughsubstantial harm is not anticipated.

Stone Cross 200yds NE of Boscathnoe Farm (1004313) (Also Grade II Listed Building1136710)

7.4.6 This Early Medieval period wayside stone cross is situated close to a path leading toand from Madron Churchtown, a designated conservation area. The asset survives asa Latin cross hewn from a single piece of rock, although one arm and part of the headare missing. The cross was moved slightly closer to a hedge from its original positionimmediately beside the path in 1960. The location of the cross along the path is highly


41

significant to the value of the asset, as it gives historical weight to this route whichcontinues to link the settlements of Madron, Luthergwearne and ultimately Penzance.

7.4.7 Views north from the cross towards the proposed development area captureagricultural fields defined by hedgerows and tree lines the alignment and character ofwhich have changed little over time. These features serve to partially screen themodern settlement of Heamoor, which can be seen on a ridge in the long distance.Farmland comprising the proposed development can also be glimpsed, although thistoo is largely screened by land divisions. It is envisaged that housing in the higherelements of the scheme proposed will be seen at a distance from the asset and itsapproaches, however it will not obstruct views of the footpath nor significantlydegrade the experience of the asset. The footpath associated with the cross is likelyto be realigned within the proposed development area (Plates 7 and 8), severing thehistorical association between it and the cross. The historical association with Madronvillage, in particular the Church of St Maddern (LB1312533) will be retained.

Plate 7: View south from the Stone Cross (1004313) towards the proposed development area along itsassociative footpath

Plate 8: View north from the footpath within the proposed development area towards the village of Madronand the Stone Cross (1004313)


42

7.4.8 The setting of the heritage asset makes a significant contribution to the significance ofthe asset, however no more than slight harm is anticipated.

7.5 Conservation Areas

Madron Churchtown Conservation Area (DCO78)

7.5.2 The Conservation Area has two scheduled monuments: Wayside Cross (1016157)and Crosshead (1017586); the Grade I listed Church of St Maddern (LB1312533) and35 Grade II listed buildings, twenty-three of which are structures associated with thechurch (tombstones, fragments of cross and so forth).

7.5.3 Madron Churchtown conservation area comprises a large part of Madron villagewhich is located on a prominent rise to the north of the proposed development. Thevillage comprises buildings dating from the Late Medieval to the Modern periodswhich are constructed from local granite stone and similar in character and stature.The high density of development means that views out towards the surroundingcountryside are largely restricted including views out of the Church of St Madderntowards the proposed development.

7.5.4 From the southern edge of the conservation area, views south from the rear of non-designated properties, and from the approach to Madron along a public footpath,overlook large swaths of agricultural land beyond which is Mount’s Bay and thesettlement of Newlyn (Plate 9). To date this view has been largely unaffected by theexpansion of Heamoor, which is concentrated further to the west. The farmland ischaracterised by stone-lined earthen field boundaries which are historically linked tothe origins of the village. Housing plots associated with the scheme are proposed onthe ridge seen in the centre of the photograph below (Plate 9). Although it is unlikelythat the development will alter the skyline, it will cause the permanent loss of anhistorical landscape which is contemporary with and has a high degree ofintervisibility with the conservation area.

Plate 9: View south towards the proposed development area from the edge of Madron ChurchtownConservation Area


43

7.5.5 The setting of the conservation area makes a significant contribution to itssignificance. There will be harm to its setting and therefore its significance, howeversubstantial harm is not anticipated.

7.6 Grade II* Listed Buildings

Rosehill Manor (1327861)

7.6.2 Rosehill Manor is nestled amongst woodland on a slight rise within the grounds ofRosehill Park (MCO37891) to which it is historically linked. The frontage of thebuilding faces east, away from the proposed development, and overlooks pasture andwoodland, a landscape character that has changed little over time (Plate 10). Viewswest towards the proposed development area are well screened by the parklandwhich comprises dense mature woodland. The experience of the asset is one ofseclusion, privacy and tranquillity.

7.6.3 It is not envisaged that there will intervisibility between the scheme and asset,however its proximity to the scheme suggests that noise associated with constructionworks is likely to be audible. The temporary impact will interrupt the tranquillity of thesetting and degrade the experience of the asset.

7.6.4 The setting of the heritage asset makes a significant contribution to the significance ofthe asset, however the harm will be less than substantial and minor.

Plate 10: View west towards the proposed development area and the setting of Rosehill Manor andRosehill Park.

Nancealverne House (1291315)

7.6.5 Nancealverne House is located within a natural dip in the wooded grounds ofNancealverne Park (MCO37892) to which it is historically linked. The frontage of thebuilding faces east, away from the proposed development, and overlooks the A30highway and the Pensans School. These developments truncate the park and causetraffic related noise pollution, degrading the otherwise tranquil experience of the asset


44

(Plate 11). Views west towards the proposed development are screened by the densemature woodland of the park.

7.6.6 It is not envisaged there will be intervisibility between the proposed development andasset, however its proximity to the scheme suggests that noise associated withconstruction work is likely to be audible. This temporary impact will act cumulativelywith the noise of the A30 traffic to interrupt the tranquillity of the setting, thusdegrading the experience of the asset.

7.6.7 The setting of the heritage asset makes a moderate contribution to the significance ofthe asset, however the level of harm will be minor.

Plate 11: Nancealverne House set within Nancealverne Park as viewed from its approach to the east.

7.6.1 Rosecadgehill House (1143171) and Rosecadgehill Cottage (Grade II 1219748).

7.6.2 The assets are located toward the peak of a ridge within secluded woodland,separated from a housing estate at the edge of Heamoor by a single field. This field,together with mature and dense woodland, separates and protects the setting fromthe estate, which is neither seen nor heard from the assets (Plate 12). As a result theexperience of setting is characterised by a sense of tranquillity and isolation. The twobuildings are set back from a quiet lane that serves as an access and egress to twoother properties set within the woodland. The principal elevations of both the assetsare orientated to the southeast and take advantage of the views of the small enclosedfields and mature tree belts on land that slopes down toward Penzance to thesoutheast.

7.6.3 Housing plots associated with the scheme are proposed within the field describedabove (Plate 13). This would bring the settlement of Heamoor closer to the assets,although they would be separated by a relatively substantial strip of woodland.Though the assets would remain well-screened, the noise impacts during constructioncould be significant. The introduction of a new road system would also bring with it


45

associated noise impacts that would have a detrimental impact upon the tranquillity ofthe present setting, although this would form only a secondary estate road rather thanthe principle access. Although some of the wider setting would be lost, the principleviews from the assets would remain unaffected.

7.6.4 The setting of the heritage assets makes a substantial contribution to the significanceof the assets, and the significance will be harmed although not to a substantialdegree.

Plate 12: View north-west towards the proposed development area from the rear of Rosecadgehill Houseand Rosecadgehill Cottage.


46

Plate 13: View west across the proposed development area from the western approach to RosecadgehillHouse and Rosecadgehill Cottage.

Castle Horneck (1143172)

7.6.5 Castle Horneck is set within its own grounds, and is well-screened from thesurrounding countryside by dense and mature treelines (Plate 14). Its immediatesetting comprises a carpark and campsite associated with its current use as a youthhostel.

7.6.6 Due to topography, distance and natural screening, it is not envisaged there will beviews from, towards, through and across to the proposed development; there will nonoise or vibration pollutants and there will be no change to the surroundings.Therefore there will be no change to the setting of this asset as a result of theproposed scheme, and therefore no harm.


47

Plate 14: Views from the rear of Castle Horneck towards the proposed development area.

7.7 Grade II* Park and Gardens

Trengwainton Park and Garden (1000657)

7.7.1 The setting assessment for Trengwainton Park and Garden was produced byWSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2015 (WSP|PB 2015:52). This document reviews animpact study commissioned by the National Trust (Nicholas Pearson Partnership LLP,2015). The text below summarises the conclusions of the WSP|PB TrengwaintonImpact Assessment and Appendix 1 presents the document in full.

7.7.2 The Trengwainton estate is a largely early 19th Century informal gardens andpleasure grounds and a Grade II Listed modest mansion house (1136818) created onthe site of an older 17th Century farm with walled garden by the Price family,Jamaican plantation owners. In addition is a Grade II Listed coach house, stables,courtyard and mounting blocks (1136818). The present gardens are the shelteredgardens that meander in the planted woods that line the driveway up to the housefrom Boscathnoe Lane, largely a creation of the 20th Century by Edward Bolitho. Thewoodland garden is noted for its rhododendrons and contains a number of Grade IIassets that include; The bothey and potting shed (1136854),The Head GardenersCottage (1143583), Garden wall with spout (1143585), Lodge and main entrance tohouse (1143584) and the Garden Walls ESE of Trengwainton House (1136875). ATerrace is laid out to provide promenade and views over the Castle Horneck valleyand Rosehill area towards Tolcarne and Newlyn. The woods were widenedsouthwards to screen views of the Boscathnoe reservoirs towards the end of the 19thCentury.

7.7.3 The National Trust study concludes that the setting of Trengwainton has a highsensitivity and that the proposed development area lies across two core setting areasas identified in the study. These are:

Core setting area 5: Boscathnoe and Approach;


48

Core setting area 6: Ancient Enclosure – Rose Hill Farm and Lesingey

7.7.4 A concern for the Boscathnoe and Approach core setting area, as raised in the study,is that the approach to Trengwainton is being eroded by development; the retention ofa clear boundary is seen as key for this setting area. The tree tunnel that leads to theentrance of the property should be maintained and its retention will help to create awell-defined boundary that signifies the approach to Trengwainton. The bend inBoscathnoe Lane and the location of the reservoirs demarcates the end of theproposed residential development and the start of the approach to Trengwainton, thedevelopment will not impact upon this key boundary feature (WSP|PB 2015, 52-53).

Plate 15: The proposed development area, to the left, does not engage with the entrance to Trengwainton(1143584) due to the bend in Boscathnoe lane in the distance (facing west)

7.7.5 The Rose Hill Farm and Lesingey core setting area is highly sensitive to land usechange. Removing the westernmost fields from the potential development site, assuggested by the previous WSP|PB report, will help to maintain as much of thepatchwork of fields as possible. Where planting is used to screen development thiswill increase the ‘wooded character of the farmland’ as described in the character ofthe core setting area, making the mitigation sympathetic to a key characteristic.

7.7.6 The proposed development area is located within a small valley between the hill onwhich Trengwainton is located and a small ridge at Rosehill at the south of thedevelopment area. The entrance to the property is 200m from the edge of theproposed development, with the visualisation key viewpoints approximately 1km fromthe western edge of the proposed area. A small section of the site is located in themid-range views out from the garden terrace at Trengwainton and is largely onlyvisible from that location; and the majority of this visible site area is designated asopen space. The remainder of the gardens are inward facing, whilst establishedmature tree screens prevent views from the house to the proposed development area(ibid).

7.7.7 There will be a change in land use from enclosed pastoral land to residentialdevelopment, however much of the pastoral land will be retained and the proposed


49

impact minimising measures should ensure that the area does not have an overlysuburbanised character. The land along the Larriggan River valley, which draws theeye down through the landscape, will remain as enclosed pastoral land retaining thiskey characteristic of the view (ibid).

