LIGHTHORNE SOCIETY
 |
VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT |
 |
| What is a Village
Design Statement? The concept of a
Village Design Statement is an initiative developed by the Countryside Commission, backed
by the Department of the Environment, which enables local residents to participate in the
planning procedures which impact upon their community and surroundings. Under current
legislation, overall planning policies are dictated by Central Government housing
strategies implemented through County Structure and Local District Plans and it is at this
latter level that Stratford District Council's award of Supplementary Planning Guidance
status in respect of the
Lighthorne
Village Design Statement imposes an obligation upon Planning Officers, Developers,
Architects and Builders to consider local opinion when formulating their planning
proposals. It is also required reading for District and Parish Councilors who assess such
schemes for consent or rejection. The Village Design
Statement is not, therefore, an instrument for the prevention of change. It is, however, a
medium through which residents may influence the manner in which such change could be
managed in order to conserve or enhance those environmental and architectural qualities
and characteristics which are valued by the local populace. Lighthorne is at
present a Category 4 settlement which means, in planning terms, that further development
and infilling within the village is regarded as inappropriate and the central part of the
village, being a designated Conservation Area, is already subject to regulation in terms
of the type and size of conversion and extension work which may be undertaken on
individual properties. The Village Design Statement forms an advisory appendix to these
statutory controls and restraints. The Countryside
Commission's VDS guidelines and Stratford District Council's interpretation of them
recognised
that the individual character of each village would extend to the manner in which the VDS
was compiled. From responses to the initial approach to all households in the village it
was apparent that, desirable though they might be, "workshops" and
"consultation forums" would not obtain sufficient support from residents and a
Steering Group, formed by all who showed an interest in participating, produced the
descriptive content of the document. In order that any opinion expressed should be seen to
have the widest possible support and approval, an "open" questionnaire was sent
to all households inviting comment upon the present characteristics and desirable future
design features of the village and these were collated into a further questionnaire which
solicited agreement or otherwise with the views originally put forward - (See Appendix 'A').
Fifty-six per cent of households replied to this survey and where over Ninety per cent of
the respondents agreed with a particular viewpoint, that comment has been incorporated in
italics into the following text. The Lighthorne Village
Design Statement was NOT granted Supplementary Planning Guidance status by Stratford
District Council who objected to the implied criticism of its Planning Department's
policies. |
||
| Lighthorne - the
landscape setting of the village. Lighthorne remains, as
one translation of its Anglo-Saxon name "Leut-hyrne" implies, a hidden corner of
rural Warwickshire. Entry to the village is not spoilt by ribbon development and it
is still possible to approach to within a hundred
metres of
the outskirts from most directions totally unaware, especially when the summer foliage is
at its most prolific,
that the valley contains the dwellings of some 250 inhabitants - a figure which has remained surprisingly
constant for the past millennium. The village lies on an
east / west axis along a steep-sided wooded valley fashioned over the centuries by a small
tributary of the River Avon washing away the surface limestone to uncover the impermeable
clays which form the valley floor. The older buildings in the village are all located at
points where a constant water source for their wells was provided by springs emerging from
the
uneroded
limestone to form the river below from which, with one exception - the village mill for
obvious reasons, they maintained a respectful distance. A later generation of planners
and engineers decided, in their wisdom, to submerge the stream itself when laying the
tarmacadam surface on what had been a muddy track with considerable advantage to the motor
vehicle but with inevitable, unfortunate consequences for the lower-lying properties when
storm-waters back up from the inadequate culvert beneath. Although the valley
itself is rich in both number and variety of deciduous trees, it is the adjacent open
countryside and farmland which gives Lighthorne its pleasant rural setting. Throughout
most of its recorded history, arable and livestock farming has dominated the surrounding
acreage with the fields radiating out from the half dozen substantial farmhouses situated
fairly close together in prime positions down the valley. This "nucleated"
grouping not only dictated the building pattern but has created for present-day
inhabitants the much-appreciated benefit of having footpaths and plentiful wildlife
"on our doorstep". While views into the
village are mostly obscured by roadside hedges and the immediate treescape, occasional
open vistas can be glimpsed from properties and lanes within the village and any new
