HERITAGE,DESIGNAND

ACCESSSTATEMENTFor

REORDERING&NEWSINGLESTOREYEXTENSION

toSTMARY’SCHURCH,

DEVIZES

APRIL2020

HERITAGE,DESIGNANDACCESSSTATEMENTForREORDERING&NEWSINGLESTOREYEXTENSIONtoSTMARY’SCHURCH,DEVIZES

APPLICANTS: ThePCCofStMary’sChurch,Devizesc/oMrTonyScorerTheMallingsPo<erneRoadDevizesSSN105DBAGENT: ChedburnCodd GloveFactoryStudios 1BrookLane Holt,BradfordonAvonWiltshire BA146RLSITE: StMary’sChurchNewParkStreetDevizesSN101DS

PROJECT:

New single storey extension with landscaped gathering area to replace exisQng vestry (toincludenewoffice,toilets,kitchen,entrancehallandmeeQng/greenroom)includinginternalreorderingworks.

THISAPPLICATION:

ThisapplicaQonshouldbereadinconjuncQonwiththedrawingsandphotographsprovided.

DRAWINGS:

ThefollowingdrawingsareprovidedaspartoftheapplicaQon:

1735/01 LocaQonPlan1735/02 ChurchFloorPlanAsExisQng1735/04 ChurchSecQonsAsExisQng1735/05 ChurchElevaQonsAsExisQng1735/06 SitePlanAsExisQng1735/20A MasterplanAsProposed1735/21A ElevaQonsAsProposed1735/22A SecQonsAsProposed1735/23A SitePlanAsProposed1735/24A RoofPlanAsProposed1735/25 SecQons/ElevaQonsasProposed

[ ] 1

HERITAGESTATEMENT

Se]ng

‘KnowYourPlace’OSMap1844-1888GoogleMaps2019

St Mary’s Church sits within the Devizes ConservaQon Area and is located centrally withinDevizestothenortheastoftheMarketPlacebetweenCommercialRoadandNewParkStreet.

ThechurchisposiQonedwithinanenclosedchurchyardandaccessisviatwogatedentrancesto thewest and south fromNewPark Street (either sideof theCastleHotel). The church issurrounded on all sides by adjacent residenQal and commercial properQes, including closeproximitytoTheCastleHoteltothesouth.

Significance

ThechurchofStMary,Devizes,isGradeIListedandisconstructedofcoursedashlarwithBathashlardressings.Thechurchconsistsofa largenave,northaisle,southaisle,chancel,vestry,westtowerandsouthporch.ThenorthandsouthaisleroofsaredressedinleadandthenaveandchancelarecoveredwithstoneQles.

Theoriginalchurchwasconstructedinthe12thCenturyandtheonlyelementofthiserathatremainsisthechancel.Theremainderofthechurchwaslargelyrebuilt in15thCentury.LateralteraQonstookplacethroughoutthe16thCentury,whichincludedinternalworkstothealtar,organ,roodscreenandlog.Fromthe17thCenturyfurtheralteraQonsincludedremodellingofthewestwindowanddoorwaysformedwithinthetower(toaccessthegallery).

Following theseworks it is suggested that no furthermajor workwas undertaken unQl themid-19thcenturywhentheeastchancelwallandtheeastwindowwereadded.Otherworksinthe19th century included introducQonof the clergy vestryon thenorth sideof the chancel,relaying the floor, displacing some ledger stones andmaking a newpewplaiorm. Late 19thcenturyunderpinningworks carriedouton the tower and re-roofingof the chancel. Majorrepairworkswerecarriedoutinthe20thCenturythatincludedrepairstothenaveandtowerroofs,newheaQngsystem,electriclighQngandrepairstotheclock.

HistoryofGalleries

takenfromP16onwardsofHistoricBuildingAssessment(Appendix3):4.4.5In1697twodoorwaywerecutinthetower,withabillfor“Lymeandworkmanshipincu]ngthe2doresintheTower16s.131toallowaccesstothenewgallerywhichhadjustbeenerected.

[ ] 2

P214.5.11PerhapsthegreatestamountofchangesincetheElizabethanreformaQonoccurredin1706whenanewgallerywasinserted.Aplana<achedtothe1854faculty(figure35)showsthelayoutofthegalleriesbeforethealteraQons.Itseemsmostlikelythatthe1697galleryonlyoccupiedthespaceunderneaththetowerandthatthisnewgallerysawtheexpansiontothatshownintheplanextendingitouttothefirstarcadeinthenaveandinthetwobaysoverthesouthdoor.Weknowthattheundersideofthenewgallerycovered45yards(probablysquareyards)asDanielCu]ngwaspaidfor"seilingthenewgallery,45yardsat10sayard".179ForthecreaQonofthisnewgallerythebuilder,AmbroseZealy(jnr)waspaid£25.Therewerealsoanumberofotherpaymentsforconnectedworkanditemssuchaslocksandkeysandbeerforworkers.