7.7.8 Any development will still retain a sense of separation from Trengwainton due to thetopography and nature of the landscape. The elevated position of the terrace and thefall of the land create a natural sense of division between the terrace and the middleground of the views, almost providing a drop zone on clear days when views out to St.Michael’s mount and Lizard Point are available (WSP|PB 2015 52/53). Importantly thedevelopment will create no change to the skyline as viewed from the asset.

7.7.9 The concept masterplan recommends that the development should use architecturalstyles that are sympathetic to the nature of the development site and perpetuate therural character of the area. Materials should be chosen in order to minimisereflectiveness in order to prevent the completed development from drawing the eye.Strategic planting should also ensure that the development is not visually intrusive inthe views from Trengwainton, whilst using native and local species for planting willensure that seasonal changes are similar to those within the gardens. It is noted thatdevelopment within the site should not engage directly with the view and thereforeprincipal elevations would be oriented away from the key views from the garden.

7.7.10 There is likely to be some increase in noise and dynamism, especially during theconstruction of the development; however once constructed the noise impacts will beprimarily from vehicle movement which is unlikely to be audible from Trengwainton –when considering that the site, at its closest point, is approximately 1km away; thehousing will help block noise from vehicles; plus cars will be traveling at relatively lowspeeds. However, further specialist assessment should still be undertaken as part ofany application process. Although there would be an increase in light levels, the vastmajority of the site won’t be visible from Trengwainton; street lighting would be kept toa minimum in more sensitive areas and new technologies, appropriate installation andgood management can all help to significantly reduce light pollution. Strategic treeplanting could also help to further reduce any light pollution.

7.7.11 With the sensitive siting of the residential development, the proposed tree planting,the location of open space, together with the other mitigation measures set out in theTrengwainton Impact Assessment (Appendix 1), this will all help to reduce any impacton the historic asset. As a result, the contribution of the setting of Trengwainton to itssignificance will be slightly degraded as a result of the proposed development, but thiswill not adversely affect the interpretability of the asset and its setting. Many of thecharacteristics of historic value, such as the view out to St. Michaels mount and theview from the terrace, can still be appreciated. The setting of Trengwainton will besubject to harm, although this will be less than substantial.


50

8 CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Cultural heritage significance is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as ‘The value of aheritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest’. TheNPPF is clear that ‘heritage interest’ may be archaeological, architectural, artistic orhistoric and that significance derives not only from an assets physical presence, butalso from its setting. The NPPF definitions for the heritage value are provided in Table15, below.

Table 15: Definition of NPPF Heritage ValuesCriteria Definition

ArchaeologicalInterest

There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, orpotentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expertinvestigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interestare the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution ofplaces, and of the people and cultures that made them.

ArchitecturalInterest

To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance inits architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest mayalso apply to nationally important examples of particular building types andtechniques (eg buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity)and significant plan forms.

ArtisticInterest

Interest in the design and general aesthetics of a place. It can arise fromconscious design or fortuitously from the way the place has evolved. Morespecifically, architectural interest is an interest in the art or science of thedesign, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings andstructures of all types. Artistic interest is an interest in other humancreative skill, like sculpture

HistoricInterest

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

8.1.2 Through the application of the values it is possible to define what it is that givessignificance to a heritage asset and therefore warrants protection. The proposeddevelopment area and its immediate environs encompass layers of archaeologicaland historical development, which may be valued for different reasons by differentpeople, all of which should be taken into account in determining the overallsignificance.

8.1.3 The statement of significance is applied where it is considered that the proposeddevelopment will cause harm to the significance of the asset, and therefore not all ofthe assets presented in the gazetteer are included in the statement.

8.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance

Archaeological Interest

8.2.2 The Lesingey Round (1004400) is known to originate in the Late Iron Age/Romano-British period and has high archaeological interest. The Round survives in goodcondition and has the potential to contain archaeological and environmental evidence


51

relating to its construction, date, function, social organisation, trade, agriculturalpractices, re-use, domestic arrangements, strategic importance and overall landscapecontext. There is high potential for the yet, undisturbed ditch, and the surroundingarea to yield archaeological remains associated with the monument, as indicated bythe presence of cropmarks (MCO56490) and linear field boundaries (MCO51222)identified from aerial photography (not affected by the scheme). The excavation offurther remains could serve to widen our understanding of communities during thistransitional period.

8.2.3 The site of the medieval settlement at Luthergwearne (MCO15593) comprises roughpasture divided by stone-faced embanked walls, gate stoops and styles (PB1) of thesame period. It has the potential to contain archaeological remains with a good levelof survival that will produce evidence for the social and economic condition of farmingcommunities from this period.

Architectural Interest

8.2.4 Designated buildings including Castle Horneck (1143172), Nancealverne House(1291315), Rosehill Manor (1327861), Rosecadgehill Cottage (1219748), andRosecadgehill House (1143171) are valued largely for their significant architecturalinterest, which is represented through their design, use of craftsmanship anddecoration.

Artistic Interest

8.2.5 The general layout of Trengwainton’s (1000657) landscape originates from thepleasure grounds laid out by Sir Rose Price in the 1820s to a design by GeorgeBrown. The collection of rhododendrons, magnolias and other half-hardy trees andshrubs planted by the Bolitho family in the early and mid-twentieth century is ofnational importance and contains several listed buildings and locally designatedfeatures and sites including: The Head Gardeners' Cottages (1143583), The bothyand potting shed (1136854), Lodge at main entrance to Trengwainton House(1143584) and the Garden Walls (1136875). The views of St Michael’s Mount andMount’s Bay have been a key feature of Trengwainton since at least 1758. In the1820s, Sir Rose Price created a terrace to maximise experience of this view and itwas also fundamental to the design of the house during various remodelling phasesof the late 1800s.

8.2.6 The remains of the park at Nancealverne (MCO37892), the garden at Poltair(MCO37893) and an ornamental park at Rosehill (MCO37891) were created for theuse of the occupants who resided within the grounds. Through the use of ornamentalplants, furniture and landscaping, these green spaces were designed more for theiraesthetic pleasure and appearance than for agricultural production. The park atRosehill was created to the designs of Robert Hitchens for Richard Oxnam amerchant and banker John Vigurs, and features include a drive, plantation and aconservatory.

Historic Value

8.2.7 The Early Medieval period assets contribute significantly to our understanding ofmedieval routeways, the religious culture, settlement patterns and the development ofsculptural traditions. Their condition is somewhat varied due to damage or partialdestruction during the Reformation. These assets include the well with spout(1143585), Medieval crosses (MCO5343 and MCO5018), dipping well (MCO56946)and Stone Cross NE of Boscathnoe Farm (1004313). Castle Horneck (1143172),


52

Nancealverne House (1291315), Rosehill Manor (1327861), Rosecadgehill Cottage(1219748), and Rosecadgehill House (1143171) all have the potential to contribute toour understanding of social values in an historical context either through physical ordocumentary evidence, and as in the case of Rosehill Manor through historicalassociation with persons of local importance.


53

9 HARM TO SIGNIFICANCE AND POTENTIAL IMPACT

9.1 Harm to Significance

9.1.1 The CIfA 'Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment'(2014) considers that an assessment of the cultural heritage significance of heritageassets should identify the potential impact of proposed or predicted changes on thesignificance of the asset and the opportunities for reducing that impact. Policy 129 ofNPPF states that this evidence should be taken into account when considering theimpact of a proposal.

9.1.2 The level of harm to cultural heritage significance is the basis of assessing thesignificance of impact. In order to assess the level of harm from potential impact onbuilt heritage or buried archaeological remains present, consideration has beenafforded to:

· Assessing in detail any impact and the significance of the effects arising from theproposed development;

· Reviewing the evidence for past impacts that may have affected the heritageassets or their settings;

9.1.3 Key impacts are defined as those that would potentially harm the cultural heritagesignificance of the heritage asset and so consideration is afforded to the heritagevalues of the assets (See statement of significance Section 8).

9.1.4 The level of harm is often difficult to define. However, substantial harm is taken to be‘total loss of significance of a heritage asset’ (NPPF 2012, paragraph 133) whichimplies loss of the asset, loss of its heritage values and and/or its setting.Furthermore, NPPF Planning Policy Guidance (revised 2014) states that ‘even minorworks have the potential to cause substantial harm.’ It goes on to state ‘It is thedegree of harm to the assets significance that is to be assessed rather the scale ofthe development’. Consequently, this provides a baseline for varying levels of harmwith less than substantial harm being harm, slight harm, or negligible, as defined inTable 16, below.

Table 16: Criteria Used to Determine Level of Harm

Level of Harm Description

Substantial harm*:

Complete destruction of the asset or its setting (i.e. total loss of significance); change to the asset orits setting resulting in loss to significance which fundamentally changes our ability to understand andappreciate the resource.Minor works which adversely impact on heritage values which are intrinsic to the significance of theasset/setting have the potential to cause substantial harm.

Less than substantial harm:

Harm Change to the asset or setting (some loss of significance) resulting in anappreciable change in ability to understand and appreciate the resource.Some heritage interest remains unaffected.


54

Level of Harm Description

Slight harm Change to the asset or setting (some loss of significance) resulting in a slightchange in ability to understand and appreciate the resource.Overall, the heritage interests remain unaffected.

Negligible Negligible change or no material changes to the asset or setting. No real changein our ability to understand and appreciate the resource. The heritage interestsremain unaffected.

Derived from DMRB guidance*as outlined by NPPF paragraphs 133 and 134

9.2 Assessment of Harm

Below-ground Archaeological Remains and Archaeological Earthworks

9.2.2 The Concept Master Plan produced by WSP|PB (Figure 4) suggests that housing willcover a large proportion of the proposed development area, therefore constructionrelated excavation associated with geotechnical trial pitting, boreholes, foundations,landscaping, services, roads and ground levelling for instance, will substantially harmknown and hitherto unknown assets.

9.2.3 Three heritage assets are present within the proposed development area: Medievalperiod settlement at Luthergwearne (MCO15593) and historically associated stone-faced embanked earth field boundaries, gate stoops and styles (PB1), and the site ofa possible post-medieval farmstead also known as Luthergwearne as shown on the1908 OS map. The construction works outlined above have the potential to causesubstantial harm to the buried remains of the settlement and farmstead (likely to bethe same physical site). The proposed development encompasses a large area ofAnciently Enclosed Land, that if destroyed would also substantially harm the contextof the wider landscape and its setting.

9.2.4 The exact whereabouts and extent of the medieval settlement are unknown atpresent, prior to a scheme of archaeological investigation. A programme ofgeophysical survey could better inform the location of any remains and would allowfor a more definitive assessment of any harm.

9.2.5 Potential archaeological remains: Prehistoric remains including lithic scatters areknown to exist within the inner study area. This evidence, considered with therelatively undisturbed nature of the proposed development, suggests there is potentialfor below-ground remains of this period to be present within the proposeddevelopment area. Any physical impact on such remains would cause substantialharm.

9.2.6 It should be noted that there is the capacity within the masterplan design for furtherareas of the proposed development location, up to 1ha, to be retained as greenspace. This would provide a degree of flexibility to address concerns regarding belowground archaeological remains and gives the potential for any such remains to bepreserved in situ.