building work should be very carefully sited to preserve these existing views. These
rural outlooks are valuable, as are the green spaces both in private gardens and public
places within the village not only as a visual enhancement but as an opportunity for
relaxation and recreational activities - at least in more clement
weather! |
||
| Lighthorne - The
present built environment The village contains a
distinctive admixture of ancient and modem properties regarded by some as an
"interesting variety" and by others as an "unholy alliance". Reticence
on the part of most residents to be censorious of the sometimes less than sympathetic
intrusion of imported materials and styles alongside the local limestone which is a
feature of many of the twenty-three Grade II listed buildings stems from the fact that
what the planner thinks of as a "house" is
recognised
by
neighbours
as a "home". Pursuing this vein of
tolerance, no comment is published herein regarding individual private properties but a
comparison between The Antelope public house and the Village Hall supports the widely-held
opinion that the older buildings are an important part of the visual attraction of the
village and that, in respect of any future construction or renovation, care should
be taken not to "swamp" the traditional architecture. The Antelope, like many
of the 17th and 18th century houses in the village, stands on foundations laid even
earlier and on a site known from early archive material to have been occupied since before
the 13th century. The present building, extensively modernised within, and during the past
fifty years somewhat modified externally, nonetheless presents to the passer-by much of
the original aspect which its early 18th Century designer and builder put in place. The
squared, coursed, white lias limestone was quarried within the parish boundary and has
weathered to an attractive shade of
grey and is
surmounted by a hipped roof constructed of old red tile. The older properties,
while identifiable principally by the profusion of native stone in their construction, and
in many cases dressings of Horton stone, lack a uniformity of local "style" in
respect of roofing materials and chimney stacks, doors and windows, many of which have
been additions or replacements reflecting the fashion of subsequent generations and the
spending-power of individual occupiers. Modem-day demands for more spacious accommodation
have led to the demolition of many of the smaller, less well-appointed cottages with
several of those which remain having been "knocked-through" or extended either
sideways or upwards. While most of these alterations have been achieved without disturbing
the traditional outward appearance of the village, the same cannot be said of the majority
of new building which has taken place in the latter half of the 20th century which
accounts for more than fifty per cent of the present-day structures. By comparison with the older properties which have
been affectionately referred to as the "chocolate box" heritage of the
environment, the confusion of styles introduced particularly during the 1960's and 70's
can only be described as a "manufacturer's assortment" or, less charitably, as
"liquorice allsorts". This is not to deny
that what has been removed was, in many cases, very poor quality housing - some having no internal
plumbing - nor that much of the new
building exhibits elements of thoughtful "design" in its own right. However, the
general perception is that the village was ill-served by a lack of (or at the least a
disregard for) any cohesive planning policy in the decades following the Second World War. The economic climate at
the time, combined with the urgent need for affordable housing, led to functional
utilitarianism rather than aesthetic considerations holding sway. Local authority
house-building extended the village profile up part of the southern slopes of the valley
and onto the skyline in a breach of the otherwise "hidden" perimeter which it is
hoped will not be repeated elsewhere. Meanwhile speculative private development infilled
the gaps along the existing roads and lanes. While by no means
typical of the newer buildings, The Village Hall, built in 1963, with its nondescript
ochreous brick and undistinguished synthetic "slate" tiling sits in
uncomfortable architectural juxtaposition to The Antelope Inn on the opposite side of the
road. Like the pub, the Hall is a much valued amenity but the last decade alone has seen
the latter edifice re-roofed (its former covering having rotted through causing the
superstructure to collapse and burst a wall out of alignment), its door- and window-frames
to disintegrate to a point where "plastic" replacements are now a feature and
the subsidence, which has afflicted several of its contemporaneous, poorly-sited houses,
is an on-going concern. A more responsible, and
perhaps better-controlled, attitude to planning design has been in evidence during more
recent times, with a welcome endeavour by both publicly-financed development and private
conversions to regulate the siting and scale of any new building and to acknowledge
pressures to prefer local (or compatible) materials. The result has been that only
one property has been erected on a greenfield site during the last twenty years and in the
past decade three formerly derelict or obsolescent groups of buildings have been converted
to provide no fewer than sixteen dwellings either retaining the pre-existing facade or