ItisclearthattherehasbeenmorethanonegalleryinsertedintothetowerinthelonghistoryofStMary’s.Ourproposalsincludeanewmezzanineplaiormatfirstfloorlevelabovethewestdoor,toserveprimarilyasavantagepointfortechnicaltheatredesksforshowsofallgenres.ThemezzaninewillbeofalightweightconstrucQonsupportedfromthegroundfloorratherthanthewallsofthetower,inordertominimiseharmtothehistoricfabric.AccesswillideallymakeuseoftheexisQngspiralstairwithinthetowerwalls,accessibleifthedoorwayisreopened.

Historyofpews

takenfromP20onwardsofHistoricBuildingAssessment(Appendix3):4.5.6ItwouldappearthatatthisQme[1691]theseats(oratleastasignificantproporQon)wererenewed,with"It.Recd.ofthosethatdositintheseatsthatarenewlybuiltandnewplankedijliviijs(thesenewseatshadbeenshortlybeforeerectedatthecostof£27)".172ThesewereprobablytheboxpewsthatsurvivedunQlthe1854restoraQon,asmallglimpseofwhichcanbeseeninthewatercolourbyNashdated1809figure34andtheirlayoutisshowninapre1854plan(figure35).P234.5.24Themajorrefurbishmentof1854completelytransformedthechurch.ProposedworkstotheChurchofSt.MaryDevizesTotakedownallthepresentgalleries,pewsandseatsandremovetheflooringandpaving.ToclearouttheearthwithinthechurchforvenQlaQonunderfloorsandfornewpaving.Toformairchannels…P264.5.35Thewarboughttwosignificantchangestothenave.FirstlytheinstallaQonofblackoutcurtainsin1940,229whichwerefinallyremovedinJanuary1948,230andtheremoval,in1942,ofthepewsattheeastendofthesouthaisletocreatespacefortheSundaySchool

TherehasbeenarecentfacultytoremoveanumberofpewsfromthewestofthenorthaisletoinvesQgatedamagecausedbutdampingress.

HistoryofOrgan

takenfromP17ofHistoricBuildingAssessment(Appendix3):4.4.13ThemajorrestoraQonworkthatwasundertakenin1854sawtheremovalofthesubstanQalgalleries.ThatunderthetowerwasreplacedbyanorgangallerywhichheldthenewlycommissionedorganfromSweetland&Co.4.4.14In1877theorganwasremovedfromitsposiQonunderthetowerandplacedattheeastendofthenorthaisle,thegalleryremovedandthestairturretdoortoitblocked.

[ ] 3

Thisiswheretheorgancurrentlysitsandweproposethatthisismovedtothesouthwestcornerofthechurchtoallowthenewdoorwaytobeformedunderthewindowintheeastendofthenorthaisle,givingaccesstotheproposednewfaciliQes.PleaserefertoAppendix2fordetailedStatementofSignificanceandAppendix3fortheHistoricBuildingAssessmentbyMaHhewMcMurray.

Pevsnerdescribesthechurch:StMaryhasaNormanchancel.ItdatesfromthesameQmeasthatofSt John,andmaywellbeduetoBishopRoger’s liberality too.Externally theNormanwork is recognisableby theflatbu<resses, corbel-table, and the square stoneblocks. TheEwindow is Victorian (Above it a late medieval statue of the Virgin. The Early VictorianrestoraNonofthechurchwasbyR.C.Carpenter(P.Joyce)).Internallyagainonehasthesurpriseofatwo-bayrib-vault.Thesamefatrolls,thesameintersectedarches,thoughonlyafragmentontheswallisoriginal.ThestretchontheEwalliswhollyrenewed.Thedetailsseemali<leearlier than at St John, i.e less wild (no scale pa<ern, thinner zig zag). Norman also, andevidentlyre-used,thezigzagbandsupthearchofthesporchentrance.Apartfromthisarchandthechancel,thechurchisPerp.ThereisaninscripQonintheroofrecordingtherebuildingofchurchbyWilliamSmith,whodiedin1436(‘quiistamecclesiamfierifecit’etc.).TallWtower.Diagonal bu<resses,with bu<ress-shags and pinnacles in relief. Pinnacles. Pairs of two-lightbell-openings.