Built Heritage

9.2.7 There will be no physical impact on any of the scheduled monuments or listedbuildings present. None of these lie within the proposed development area. Theimpact and degree of harm on the setting of these assets is presented in Section 5,and summarised in Table 17, below.


55

Table 17: Degree of harm on the Setting of Designated Assets Prior toMitigation

Heritage Asset Importance/Sensitivityof the asset

Degree of harm tothe setting

1004400Lesingey Round

National Harm

1004313Stone Cross

National Slight harm

1000657Trengwainton Park andGarden

National Harm

1291315Nancealverne House


1327861Rosehill Manor


1219748Rosecadgehill Cottage

National Harm

1143171Rosecadgehill House

National Harm

1143583The Head Gardeners'Cottages

National Harm

1143585Well with spout

National Harm

1136854The bothy and pottingshed

National Harm

1143584Lodge at main entrance toTrengwainton House

National Harm

1136875Garden Walls atapproximately 400 metreseast south east ofTrengwainton House

National Harm

Madron ChurchtownConservation Area

National Harm


56

10 MITIGATION STRATEGY

10.1 Policy Recommendations

10.1.1 Current legislation (NPPF, DCLG 2012) draws a distinction between archaeologicalremains of national importance and other remains considered to be of lessersignificance. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highestsignificance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields,Grade I and II* listed buildings and Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens andWorld Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. Those perceived to be ofinternational or national importance may require preservation in situ (avoidance).

10.1.2 NPPF 2012 (132) states that substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building,park or garden should be exceptional. Therefore the preferred mitigation for harm tothese assets is avoidance where possible.

10.1.3 Those of lesser significance may undergo preservation by record (intrusive), whereRegional / County or Local / Borough significance can be demonstrated. Furthermore,the Planning Act (2008) and NPPF (2012) in paragraphs 5.8.9 and 128 respectivelycite the requirement for the evaluation of assets where their significance is not fullyunderstood.

Below-ground Archaeological Remains and Archaeological Earthworks

10.1.4 The buried archaeological remains of the medieval settlement could be considered tobe of regional importance, however the evidence for this is tentative and fromdocumentary sources. The site of the farmstead is of local importance. The full extentand whereabouts of these assets is not known and so avoidance by design is notfeasible at this stage. It is suggested that the potential harm to these assets could bereduced through preservation by record, which in the first instance could take the formof non-intrusive investigation such as geophysical survey.

10.1.5 The field boundaries (PB1) are characterised as Anciently Enclosed Land and assuch their removal could be subject to the Hedgerows Regulations (see Section 2).Additionally, as landscape characterisation is of a regional importance then, wherepossible, their removal should be avoided and the boundaries incorporated into thescheme design where possible.

10.1.6 The use of good design principles including the retention of historic features such asthe field boundaries could lessen the harm to the significance of the assets, and directharm on the assets. The positioning of green spaces in areas where the geophysicalsurvey suggests archaeological remains are present would also contribute to areduction in harm. Should archaeology be present then the provision of aninterpretation panel could go some way to raising the awareness and appreciation ofthe historic and archaeological value of areas of the development site.

Setting

10.1.7 Historic England (2015) guidelines for mitigation of the impact of a development onthe setting of a heritage asset suggest that in the first instance impacts are bestmitigated for either by relocation of the development or changes to its design. Whererelocation of the development is not possible, good design alone may be capable ofreducing the harm.


57

10.1.8 Where components of a design exist that cause harm to significance, screening mayhave a part to play in reducing harm. Screening can only mitigate for negative impactrather than removing that impact and should not be used as a substitute for gooddesign principles. Screening has the potential to compound further adverse impactsand should therefore also merit careful design by respecting and, where possible,promoting the current characteristics of the landscape.

10.1.9 The WSP|PB Trengwainton Impact Assessment report offers the following positivemitigation proposals to minimise harm to setting:

10.1.10 As an initial stage of minimising any adverse impact of the proposals, thewesternmost fields of the initial proposed development site, those most visible fromthe viewpoints on the terrace, were removed from the proposal in order to minimisevisual impact (see Section 3.2.2).

10.1.11 Other approaches to minimising impact largely rely on good design and sympatheticarchitectural accents. Approaches that may lessen the impact of development on thetwo key views (as identified in Section 4.1) are presented below.

10.1.12 The tree line on the ridge to the south of the proposed development, that includesRosehill, helps to frame the long-distance views out to sea. Development shouldneither impact upon these trees nor project above the canopy in order to maintain thatframe. High-rise development should not be considered as part of any proposal withinthe site. Providing adequate protection for the tree belt, through tree preservationorders (TPOs) and planning protection, should be considered.

10.1.13 A tree screen surrounding the Boscathnoe Reservoir currently helps to minimiseviews to the lower northern sections of the site. This tree screen should be maintainedthrough either TPOs or planning conditions to ensure future management in order tomaintain the screening effect.

10.1.14 Although the development would be added on to the edge of current developmentwithin Heamoor, it may be less visually obtrusive if it was to identify architecturallywith the rural landscape in which it is to be situated. Solitary farmsteads in the areaare often constructed of stone with slate roofs and a development that mimics thisarchitecturally may be more sympathetic.

10.1.15 The use of low reflective traditional materials and dark natural colours would berequired for walls, roofs, window frames and rainwater goods.

10.1.16 The central green space should remain free from development and planted withnative species of tree common to the area that will mature to significant size. Playequipment and other amenity features, where provided, should be constructed fromtimber or other natural materials. The main park area and other green spaces will notbe lit at night.

10.1.17 Within development parcels green spaces will be incorporated that are large enoughto sustain groups of mature native trees. Occasional highlights could be formed usingclusters of pine trees.

10.1.18 Development parcels should make use of local features such as the stone-facedembanked boundaries or tree lined lanes to make the development more cohesivewith the surroundings.


58

10.1.19 Street lighting should be kept to a minimum or avoided where possible. Where safetyreasons make lighting necessary, full cut-off street dark sky ‘compliant’ lights (no lightemitted at or above 90 degrees from light source) shall be used to reduce light spill atnight. Where lighting is needed, if possible minimise the period that lighting isswitched on.

10.1.20 At present, a relatively high frequency of overhead services traverse the site, makingthese, and any future services, subterranean will have a beneficial effect on thesetting of Trengwainton.

10.1.21 Scope for a site appropriate feature (perhaps a community building) , structural objector even planting of an exotic tree group, that would form an attractive focal point ontop of the hill should be considered. The purpose of this feature in the landscapewould be to draw the eye away from other development. Its total height should nothowever break the height of the woodland belt behind at Roscadghill/Rosehill.

10.1.22 Where these principles are implemented, the effects of the development will causeless than substantial harm on the setting of the surrounding designated heritageassets.


59

11 CONCLUSION

11.1.1 This assessment has been undertaken with reference to the Concept Masterplan(WSP|PB 2015) devised for the proposed development of the site and the principlesof design and mitigation included therein. Should the proposed development beadhere to the masterplan, it is anticipated that the resulting scheme would not causesubstantial harm to the setting of any of the designated assets within the 1km studyarea surrounding the site.

11.1.2 There is the potential for substantial harm to below ground archaeological remainsand earthworks during construction works. However, good design principles includingthe retention of key and defining features such as the historic field boundaries, as wellas the provision of areas of green space targeted on any archaeological remains,could allow for the preservation in-situ of any regionally significant remains, and somitigate the effects of the construction works.

11.1.3 The full degree of impacts on buried archaeology will remain unclear until the exactextent and whereabouts of any remains, in particular the medieval settlement, areknown. Geophysical survey of the site could be utilised for this purpose. Additionally,a programme of archaeological trial trenching could provide further information on thesignificance of any buried archaeological remains within the proposed developmentsite.


60

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY

12.1 Cartographic Sources

Ordnance Survey, 1876 1:2,500 Cornwall & Isles of Scilly



Ordnance Survey, 1962-63 1:2,500 Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

12.2 Documentary Sources

Bowen, E. G. 1977 Saints, Seaways and Settlements in the Celtic Lands Cardiff:University of Wales Press

Cornwall County Council, 2008 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Landscape CharacterStudy Landscape Character Area Description - Mount’s Bay LCA No CA04,

Cornwall and Scilly Urban Survey, 2003 Historic Characterisation for Regeneration.Cornwall County Council

CIfA, 2012 Standards and Guidance for historic environment desk-basedassessment, Reading

CIfA, 2013 Code of Conduct, Reading

DCLG, 2012 National Planning Policy Framework, London

DCLG, 2014 National Planning Policy Framework: Planning Policy Guidance, London

DCMS, 2013 Annex 1: Scheduled Monuments, London

DMRB, 2007 Cultural Heritage, Vol II, Section 3, Part 2, London

Historic England, 2006 Management of Research Projects in the HistoricEnvironment: The MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide, Swindon

Historic England, 2008 Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, Swindon

Historic England, 2011 Seeing the History in the View: A Method for AssessingHeritage Significance in Views, London

Historic England, 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, London

Nicholas Pearson Partnership LLP, 2015 National Trust - Trengwainton: Setting Study

WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2015 Trengwainton Impact Assessment, Unpubl Report


61

12.3 Online sources

www.bgs.ac.uk

www.historic-cornwall.org.uk

www.historicengland.org.uk

FINAL Heamoor Heritage Impact Assessment edited.docx Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffOctober 2015 for Herefordshire Council



APPENDIX 1

August 2015

TRENGWAINTON IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

Cornwall Council

3513000HQ-HLVIssue 3

Trengwainton ImpactAssessment

3513000HQ-HLV

Prepared forCornwall Council

County HallTreyew Road

TruroTR1 3AY

Prepared byParsons Brinckerhoff

Manchester Technology CentreOxford RoadManchester

M1 7ED www.pbworld.com

Report Title : Trengwainton Impact Assessment

Report Status : Issue 3

Job No : 3513000HQ-HLV

Date : August 2015

DOCUMENT HISTORY AND STATUS

Document control

Prepared by Elizabeth Murray and DavidOrr

Checked by(technical) Alison Plummer

Approved by Checked by(quality assurance)

Revision details

Version Date Pagesaffected Comments

1.0 April 2015 47-48 Revision in response to MB comments.

2.0 August2015

Elements ofSections 4

and 5Amended in response to comments from the National Trust

AUTHORISATION SHEET

Client: Cornwall CouncilProject: Trengwainton Impact AssessmentAddress: Trengwainton House and Gardens, Penzance, Cornwall

PREPARED BYName: Elizabeth MurrayPosition: Assistant Heritage Consultant

ANDName: David Orr ConsultingPosition: Landscape ArchitectDate: April 2015

AGREED BYName: Alison PlummerPosition: Principal Heritage ConsultantDate: April 2015

AUTHORISED FOR ISSUEName:Position:Date:

DISTRIBUTION

ACCEPTED BYName:Position:Date:

ACCEPTED BYName:Position:Date:

Trengwainton Impact Assessment

3513000HQ Trengwainton Impact Assessment Issue 3.docx Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffApril 2015 for Cornwall Council

