HISTORIC BUILDING IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THATCH COTTAGE, SOUTHBURY LANE, RUSCOMBE, BERKSHIRE - JUNE 2021 - NGR SU 80099 75979
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
HISTORIC BUILDING IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OF
THATCH COTTAGE, SOUTHBURY LANE,
RUSCOMBE, BERKSHIRE
NGR SU 80099 75979
JUNE 2021
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
REPORT PREPARED BY Dr Sarah K. Doherty
ILLUSTRATION BY Dr Sarah K. Doherty
Iwona Brodska
EDITED BY John Moore
AUTHORISED BY John Moore
REPORT ISSUED 1st June 2021
ENQUIRES TO John Moore Heritage Services
Unit 16
Wheatley Business Centre
Old London Road
Wheatley
OX33 1XW
Tel/Fax 01865 358300
Email: info@jmheritageservices.co.uk
JMHS Project No: 4501
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Origins of the Report 1
1.2 Location 1
1.3 Description 1
1.4 Proposed development 1
2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE 1
2.1 NPPF 2019 1
2.2 Local Planning Policy 3
3 METHODOLOGY 4
3.1 Historic Building Impact Assessment Aims and Objectives 4
3.2 Historic Building Impact Assessment Sources 4
3.3 Recording Techniques 4
3.4 Setting and Visual Impact 4
3.5 Method of Assessment of the Impact on an Asset 5
4 BACKGROUND 5
4.1 Designation-Listings 5
4.2 Historic Environment Development 5
5 DESCRIPTION OF THATCH COTTAGE 6
5.1 Introduction and General Description 6
5.2 Exterior Facades 7
5.3 Internal Features 13
6 ASSESSMENTS 17
6.1 Phases 17
6.2 Historic and Architectural Assessment 17
7 THE CURRENT PROPOSAL 19
7.1 Design Alterations and Impact on Structure 19
7.2 Impact on Adjacent Properties 22
7.3 Impact on Adjacent Landscape 22
8 CONCLUSIONS 23
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 24
APPENDIX 1 I
FIGURES AND PLATES
Figure 1 Site location 2
Figure 2 Existing Elevations 8
Figure 3 Existing Plan 9
Figure 4 Historical Phases Plan 18
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 1 Thatch Cottage in March 1942, when it was known as one of the
“Ruscombe Cottages C”. Source Historic England Archives
(0220_061) 6
Plate 2 The main historic block of the house, with the “bakehouse”
extension to the south-west 10
Plate 3 The north-eastern façade with the external brick chimney and
entrance into kitchen G4 10
Plate 4 Detail of the south-eastern façade of the main block 10
Plate 5 Detail of the south-eastern extension 11
Plate 6 The location of the original front door of the main block in the
south-eastern façade 11
Plate 7 The south-western façade of the bakehouse extension which is
visible on Southbury Lane 11
Plate 8 Just the Thatch Cottage roofline is visible behind fencing and
mature hedging along Southbury Lane 12
Plate 9 The larger of the two outbuildings near to the north-eastern façade
of the main block 12
Plate 10 The two outbuildings in the garden of Thatch Cottage 12
Plate 11 Left: The interior of hallway G1 and main entrance and closed door
towards WC G2. Right: the central ceiling beam has either been
removed or covered by the wall between G1 and G3 14
Plate 12 The interior of the dining room G3, and open entrance into G5
beside the fireplace 14
Plate 13 The diagonal stop in G3. Similar examples date to 16-17th century 14
Plate 14 The winder stairs in G3, and right: the probable 19th/20 century
softwoods overlying historic timbers of previous stairwell 15
Plate 15 The interior of kitchen G4. To right of image 1 is the electric fuse
Box 15
Plate 16 The repair work and small wooden supports for the ceiling joists
when the windows were inserted in G4 15
Plate 17 Left: The open roof interior of the bakehouse and Right: The large
repointed round hearth 16
Plate 18 The interior of the roof above F2 16
Plate 19 The wattle and daub panel within the roof between F1 and F2. 16
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
THATCH COTTAGE, SOUTHBURY LANE, RUSCOMBE
Historic Building Impact Assessment
SUMMARY
This Historic Building Impact Assessment has been commissioned for Thatch Cottage,
Southbury Lane, Ruscombe, Berkshire (NGR SU 80099 75979). The property is a
Grade II listed building (UID 1118198), constructed in the late 16-mid 17th century,
with later additions in the subsequent centuries. The current plan of the house was in
place by 1830 with the weatherboarded bakehouse/barn extension to the south-east.
The primary significance of Thatch Cottage lies in its history as a timber framed small
rural cottage, associated with contemporary cottages along Southbury Lane, set within
a wider agricultural landscape.. This report was requested before a planning
application to inform the planning authorities of the status and significance of the
building, and the impact of any proposed changes to the building.
The proposed development includes the removal of outbuildings and the erection of a
one storey structure to the north of the historic cottage. The design proposals for the
new structure have taken into consideration the comments made during the pre-
application. The size of the proposed extensions have been decreased and the eaves
height and a roof ridgeline reduced to now being subservient to the main historic
cottage. The new designs include a flat roof, and floor to ceiling windows, which further
marks it as a new modern structure. A new link from the cottage to the proposed
extensions cleverly utilizes a pre-existing opening, ensuring that no historic fabric will
be compromised. Therefore, the new extension is considered to no longer be as visually
detrimental to the cottage as previous designs in the pre-application suggested, and
would not be misconstrued as part of the original. These new designs are considered to
be simple and contemporary and serve to create a clearer foil to the listed building that
would allow the diminutive character of this historic cottage to prevail.