Four-lightWwindowwithtransom;nichesl.andr.Aisleandclerestorywindowsofthreelights.Gargoyles,ba<lements.Theclerestoryhaspinnaclestoo,andthemiddleoneoftheEwall,asatStJohn,isatallcanopiednicheinstead.ItsplinthhasWilliamSmithsiniQals.Two-storeyedemba<le s porch. Inside, arcades of five bays with octagonal piers and double-hollow-chamferedarches.Lowpanelledchancelarch.Thenichesl.andr.lookallVictorian.TalltowerarchandQerceron-starvaultinthetower,withabigcircleforthebell-ropesandbosses.NaveroofoflowpitchwithQe–beamsandtraceryover.Goodcorbelheads.FONT.Octagonal,Perp,withtracerypa<ern.ORGAN.Gothic;earlyc19.WESTDOOR.Traceried.SCULPTURE.Pelicanofwoodover theSdoor.Was it a roof corbel?WEATHERCOCK (under the tower)Brass.PLATE.Set,1789.MONUMENT.JohnGarth1761.Portraitbust inanovalmedallionhangingfromanobelisk.

References:TheBuildingsofEngland,Wiltshire-NikolausPevsner–Devizes,StMaryHistoricEnglandLisNngDescripNon:ChurchofStMaryListEntryNumber:1251640Datefirstlisted:09-Apr-1954HistoricBuildingAssessment–MaHhewMcMurray2009

StatementofNeed

Thechurchhavedemonstratedandprovidedevidence(withintheirStatementofNeed,seeAppendix4&TheBusinessPlan,SeeAppendix7)thatthereiscurrentlynoviablecongregaQonandifthechurchwastobelegtoconQnueitwouldbeforcedtobemaderedundant.Toavoidthishappening,thePCCdecidedtoinvolvethelocalcommunitytodeterminethechurch’sfuture.ThePCCputforwardtheideatocarryoutalteraQonstoStMary’stocreatea‘MediumPlaceofAssembly;withacapacityofaround250persons(seated)foruseasanarts,sports,socialandmeeQngspaceandservicedaccommodaQonforchariQes’.

ThePCCreceivedanoverwhelmingsupportfortheideaofcommunityuseandthereforethePCCwishtocarryoutalteraQonsandintroducethenewfaciliQestocaterforthisuse.Withincreasedandregularusethechurch,thisaddedbenefitwillensuretheregularmaintenanceandrepaircostscanbecoveredandensurethelongevityofthechurchintothefuture.

[ ] 4

WefeelthattherevisedproposedschemenowrepresentstheopQmumviableuseforthebuilding.ItmeetstheneedsofthechurchandlocalcommunityandmoreimportantlywefeelthepublicbenefitwilloutweightheharmthroughtheposiQvechangestothebuilding.Iftheproposalsarenotcarriedoutitislikelythattherewillbeadeclineinuseandsubsequentlyharmtothebuildingthroughlackoffundingtosupportmaintenanceandrepaircosts.PleaserefertoAppendix4forthePCC’sStatementofNeedandAppendix7BusinessPlanformoredetails to jusNfy the requirements for the faciliNes in theextensionand the internal re-orderingwhicharecrucialforthistobecomeasustainablecommunityvenue.

StatementofIntent

The PCC wish to undertake alteraQons and introduce new faciliQes at St Mary’s Church totransform and make full use of the currently underused valuable community asset. Whilstimproving theflexibility,useand faciliQesat thechurch, thiswillensure the longevityof thebuilding and ensure the building can remain in use for future generaQons. The proposalsinvolvethefollowing:

ProposedExternalWorks:

- Remove the vestry extension to the north of the chancel and construct new single storeyextensionwithnewoffice,toilets,kitchenandamulQ-purposemeeQng/greenroom.- Form new doorway through the east wall of the North Aisle (below window) to link theextensionfaciliQeswiththemainchurch.-AlterexisQngpathand steps to thewestof the tower toprovide level accessand laynewstonepavingtotheentranceofthenewextension.- A new curved stone wall is proposed to enclose both the extension and this level pavedgatheringarea,incorporaQnglandscapedstepstolinkthelowerspacewiththechurchyard.