- 1 -

CONTENTSPage

List of Abbreviations 3

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 7

1 Introduction 91.1 Circumstances of the Project 91.2 Background 101.3 Location and Topography 101.4 Methodology 10

Review Of Trengwainton Setting Study 12

2 Review Of Trengwainton Setting Study 132.1 Introduction 132.2 Methodology 132.3 Heritage Assets and Policy Context 132.4 Historical Background 142.5 The Visual Envelope 152.6 The Setting 15

Concept Masterplan 17

3 Concept Masterplan 183.1 Introduction 183.2 Planning Cell Development Proposals 183.3 Concept Masterplan 233.4 Approach to Minimising Impact 28

Visualisations 31

4 Visualisations – visibility of the site and views 324.1 Introduction 324.2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility 324.3 Nature of the Views 354.4 View Analysis 394.5 Visibility of the Development 414.6 Visual Effects Assessment 46

Assessment of Impact on Setting 49

5 Assessment of Impact on the Setting of the assets 505.1 Introduction 505.2 Methodology 505.3 Assessment of Impact 52

Bibliography 56

6 Bibliography 57


Trengwainton Impact Assessment Issue 3.docx Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffApril 2015 for Cornwall Council

- 2 -

FIGURES 58

APPENDIX 1 63

List of FiguresFigure 1: Proposed Development LocationFigure 2: Capacity, Constraints and OpportunitiesFigure 3: Concept MasterplanFigure 4: Field Sketches

List of PlatesPlate 1: Boscathnoe Lane, facing east toward the school - David Orr ConsultingPlate 2: Tree line on Rosehill that frames the long-range views out to sea, from VP2Plate 3: Rural development of farmsteads with stone walls and slate roofs, to the west ofTrengwaintonPlate 4: The proposed development site, to the left, does not engage with the entrance toTrengwainton due to the bend in Boscathnoe Lane (in distance), facing west.



- 3 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NT National Trust

OS Ordnance Survey

PB Parsons Brinckerhoff

VP Viewpoint

ZTV Zone of theoretical visibility



- 5 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) were commissioned by Cornwall Council to undertake an assessment ofthe potential impact of a proposed development on the setting of a National Trust property andgardens at Trengwainton. The proposed site, located to the west of Heamoor, was identified as apotential development location to fulfil the requirements of the Allocations Development PlanDocument compiled by Cornwall Council. Following this the National Trust commissioned a study toassess the setting of Trengwainton a grade II* Registered Park and Garden and a grade II listedhouse located to the northwest of the proposed site.

Cornwall Council commissioned PB to assess the potential for achieving the required quantum ofhousing within the proposed site whilst minimising the adverse impact on the setting of Trengwainton.David Orr Consulting created a concept masterplan for the proposed site which would achieve therequired density of housing. Collaboratively a series of measures were devised, largely based ongood design principles, which could reduce the impact that any development on the site may have onTrengwainton. Using these measures, David Orr produced a series of visualisations of how acomplete development could look from two pre-determined viewpoints, as agreed with the NationalTrust. The impact of this development on both the viewpoints and the setting of the House andGarden was then assessed.

By removing the most visually contentious area of the site and applying the suggested impactreduction measures the development would result in a neutral effect on Viewpoint 1 and a moderateadverse effect on Viewpoint 2. The overall effect on the setting of Trengwainton would be minoradverse.



- 7 -

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION



- 9 -

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Circumstances of the Project

1.1.1 As part of an Allocations Development Plan Document, Cornwall Council has beenseeking to allocate sites within the Penzance and Newlyn area that will demonstratethe delivery of the Local Plan’s housing and employment targets. One such site,identified by the Council, is located to the west of Heamoor (Inset 1, below) and wouldrepresent an extension to the existing Heamoor community. To the northwest of theproposed site is the National Trust property of Trengwainton, a grade II* RegisteredPark and Garden and grade II listed house.

Inset 1: Original proposed site area of Heamoor Urban Extension

1.1.2 A study, commissioned by the National Trust in January 2015, was compiled in orderto identify and assess the setting of Trengwainton House and Gardens, and to helpinform decisions about local development. In light of the results of this study, CornwallCouncil have commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to produce an impactassessment to assess the potential effects that a housing development at theidentified site would have on the setting of Trengwainton House and Gardens.

1.1.3 David Orr Consulting was commissioned, by PB, to create a concept masterplanwhich would deliver the required quantum of housing within the proposed site.Collaboratively a series of guidelines for minimising both the visual impact and harmto the setting of the house and gardens, from a potential development, were devised.Visualisations of a potential development based on these guidelines were thencreated by David Orr Consulting, from which an assessment of the potential impacton Trengwainton House and Gardens could be compiled.



- 10 -

1.1.4 Initial stages of appraisal have resulted in an amended site area, with the south-westernmost fields excluded. The assessment has been based on the revised sitearea as shown in Figure 1.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Trengwainton is a historic house, gardens, park and estate in southwest Cornwall,close to the village of Madron, two miles outside Penzance. Trengwainton comprisesa group of heritage assets including the Grade II listed house, and a Grade II*Registered Park and Garden. The property is currently in the ownership of theNational Trust (NT), although there is no public access to the house. It enjoys anelevated position with designed views out to local landmarks including St. Michael’sMount.

1.3 Location and Topography

1.3.1 The proposed site is located to the west of Heamoor (Figure 1) and is bounded to thenorth by Boscathnoe Lane and the Boscathnoe Reservoir and to the east by currentresidential development at Heamoor and land belonging to a local primary school.The Larriggan River runs to the west of the site and to the south is a small area ofmature woodland. The land partially surrounds Luthergwearne Farm and is currentlyin use as rough pasture in semi-regular fields bounded by stone-faced embankedearth walls, potentially of medieval origin, and hedgerows.

1.3.2 The land slopes slightly to the south from Boscathnoe Lane becoming relatively flatbefore rising to a ridge at the south, then plateauing again before joining the maturewoodland at the far southeast. The site is crossed north/south by a public footpathand is traversed by several overhead services.

1.3.3 The houses at Heamoor that border the site are of two discrete developments: thoseradiating off Boscathnoe Way and those off Roscadghill Road. The houses offRoscadghill Road appear to be largely social housing with properties typified by rowsof two-storey gabled terraces rendered and often painted white, with concrete rooftiles. There are stone walls/embanked walls present and these are likely to representretained former field boundaries.

1.3.4 The development centred around Boscathnoe Way is single storey developmentinterspersed with two storey development. Broadly the single storey properties arelocated closer to Boscathnoe Lane with the two storey development becoming moreprevalent towards Madron Road. Properties are either rendered and painted white,pebble-dashed or a combination with concrete tile roofs. Stone cladding is a commonarchitectural feature.

1.3.5 From the proposed development site, the grounds of Trengwainton are identifiable asa largely wooded area set within otherwise open agricultural fields with sporadicfarmsteads on a hillside to the north. The planting within the gardens follows asinuous path down the hillside in a similar way to the mature treescapes that arisesalong several stream valleys down the hillside. As the site was visited in March, it wasthe rhododendrons and magnolias coming in to bloom that highlighted the location asa garden rather than simply a wooded area.

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 This report has been commissioned in response to the Setting Study at Trengwaintonin order to assess the potential impact that a housing development, as proposed by



- 11 -

the Council, would have on the approach and setting of Trengwainton house andgardens.

1.4.2 The report is compiled in order to satisfy a brief written by Cornwall Council thatrequired the following:

· Review the conclusions made by the Trengwainton Setting Study;

· Produce a high level concept plan that could deliver the quantum of developmentsought from the site, together with possible mitigation measures;

· Produce a visualisation of the design solution showing the development whenviewed from Trengwainton (based upon views agreed with the National Trust),incorporating the proposed mitigation;

· Review the likelihood of whether this design solution would be considered tohave substantial or less than substantial harm on the key views from andapproach to Trengwainton.

· If substantial harm is suggested, indicate the scale and location of developmentthat would be possible

1.4.3 The concept masterplan and the visualisations were compiled by David OrrConsulting. The visualisations are based on mitigation intended to minimise theimpact on setting of Trengwainton and key views as devised by Parsons Brinckerhoffin conjunction with David Orr.



- 12 -

SECTION 2

REVIEW OF TRENGWAINTON SETTINGSTUDY



- 13 -

2 REVIEW OF TRENGWAINTON SETTING STUDY

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This review considers the approach and methodology applied in the compiling of theTrengwainton Setting Study (Nicholas Pearson Partnership, 2015) carried out onbehalf of the National Trust. The purpose of the study was to identify the setting ofTrengwainton, and to help inform decisions about local development. Its intended useis a contribution to managing change to the setting of Trengwainton, and to form partof a positive strategy for the conservation of the property by helping the LocalPlanning Authority to ensure that the Local Plan is based on up-to-date evidence.

2.1.2 The need for a setting study arose from observations in the Trengwainton GardenConservation Management Plan (National Trust, 2010), which stated that a principalsignificance of the Trengwainton buildings and gardens are the designed views,particularly from the upper garden. The policies of the plan proposed to protect theviews, and therefore the setting.

Planning Policy and Recent Planning Decisions

2.1.3 The study highlights the appreciation of the role of setting in the significance ofheritage assets as presented in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), andgoes on to quote High Court rejected developments where the adverse impacts of thedevelopment on setting were said to outweigh the benefits of the development.

Definition of Setting

2.1.4 This is taken from the heritage industry standard guidance: The Setting of HeritageAssets (English Heritage, 2011), National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Annex2: Glossary, and Conservation Principles (English Heritage, 2008). The latter presentsthree components of setting – visibility, spatial context and function. This approach isthe basis for the setting study, with this being the identification of a zone of theoreticalvisibility (ZTV), the subjective analysis of individual views (historic and present day),and the spatial context of the heritage assets.

2.2 Methodology

Current Guidance

2.2.2 The study makes reference to a number of standard guidance documents, several ofwhich share the same approach and definitions:

2.2.3 Conservation Principles (English Heritage, 2008); Seeing History in View (EnglishHeritage 2011); The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage, 2011); NationalPlanning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government,March 2012); Planning Practice Guidance web-based resource (for Communities andLocal Government, March 2014), and English Heritage Good Practice Advice onSetting and Decision-Taking (English Heritage, consultation draft, July 2014).

2.2.4 The study adopts the stepped approach as presented in the Good Practice Advice(also quoted in The Setting of Heritage Assets). The first two steps are applied, andwith these being the identification of the heritage assets, and the assessment of howand to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of theheritage assets.



- 14 -

2.2.5 This 2-step approach is in accordance with the stated objective of the study which isto identify the setting of the heritage assets in advance of proposed development, inorder to inform planning policy and decisions. As the study is not intended to offer animpact assessment of any particular development at this stage, it does it consider thepossibility of development maximising enhancement and minimising harm to thesettings.

Setting Study Methodology

2.2.6 This is logically presented as a sequence of tasks: identification of the HeritageAssets: selection of the viewpoints; mapping the ZTV; site survey; identifying thesetting and its role.

2.3 Heritage Assets and Policy Context

2.3.1 A group of ten identified heritage assets is presented that together form the core ofthe Estate. A minor point but it is worth pointing out that the Bronze Age findspot isindicative of archaeological potential, with the asset itself ‘the find’ being removedfrom site.