Overall, it is considered that the proposals will not materially affect the significance of
the building, with the degree of harm being minor or negligible, and the proposals
having either a neutral or positive impact. The proposals are concluded to not only
sustain but also enhance the building and allow its continued use as a viable house
suitable for modern living and are recommended to the local authority for approval.
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Origins of the Report
This Historic Building Impact Assessment to Historic England Level II/III (HE 2016) has
been commissioned for Thatch Cottage, Southbury Lane, Ruscombe, Berkshire (NGR SU
80099 75979). The property is a Grade II listed building (UID 1118198). This report was
requested before a planning application to inform the planning authorities of the status and
significance of the building, and the impact of any proposed changes to the building.
1.2 Location
Thatch Cottage is located in the rural countryside at the edge of the village and parish of
Ruscombe, Wokingham, Berkshire. Thatch Cottage lies to the north of Southbury Lane. To
the north-west and south-east are detached dwellings. One south-eastern dwelling, known as
Ferryman’s Cottage is a Grade II listed building (UID 1303698), and was probably built in
the 16th century. To the north, west and south, the property is surrounded by agricultural
fields. Thatch Cottage is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. It is not within a Conservation
Area, but is in the Landscape Character Area K1 “Stanlake Farmed Sand and Clay Lowland.”
1.3 Description
Thatch cottage is formed of two blocks. The main block comprises a one storey house with
an attic and a thatched roof, and bookended by brick chimneys at each side. It was originally
formed of two units, now four. The building is timber framed throughout, with brick infill in
places, particularly noted on the north-east façade. It probably was originally wattle and daub
throughout, traces of which have been detected in the attic.
To the south-west of the main block is a narrower extension of one and a half storeys which
is thought to have been used as a bakehouse. The roof of the extension is also thatched. The
walls are weatherboarded to the south-west and north-west, and partly to the south-east while
the other facades are brick and timber framed.
1.4 Proposed Development
The proposed development includes:
The erection of a link, single storey side extension and internal alterations to Thatch Cottage.
The link will be at ground floor level by a link to the historic host building in order to create
a living area and bedroom at ground floor level.
2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
2.1 NPPF 2019
Section 16 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019) provides
guidance related to heritage issues within the planning process. The chapter is titled
Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. This has been paired with a Planning
Practice Guidance, initially published in 2014 and was subsequently updated in 2019.
1
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
N N
Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. Licence number LAN1000151
Site
Berkshire
0 50 km 0 5000 m
N
Lake Cottage
176000
Thatch
Cottage
SO
UT
HB
UR
YL
AN
E
Ferryman's
Cottage
Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence number LAN1000151
480100
Key Site boundary
Study Building 0 50 m
Figure 1: Site location
2
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
The chapter is broken down into three separate parts, the latter two of which have their sub-
headings. The first part paragraphs 184-188 touches on definitions and classifications, along
with designations of heritage sites. It concerns the production and implementation of a policy
strategy and the requirements of this for local authorities. The next group of paragraphs 189-
192 are included under Proposals Affecting Heritage Assets. The final group of paragraphs
193-202 is sub-titled Considering Potential Impact and is concerned with the impact on
heritage assets of any proposal.
A fuller analysis can be viewed on the government website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2.
2.2 Local Planning Policy
NPPF makes provisions for the continued use of the Local Plan for decision making in the
authority (sections 58 and 126). Due weight may be given to the policies in the Local Plan
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The Local Plan will, therefore,
continue to form the basis for determining local planning applications until it is superseded
by documents in the Local Development Framework, including a new Local Plan.
The following policies are relevant to the consideration of development are:
Core Strategy 2010 (CS):
CP1 – Sustainable Development
CP3 – General Principles for Development
CP4 – Infrastructure Requirements
CP6 – Managing Travel Demand
CP7 – Biodiversity
CP9 – Scale and Location of Development Proposals
CP11 – Proposals Outside Development Limits
CP12 – Green Belt Managing Development
Delivery Local Plan 2014 (MDD Local Plan):
CC01 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
CC02 – Development Limits
CC03 – Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping
CC04 – Sustainable Design and Construction
CC06 – Noise
CC07 – Parking
CC09 – Development and Flood Risk
CC10 – Sustainable Drainage
TB01 – Development within the Green Belt
TB21 – Landscape Character
TB22 – Sites of Urban Landscape Value
TB23 – Biodiversity and Development
TB24 – Designated Heritage Assets
TB26 – Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character Other
Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document CIL Guidance
Also of relevance is the Draft Ruscombe Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2021 which builds upon
3
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
the Ruscombe Parish Village Design Statement (which is a material planning consideration
adopted by Wokingham Borough Council in 2010)
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Historic Building Impact Assessment Aims and Objectives
The primary aim of the Historic Building Impact Assessment is to provide an independent
professional appraisal of the building(s) and its setting. This follows the Government guidance
in NPPF (2019) by presenting a synthesis of the available heritage data and its significance at
an early stage in the planning process.
3.2 Historic Building Impact Assessment Sources
The format and contents of this section of the report are an adaptation of the standards outlined
in the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ guidance paper for Historic Building Recording
(CIfA 2019 and HE 2016). The work has involved the consultation of the available
documentary evidence (historical sources), which has been supplemented with a site visit. The
format of the report is adapted from a Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standard
Guidance paper (CIfA 2019).