ProposedInternalWorks(EcclesiasNcalExempNon):

-Introducenewdrag-proofglazedlobbywithinthetowertoimprovethecurrententranceandretainheatwithinthebuilding.-Introducenewmezzanineflooraboveglazedlobbywithinthetowertoprovidearaisedareafortechnicalperformancedesk.-RelocateexisQngfontwithinthesouthaisle-Relocatetheorganfromthenorthaisletothewestendofthesouthaisle.-RemoveexisQngpews,pulpit,flooringandheaQngsystemandinstallnewunderfloorheaQngandlaynewnaturalstoneflooringthroughoutthenave,aislesandtower.-Introduceintegratedadjustable(belowground)stagingsystemwithinthenaveforarangeofeventsandservices.- Introduce moveable seaQng throughout the church, which can be stacked and stored ontrolleysandpossiblystoredwithinoldboilerbasementareabelownorthaisle.-Introducenewperformancestagingwithinthenave.-InstallnewlighQngsystemthroughoutthechurch.

IMPACTASSESSMENT

Significance: High – The church is Grade I listed and a prominent historicalbuildingwithinthetown.

[ ] 5

PLANNINGISSUES

ThechurchisGradeIlistedandislocatedwithintheDevizesConservaQonArea.TheproposalmustcomplywithCorePolicy57oftheWiltshireCoreStrategy(‘Ensuringhighqualitydesignand place shaping’ which states that developments should protect and enhance heritageassets, have consideraNon for views around the site and respond posiNvely to the exisNngtownscape, building and landscape) and theNaPonal Planning Policy Framework (NPPG) –IntroducNon, SecNon 7 – Requiring Good Design and SecNon 12 – Conserving the HistoricEnvironment

InaddiQon,theproposalshouldalsocomplywithCorePolicy58(‘EnsuringtheconservaNonofthehistoricenvironment’whichstatesthatanydevelopmentwillbeofthehigheststandardinorder tomaintain and enhance the quality in the area and be sensiNve to its character andappearance. The council will also seek that the form, scale design and materials of newbuildings are complementary to the historic context) and Planning PracPce Guidance (PPG)(‘ConservingandEnhancingtheHistoricEnvironmentandDesign’).

Thesepoliciesandguidancedocumentshavebeencarefullyconsideredaspartofthedesignprocess and we believe that the proposals comply with the above. The proposals includeminimal lossofhistoric fabricandwillnothaveadetrimental impactupontheConservaQonArea.InsteadtheproposedworksareaposiQveenhancementtotheheritageassetsandarea.

ConsideraQonforthesurroundingareasandbuildingswerealsoasignificantpartofthedesignprocess.Wefeelthatthenatureoftherevisedproposalswiththelowlevelcurvedwallandsedum-coveredflatroofswillnotcauseanysubstanQalharmtothese]ngofthenearbylistedbuildingsoutsideofthesiteboundary(GradeIlistedBrownstonHouse,GradeIIlisted48NewParkStreet,1-3Mary’sCo<agesandCastleHotel)andwillnotresultinthelossofneighbouramenityasaresultofoverlooking.

MainIntervenQons: Newsinglestoreyextension&ExternalLandscapedAreaRemovetheexisQngvestryandconstructnewsinglestoreyextensionwithsedumflatroofstothenortheastcornerofthechurch.Theextensionwillbeaccessedviaanewentrancefromthelandscapedgatheringspacecreatedonthenorthsideofthechurch,withnewdoorsformedthroughtheeastwallofthenorthaislebelowthewindow.

Archaeology AnarchaeologicalevaluaQonwascarriedoutfortheoriginal‘cloister’proposal that included areas within the churchyard to idenQfy thelikely impact on buried archaeological remains. The evaluaQonestablished burials of nineteenth to early twenQeth century datewithin the ‘cemetery soil’ but no other archaeological or buildingremainswererevealed.Awri<enschemeof invesQgaQonhasbeenproduced by Michael Heaton Heritage Consultants (Ref. 3537-1,August2011)andisbeingupdatedtorefertothecurrentproposals.

Effect/impactofchange:

Thenewextensionhasbeendesignedtohaveminimalimpactuponthehistoricfabricandse]ngofthelistedstructure,wherepossible.It has been considerably reduced in size from previous proposalsincludingthemostrecentpre-applicaQonsubmissionfromJuly2019,and instead it has beendesigned tobe a posiQve enhancement totheoverallsiteandbuilding.

