Sheepcotes Farmhouse - Lower Road

Your ref: LOCALLIST 022010

Your letter dated 8th February 2011 was considered by this Council at its meeting held on Monday 14 March 2011 and the following comments were made:

Description/Name

Comunity Centre, Ferry Road SS5 6ND - this is actually the Old School Building currently named The Saltings now used by ECC as Youth Centre and not the community centre It was agreed this should be included

Shell Cottage, 273 Ferry Road, SS5 6ND
It was agreed this should be included

River Cottage (formerly Rose Cottage), 286 Ferry Road, SS5 6ND It was agreed this should be included

301 Ferry Road, SS5 6NA
It was agreed this should be included as it is a building of historical interest. It used to be the Wayfarers Cafe and soldiers from WW2 were lodged there.

Wharfe Riverside, SS5 6NA
It was agreed this should be included as it dates back to the 1930s

Sheepcotes Farmhouse, Lower Road, SS5 6AN It was agreed this should NOT be included

Malyons Farhouse, Malyons Farm, SS5 6EN
It was agreed this should be included

Additional items of street furniture considered to be included:
Hullbridge Monument - junction of Hullbridge Road/Lower Road Hullbridge Village sign - Lower Road (near junction of Pevensey Gardens)

Objection to the Local List SPD Discussions and Consultation Document Relating to Sheepcotes Farm, Lower Road, Hockley

With reference to the above named document which is open for consultation until 6 May 2011, please find enclosed our objection relating to the inclusion of Sheepcotes Farm, Lower Road, Hockley into the document.

This statement objects to the Local List Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Discussions and Consultation Document and the proposed listing of the dwelling at Sheepcotes Farm, Lower Road, Hockley (page 130 of the SPD).

Section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to compile or approve a list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest. As such it is essential to consider the statutory requirements for listing as well as the guidance provided in PPS5, by English Heritage and by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on listing buildings.

English Heritage identifies that listing is 'an identification stage where buildings are marked and celebrated as having exceptional architectural or historic special interest'. In this area, the Hockley Hall, 18th century milestones and Hockley Spa have all been identified as having exceptional historic and architectural interest. To determine whether the dwelling at Sheepcotes Farm can justifiably be included on the local list and given a comparable status to these buildings, the architectural and historic interest, the structural stability of the dwelling and the Council's justification for proposing to include it on the list must all be considered.

Does the dwelling have Exceptional Architectural Interest?

PPS5 states that architectural interest is 'an interest in the art of science of design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings and structures of all types.' This is reflective of the statutory requirements for listing buildings which are also referred to by DCMS in 'Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings' 2010.

To be considered a heritage asset the building must be of value to the historic environment. It is considered that the dwelling does not offer any significant or specific architectural interest to the historic environment for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the dwelling is typical and traditional form of construction which is used in the majority of dwellings prior to 1940. It is a simple wooden framed building with brick in fills. There is nothing exceptional about the construction of this building.

Secondly, many of the original features of the dwelling have been altered. There are also limited decorations on the building, with relatively recent pargeting added by the occupiers. Prior to this the dwelling had been rendered in white and black but was originally red brick. As such the original state and architectural design of the dwelling no longer exists.

No design or decorative features are reflective of the time the dwelling was built. This includes the window lintels which have changed continuously over the past 40 or so years and are of different sizes and colours to the originals. These features are not exceptional or uncommon in any new development. They are not reflective of the time they were built and are easily replicable in any new project.

With structural unsoundess, internal arrangements of the dwelling have also needed to change. A modern kitchen was installed with a new solid floor to allow stability when walking through. Prior to this the floors were suffering from extensive rot and were unsafe. This remains a problem throughout the dwelling and resultantly, many of the rooms are not used. This modern kitchen is now the main living space in the house.

Importantly, architectural interest is not just based on external appearance, the interior and structural ability of that property to remain and be preserved are also relevant. In this instance, the structural problems of the dwelling discussed below raise difficulties in allowing the property to be maintained. For these reasons, the dwelling is not considered to have any exceptional architectural interest.