In summary, the work has involved:
Identifying the client’s objectives
Site visit (building assessment)
Identifying the phasing and development of the building and the surrounding area
Identifying current limitations and future areas of work to be undertaken
3.3 Recording Techniques
The work has the following main components:
To undertake a photographic record of the structure, including detailed and general
shots of its fabric, where this can be safely done.
To investigate, analyse and describe the fabric of the structure, to elucidate its history,
and record and analyse the resulting evidence for this history using applicable
archaeological methods.
To make a record of the existing structure in its present condition and its setting,
employing photography, scale drawings, or with the use of existing scale drawings to
be supplied by the client
To study documentary sources for the history of the structure on the site.
To study the proposed architectural drawings for the building and comment on the
impact (and potential harm) of the plans on the building
3.4 Setting and Visual Impact
Aspects of the setting of a heritage asset are touched upon in paragraphs 194, 199 and 200 of
the NPPF. Historic England’s (2017) Guidance on the management of a setting of a heritage
4
John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
asset defines the term setting. This is “the surrounding in which a heritage asset is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.”
The use of the term setting is identified as being separate from other ones such as curtilage,
character and context.
The advent of the NPPF (2019) has thus raised wider issues of impact on heritage assets,
especially on scheduled monuments and grade I listed buildings, to involve not only physical
damage but also visual impacts in a wider heritage or historic landscape.
3.5 Method of Assessment of the Impact on an Asset
Assessment of the impact on a Heritage Asset or Historic Building (either designated or non-
designated) is reliant on taking into account the significance of the site and any perceived
harm that would happen to it (HE 2017, 2019), see Appendix I.
4 BACKGROUND
4.1 Designations – Listings
Thatch Cottage is a Grade II listed building UID 1118198, designated 11th September 1979).
The listing is as follows:
“RUSCOMBE SOUTHBURY LANE SU 87 NW (north east side) 3/4 The Thatch Cottage
11.9.79 G.V. II Cottage. Late C16. Timber framed with plaster infilling, thatched gabled roof,
flanking chimneys the one on southwest C17. 2 framed bays with small thatched kitchen or
barn extension to southwest. One storey and attic. Entrance front: 2 C19 ground floor
casement windows, and door in west end.”
4.2 Historic Environment Development
The name “Ruscombe” seems to have evolved from “Rothescamp”. The ending is from the
Latin “campus”: an open, unenclosed field. “Rothes” may be from an Anglo-Saxon personal
name (such as Hroth or *Rōt), the Celtic word “rhos” (Latin “rus”) for undrained moorland
(with rushes), or the Teutonic “Royd/Roth”, meaning land cleared of trees. The latter
derivations would apply well to Ruscombe Lake, or to the chalkland de-forested by the
Romans, respectively (Mills 2011, 398; RNP 2021).
In 1535, Ruscombe was divided into two small manors, Northbury and Southbury. During the
early 1830-40s much of England was mapped as part of commutation of tithes to a financial
payment. The Ruscombe Enclosure Award, completed in 1832, finally enclosed, consolidated
and reallocated all the land in the Parish, including the land (half the area in total) which until
that point had remained open fields and commons.
In 1840, a Daniel Cooper is registered as occupying Thatch Cottage (plot 154 on enclosure
maps IR 29/2/106), rented from landowner John Leveson Gower Esq. He also rented an
orchard to the north, at a total cost of 6s and 6d. The apple and medlar trees still present in the
garden may be remnants of the orchard. By this date, the southwestern extension was in place.
Daniel Cooper is still residing at Thatch Cottage (listed as house No. 25) at the time of
censuses of 1851 and 1861 where he lives with his wife Jane, and listed as being an
5John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
“Agricultural Labourer.” Most of Ruscombe was employed in the agriculture at this time,
with the chief crops being wheat, barley and oats (BRO 1923).
A brief archive search has produced a 1942 image from the Historic England archives of
Thatch Cottage, when it was named as “Ruscombe Cottage C” (Plate 1). The well that is
present on OS maps is at the front centre of the main block of the building. The current front
door was previously the location of a window, and the original front door was located on
southern façade. Note that the first floor window was in place on the southern façade in 1942.
Plate 1: Thatch Cottage in March 1942, when it was known as one of the “Ruscombe
Cottages C”. Source Historic England Archives (0220_061)
5 DESCRIPTION OF THATCH COTTAGE
5.1 Introduction and General Description
Thatch cottage is formed of two blocks. The main block comprises a one storey house with
an attic and a thatched roof, and bookended by brick chimneys at each side. There is a plank
door on the eastern façade. The main block is probably late 16th century, while the northern
chimney is probably 17th century. It was originally formed of two units, now four. The
building is timber framed throughout, with brick infill in places, particularly noted on the
north-east façade, or lime plaster. It probably was originally wattle and daub throughout,
traces of which have been detected in the attic.
To the south-west of the main block is a narrower extension of one and a half storeys which
is thought to have been used as a bakehouse. The roof of the extension is also thatched. The
walls are weatherboarded to the south-west and north-west, and partly to the south-east while
the other facades are brick and timber framed.
To the north are two outbuildings, in use as storage sheds. To the south is a small gravel drive
and parking area with a LPG gas store. In the garden is the remains of a well (currently under
a bush). There is a septic tank in the south-east of the garden.