cladding them in a stone which, if not local, has been chosen to give a close
approximation thereto. It is the express wish
of the community that this restraint continues and that would-be developers accept that it
is of prime importance that planning restrictions are rigorously enforced. Lighthorne is used to
change and, in common with most of the industrialised world, has benefited from the
accelerated dissemination of services and utilities during the past fifty years. Each
advantage seems, however, to have been accompanied by sometimes avoidable environmental
corruption of the locality. Most recently, the M40 - a considerable benefit to a more
mobile generation - frequently, in certain
atmospheric conditions, delivers a persistent audible reminder of a busier, more frenetic
world beyond the hill. Few, if any, residents would seek a return to the "good old
days" prior to the advent of modem communications systems, mains electricity and
water and sewage services. There is, however, an undercurrent of feeling that more could
have been, and given sufficient financial priority may yet be, done to conceal or disguise
the necessary sub-stations, junction-boxes, festoons of cable and pumping stations which
deliver the services to our homes. Care should be taken (replies to our
questionnaire belatedly revealed) that street furniture is appropriate. Television
aerials and satellite dishes have become so much a part of the skyscape that they no
longer appear anomalous on a neighbouring property to a thatched country cottage but
perhaps technological progress will eventually render them unnecessary? Again, while the
campaign which brought street-lighting to Lighthorne was welcomed at the time, it was,
perhaps, less than considerate to install lurid orange sodium lamps mounted on concrete
pillars, presumably surplus to some urban by-pass project. There is a view, although its
popularity is not established, that street-lighting is neither appropriate nor necessary
for rural villages and that darkness in which the night sky can be observed is one of the
delights of nature. In Lighthorne's case, abolition of our street lighting would be less
than totally effective since the roseate pollution from the motorway service station and
|
||
|
||
| Lighthorne - Design in
any new building. The final subject which
Village Design Statements are required to address is, perhaps, the most difficult.
NIMBY-ism is not an option but, from the foregoing text, it will be apparent that the
present inhabitants are less concerned with the design of new building than that the
integrity of the "hidden corner" be respected. The village has been transformed
in the past fifty years - the crafts and trades of
the former inhabitants have been out-sourced to multinational organisations - the farming community
utilises machinery rather than labour - the village shop and
"carrier" have fallen victim to the supermarket - the public transport
infrastructure has proved so inadequate that all incoming residents recognise the need to
bring their own cars - apropos of which any
new properties must have integral off-street car-parking facilities. Whereas within living
memory the community was typical of an economically viable settlement with sufficient
employment opportunities to sustain its inhabitants, it now contains a majority of retired
people and commuters to the surrounding commercial and industrial centres. Unlike other Village
Design Statements which we have seen, ours is not able to offer a prescriptive "Thou
shalt" or proscriptive "Thou shalt not" formulae to intending developers.
As is evident from the gardens in the village, we are a community of individuals - some preferring the
neatly-tended formal style while others, more laissez-faire, can boast what is probably
the world's finest display of "taraxacum officinale" (dandelions to the
uninitiated). However, despite the lack
of dictatorial "Guidelines", we hope that all responsible for the future
development of Light home will find embedded in this document sufficient of our hopes and
fears to enable them to understand and acknowledge our communal preferences when
contemplating the design of any further "improvements". Not only are we
diffident about insisting upon our "opinions" being the determining rules which
govern what colour our neighbours paint their walls or how much "leylandii" they
plant to conceal any unfortunate choice of hue, we are very conscious that our standards
should not prevail over the wishes of future generations. We therefore trust that
periodically up-dated Village Design Statements will be an on-going feature of planning
procedures and that our successors will inherit a village setting which we will have
helped to "conserve" and which they can, we hope, "enhance". |
||
All Information,
Comment and Opinion provided by the Residents of Light home Co-ordinated, edited
and published by the VDS Steering Group of "The Lighthorne Society" Autumn, 1997 |
||
| Methodology |
All 155 households in
the village were asked to comment in respect of the Headings underlined below. A
questionnaire was produced from the responses and this in turn was circulated to each
household to establish the majority attitude to the observations. We are grateful to the 84 households who replied - their answers are shown below |
| Survey Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lighthorne Online Home Page | Lighthorne Organisation Home Page