[ ] 6

PlanningHistoryBelowarepreviouslyplanningapplicaQonsforStMary’sChurch,Devizes:

• On the 7th December 2012 a planning applicaQon was submi<ed for a ‘Proposedextensionwith cloister’ andwas laterWITHDRAWN. (ApplicaQon Ref: E/2012/1477/FUL)

• On the 25th October 2013 planning permission was REFUSED for a ‘Proposed newcloister and ancillary accommodaQon to support the church building, along withassociatedrebuildingofaboundarywall(resubmissionE/2012/1477/FUL).Onthe12thMay2014anappealwas lodgedby theapplicant andwasDIMISSEDonWednesday13thAugust2014.(ApplicaQonRef:13/00719/FUL).

ConsultaQons

20thMarch2018:Followingtherefusalofthe‘cloister’schemein2013(applicaQonreference:13/00719/FUL),ameeQngwasarrangedonthe20thMarch2018withtheLocalAuthority,HistoricEngland,DACandthestatutoryameniQessociety’stodiscussawayforwardfortheproject.Itwasagreedthatthe‘levelsofintervenQon’shouldbeexploredandthiswastoincludethealteraQonsrequiredtoachievetheminimumneedsofthechurch/community,uptotheoriginal‘cloister’designbrief.

9thJanuary2019:ChedburnCoddworkedcloselywiththePCConthe‘levelsofintervenQon’andopQonsappraisalandlatersubmi<ednewproposalsforpreapplicaQonadvicetoHistoricEnglandandIslaMacNeal(SeniorConservaQonOfficer)atWiltshireCouncilonthe9thJanuary2019.AmeeQngonsitewasarrangedandtheopQonswerediscussedinmoredetail,withthepreferredschemebeingsketchopQon4(seeAppendix6).AsubsequentmeeQngwasheldwithJacquieSmithofHistoricEnglandonthe13thMarch2019.

BothIslaMcNealandJacquieSmithrespondedwithdiversecommentsonthescheme.IslaMcNealsuggestedthatthenewfaciliQesintheextensionwouldbebe<erplacedinsidethechurch.However,JacquieSmithsuggestedthatshewouldprefertheinteriorofthechurchtoremain‘unclu<ered’andclearandpreferredtheideaofposiQoningthefaciliQesexternally.

ThecommentsreceivedwereveryhelpfulandagainChedburnCoddworkedcloselywiththePCCtotryandresolveandsaQsfythecommentsreceived.ArevisedschemewasdrawnupreflecQngthesuggesQonsputforward.

18thJune2019:TheschemewaspresentedtoDevizesTownCouncilon18thJune2019whoexpressedtheirsupportfortheproposals.

23rdAugust2019:ThedrawingsandaccompanyingdocumentswereupdatedandarevisedPre-ApplicaQonsubmissionwassenttoWiltshireCountyCouncilandallotherconsultees(HistoricEngland,ChurchBuildingsCouncil,andtheJointCommi<eeoftheNaQonalAmenitySocieQes)on23rdAugust2019.ThepackagewasalsosenttoSalisburyDACtobeincludedfordiscussionattheSeptemberDACmeeQngforfurtherinformaladvice.

1stOctober2019:AsitemeeQngwasheldwiththeclient,SalisburyDAC,HistoricEnglandandChurchBuildingsCouncilandthearchitectstodiscussthelatestproposals.(WCCunabletoa<end).

[ ] 7

2ndOctober2019:HistoricEnglandresponseincludedapreferencetoomitglazedlinkandnewdooronnorthsideofchurchaltogether,andintroduceappropriatelandscapingtoopenupthenorthsideofthechurchtothechurchyardforpublicuse.

17thOctober2019:ChurchBuildingsCouncilresponsewasfavourabletotheremovalofpewsandtherelocaQonofthefontandorgan.TheCouncilquesQonedtheglazedlinkonthenorthsideofthechurchandsuggestedtheaccessfromtheextensiontothechurchcouldbelimitedtothenewdoorproposedintheeastendoftheNorthAislebelowthewindow,withaslightreducQoninmeeQngspaceinordertoaccommodatetheproposedkitchen.TheCBCwereposiQveaboutanenclosingcourtyardwall,withlowsinglestoreyextensionwithrooflightstohelpwithnaturallighQngwhilstimprovingsecurity.

17thOctober2019:SalisburyDACresponsesuggestedthatperhapssomeelementsofthepews,andsomeoftheledgerstonescouldbereusedifpossibleaspartoftheinternalreorderingbutweregenerallyinfavourofopeninguptheinternalspaces.TheDACquesQonedtheglazedlinkonthenorthsideofthebuildingandtheproposeddoorinthenorthelevaQon.ItwassuggestedthattheglazedlinkraisedmaintenanceissuesandtheproposeddoorwaywoulddamagetheappearanceofthenorthelevaQonandthereforethesedonotdemonstrateminimalharmtothechurch.TheDACsuggestedthatthedesignoftheextensionandlandscapingtothenorthcouldtakeinspiraQonfromtheideaofan‘enclosingcourtyardwall’.