Does the dwelling have Exceptional Historic Interest?

PPS5 states that historic interest is 'an interest in past lives and events (including prehistoric). Heritage assets can illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets with historic interest not only provide a material record of our nation's history, but can also provide an emotional meaning for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise wider values such as faith and cultural identity'.

This similarly reflects the statutory requirements for listing and the DCMS requirements for proving historic interest in buildings as:-

- Showing important aspects of social, economic, cultural or military history
- showing close historical associations with nationally important people
- showing some quality of interest in its physical fabric

These statutory requirements clearly reflect those buildings which have been listed in Hockley (e.g. the spa building etc). However, Sheepcotes Farm house has always been private not public. It has no value to the local community particularly as farming has always been carried out by the family. The only historic relevance of this dwelling would be to the occupiers and their family providing personal memories. The farm as a whole provides a general history to the area but this is one of a typical Essex village with many farms forming part of the community. The proposed listing of the dwelling would not demonstrate the relevance of the holding nor would it help to maintain the farm as a working holding.

English Heritage identifies importantly that 'local listing helps to raise the profile of local heritage by identifying heritage assets that are of greatest importance to local people.' There is no historic record or evidence to show that the dwelling has any significance to the village or that its retention as a listed property would offer any social, economic or cultural benefit to the local community. Therefore including the dwelling on the local list would go against the intention to protect locally relevant heritage assets.

What is the structural stability of the dwelling?

A structural report has been carried out on the dwelling at Sheepcotes Farm. This report shows that the dwelling is structurally unsound and requires stripping back to the basic frame if the dwelling is to remain. A copy of this report is produced in Appendix A.

Importantly, if the dwelling requires such extensive works to remain habitable and contribute to the running of the farm, the historic element of the building will no longer exist. Therefore the listed building would either remain in its present state and uninhabited, potentially affecting the running of the farm, or it would be renovated and the entire appearance altered. Neither option is acceptable. Listed buildings are by their nature historic and architecturally interesting. Therefore removing any part of its history or design would not be within the required criteria for listing. Listing also requires buildings to be prevented from further degradation. However, such works in this instance would not be possible as retrofitting a dwelling that was built to breath, as is the case here, would cause further damp, rot and potential collapse.

The owner of the dwelling has provided further information that the dwelling has no footings and as a result water runs under the house during bad weather. This can be heard but cannot be stopped. This is causing problems with the movement of the land and dwelling making it liable to further structural damage. In addition, the building suffers from extensive rot making many rooms unsafe and unusable. This is not efficient and listing the dwelling will only prevent efforts to rectify such problems.

It is also important to recognise that this report does not cover any issues of sustainability only the costs of renovation and repair. A new dwelling would be designed to meet code level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes whereas the costs to meet these requirements for the existing property would be extortionate. It would be impossible and totally unfeasible for the existing property to meet these modern sustainability requirements.



The Council's justification for inclusion on the local list SPD

Notwithstanding the issues above it is also essential to examine the Council's justification for proposing to include the dwelling in the local list SPD. This information forms the foundations of the Council's reasoning and therefore it has to be complete. However, this does not appear to be the case.

Before looking at the text, it is important to examine the photograph as this will form part of the document. This photograph shows an unattractive building which is undergoing alterations. These alterations move the dwelling further away from its original state. The photograph does not show the original dwelling as built.

The opposing view is that the photograph is also not a current image. The occupier has confirmed that the photograph was taken over 5 years ago when 2 Council officers came to the site to 'update their records'. Until now nothing has been said about the dwelling. One has to question why it has taken so long for the Council to suggest the local listing of the property when action could have been taken immediately. The fact that nothing was done, either for local or national listing, demonstrates that at that point in time the dwelling was not considered to be locally significant.