2.3.2 The presence of other assets relating to the local, ancient agricultural landscape andto neighbouring estates is noted.

Guidance on Setting

2.3.3 This quotes detail from the guidance documentation presented in Current Guidance(Section 2.2.3, above). It also introduces a further document – English Heritage’s(now Historic England) 2001 upgrading of the national Register of Parks andGardens, and highlights Phase A: baseline analysis – defines and analyses heritagesignificance within a view. Relevant policies of the Cornwall Local Plan are detailed.The Penzance and Newlyn Area Action Plan and Framework is quoted, as is theCornwall Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. National Trustcommissioned studies are also listed and of particular interest include theTrengwainton Garden Conservation Management Plan (2010) and TrengwaintonGardens Statement of Significance. Various other landscape and character areas arequoted. The guidance and policy presented in this section highlight that the studyarea consists of several nationally and locally significant heritage assets. It reiteratesthe importance of setting to the significance of a heritage asset, and the need toassess the impact on setting (see Section 5 below). The reader is reminded thatEnglish Heritage reinforces the principles of NPPF. It emphasises the need tounderstand and recognises the importance of setting.

2.4 Historical Background

2.4.1 This summaries the history of Trengwainton and describes the grounds and adjacentlandscape during the various stages of development of the property. It presentsevidence to suggest that the views of St Michael’s Mount and Mount’s Bay have beena key feature of Trengwainton since at least 1758. It states that in the 1820s Sir RosePrice created a terrace to maximise the experience of this view, and that it wasfundamental to the design of the house during the various remodelling phases of thelate 1800s.

2.4.2 The background concludes that since the 1850s, Penzance has expanded, bring builtdevelopment closer to the Estate, and which has also encroached into the principal



- 15 -

Mount bay views, and acknowledges the changing nature of the setting ofTrengwainton over the last 150 years.

2.5 The Visual Envelope

2.5.1 This presents the results of the ZTV analysis of views from the house and from theterrace. It suggests that clear views could be obtained (were development to takeplace), from the house, of standard built development on higher ground north ofGulval, between Heamoor and Trevaylor, across southern Heamoor, around PenwichCollege location, north of Lesingey Road, west of Alverton and north of Newlyn.

2.5.2 From the terrace development is highly visible on the north-facing slopes betweenLesingey and Heamoor. Higher development could be seen east of Gulval, north ofNewlyn and around southern Heamoor, together with parts of Alverton, and Penwithcollege.

2.5.3 It is important to note that the visual envelope highlights areas where developmentcould be visible, and that the impact assessment (Section 5) considers areas wheredevelopment might not be visible either through sensitive design and/or mitigation inaccordance with English Heritage 2012 Step 3.

2.6 The Setting

2.6.1 This presents a detailed analysis of views in tabular format along with the significanceof each view. Principal views are defined as being of the greatest importance; keyviews are the main identified design views, and inward views are views from withinthe historic estate, and beyond, where Trengwainton plays a significant or distinctiverole.

2.6.2 The section goes on to describe the setting in a wider and core context by landscapeareas. The wider setting narrative includes a description and role of the setting, whilstthe core also includes an assessment of vulnerability of the setting. The absence ofvulnerability for the wider setting could be read as an indication that these settings arenot particularly vulnerable.

2.6.3 Existing harmful impacts (and causes and recommendations) includes seven issuesincluding residential development on the edge of Penzance, Penwith College, moderninfrastructure, change in tree belts and further expansion of Penzance and Madron.

2.6.4 It is interesting to note that in the tree belt section the recommendations state thatdesigned views should, in general, be retained open, rather than obscured so as toscreen off site development ‘....where this is not always feasible compensationfunding should be sought to recreate or reopen equivalent view features’. It does notsuggest that the thickening or slight expansion of existing tree belts to obscuredevelopment is unwelcome.

2.6.5 With regard to future potential issues the expansion of Penzance and Madron arediscussed, and a recommendation is made for an assessment (See section 5). Ofparticular interest, under the heading adaption to change, examples of change withinthe setting which have not undermined the significance of the site include: low-levelresidential development to parts of Madron village.

2.6.6 In the concluding statement, and with particular relevance to this impact assessment,a reference is made to the development of housing at Heamoor ‘....have all intrudedsignificantly into this landscape setting and context. While the harm to date is not



- 16 -

considered to be so extensive as to negate the integrity, or preclude the enjoyment ofTrengwaintons’s buildings and designed landscape...these have been altered and theimpact of cumulative change which threatens to exacerbate previous harm caused bytwentieth century development, is a serious concern.’



- 17 -

SECTION 3

CONCEPT MASTERPLAN



- 18 -

3 CONCEPT MASTERPLAN

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The purpose of this study is to show what might be the visual effects for Trengwaintonof potentially accommodating development at the edge of Heamoor, and what impactthis may have on significant views.

Site Location and Description

3.1.2 The site lies west of Heamoor, a 19th Century settlement on the Madron Road fromPenzance. The settlement was expanded widely with low density residentialdevelopment in the 1980s and 1990s around Roscagdhill Road and Boscathnoe Wayto the south west and other areas to the north east. The site itself is rough pasturewith hedgerows, criss crossed by public footpaths.

Landscape Character

3.1.3 The site is part of National Landscape Character Area 152 Cornish Killas, and ofNatural Areas classification Cornish killas and Granites. It lies close to the edge of thecharacter area and to its western boundary with the West Penwith Character Area tothe west. The elvan geology gives rise to its poor drainage character that gives it itslocal moor name.

3.1.4 The Cornwall Landscape Character Area is CA04 Mounts Bay with its mixedlandscape of arable and horticulture as well as small estates, farm woodlands, wetvalley woodland and hedged lanes.

3.1.5 The site has no landscape designations. An Area of Great Landscape Value (StBuryan) lies to the west including the Trengwainton estate and West Penwith AONBlies north of the estate.

Historic Landscape Character

3.1.6 The site is mainly classified as Anciently Enclosed Land, prehistoric to medievalfarmland. A mediaeval farm, Luthergwearne, was at the centre of the present site(and is shown on late 19th Century OS maps) and remnant tracks still exist boundedby old hedgerows leading from this to what is now the reservoirs. The modernLuthergwearne Farm sits north east of this nearer Boscathnoe Lane. At the top of thehill, Rosehill and Roscadghill woods form part of an ornamental estate with somefields bounding this making up post mediaeval farmland. At Lesigney to the west is aRound, prominent in the local landscape as a high point and listed as a ScheduledMonument.

Trengwainton Estate and gardens

3.1.7 The Trengwainton estate is a largely early 19th Century informal gardens andpleasure grounds and a modest mansion house created on the site of an older 17th

Century farm with walled garden by the Price family, Jamaican plantation owners. Thepresent gardens are the sheltered gardens that meander in the planted woods thatline the driveway up to the house from Boscathnoe Lane, largely the creation of 20th

Century by Edward Bolitho. These include large walled kitchen gardens also. Thewoodland garden is noted for its rhododendrons. A Terrace is laid out to providepromenade and views over the Castle Horneck valley and Rosehill area towards



- 19 -

Tolcarne and Newlyn. The woods were widened southwards to screen views of thereservoirs towards the end of the19th Century.

3.2 Planning Cell Development Proposals

3.2.1 The development of the proposed area will depend on the site capacity and thelandscape response of the development design to the key constraints andopportunities.

Development Capacity

3.2.2 The site is 16.82 hectares. Deducting areas for open space and a main street leavesa developable area of 11.75 ha. which will include local streets and local greenspaces. A safeguarded area of 6.28 hectares has been excluded from the original sitearea through a variety of appraisal processes, including this report. The initialproposal area was reduced prior to the issuing of the brief (see Inset 1) and additionalhighly sensitive areas were removed within the early stages of this impactassessment to achieve a viable area as presented in Figure 1.

3.2.3 The development cell area could yield between 352 and 411 homes within theremaining area at 30 to 35 dwellings per hectare respectively or up to around 470 at aslightly higher mean density of 39 dph across the site. This would be achieved with amore refined mix of densities from 25-45dph. (Inset 2).

Inset 2: Masterplan area capacities

How the Development Layout Can Respond to its Context - Constraints andOpportunities

3.2.4 The outline site analysis (Inset 3) starts to demonstrate the key constraints andopportunities should the site be developed.



- 20 -

Inset 3: Outline site analysis

3.2.5 The main design issues are understanding the landscape, its environment, naturalfeatures and limitations and its social and community capacity. Any masterplan willrespect the landscape and infuse any development with a sense of connection to thatlandscape, providing a place to live that not only is embedded in the patterns of how



- 21 -

the land was used before, but also in creates a successful and thriving place thatengenders well-being in all who use it and visit it.

3.2.6 The landscape surface topography, hydrology, vegetation and other features alsoaffect its character as well as its visibility and the perception of the nature of the place,its enclosure, outlook and enjoyment.

Topography and Drainage

3.2.7 The site area is on a north-west facing slope between the Madron ridge to the northand the Lesigney and Rosehill hill to the south (Figure 2). The site forms a minornorth-south aligned ridge between these.

3.2.8 The surface watercourses flow south on the west side of the site (Larriggan Rivertributary) and east on the eastern side along Mounts Bay School, a tributary ofChyandour Brook. The Larriggan river is in a Flood Zone 3. The issues of hydrologyand drainage require more detailed analysis outside the scope of this schematicstudy.

Landscape

3.2.9 The site area is a rural mixed pasture and arable/ horticultural cropped fields withhedgerows and sporadic farmsteads and estates and small woodlands.

3.2.10 The lower slopes of the site form smaller, medieval irregular wet fields and roughpasture leading to a small stream along the valley floor to the west that flows southinto the Castle Horneck/ Larriggan River valley. The upper slopes towards Rosehillhave more regular orthogonal fields, of mainly of pasture. Hedgerows are largely lowand narrow and have few mature trees in them.

3.2.11 To the south the Rosehill woods sits along the edge of the site just south of theridgeline between Rosehill and Roscadghill. It creates a heavily vegetated skylinethat forms a backdrop to the rural valley landscape.

3.2.12 The eastern perimeter borders Heamoor, largely recent single and 2 storey housingand a primary school. A hedged public footpath runs along much of the eastern edgeof the site south of the present Luthergwearne Farm.

3.2.13 At the northern edge of the site Boscathnoe Lane is edged by mature trees andunder-planted with evergreen shrubs next to the reservoirs to the west end. Next tothe site the edge the hedge gives way to a low stone hedge wall with no vegetation.

3.2.14 The landscape has a richer flavour in the north west corner where old small patterns,old field tracks, hedges, rough wet marshy ground and vegetation associated with thereservoirs come together. To the south east extremity too, next to the RosehillWoodland, the dense vegetation creates a strong sense of enclosure.

Views and visibility

3.2.15 The upper slopes and ridgeline of the site to the south has views to and fromTrengwainton gardens. This is discussed in more detail below.



- 22 -

Movement and Access

3.2.16 Vehicular access to the site is available from Roscadghill Road to the east and toBoscathnoe Lane to the north. Roscadghill Road is at present a cul-de-sac roadlinking to the roundabout at the A30. Boscathnoe Lane is part of the approach fromPenzance and the A30 to Trengwainton and its gate houses to the west, so is themain route to the attraction for visitors.