December2019:Schemerevised

Followingdiscussionswiththeclient,theschemewasrevised,pickingupontheclearpreferenceforareducedsizeextension,setwithincomplementarylandscapingwiththeintenQonoflinkingthewiderchurchyardwiththenewfaciliQesatthechurch.TheextensionnolongerhasaglazedlinkalongthenorthelevaQonandissetbehindagentlycurving‘gardenwall’withwidestepsfromthelowerpavedareaupintothechurchyard,leavingthenorthelevaQonofStMary’sclearofobstrucQon.

TheintenQonforthisreviseddesignisthatitsitsharmoniouslywithinthecontextofthechurchitself,whilstprovidingmuchneededmodernfaciliQeswhichwillenablethiscomplextohostregularworship,communitymeeQngs,andlargeperformancesandsobecomeasustainablepublicacQvityvenuewithbenefitstothewidercommunity.

TheamendedschemesketchesandplanweresenttoJacquieSmithatHistoricEnglandandIslaMacNeal,SeniorConservaQonOfficer,WiltshireCountyCouncil,forcomment.

22ndJanuary2020:CommentsfromIslaMacNeal(IM)atWCC

‘TheextensionisanimprovementintermsofsiQng,footprint,heightthanpreviousproposals.ItwillextendsubstanQallyintothechurchyardrequiringsomeexcavaQon.Iamnotqualifiedtocommentonthearchaeologicalimpact,asthatismoreforRachelFostertoassess.’Response:RachelFosterhasrequestedanewWriHenSchemeofInvesNgaNontoaccompanyanyfutureplanningapplicaNonwhichhasnowbeencommissioned.

‘IamoftheviewthatfromtheinformaQonprovidedtheschemeisge]ngclosertosomethingwecouldsupport.Wewouldneedtoconsideritasawholeprojectandwithworkedupdrawings.Iamoftheviewthatakeyaspectwillbethematerialsandsuggestthecurvedwallshouldbestone.Perhapssomeofthestonefromthedismantledvestrycouldbereused.Aswithpreviousschemeswewerenotconvincedthatrenderisappropriateinthiscontext.‘Response:Moredetailontheproposalsincludingthecurvedwalltobeshownasstoneassuggested,arenowshownonworkedupdrawingstobeincludedinthesubmissionforplanningapproval.

[ ] 8

22ndJanuary2020:CommentsfromJSatHistoricEnglandreceivedverbally.

JScalledtosayshefeelswehavemadeaposiQvemovewithourlatestproposals.SheaddedthattheneedfortheseextrafaciliQessQllneedstobejusQfied,butshewillrespondformallyinduecourse.(Nowri<enresponsereceivedasyet)Response:TheStatementofNeedhasbeenupdatedinresponsetothesecomments.

[ ] 9

SummaryofReasonsforRefusal,DismissalofAppeal&ProposedMiQgaQonMeasures

PlanningRefusal(ApplicaNonReference:13/00719/FUL)

Ref Summary MiQgaQonMeasures

Theextensionbyreasonofitsscaleandsize,siQng,form,designandmaterials/detailing,wouldcausesubstanQalharmtothegradeIlistedbuildinganditsse]ngandtothecharacterandappearanceofthispartoftheDevizesConservaQonArea.

Therevisedproposaladdressesthescale,sizeandsiQngbyintroducingasemi-subterraneanextensionwithlowlevelflatroofstoretaintheopenchurchyardandviewsofthechurch.

NoevidencehasbeenprovidedtoadequatelydemonstratethattheproposalrepresentstheopQmumviableuseforthebuildingorthatthereisanoverwhelminglocalneedforthefaciliQessuchthatthepublicbenefitofprovidingthemwouldoutweighthesubstanQalharmthatwouldbecausedtotheheritageassets.

ThePCChaveprovidedevidencewithintheirStatementofNeedandBusinessPlanthatthereisanoverwhelmingsupportfortheproposalstointroduceanewcommunityuseforperformances,eventsandservices.

AppealDismissal(AppealReference:APP/Y3940/A/14/2217381)

Ref Summary MiQgaQonMeasures

3 Theproposalwouldnotharmthese]ngsoftheadjacentlistedbuildings.

Therevisedextensionissetawayfromthechurchyardboundariesandtheadjacentlistedbuildingswillbeunaffected.