Following on from this, it is not considered that the Council has provided any justification for including the dwelling on the local list. This is essential given the requirements for historic and architectural interest to be proved. The only evidence provided is from a book written by Leslie Vingoe in 1999, a former Parish Councillor of the 1980's who moved to the area in the 1970's. Relevant extracts from this book are produced in Appendix B. The book only mentions Sheepcotes Farm in passing on 1 page; there is no reference of the house at all. The extract reads as follows:

'Many ancient farms still exist in the locality such as Blouts (1453), Pickerells (1579), Coventry Farm (1523), Boxes (1403), Highlands (1412) and Bartons, first mentioned in 1500. However the present farmhouse dates from the beginning of the century as the original building, much nearer the river, was destroyed by fire. Lovedown and Sheepcotes Farm also have long histories. In the grounds of Sheepcotes Farm it is possible to see the ridges and furrows left by the old method of ploughing'.

Other than this, there is no other mention of the farm in the book. As such the Council has based its entire justification for listing a dwelling on a single sentence which shows no interest in the dwelling, provides no in depth discussion of the history and wrongly refers the furrows which were actually dug by an older family member of the occupiers for planting in the garden. The land where these furrows lie is a garden area and has never formed part of the working farm land. There are also no photograpsh of Sheepcotes in the book despite photographs of other farms being produced.

Based on this, the relevance of Sheepcotes Farm has clearly been significantly over emphasised in proposing to include the dwelling on the local list. The dwelling has no relevance to the historic growth of Hockley. Furthermore, reliance on this one single reference to the holding, not dwelling, demonstrates that the dwelling does not have any architectural interest; a requirement that must be provided by evidence (PPS5).

In terms of the description, the information provided on the proposed listing page is factually incorrect. It also refers only to the front elevation of the dwelling. No consideration has been given to any other elevation, the conservatory or the single storey rear projection. Neither has any consideration been given to the internal arrangement of the dwelling. In fact no internal inspection of the dwelling has taken place or been requested. These are all essential features to consider but the Council has simply failed to take into account. It is nonsensical to suggest listing an

The fundamental aspect to listing any building is its date. The proposed listing page does not provide a date or rough guidance date for the dwelling's original construction. The Council clearly did not do any research prior to proposing to include the dwelling in the local list SPD and therefore has missed a vital piece of information which would essentially determine whether the features referred to in the SPD are significant to the time of construction. The Council has just presumed this to be the case.

Final remarks:

This statement objects to the inclusion of Sheepcotes Farmhouse in the Local List Supplementary Planning Document discussions document.

The legislative requirements to show historic and architectural interest have been examined above. It has been clearly demonstrated that the building has neither architectural nor historic interest.

The dwelling would considerably devalue the local list and the intentions to identify and protect buildings of local relevance. The proposed inclusion is based on an old photograph which does not show the current or original appearance of the dwelling. In addition, reliance has been put heavily on a book produced in 1999 which refers to the holding in one sentence only and fails to mention anything about the house. The overreliance on this book by the Council serves to demonstrate that there is no special interest in the dwelling or the farm holding.

There is nothing in the document produced by the Council which clearly shows the Sheepcotes Farm house in worthy of obtaining listed status, nor to show that the dwelling is worthy of retention. The structural report shows the dwelling is structurally unsound and listing the property would cause significant problems for the future running of the holding.

The Council has given no consideration to the internal structure of the house and has only focused on the front elevation. Without fully understanding the dwelling it is not logical to put this property on the local list. This would make a mockery of the very important buildings and structures on the local list, degrading its relevance in relation to the history of the area.

The conclusion is drawn that there are no reasonable grounds for including the dwelling on the local list.

Community Centre - Agree
Shell Cottage - Agree
River Cottage - Agree
301 Ferry Road - Disagree. Should be included.
Wharfe Riverside - Disagree. Smugglers Den of historic importance, should be included.
Sheepcotes Farmhouse - Agree
Malyons Farmhouse - Agree