3.2.17 The lane is wide enough for two vehicles to pass though the presence of Mounts BaySchool to the east end, next to Poltair woods, attracts parked vehicles that createsections wide enough only for one vehicle to pass at a time. A shuttle widthrestriction is situated west of the school entrance just east of Boscathnoe Wayjunction. The school entrance has a bus turnaround area that is narrow and probablycongested at peak times. A school playing field sits on the north side of the lane westof Poltair woods.

Plate 1: Boscathnoe Lane, facing east toward the school (David Orr Consulting)

3.2.18 The site has a number of public footpaths criss-crossing the site. Path 108/32/3 thatcrosses the centre of the site north-south is part of a parish network that links Madronand Penzance.

Constraints and opportunities

3.2.19 The site design opportunities lend themselves to creating two main areas ofdevelopment, the larger one to the north and a smaller one on the hill top south ofNorth Lodge, Rosehill (Inset 4).

3.2.20 Movement needs to connect to Roscadghill Road as the main access. Good Manualfor Streets practice is that any street should connect to two other streets in order toprovide a level of through movement and create nodes of activity. It would also relatethe community well to its local school. Footpath and cycle connections can be thenlinked into the other edges of the development both into Heamoor and into the localcountryside path network.

3.2.21 The central area of the site is very visible from Trengwainton and this would be bestsuited to a green space that would serve the community here and for the widerHeamoor community.



- 23 -

3.2.22 A landmark on the Rosehill edge of the site would draw the eye in views and create asense of place that links development to the topography.

Inset 4: Constraints and opportunities across the site showing potential links and maintaining green areaswhere high visibility occurs from Trengwainton

3.3 Concept Masterplan

3.3.1 Good practice in masterplanning new urban extensions or new settlements involvesputting together key structural elements that foster a rich mixture of uses and createneighbourhoods that are sustainable socially and environmentally, are accessible andeconomically viable and are good neighbours to their adjoining uses.

3.3.2 Conceptualising follows a staged process of putting together designs for thestructuring elements of

· movement - public transport and nodes and a street network that responds togood connectivity for pedestrians

· green space and water space systems

· land use pattern and density gradients

3.3.3 Assembling these coherently and in accordance with good urban design practicecreates a framework for a community that achieves a good balance socially,environmentally and economically.



- 24 -

Movement framework

3.3.4 On a strategic level the site will need to connect to more than one existing route toprovide a sensibility and semblance of a destination that has purpose (Inset 5).Through movement creates places and avoids sterility and abandonment of placesfrom remoteness. Sensitivity meanwhile is needed to the surrounding areas andvehicle traffic in particular needs careful and sensitive handling in design to achieve aright balance, achieving the right levels of movement without negatively impactingothers.

Inset 5: Strategic movement opportunities

3.3.5 A movement network concept is here shown to allow through bus movement andlimited vehicular movement to Boscathnoe Lane (Inset 6). To avoid domination by asingle street, a grid of streets would form the framework for a local street patternproviding excellent vehicular and pedestrian connections.



- 25 -

Inset 6: Public transport nodes opportunities

Street Network

3.3.6 A simple grid of streets connects the whole site and provides ample opportunity toprovide access to both neighbouring parts of Heamoor and to the local countrysidepublic footpath network (Inset 7). Three links to existing streets create goodconnections and potential for bus access options.

Inset 7: Street network



- 26 -

Green Space and Water Framework

3.3.7 A green space framework is designed not only to provide needed green space forpeople to use, but also to conserve landscape features of value, provide for naturalhabitats and linkages for wildlife, to form surface water catchment areas and toprovide vehicle free green movement routes. The concept links the low lyingLarriggan River valley areas into a natural green space, enlarging the woodlands thatadjoin the Boscathnoe reservoirs to create a significant resource (Inset 8). Provisionof a large on site green space in the centre of the development cell conserves theviews of green areas from Trengwainton and incorporates the main recreationalopportunities. These will have to be laid out with sensitivity in colour, form andvegetation, so they do not compromise distant views.

Inset 8: Green space and water

Land use and Density Pattern

3.3.8 The proposed density pattern provides for highest density (perhaps up to 45 dph)around the main bus routes and nodes, a main one on the lower ground to the north,and a minor local node on the upper south of the ridge, perhaps incorporating a minorlandmark feature (Inset 9). Both nodes would include civic space with widened streetareas. The remaining areas would be of lower density housing, with a rich tapestry ofskyline-breaking vegetation cover.



- 27 -

Inset 9: Land Use and Density

Development Yield

3.3.9 The development cell is expected to yield around 500 homes to help supply the rightamount of homes for Penzance in the Local Plan period.

3.3.10 The concept plan has three main areas of different density. Their respective quantitiesof homes might yield:

· high 45 dph 228 houses

· medium 35 dph 177 houses

· low 25 dph 47 houses

3.3.11 The conceptual plan (Figure 3) yields 451 homes and 3.16 ha of open space in thisconfiguration, conserving as it does, areas of mediaeval hedgerow and field tracks.

3.3.12 It has assumed that the development cell excludes the most visible parts of the sitefrom Trengwainton and that even within the cell, strategic green space occupies theclosest visible areas.

Environmental Assessment

3.3.13 The layout is a concept design to gauge the overall planning capacity of the site indesign terms. In order for any development to be approved, this needs to bedeveloped further using a full range of surveys of ecological, flood risk, traffic andlandscape and visual effects data for the entire cell. This should be used to develop adevelopment framework design and set design parameters for the individual phasesor parcels developed within the cell, and to ensure developers make contributions tothe costs of infrastructure for the whole development area.



- 28 -

3.3.14 A full Environmental Assessment of the entire cell will be needed to approve adevelopment of any parcel within it.

3.4 Approach to Minimising Impact

3.4.1 As an initial stage of minimising any adverse impact of the proposals, thewesternmost fields of the initial proposed development site, those most visible fromthe viewpoints on the terrace, were removed from the proposal in order to minimisevisual impact (see Section 3.2.2).

3.4.2 Other approaches to minimising impact largely rely on good design and sympatheticarchitectural accents. Approaches that may lessen the impact of development on thetwo key views (as identified in Section 4.1) are presented below.

3.4.3 The tree line on the ridge to the south of the proposed development, that includesRosehill, helps to frame the long-distance views out to sea. Development shouldneither impact upon these trees nor project above the canopy in order to maintain thatframe. High-rise development should not be considered as part of any proposal withinthe site. Providing adequate protection for the tree belt, through tree preservationorders (TPOs) and planning protection, should be considered.

Plate 2: Tree line on Rosehill that frames the long-range views out to sea, from VP2

3.4.4 A tree screen surrounding the Boscathnoe Reservoir currently helps to minimiseviews to the lower northern sections of the site. This tree screen should be maintainedthrough either TPOs or planning conditions to ensure future management in order tomaintain the screening effect.

3.4.5 Although the development would be added on to the edge of current developmentwithin Heamoor, it may be less visually obtrusive if it was to identify architecturallywith the rural landscape in which it is to be situated. Solitary farmsteads in the area



- 29 -

are often constructed of stone with slate roofs and a development that mimics thisarchitecturally may be more sympathetic.

Plate 3: Rural development of farmsteads with stone walls and slate roofs, to the west of Trengwainton

3.4.6 The use of low reflective traditional materials and dark natural colours would berequired for walls, roofs, window frames and rainwater goods.

3.4.7 The central green space should remain free from development and planted withnative species of tree common to the area that will mature to significant size. Playequipment and other amenity features, where provided, should be constructed fromtimber or other natural materials. The main park area and other green spaces will notbe lit at night.

3.4.8 Within development parcels green spaces will be incorporated that are large enoughto sustain groups of mature native trees. Occasional highlights could be formed usingclusters of pine trees.

3.4.9 Development parcels should make use of local features such as the stone-facedembanked boundaries or tree lined lanes to make the development more cohesivewith the surroundings.

3.4.10 Street lighting should be kept to a minimum or avoided where possible. Where safetyreasons make lighting necessary, full cut-off street dark sky ‘compliant’ lights (no lightemitted at or above 90 degrees from light source) shall be used to reduce light spill atnight. Where lighting is needed, if possible minimise the period that lighting isswitched on.

3.4.11 At present, a relatively high frequency of overhead services traverse the site, makingthese, and any future services, subterranean will have a beneficial effect on thesetting of Trengwainton.

3.4.12 Scope for a site appropriate feature (perhaps a community building) , structural objector even planting of an exotic tree group, that would form an attractive focal point ontop of the hill should be considered. The purpose of this feature in the landscape



- 30 -

would be to draw the eye away from other development. Its total height should nothowever break the height of the woodland belt behind at Roscadghill/Rosehill.

Inset 10: Use of feature as focal point



- 31 -

SECTION 4

VISUALISATIONS



- 32 -

4 VISUALISATIONS – VISIBILITY OF THE SITE AND VIEWS

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The development cell area is visible from the listed garden at Trengwainton (Figure4). As the gardens at Trengwainton are a designated heritage asset and open to thepublic (upon fee payment), it is important to address the degree of effects on theviews from this particular feature.

4.1.2 The key view points on which the visualisations were based were agreed in advanceof the study with the National Trust. It was agreed that the two key viewpoints wouldbe taken from either end of the terrace, from which the longest outward views arepossible. Although there are long-ranging views and key views from the first floor ofthe house, it is not publically accessible. A zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV)produced in the National Trust study suggests that residential development, similar tothat in the surrounding area, would not be visible from the house.

4.1.3 The National Trust leaflet provided on entry to the garden states that the HeadGardener's 'favourite Trengwainton moment' is "The Terrace on a clear day; you cansee for miles across the stunning blue water of Mount's Bay to the Lizard beyond."

4.1.4 The key viewpoints or viewing places are (see images below):

· Lawn in front of house – VP1 (Inset 11)

· Main terrace in gardens – VP2 (Inset 12)

4.1.5 Two site visits were carried out for the masterplan and visualisation study, on 16th and19th March 2015.The weather was cloudy and hazy on 16th March and hazy sunshineon 19th March.

4.2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)

4.2.1 The ZTV is a computer generated model based on mapped topography andsignificant vegetation blocks. The ZTV diagram prepared for the National Trust isextracted below (Inset 13) and shows that some of the centre of the site on the slopesbelow North Lodge are visible from the Trengwainton garden terrace.



- 33 -

Inset 11: View from VP1 – House lawn

Inset 12: View from VP2 – south end of terrace



- 34 -

Inset 13: Zone of Theoretical Visibility taken from Trengwainton Setting Study, 2015



- 35 -

4.3 Nature of the Views

4.3.1 The nature of the views examined are rural and pastoral with clusters of vegetationsometimes framing, sometimes criss-crossing the view that looks over the Larrigganvalley to the south. The views are largely experienced as static, rather than kinetic, asthough they form part of a promenade, the viewer has to stop and look deliberately totake in the details of the views. The view is also directed obliquely to the direction oftravel.