6John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
There are nine rooms within the property, of which there are five on the ground floor, labelled
G1-5, and four on the first floor, labelled F1-4. For the purposes of the proposed alterations,
just the ground floor will be described in detail.
5.2 Exterior Façades (Figure 2)
Thatch cottage is formed of two blocks (Plate 2). The main block comprises a one storey
house with an attic and a thatched roof, and bookended by brick chimneys at each side, with
timber framed walls infilled with brick or lime plaster. One section of the roof between the
bakehouse and the main block has clay tiles and lead flashing. The building has modern (20th
century) metal windows. There are three doorways, two on the eastern facade and one on the
northern. There is a plank door on the eastern façade in the main block, which is used as the
front door. There is a second on the bakehouse extension. The third is on the northern façade
to the right of the brick chimney.
The northern façade constitutes one of the side elevations of the main block with an entrance
into the kitchen G4 (Plate 3 and figure 3). The walls are timber framed with brick infill and
render. One contains a diagonal brace, probably to act as additional support for the lintel of
the door. The façade contains an external brick chimney which is slightly corbelled. The thatch
of the roofline wraps around the chimney, which is no longer in use as it was blocked up when
bathroom G4 was inserted.
The eastern façade contains the modern front door entrance and single gazed window (inserted
post 1942) of the main block (Plate 4) and the entrance into the south-eastern extension
bakehouse (Plate 5). The bakehouse is partly weatherboarded timber, part timber framing and
brick or lime plaster. The bakehouse windows are modern (post 1942 inserts Plate 1).
The southern façade constitutes one of the side elevations of the building hidden behind
mature hedging and fencing (Plates 6-8). It comprises the weatherboarded side end of the
bakehouse with single window and part of the side of the main block, which is mostly
obscured by the chimney and bakehouse. As shown in Plate 1, the southern façade once
contained the main entrance into the main block of the cottage, which was filled in post 1942
when the entrance was sited in the eastern façade and a new window inserted in the original
location. The western façade contains the rear of the property, which lies close to the boundary
hedging of the site. It contains two modern windows. To the north-west of the main block are
two modern outbuildings.
7John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks.
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Key plan
E. 2
E. 4
E.1
E. 3
South-eastern elevation South-western elevation
North-western elevation North-eastern elevation
0 10 m
Figure 2: Existing Elevations
8 1:200 @A4John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks.
Historic Building Impact Assessment
G4
G5
G3
G1
G2
Ground Floor Plan
F3
F1
F2
F4
First Floor Plan
0 5m
Figure 3: Existing Plan
9 1:100 @A4John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 2: The main historic block of the house, with the “bakehouse” extension to the south-
west
Plate 3: The north-eastern façade with the external brick chimney and entrance into kitchen
G4
Plate 4: Detail of the south-eastern façade of the main block
10John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 5: Detail of the south-eastern extension
Plate 6: The location of the original front door of the main block in the south-eastern façade
Plate 7: The south-western façade of the bakehouse extension which is visible on Southbury
Lane
11John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 8: Just the Thatch Cottage roofline is visible behind fencing and mature hedging along
Southbury Lane
Plate 9: The larger of the two outbuildings near to the north-eastern façade of the main block
Plate 10: The two outbuildings in the garden of Thatch Cottage
12John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
5.3 Internal Features (Figure 3)
Ground floor
Internally, on the ground floor there are five rooms, four in the main house G1-4, one in the
bakehouse extension G5.
Room G1 is now the entrance hall with plank front door created post 1942 (see Plate 1). To
the right of G1 is small WC and boiler room G2. This previously was the location of the 17th
century fireplace, now blocked up but the chimney is still visible on the north-eastern façade
(Figure 2 and Plate 3). Both G1 and G2 contain visible ceiling joists, but no central beam,
which may have been removed or covered up when the wall between G1 and G3 was inserted,
probably in the 19th-20th century.
In the dining room G3 are the most obvious late 16th-17th century elements as the ceiling
contains visible ceiling joists, with a chamfered central beam running north-south and
diagonal triangular stops (Alcock et al 2014, 31 Plates 12-13). Similar examples date to
between 16-17th centuries (Hall 2011, 159). The ceiling joists are laid on edge rather than
flat, pointing to a late 16th-mid 17th century date (Hall 2011, 164). Additionally, the joists are
roughly 1 foot (305mm) apart, and it is likely that Thatch Cottage dates to post 1550 (Hall
2011, 165). The room is dominated by the large double sided brick fireplace, now subject to
modern repointing and a probable inserted lintel. A doorway has been cut into the brickwork
to create a seamless entrance into G5. This was probably inserted as part of the post 1942
general updates to the house when the main entrance was moved to G1. Room G3 contains a
wooden double winder boxed stairwell with a cupboard below. The cupboard contains the
lower tread timbers, and suggests a variety of repairs. It is probable that this stairwell is 18-
19th century, replacing an earlier simple ladder (Hall 2011, 102).
Room G4 is currently in use as a modern kitchen and contains a further entrance into the
garden (Plate 14). Here the ceiling joists have been repaired and probably slightly repositioned
onto new supports when the wall was redone in brick and windows updated, and an electrical
fuse box and cupboard fitted (likely post 1950). The original ceiling beam was probably also
removed at this point. The kitchen contains a small larder cupboard which also has part of the
staircase timbers within it. These show machine cut marks, and some modern pine inserts.