19 TheproposedextensionwouldinvolvethelossofasizablepartofthechurchyardandgreenspaceonthenorthernsideofStMary’s.

Therevisedschemewillmaintainanopenchurchyardandgreenspaceandinfactencourageaccessanduseofthespace.

20 Erosionofthespaceinthenorthchurchyard;buildingclosetotheboundarywall;proximitytoayewtree.

TherevisedschemewillmaintainanopenchurchyardandgreenspaceandhasbeendesignedaroundtheexisQngyewtree.

21 DisruptstheviewofthechurchfromCommercialRoad.DetractsfromanappreciaQonofthespecialqualiQesofStMary’s

TherevisedschememaintainstheuninterruptedviewsacrossthechurchyardfromCommercialRoad.

22 Entrythroughthetowerwall Thishasbeenomi<edfromtherevisedscheme.

24 Externalappearanceofthebuilding–verydifferenttothehostbuilding,willsituncomfortablywiththerecessivegreenofthechurchyardandthemutedhoneycolouredstonewallsofthechurch.Sizeableareasofglazingandasedumroofwouldnotinitselfbeharmful.

TherevisedschemeincludesanaturalstonelowcurvedwallcomplemenQngtheexisQngchurchstructure,withtheaddedbenefitofsedumflatroofsandlightweightglazedelevaQonstomaintainthefeelofanopengreenspace/churchyard.

25 ProposalatoddswithLPpolicyPD1(B)(7)andemergingCSpolicies57and58

Thesepolicieshavebeencarefullyconsideredaspartofthedesignprocessandwenowfeelthattheproposalscomply.

27 LossofsizeableareaofthechurchyardwoulderodethetownscapequaliQesoftheDevizesConservaQonArea

TherevisedschemewillmaintainanopenchurchyardandwillnowimprovethetownscapequaliQesoftheDCA.

[ ] 10

Thereasonsforrefusalandsubsequentlydismissaloftheappeal(assummarisedabove)havebeen carefully considered when re-submi]ng these revised proposals. We feel the revisedschemenowmiQgatesandaddressesthepreviousconcerns,whichincludedthegeneralscale,sizeandsi]ngofthecloisterscheme,lossofopenchurchyardandgreenspace,proximitytoadjacentlistedbuildingsanddisrupQonofviews.Therevisedproposalsnowtakeintoaccountfurther comments from all parQes consulted, on the scheme submi<ed for pre-applicaQonadviceinJanuary2019,withrevisionssharedinAugust2019.This latest scheme sensiQvely offers the faciliQes the church and community require whilstmaintaining the desired open churchyard and green space, exisQng views, pleasing contrastbetweenthenewandoldwithminimalharmtothehistoricfabricandchurchyard.

DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS

Design&layoutTheproposedsemi-subterraneanextensiontakesadvantageofthetopographyofthesite.Thisenables the extension to be kept at low level and reduces the visual impact compared topreviousschemes.

ThenorthelevaQonofthechurchremainsinitsenQrety,withnewaccesspulledbacktothefarnortheastcornerofthebuilding.Theapproachisviaalandscapedlevel-accessgatheringareatothenorthofStMary’swithnewstepslinkingthechurchyard,theextensionandthechurch.The locaQonof thenewextensionhasbeen carefully considered tominimise impacton theappearanceofthechurchwhilstprovidingusefulfaciliQesduringconcerts,performancesandservices.

Theextensionhasalsobeendesignedaround retaininguseof theexisQngdoorway into theChancel, which will be the main access and egress for performers to the new staging andduringchurchservices.

Thenewdoorway intheeastwalloftheNorthAisleprovidesanaccessandegressfromthechurch to theextensionandalsoenables thenew faciliQes tobeused independently to thechurch,ifrequired. Thedesignofthegenerousexternalpavedgatheringspacetothenorthprovidesawelcomingentranceandpublicspacewhenapproachingthechurchfromthenorthwest.Itwillbeoverlookedbyanewofficeandentrancehall,andimprovessecuritybyphysicalandvisualuseofthissecludedsideofthechurch.

TheposiQoningoftheproposedextensionissuchthatitwilllieoutsideoftherootprotecQonareasofthenearbytrees,includingthevisuallyimportantyewtree.PosiQoningofservicerunsandtreeprotecQonduringconstrucQonsubjecttoagreementwiththeLocalAuthorityArboriculturalOfficer.