VP1 View Content and Nature

4.3.2 The view shown below (Inset 14) is from the house lawn, and is accessible to visitors.It is of gently undulating and largely vegetated horizon along with middle distant viewsof a borrowed pastoral landscape, pleasantly framed by a foreground of open pasture.This is lined by thick tree belt to the flanks and a hedgerow of trees at the end of thelarge open expanse of pasture. The uncluttered foreground contrasts with the foldinglines and clusters of distant woods and hedges. Lesigney Round forms part of theframe to the view.

4.3.3 The development site is only just visible on the very periphery of the view.

Inset 14: VP1 View Content and Nature

.



- 36 -



- 37 -

VP2 View Content and Nature

4.3.4 The view shown below (Inset 15) is from the southern end of the Terrace and isaccessible to visitors. The view is framed by strips of dense woodland with theMonterey cypress tree punctuating the left side of the foreground elements. Thevegetated hilltop at Rosehill/Roscadghill gently arches across the horizon containingthe sense of looking into a shallow valley of pasture and woodland. The houses atHeamoor speckle the distant vegetation and are contained by the tree covered skylineabove them.

Inset 15: VP2 View Content and Nature



- 38 -



- 39 -

4.4 View Analysis

VP1 View from house lawn

4.4.2 The view from the house lawn (Inset 18) shows the way the foreground framing andthe skyline bulge of Lesigney Round frame the view of the distant landscape with theverdant horizon of Rosehill maintaining the rich pastoral outlook. There are howeverno landmarks, though the eye is drawn to look for one to rest on, and the view istherefore drawn in to the dip in the horizon created by the Castle Horneck/ LarrigganRiver valley and its hint at the sea beyond. The view is rural in outlook, overwoodland, pasture and hedgerows with the occasional scattered farm building visible.

4.4.3 The views from the Terrace and lawn are part of a designed promenade, with severalseating positions, the Terrace with a gazebo at each end. The view from the houselawn is the beginning of this sequence and at the south end of the lawn the proposeddevelopment cell area becomes just visible.

Inset 18: View analysis of existing outlook at VP1

VP2 View from Terrace (south end)

4.4.4 The view from the Terrace (Inset 19) shows the way the foreground again frames theview towards the tree-covered Rosehill skyline. The framing together with the dip inthe hedgeline foreground trees draws the eye to the pastoral fields and hedgerowpatchwork in the middle distance, though the lack of a landmark feature means theexperience, whilst restful, perhaps lacks longevity in interest.

4.4.5 The houses at Heamoor are barely noticeable in the corner of the view in normal hazylight. In some stronger and clearer light conditions their contrasting whiter colour may



- 40 -

make them stand out more. North Lodge stands away from the rest of Heamoorthough its use of dark slate coloured roofing/cladding means it has the appearance ofa rural farm building appropriate to the context.

4.4.6 The views towards the development area and the surrounding ‘borrowed landscape’might be experienced sequentially or kinetically, though the views are at right anglesto the direction of travel of the garden promenade, with the eye taking in thepanorama either when pausing to view, or when stopping to sit on one of severalbenches or in one of the gazebos currently provided.

4.4.7 Views over the wooded skyline to Mounts Bay were not evident at the time of doingthe visual appraisal due to weather conditions but in good visibility the sea views pullthe vista away from the middle ground to the distant panorama. The elevatedprospect distances the viewer from the immediate landscape.

Inset 19: View analysis of existing outlook at VP2



- 41 -

4.5 Visibility of the Development

4.5.1 The following pages show the visualisations from VP1 and VP2 at inception (year 1)and at Year 15. The visualisations are based on the development as outlined in theconcept masterplan (Figure 2) with all of the suggested impact reduction measures(Section 3.4) incorporated in to the final development design.



- 42 -

Proposed outlook at VP1 – Year 1



- 43 -




- 44 -

Proposed outlook at VP 2 – Year 1



- 45 -




- 46 -

4.6 Visual Effects Assessment

4.6.1 The likely effects on the views from Trengwainton house lawn (VP1) and Terrace(VP2) are shown in the table below for Year 1 after development and Year 15 aftermitigation planting. The assessment assumes all mitigation suggestions discussed inSection 3.4 are implemented. See Appendix 1 for the visual effects assessmentmethodology.

Visual Effects Summary

4.6.2 The visitor to the Trengwainton gardens is deemed as being a visual receptor of highsensitivity to changes in view. This is due to their recreational visit being in part to seethe views from and to enjoy the garden visit experience. In addition the listed natureof the gardens indicate the house and it’s setting have a value above that of anordinary dwelling and its demesne, and its views from visitor accessed areas arevalued highly. These receptors may be moderately susceptibility to change in the viewas currently the view expresses a rural tranquillity and the alteration to show morebuilt structures may alter this perception at least in part.

4.6.3 The nature of the views examined are rural, pastoral and largely experienced asstatic, rather than as kinetic, though they form part of a promenade, the viewer has tostop and look deliberately to take in the details. The views are also changing all thetime with seasons and light conditions from weather, open to change to arablecropping/ horticulture that is carried out locally.

4.6.4 The key features in the views are the skyline trees at Roscadghill/Rosehill and thearch of the ridgeline that then frames the middle ground of the valley slopes.Retaining and respecting these skyline trees and setting all development beneaththem, with additional planting well integrated in and around new development parcelswould help reduce any urbanising effects on the view.

4.6.5 The operational visual effects are considered to be low for VP1 from the house lawnand moderate adverse for the view from VP2, the south Terrace.

Cumulative visual effects

4.6.6 The study shows that the visual effects on the setting of Trengwainton could bemoderately adverse. This needs to be considered alongside other adverse visualeffects on views to the house or from the listed gardens. It is clear that the gardenshave been managed dynamically and their primary focus has been inwards to thewoodlands and kitchen gardens. However the house outlook and late 19C terrace stillform part of the fabric and of the current visitor experience. Consideration needs to begiven to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, thesignificance of the asset.

4.6.7 Historic long distance views are outside the scope of this study, as this study islooking only at the development cell at Heamoor, but they do form part of the listingdescription for the gardens. This study was not able to examine possible dramaticviews towards St Michaels’ Mount due to atmospheric/weather conditions limitingdistant visibility so these views were not apparent. Their possible interruption by bothvegetation growth allowed to grow up on the estate and to more distant developmentof varying types and degrees of effect, alongside this moderate adverse impact of theHeamoor cell development, would merit further consideration.



- 47 -

Sensitivity Distance fromdevelopment

Magnitude of change Duration ofeffect

Degree ofeffect

Comments

VP1 High,Grade II*Listedgardens

1250m tonearestvisible portionof site

construction: Low. Only very edge ofdevelopment area visible. Higher objects suchas cranes and scaffold unlikely to be positionedin this area so little construction visible.

temporary neutral The proportion of the development area in the view is toosmall, partially obscured and is too distant to create anoticeable visual effect. A cluster of evergreen trees in theTrengwainton woodland gardens are important in framing theoverall view and screening all but the very edge of thedevelopment cell area. Maintaining this screen will ensurethe development cell area remains largely obscured from thehouse lawn.

operational: Low. Only a glimpse view ofdevelopment edge in corner of view and thenvisibility partly obscured by evergreen trees.

permanent neutral

VP2 High,Grade II*Listedgardens

1090m tonearest partvisiblebuilding

construction: High. A proportion of thedevelopment area in the middle distance nextto the primary school playing fields would bevisible during construction as would houses onthe ridge near North Lodge. Roofs of the lowerareas may be just visible above the middleground vegetation that adjoins the reservoirs atpresent. Whilst this would be a small proportionof the total view, its urban form and colouring,view of construction traffic, vehicles etc willcontrast to the rural surroundings. The accessstreet from Roscadghill Road will be visible as itdrops down the slope behind the primaryschool playing fields. Undergrounding of cableswould reduce their visual impact immediatelyafter construction but construction work andnew buildings would be highly visible until newplanting establishes.

temporary substantialadverse

The change would be substantial initially, until construction iscomplete, at which point the impact will reduce; the impactwill reduce further on establishment of new vegetation withgroups of tree planting. The nature of the view would alterfrom pastoral to part pastoral and part wooded, with rooftopglimpses in some parts of the wooded sections. Housingnorth of the primary school playing fields would be mostvisible, though only in glimpse views and again would in timebe broken up by vegetation. The largely distant panoramasobtained in fine visibility conditions would not be undulyinterrupted after vegetation matures.

Immediate benefits to the view of undergrounding electricitysupply would be slight as they are not substantial intrusionsin distant views from Trengwainton. They are of small scaleand they sit low in the valley so are viewed against thebackdrop of the fields and vegetation that largelycamouflages them.



- 48 -

Table 1: Table showing visual effects

operational: Medium. The scene would changewith the establishment of strategic natural andsemi-natural green spaces on what is currentlypasture and hedgerows in the centre of theview. Rooftops would be visible through newvegetation in the middle distance by theprimary school playing fields and partially soamongst vegetation, on the top of the ridgenear North Lodge. The strong vegetationframework would soften and camouflage thebuildings. There would be a change in theproportion of view that is currently rural fields toone that is more mixed, made up of rooftopsintermingled amongst vegetation. Planting tothe wet fields to the west of the site up to theLarriggan River watercourses would also addfurther vegetated woodland habitat from what ispresently farmed pasture though its whollynatural form would not adversely impact theview.

permanent moderateadverse The substantial adverse effect is temporary and will reduce

rapidly once construction is complete. Following theconclusion of the construction phase and the removal ofrelated infrastructure and plant, there would be a significantreduction in degree of effect on the view. This substantialadverse impact would then continue to gradually reduce overa period of time as planting matures and screening comes into effect.

Split phasing of development in relation to the sections in themiddle distance and that on the top of the hill should also beconsidered as separation of these would reduce temporaryadverse visual effects. Advance planting would also reducethe time for mitigation to take effect.



- 49 -

SECTION 5

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ON SETTING



- 50 -

5 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ON THE SETTING OF THE ASSETS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This assessment has been based on the theoretical development as laid out in theconcept masterplan and its potential effects on the setting of Trengwainton Houseand Gardens following the implementation of the suggested approach to minimiseimpact, as presented in the visualisations.

5.2 Methodology

Historic England in their guidance document, 'The Setting of Heritage Assets' (2015),5.2.1has provided a stepped approach to the assessment of significance of setting toheritage assets. Following Step 1, which is the initial identification of the heritageassets as undertaken by the National Trust), the subsequent steps comprise:

· Step 2: Assessing whether, how and to what degree the settings make acontribution to the significance of the heritage assets;

· Step 3: Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the setting, and theresulting implications for the significance of the heritage asset(s);

· Step 4: Maximising enhancement and minimising harm (mitigation).