This suggests that the staircase was repaired at various points.
Room G5 has its own external entrance, which was updated post 1942, and also an open
passageway internally from G3 to the side of the fireplace (Plate 12). The roof is a principal
rafter truss with clasped purlins and two raking struts and a ridge support (Alcock et al. 2014,
8). There are some additional modern tiebeams close to the chimney for support.
While the first floor is not of particular interest to this report, the roof was inspected and wattle
and daub was noted between the divide of landing F1 and F2 (Plates 18-19). Although they
were hidden by insulation, it is likely that the roof contains purlins as no collars were detected.
However, further investigative work would be required to confirm this. The chimney also
contains some modern breezeblocks
13John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 11: Left: The interior of hallway G1 and main entrance and closed door towards WC
G2. Right: the central ceiling beam has either been removed or covered by the wall between
G1 and G3
Plate 12: The interior of the dining room G3, and open entrance into G5 beside the fireplace
Plate 13: The diagonal stop in G3. Similar examples date to 16-17th century.
14John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 14: The winder stairs in G3, and right: the probable 19th/20 century softwoods
overlying historic timbers of previous stairwell
Plate 15: The interior of kitchen G4. To right of image 1 is the electric fuse box
Plate 16: The repair work and small wooden supports for the ceiling joists when the
windows were inserted in G4
15John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Plate 17: Left: The open roof interior of the bakehouse and Right The large repointed round
hearth
Plate 18: The interior of the roof above F2 note breeze blocks put into chimney
Plate 19: The wattle and daub panel within the roof between F1 and F2.
16John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
6 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Phases (Figure 4)
Phase 1: late 16-17th century
The house most likely has its origins in the late 16th century, probably as a two unit house of
timber frames and wattle and daub, later infilled with brick.
Phase 2: 17th century
It’s probable that a small extension existed to the south-west (as evidenced by the timber
framing section within the bakehouse) with the south-eastern chimney becoming double-
sided.
Phase 3: 19-20th century
The bakehouse was extended during this period (in place by 1830). The staircase was also
repaired and updated.
Phase 4: post 1942
During this phase, there were more internal refurbishments. Hallway G1 was created when
the main entrance into Thatch Cottage was re-located to the south-east. WC G2 was inserted
and the north-eastern chimney was blocked up. A doorway into the bakehouse was inserted,
and the room generally refurbished and a mezzanine floor inserted. The brickwork was
repointed and new windows were inserted throughout. Kitchen G4 was updated and the
ceiling beam was probably removed at this point so that new windows and electricity could
be fitted.
6.2 Historic and Architectural Assessment
The historic 16-17th century core of the house still stands as a two unit one storey building.
Internally, on the ground floor there are central ceiling beams and perpendicular joists, which
attests to its historic age. The current plan of the house was in place by 1830 with the
weatherboarded bakehouse/barn extension. The primary significance of Thatch Cottage lies
in its history as a timber framed small rural cottage, situated near contemporary cottages along
Southbury Lane within an agricultural landscape. It probably had some historical association
with Southbury Farm and the nearby Ruscombe Mansion (lived in by William Penn, the
founder of Pennsylvania now demolished (BRO 1923)) as it was known as one of the
“Ruscombe Cottages” in the 1891 census and up to the 1940s.
More recently, particularly from the 1940s the house was remodelled and updated. The
hallway G1 and kitchen G4 was created when the main entrance into Thatch Cottage was re-
located to the south-east. WC G2 was inserted and the north-eastern chimney was blocked up.
A new door for the bakehouse was inserted (replacing an earlier one), and the room generally
refurbished and a mezzanine floor inserted. The brickwork was repointed and new windows
were inserted throughout. Kitchen G4 was updated and the ceiling beam was probably
removed at this point so that new windows and electricity could be fitted.
17John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks.
Historic Building Impact Assessment
G4
G5
G3
G1
G2
Ground Floor Plan
F3
F1
F2
F4
Key:
Phase 1 late 16th C
First Floor Plan Phase 2 17th C
Phase 3 19-20th C
Phase 4 post 1942
0 5m
Figure 4: Historic Phases Plan
18 1:100 @A4John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
7 THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
7.1 Design Alterations and Impact on Structure
Table 1: Assessment of the Harm and Impact of the Proposals on the Asset (see appendix for the relevant descriptions).
Significance Degree of Harm Impact
VERY HIGH Substantial Substantial Positive
HIGH Less than substantial Moderate Neutral
MED Less than substantial Minor Negative
LOW Negligible Negligible
NEGLIGIBLE NONE No Impact
Location Phase Architectural Proposed Degree of Harm Impact Reasoning
Significance Alteration
EXTERIOR
Exterior of Phase 1 Create a new link Access to the link and the extension would
Kitchen G4 (chimney HIGH from the existing NEGLIGIBLE NEUTRAL utilize an existing door opening in the end
Phase 2) doorway to new elevation of the cottage for access through
proposed unit to new spaces. This means there will be no
loss of historic fabric or features as a result.
The link is of a modern design, with a flat
roof and large windows, which would
emphasize the difference between the
historic core and modern while keeping the
19John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Location Phase Architectural Proposed Degree of Harm Impact Reasoning
Significance Alteration
two areas separate. The designs will also
ensure that the brick chimney is not
compromised during building works, and it
will be highlighted as a feature of the link.