ScaleTheproposalshavebeendesignedtoensurethesizeoftheextensioniskepttoaminimumtoretainthecontextoftheoriginalbuildingandchurchyard.Thelowsinglestoreyprofile,flatroofingandadvantageoustopographyhelpreducethevisualscaleoftheextensioncomparedtobeingaboveground.

TheexisQngfootprintofthechurchincludingthevestry(externalmeasurementstakentotheoutsidelineofthebu<resses)is577squaremetres.Thefootprintofthechurchexcludingthevestryis561squaremeters.Theoriginalcloisterproposalwasdoublethefootprintat340

29 ThelossofspacearoundtheneighbouringlistedproperQeswouldgiverisetoacrampedcontexttothesebuildingsandwouldaltertheirse]ngs.

Therevisedextensionissetawayfromtheadjacentlistedbuildingsandtheirse]ngwillbeunchanged.

[ ] 11

squaremetres(excludingtheproposedcourtyardarea–approx.59%increase)andthemorerecentschemewiththeglazedlinkrepresenteda29%increase.Thefootprintofthecurrentproposednewextensionisapproximately132squaremetresthatequatestoa23%increaseinfloorarea.

AppearanceTheexternalfaçadeoftheextensionhasbeendesignedasalowcurvingstonewallwrappingaroundboththeaccommodaQonandthelandscapedareatothenorthofthechurch.Thecurvedwalliskepttoaminimumheightwithgapswherethewidestepsareproposedtomaintaintheviewsofthemainfeaturesofthechurch(windows,bu<ressesandstonework).ThiswillensureanaturalandundisturbedconnecQontothechurchwhilstpreservingtheviewsoftheoriginalbuildingespeciallyonthenorthside.

TheextensionistobeofmodernconstrucQonwitharubblestonefaçadetotheproposedcurvingcourtyardgardenwallthatslowlyincreasesinheightfromadwarfwallatthewestentrance,toahigherenclosurearoundthesemi-subterraneanextension.ThenewaccommodaQonwillbetoppedwithsedumflatroofsandlowprofilerooflights.TheeastandwestelevaQonsoftheextensionwillbecomposedoflightweightfullheightglazedwindowsanddoors,tohighlightthecontrastwiththeexisQngchurchstructureandenclosinggardenwall.

MaterialsThelowcurvedretainingwallsurroundingthenewextensionandthelandscapedgatheringspacewillbearubbledrystonewallusingstonechosentoblendharmoniouslywiththefabricofthechurch.TheflatroofwithsedumplanQngwillkeeptheheightoftheextensiontoa

[ ] 12

SK1:ViewofProposedExtensionfromChurchyardtothenorth.

minimumandhelpthenewstructuretoblendvisuallyintotheexisQngsurroundings.ThegreenroofwillalsoreducethecarbonfootprintofthenewfaciliQes whilstprovidingahighlevelofinsulaQonandwillmaintainthebiodiversityofthenaturalenvironment.

LandscapingTheexisQnglowerlevelpatharoundthewestandnorthsideofthechurchwillbelevelledandwidenedwithinthesweepingcurveoftheproposedenclosinggardenwall.ThenewpavedroutewillwelcomevisitorstothenewfaciliQesintheextensiononthenortheastsideofthechurch,andcreateagently-steppedlinkupintothesurroundingchurchyard.

[ ] 13

Viewofproposedlevelaccessandgatheringspaceonnorthsideofchurch

Exampleofdrystonewallwithstraightedgecopingstones.

Exampleofflatsedumroofwithrooflights.

AccessTheproposalsincludeimprovingthemainaccesspointsaroundthewestentrancetothechurchbyremovingthestepstowardsthetopofthepathandregradingnewpavingtoprovidelevelaccesstothechurchandnewextensiononthenorthside.Levelaccesswillalsobeimprovedviathesouthgateandpathtothesouthentrancedoor.

SUPPORTINGINFORMATION

Appendix1- LisQngDescripQonAppendix2- StatementofSignificanceAppendix3- HistoricBuildingAssessmentAppendix4- StatementofNeedAppendix5- PlanningRefusal&AppealDecisionAppendix6- OpQonsAppraisalAppendix7- BusinessPlanAppendix8- SketchviewsAppendix9- ExisQngImagesAppendix10- Wri<enSchemeofInvesQgaQonAppendix11- ArchaeologicalEvaluaQonAppendix12- ArboriculturalReportAppendix13- EcologicalReportAppendix14- HighwaysComment

[ ] 14