5.2.2 Step 2: was undertaken in the study commissioned by the National Trust.

Step 3: Having assessed the contribution of the setting to the significance of the5.2.3asset, the effect of the proposed scheme on the setting can be determined byconsideration of the potential attributes of the proposed scheme affecting setting.These are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Step 3 - Potential Attributes of the Proposed SchemeAttribute Factors to consider

Location and siting ofthe scheme

· Proximity to asset;· Extent;· Position in relation to landform;· Degree to which location will physically or visually isolate asset;· Position in relation to key views

The form andappearance of thescheme

· Prominence, dominance, or conspicuousness;· Competition with or distraction from the asset;· Dimensions, scale and massing;· Proportions;· Visual permeability;· Materials (texture, colour, reflectiveness, etc.);· Architectural style or design;· Introduction of movement or activity;· Diurnal or seasonal change

Other effects of thescheme

· Change to built surroundings and spaces;· Change to skyline;· Noise, odour, vibration, dust, etc.;· Lighting effects and ‘light spill’;



- 51 -

Attribute Factors to consider· Change to general character (e.g. suburbanising or

industrialising);· Change to public access, use or amenity;· Change to land use, land cover, tree cover;· Changes to archaeological context, soil chemistry or hydrology;· Changes to communications/accessibility/permeability

Permanence of thescheme

· Anticipated lifetime/temporariness;· Recurrence;· Reversibility

Longer term orconsequential effectsof the scheme

· Changes to ownership arrangements;· Economic and social viability;· Communal and social viability

5.2.4 Once the sensitivity and contribution of the setting has been determined and thepotential attributes of the proposed scheme upon it have been identified, themagnitude of the potential impact (adverse or beneficial) needs to be evaluated.

5.2.5 The criteria for assessing the magnitude of impacts on setting are presented below(Table 3). This presents definitions of varying scales of harm or benefit to thecontribution of the setting.

Table 3: Step 3 - Criteria for Assessment of Magnitude of an Impact on theSetting of a Cultural Heritage AssetMagnitude Guideline CriteriaMajor beneficial The contribution of setting to the cultural heritage asset’s

significance is considerably enhanced as a result of thedevelopment; a lost relationship between the asset and itssetting is restored, or the legibility of the relationship isgreatly enhanced. Elements of the surroundings thatdetract from the asset’s cultural heritage significance orthe appreciation of that significance are removed.

Moderate beneficial The contribution of setting to the cultural heritage asset’ssignificance is enhanced to a clearly appreciable extent asa result of the development; as a result the relationshipbetween the asset and its setting is rendered more readilyapparent. The negative effect of elements of thesurroundings that detract from the asset’s cultural heritagesignificance or the appreciation of that significance isappreciably reduced.

Minor beneficial The setting of the cultural heritage asset is slightlyimproved as a result of the development, slightlyimproving the degree to which the setting’s relationshipwith the asset can be appreciated.

Negligible The setting of the cultural heritage asset is changed bythe development in ways that do not alter the contributionof setting to the asset’s significance.



- 52 -

Magnitude Guideline CriteriaMinor adverse The contribution of the setting of the cultural heritage

asset to its significance is slightly degraded as a result ofthe development, but without adversely affecting theinterpretability of the asset and its setting; characteristicsof historic value can still be appreciated, the changes donot strongly conflict with the character of the site, andcould be easily reversed to approximate the pre-development conditions.

Moderate adverse The contribution of the setting of the cultural heritageasset to its significance is reduced appreciably as a resultof the development. Relevant setting characteristics canstill be appreciated but less readily.

Major adverse The contribution of the setting of the cultural heritageasset to its significance is effectively lost or substantiallyreduced as a result of the development, the relationshipbetween the asset and its setting is no longer readilyappreciable.

5.3 Assessment of Impact

5.3.1 The study commissioned by the National Trust (Nicholas Pearson Partnership LLP2015) concludes that the setting of Trengwainton has a high sensitivity and this isbased on a number of core setting areas (1-6). The core setting areas visible withinVP1 are mainly 4 and 6; those within VP2 are 4, 5 and 6.

5.3.2 The proposed development site lies across two core setting areas as identified in theNT study. These are:

· Core setting area 5: Boscathnoe and Approach; and

· Core setting area 6: Ancient Enclosure – Rose Hill Farm and Lesingey

5.3.3 There will be no physical impact on core setting area 4 that comprises much of theview from VP1.

5.3.4 Defining the sensitivity of the setting of the assets as high suggests that the setting is‘Contemporary with and historically and functionally linked with the heritage asset,with minor alterations (in extent and/or character), has a high degree of intervisibilitywith the asset and which makes a substantial contribution to both the significance ofthe heritage asset and to the understanding and appreciation of the significance of theasset.’

5.3.5 A concern for the Boscathnoe and Approach core setting area, as raised in the study,is that the approach to Trengwainton is being eroded by development; the retention ofa clear boundary is seen as key for this setting area. The tree tunnel that leads to theentrance of the property should be maintained and its retention will help to create awell-defined boundary that signifies the approach to Trengwainton. The bend inBoscathnoe Lane and the location of the reservoirs demarcates the end of theproposed residential development and the start of the approach to Trengwainton, thedevelopment will not impact upon this key boundary feature.



- 53 -

Plate 4: The proposed development site, to the left, does not engage with the entrance to Trengwaintondue to the bend in Boscathnoe lane in the distance (facing west)

5.3.6 Boscathnoe Lane does not engage with the entrance to Trengwainton until the verynortheastern corner of the proposed development site and beyond it. Setting thedevelopment back from Boscathnoe Lane slightly and maintaining a green corridoralong the northern edge of the development should help to emphasise this transitionalpoint. The masterplan would allow for this green margin to be planted with similarvegetation and evergreen underplanting as is found further along the lane, to thewest, near the entrance to Trengwainton. This would extend the character of thegreen approach to the estate entrance.

5.3.7 The Rose Hill Farm and Lesingey core setting area is highly sensitive to land usechange. Removing the westernmost fields from the potential development site willhelp to maintain as much of the patchwork of fields as possible. Where planting isused to screen development this will increase the ‘wooded character of the farmland’as described in the character of the core setting area, making the mitigationsympathetic to a key characteristic.

5.3.8 The proposed development site is located within a small valley between the hill onwhich Trengwainton is located and a small ridge at Rosehill at the south of thedevelopment area. The entrance to the property is 200m from the edge of theproposed development, with the visualisation key viewpoints approximately 1km fromthe western edge of the proposed area. The site is located in the mid-range views outfrom the garden terrace at Trengwainton, which includes VP2, and is largely onlyvisible from that location. The remainder of the gardens are inward facing, whilstestablished mature tree screens prevent views from the house to the site.



- 54 -

5.3.9 In terms of impacts on the long-distance views from Trengwainton, the proposeddevelopment should create negligible effects. If development is designed with thesuggested impact reduction proposals incorporated, there would be no high-risedevelopment to impact on views, particularly those out to landmarks such as St.Michael’s mount. The treeline on Rosehill would be retained, and development keptbelow it in order to maintain the current skyline.

5.3.10 The majority of the area identified in the NT study ZTV (Section 4.2) as visible fromthe terrace (VP2) has either been removed from the original proposed developmentarea or is marked out as green space in the concept masterplan. Reducing thedevelopment area has ensured that there should be only a minimal view of the sitefrom VP1 and therefore this will remain largely unaffected. The northern core ofdevelopment will not be visible from the terrace (VP2) as long as development doesnot exceed 10m in height, and the southern core of development will either not bevisible or could be easily screened with trees to limit views. Tree screening andmature planting, may have the added beneficial effect of obscuring the developmentalready present at Heamoor.

5.3.11 The proposed impact reduction measures have been compiled to ensure that thedevelopment is not visually dominant within the landscape. With the measures inplace the view of the development from VP2 should be largely limited to rooflineswithin an increasingly mature treescape. The use of key features, such as a sculpturalobject or group planting of exotic trees to draw the eye (section 3.4.12), may alsoreduce the visual prominence of the development.

5.3.12 The scale of development could be kept to single storey in the most visually sensitiveareas of the site, in particular the ridge at the south of the development and materialsshould be chosen in order to minimise reflectiveness. If architectural styles aresympathetic to the nature of the development site they will perpetuate the ruralcharacter of the area, being reminiscent of the local farmhouses rather thanmimicking the styles of the residential developments to the east. Good designproposals and strategic planting should ensure that the development is not visuallyintrusive and is architecturally sympathetic to the landscape.

5.3.13 Although a public footpath traverses the site, there is likely to be an increase inmovement and activity. Using local and native species of plant and tree should ensurethat the seasonal changes in the development are cohesive with those in thelandscape.

5.3.14 Keeping development below the treeline already present on Rosehill, which framesthe views out to sea, will ensure that the skyline should remain as it is at present. Allcurrent and new services should be made subterranean, which would addressconcerns raised by the NT study (Section 6.5.3) and be of beneficial effect to thesetting of Trengwainton as they will no longer have an effect in the views. At the timeof visiting the volume of noise from within the gardens would suggest that anyexternal noise volumes were likely to be negligible in comparison. Light spill should beavoided by keeping lighting to the minimum levels required for safety.

5.3.15 There will be a change in land use from enclosed pastoral land to residentialdevelopment, however much of the pastoral land within the key view from VP2 will beretained and the proposed impact minimising measures should ensure that the areadoes not have an overly suburbanised character. As previously mentioned, in section5.3.11, using architectural styles typical of the surrounding rural development shouldhelp to retain a sense of the previous identity and character of the site. The land alongthe Larriggan River valley, which draws the eye down through the landscape, will



- 55 -

remain as enclosed pastoral land retaining this key characteristic of the view and ofCore setting area 6.

5.3.16 Although the development will alter the view from VP2 implementation of thesuggested minimising measures should ensure that the concentrations ofdevelopment are limited to areas not visible from the key viewpoints and that thoseareas that will be visible will be masked and significantly camouflaged by matureplanting where possible reducing the distraction from longer views over the Rosehillridge to the bay and The Lizard. Where development can be glimpsed, good designmeasures should have ensured that it is unobtrusive and sympathetic to its location.

5.3.17 Any development will still retain a sense of separation from Trengwainton due to thetopography and nature of the landscape. The elevated position of the terrace and thefall of the land create a natural sense of division between the terrace and the middleground of the views, almost providing a drop zone on clear days when views out to St.Michael’s mount and Lizard Point are available.

5.3.18 The contribution of the setting of Trengwainton to its significance will be slightlydegraded as a result of the proposed development, but this will not adversely affectthe interpretability of the asset and its setting. Many of the characteristics of historicvalue, such as the view out to St. Michaels mount and the view from the terrace, canstill be appreciated. The impact on the setting of Trengwainton from the proposednew development is considered to be minor adverse.



- 56 -

SECTION 6

BIBLIOGRAPHY



- 57 -

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cornwall County Council, 2008 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Landscape CharacterStudy Landscape Character Area Description - Mount’s Bay LCA No CA04,

Cornwall Council, 2011 Penzance and Newlyn Town Framework Plan, UrbanExtension Plan, Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

David Orr Consulting 2015 Visual effects on Trengwainton of development atHeamoor, Penzance

Historic England, 2011 Seeing the History in the View: A Method for AssessingHeritage Significance in Views, London

Historic England, 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, London

Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment, 2011 Guidelinesfor Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition

Natural England, 2012 National Character Area, 156 West Pemwith

Nicholas Pearson Partnership LLP, 2015 National Trust - Trengwainton: Setting Study

Scottish Office, 1994 Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape, PAN 44,



- 58 -

FIGURES



- 59 -



- 60 -



- 61 -



- 62 -



- 63 -

APPENDIX 1



- 64 -



- 65 -

Documents

Cornwall Site Allocations DPD Heritage Assessment: Heamoor › media › 26898603 › appendix-1-wsp-pb-heamo… · WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB) was commissioned by Cornwall