Garden N/A (but New single storey The design proposals for the new structure
adjacent to LOW structure and NEGLIGIBLE NEUTRAL have taken into consideration the comments
the historic removal of north- made during the pre-application. The size of
Phase 1 of eastern existing the proposed extensions have been
the Thatch outbuildings decreased and the eaves height and a roof
Cottage) ridgeline reduced to now being subservient
to the main historic cottage. The new
designs include a flat roof and floor to
ceiling windows, which further marks it as a
new modern structure. Therefore, the new
extension is considered to no longer be as
visually detrimental to the cottage, and not
be misconstrued as part of the original.
These new designs are considered to be
simple and contemporary and serve to create
a clearer foil to the listed building that would
allow the diminutive character of this
historic cottage to prevail.
The outbuildings that lie off the north-
eastern end of Thatch Cottage are from
around the last quarter of 20th century and
as such do not meet the criteria for them to
be ‘curtilage listed’ and their removal is
20John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Location Phase Architectural Proposed Degree of Harm Impact Reasoning
Significance Alteration
therefore not considered to be harmful.
INTERNAL
Kitchen G4 G3 is Phase Removal of the Pipework and venting would be carefully
1, G5 is HIGH/MED kitchen to the MINOR NEUTRAL removed from the historic fabric and
Phase 3 bakehouse G5 appropriate conservation materials used to
repair the structures. G5 was largely
constructed in the 19th century (although
more recently updated). Any new venting
and pipework would be carefully considered
and a full list of materials to be used will be
supplied
21John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
The proposed developments can be summarised as follows: 1) a new single storey standalone
structure and 2) removal of north-eastern existing outbuildings, and 3) a new link between the
historic cottage and the new extension. 4) The relocation of the current kitchen G4 into the
bakehouse G5.
The new structure within the garden is considered to cause negligible harm as the Architects
have taken into consideration the comments made during the pre-application. The size of the
proposed extensions have been decreased and the eaves height and a roof ridgeline reduced
to now being subservient to the main historic cottage, which will reduce the impact to neutral.
It is proposed that a new link will be constructed between the kitchen G4 opening and the new
structure. Kitchen G4 is considered to be of high significance, but the use of the existing
opening for the link will mean that there should be no loss of historic fabric or features.
Therefore the impact of the proposals can be considered to be neutral. Crucially, the designs
will ensure that the diminutive character of the historic cottage will prevail, and the separation
between the new modern designs of the new structure will be immediately obvious even to
the casual observer. The proposed demolition of the 20th century outbuildings is considered
to be of negligible harm as they are not part of the curtilage of the listed Thatch Cottage.
It is proposed that the Kitchen G4 be relocated to the bakehouse G5, which will allow for a
new modern kitchen to be constructed, which is more suitable to modern living. In order for
this to be achieved, pipework and venting will be carefully removed from the historic fabric
of G4 (which is of High Significance and removal of venting is considered to cause Minor
Harm) and appropriate conservation materials used to repair the structures, which is
considered to reduce the impact to Neutral. G5 was largely constructed in the 19th century
(although more recently updated). Any new venting and pipework would be carefully
considered and a full list of materials to be used will be supplied.
These proposals represent high quality, architecturally designed and conservation-led
additions to a building that has a history of extensions and interventions over perhaps four
hundred years. The resulting building is significant not despite these additions but because of
them, telling the story of the house’s use over its lifespan. It is appropriate therefore to
continue sympathetic and appropriate additions in a manner that preserves the building’s
fabric and significance.
7.2 Impact on Adjacent Properties
There will be minimal impact on adjacent properties. The neighbours will not be overlooked
by the new extension. The proposed structure will be just visible from the Southbury Lane,
but if carefully designed with appropriate materials the views of the house should only be
minimally affected. The proposed single 1/2 storey extension has a flat roof with a flat roof
linking to the main house. The general roof line would remain below the height of the historic
cottage.
7.3 Impact on Adjacent Landscape
Thatch Cottage lies within the Green Belt. The 2021 Ruscombe Draft Neighbourhood Plan
comments on the character of the Ruscombe:
“The green belt includes large areas of quality agricultural grade 1 and 2 land, which is
rarely found elsewhere in the Borough of Wokingham and is used for farming. It is this open,
rural landscape that sets Ruscombe apart and makes the village such an attractive place in
22John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
which to live..”
Thatch Cottage makes a collective contribution to the character and appearance of the Green
Belt.
The historic setting of Thatch Cottage, set amidst rolling agricultural fields along quiet
Southbury Lane, makes a very substantial contribution to the house’s significance. As well as
the wider setting, in this case, views to and from the building (particularly the weatherboarded
end of the bakehouse and the brief glimpses of the Thatch roof behind the mature hedging)
are important along the Southbury Lane (see Plates 7-8). Thatch Cottage is also near to Grade
II listed contemporary neighbouring cottages (UID 1303698).
This contribution to the landscape will not be materially affected by the proposals. Indeed,
updating the house and making it suitable for modern living while still retaining the core
historic elements of the early house is positive for the continuing life and usefulness of the
house.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Thatch Cottage is a Grade II listed building, constructed in the late 16-mid 17th century, with
later additions in the subsequent centuries. The current plan of the house was in place by 1830
with the weatherboarded bakehouse/barn extension to the south-east. The primary
significance of Thatch Cottage lies in its history as a timber framed small rural cottage,
associated with contemporary cottages along Southbury Lane, set within a wider agricultural
landscape. It probably had some historical association with Southbury Farm and the nearby
Ruscombe Mansion (lived in by William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania (BRO 1923)) as
it was known as one of the “Ruscombe Cottages” in the 1891 census and up to the 1940s.
More recently, particularly from the 1940s the house was remodelled and updated with the
front door positioned more prominently on the south-eastern façade.
A few alterations are proposed. 1) a new single storey standalone new structure and 2) removal
of north-eastern existing outbuildings, and 3) a new link between the historic cottage and the
new extension. 4) The relocation of the current kitchen G4 into the bakehouse G5.
The design proposals for the new structure have taken into consideration the comments made
during the pre-application. The size of the proposed extensions have been decreased and the
eaves height and a roof ridgeline reduced to now being subservient to the main historic
cottage. The new designs include a flat roof, with floor to ceiling windows, which further
marks it as a new modern structure. A new link from the cottage to the proposed extensions
cleverly utilizes a pre-existing opening, ensuring that no historic fabric will be compromised.
Therefore, the new extension is considered to no longer be as visually detrimental to the
cottage as previous designs in the pre-application suggested, and would not be misconstrued
as part of the original. These new designs are considered to be simple and contemporary and
serve to create a clearer foil to the listed building that would allow the diminutive character
of this historic cottage to prevail.
Furthermore, through the careful sighting and sympathetic scaling the proposed additions, the
proposals would not detract from the significance of the building nor detract from its
contribution to the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposals represent high quality,
architecturally designed and conservation-led additions to a building that has a history of
23John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
extensions and interventions over perhaps four hundred years. Successive additions have
added to the house and, these have expanded it beyond the historic core. The resulting building
is significant not despite these additions but because of them, telling the story of the house’s
use over its lifespan. It is appropriate therefore to continue sympathetic and appropriate
additions in a manner that preserves the building’s fabric and significance.
Overall, it is considered that the proposals will not materially affect the significance of the
building, with the degree of harm being minor or negligible, and the proposals having either
a neutral or positive impact. The proposals are concluded to not only sustain but also
enhance the building and allow its continued use as a viable house suitable for modern living
and are recommended to the local authority for approval.
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alcock, N. W. Barley, M. W., Dixon, P. W., Meeson, R. A. 2014. Recording Timber Framed
Buildings: an illustrated glossary. Practical Handbooks in Archaeology No. 5 (Revised
Edition). Council for British Archaeology.
BRO 1923. British History Online. 'Parishes: Ruscombe', in A History of the County of
Berkshire: Volume 3, ed. P H Ditchfield and William Page (London, 1923), pp. 203-
206. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/berks/vol3/pp203-206
[accessed 21 May 2021].
CIfA 2017 Standard and guidance for Archaeological Desk-based Assessment, Reading:
Chartered Institute of Field Archaeology
CIfA 2019 Standard and guidance for Archaeological Investigation and recording of
Standing Buildings and Structures, Reading: Chartered Institute of Field
ArchaeologyAugust017
English Heritage (EH) 2008a MoRPHE Project Planning Note 3 – Excavation, London:
English Heritage
English Heritage (EH) 2008b Conservation principles: Policies and guidance for the
sustainable management of the Historic Environment, London: English Heritage
Hall, L 2011 Period House Fixtures and Fittings 1300-1900. Countryside Books.
Highways Agency 2007 Design manuals for roads and bridges (Volume II), London:
Highways Agency
HE 2016 Historic England procedural document: Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide
to Good Recording Practice Swindon. Historic England.
Historic England 2017 The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice
Advice in Planning Note 3 –2nd Edition Swindon. Historic England.
HE 2019 Statement of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets
Historic England Advice Note 12. Swindon. Historic England.
HO 2004 Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century: the need for a sensitive and sustainable
approach, London: Home Office
24John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES Thatch Cottage, Ruscombe, Berks
Historic Building Impact Assessment
Mills, A. D. 2011 A Dictionary of British Place Names. Oxford University Press.
Landscape Institute 2011 Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment London: Routledge
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environment Management and Assessment 2013
Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment, London: Routledge
NPPF 2019 National Planning Policy Framework, London: Ministry of Houses,
Communities and Local Government
RNP 2021. Ruscombe Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036 Pre-Submission Plan. Published By
Ruscombe Parish Council for Pre-Submission consultation under the Neighbourhood
Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). FEBRUARY 2021
25John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES
APPENDIX 1: Grading Heritage Assets and Levels of Impact
Assessment of the impact on a Heritage Asset or Historic Building (either designated or non-
designated) is reliant on taking into account the significance of the site and any perceived harm
that would happen to it, then seeking to avoid, minimise and mitigate those impacts and
pursuing opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance, then ensuring any unavoidable
harmful impacts are justifiable by public benefits that are necessary and otherwise
undeliverable.
The National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF 2019) defines significance as ‘the value
of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest’ and it may
derive ‘not only from heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’ Significance
is what conservation sustains, and where appropriate enhances, in managing change to heritage
assets.
Historic England in their Statements of Heritage Significance (HE 2019) state that an
understanding of significance must stem from the interest(s) of the heritage asset, whether
archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic, or a combination of these. These must:
Describe significance following appropriate analysis, no matter what the level of
significance or the scope of the proposal
Be Sufficient for an understanding of the impact of the proposal on the significance,
both positive and negative
Sufficient for the LPA to come to judgement about the level of impact on that
significance and therefore on the merits of the proposal
In HE’s The Setting of Heritage Assets (2019) dictates that Statements of Significance need to
consider:
How the Historic Character of a place makes it distinctive. This may include its
association with people, now and through time; its visual aspects; the features, materials
and spaces associated with its history including its original configuration and
subsequent losses and changes.
Contextual relationships between the asset and any other heritage assets that are
relevant to the significance including the relationship of one asset to another, same
architects, or associative relationships.
Communal value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it,
or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.
Table 1: Criteria for assessing the significance of a Heritage Asset
Significance Definition Relevant Heritage Assets
Very High Relatively complete and World Heritage Sites.
predominantly static Historic landscapes of national or
landscapes sensitive to international importance, whether
change. Internationally designated or not.
significant locations or sites. Extremely well preserved historic
landscapes with exceptional coherence,
time-depth, or other critical factors.John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES APPENDIX 1
High Locations or Buildings that Scheduled Monuments: Archaeological
have little ability to absorb sites of schedulable quality and
change without significance.
fundamentally altering its Listed Buildings (all grades).
present significant Registered Historic Parks and Gardens
character. (all grades).
Well preserved historic Historic Battlefields.
landscapes, exhibiting
considerable coherence,
time depth and other factors.
Sites associated with
historic nationally and
internationally important
people or groups.
Medium Locations and Buildings Local Authority designated sites (e.g.
that have a moderate Conservation Areas and their settings).
capacity to absorb change Undesignated sites of demonstrable
without significantly regional importance.
altering its present Averagely well-preserved historic
character, has some landscapes with reasonable coherence,
environmental value, or is time-depth or other critical factor.
of regional or high local
importance.
Low Locations and Buildings Sites with significance to local interest
tolerant of change without groups.
detriment to its character, is Sites of which the significance is
of low environmental value, limited by poor preservation and poor
or is of moderate or minor survival of contextual associations.
local importance.
Negligible No loss No loss
Proposed developments to the site and setting of a Heritage Asset could be proposed as
Positive, Negative or Neutral. Some definitions of terms of the impact of damage to structures
is used in NPPF (2019) and its explanatory addition PPG 2014. From this a criteria on physical
and visual impact of the site and setting is made that defines the definitions that should be used
in respect to harm caused to a Heritage Asset. This thus weighs up the harm identified against
the benefits of the proposal.
Table 2: Criteria for Appraisal of Degree of Harm to the significance of Heritage Assets
Degree of Harm Definition
Substantial Total or substantial loss of the significance of a
heritage asset.
Substantial harmful change to a heritage asset’s setting,
such that the significance of the asset would be totally
lost or substantially reduced (e.g. the significance of a
designated heritage asset would be reduced to such a
degree that its designation would be questionable; the
significance of an undesignated heritage asset would beJohn Moore HERITAGE SERVICES APPENDIX 1
reduced to such a degree that its categorisation as a
heritage asset would be questionable).
Less than Partial physical loss of a heritage asset, leading to
substantial – considerable harm.
Moderate Considerable harm to a heritage asset’s setting, such
that the asset’s significance would be materially
affected/considerably devalued, but not totally or
substantially lost.
Less than Slight loss of the significance of a heritage asset. This
substantial - Minor could include the removal of fabric that forms part of
the heritage asset, but that is not integral to its
significance.
Some harm to the heritage asset’s setting, but not to the
degree that would result in a meaningful devaluation of
its significance.
Perceivable level of harm, but insubstantial relative to
the overall interest of the heritage asset.
Negligible A very slight change to a heritage asset which does not
result in any overall harm to its significance.
Very minor change to a heritage asset’s setting such
that there is a slight impact, but not materially affecting
the heritage asset’s significance.
No Impact No effect to the heritage asset or its setting.
Paragraph 199 of NPPF states that “the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a
factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.” This implies that the term
preservation by record is not a substitute for the preservation of the Heritage Asset itself or that
substantial damage can be passed off as negligible if mitigating factors (such as archaeological
recording) are carried out. This factor appears to be supported by the Valletta Convention 1992.
Proposed developments to the site and setting of a Heritage Asset could be identified as
Positive, Negative or Neutral. Some definitions of terms of the impact of damage to structures
are used in NPPF (2019, paragraph 185). From this, a criterion of the physical and visual impact
of the site and setting is made that defines the definitions that should be used with respect to
harm caused to a Heritage Asset, see table 3. This thus weighs up the harm identified against
the benefits of the proposal.John Moore HERITAGE SERVICES APPENDIX 1
Table 3: Criteria for assessing the impact of any changes to a Heritage Asset
Impact Definition
Positive Proposed changes represent a positive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the heritage asset and positive contribution to the character of the
building
Such changes may:
restore the building to the original structure or fabric
sustains, enhances or better reveals the significance of the heritage asset
positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness
Neutral Proposed changes represent a neutral strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the heritage asset and neutral contribution to the character of the
building
Very minor change to a heritage asset’s setting such that there is a slight
impact
Negative Proposed changes represent a negative strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the heritage asset and negative contribution to the character of the
building
Such changes may:
lose or remove original features of the building
causes the asset’s significance to be materially affected/considerably
devalued
negative contribution to the local character and distinctivenessYou can also read
