St Nicholas Church, Worth - WordPress.com · 2019/02/27 · Concept Design Document St Nicholas...

9-10 Old Stone LinkShip StreetEast GrinsteadWest Sussex, RH19 4EF

Tel. +44 (0)1342 410 242Fax. +44 (0)1342 313 [email protected] www.cowan-architects.co.uk

COWAN ARCHITECTS LTD

St Nicholas Church, Worth

Concept Design Document

February 2019

Informal Submission - 27/02/19

Concept Design Document St Nicholas Church, Worth

Contents1. Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose of this Concept Design Document 4 1.2 Abriefappraisalofthehistoricalsignificance and context of St Nicholas Church 5 1.3 Theneedstowhichthisapplicationrelates 6 1.4 The brief for the proposed works 7

2. Relevant Legislation and Guidance 8 2.1 EcclesiasticalGuidance 8 2.2 SecularGuidance(National) 9 2.3 SecularGuidance(Local) 10

3. Concept Design - Entrance Pathway 12 3.1 OptionsforRelocatingEntrancePathway 12 3.2 GuidingPrinciplesforNewPathway 13 3.3 PathwayOption1 14 3.4 PathwayOption2 15 3.5 PathwayOption3 16 3.6 DevelopingOption3 17

4. Concept Design Internal Facilities 18 4.1 OptionsforIntroducingNewInternalFacilities 18 4.2 TheExistingInternalContext 19 4.3 TheProposedAlterations 20 4.4 ConsideringtheImpactontheInterioroftheChurch 21 4.5 ConsideringtheImpactontheExterioroftheChurch 22 4.6 ExternalDetailing 23

5. Concept Design Memorial Garden 24 5.1 TheInitialConcept 24

6. Summary 25 6.1 Conclusion 25

AppendixI:StatutoryListDescription(StNicholas) 26AppendixII:StatutoryListDescription(Lychgate) 27AppendixIII:StatutoryListDescription(StreetHouse) 28AppendixIV:ArboriculturalInspectionandAdvice 29AppendixV:GravelSurfaceSampleStudy 30

Jonathan [email protected]:01342410242

ThisreportandallintellectualpropertyrightsinitandarisingfromitarethepropertyoforareunderlicencetoCowanArchitectsortheclient.Neitherthewholenoranypartofthisreport,noranydrawing,plan,otherdocumentoranyinformationcontainedwithinitmaybereproducedinanyformwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofCowanArchitectsortheclientasappropriate.Allmaterialinwhichtheintellectualpropertyrightshavebeen licensed toCowanArchitectsor the clientand such rightsbelong to thirdpartiesmaynotbepublished or reproduced at all in any form, and any request for consent to the use of suchmaterial forpublicationorreproductionshouldbemadedirectlytotheowneroftheintellectualpropertyrightstherein.

Contact Information

9-10OldStoneLinkShip StreetEastGrinsteadWestSussex,RH194EF

COWAN ARCHITECTS LTD


Section Rev. Date By Summary of Changes

Checked by Approved by

All - 27/02/19 JKC - NM NM

Preparedby: JKCDate: 27/02/19

Approvedby: NMDate: 27/02/19


1.1 - Purpose of this Concept Design Document

This document has been prepared for submission for Informal Faculty Advice toChichesterDiocesanAdvisoryCommittee(DAC),on behalf of the Parochial Church Council (PCC) of St NicholasChurch,Worth,bytheirInspectingArchitectJonathanCerowski.

Thepurposeofthisdocumentistosetoutthefollowing:

- An appraisal of the historical significance and context of St Nicholas Church.

- The specific needs ofthechurchanditscongregationatSt Nicholas.

- Anexplanationoftheaspirations and brief prepared bythePCC,whichweredevelopedintoconceptdesign optionsincollaborationwiththeirInspectingArchitect.

- Relevantlegislation and guidance which dictated the developmentoftheproposals.

- Concept design options.

- A preferred option,andtherationaleforthischoice.

- Conceptual notes regarding the detailing and materiality ofthepreferredoption,tobedevelopedfollowing feedbackfromChichesterDACandCrawleyBorough Council.

1. Introduction


1.2–AbriefappraisalofthehistoricalsignificanceandcontextofSt Nicholas

Theintentionofthisappraisalistogiveahighlevelhistoryofthechurch and its context for readers unfamiliar with St Nicholas. Specific elements of historical built fabric or context will bediscussed in greater detail later in this document where deemed necessary. If theDAC isamenable to theapproachproposed inthepreferredoptionofthisdocument,aStatementofSignificancewould be prepared to support a formal application for Faculty,andthiswouldpresentthehistoryofthechurchinagreaterlevelof detail generally, and more specifically where alterations areproposed.

St Nicholas Church is perhaps one of the finest ecclesiasticalbuildings, and certainly one of the oldest, in the country. It isthought to date from the 11th Century, though some sourcesspeculate that elements of its built fabric precede this date based oncomparablechurcheswhicharebelievedtodatefromthe8th/9th Century.

It is notable for being the only Saxon cruciform churchwith anapsidal chancel which is complete in plan form. It has a widehighnave,lowtranseptsandalowerchancel.ItisconstructedofWealdenSandstonewitharedclaytiledroofgenerally. Thereisatowertothenorth-east(addedin1871andreplacinganearliertimberstructure,thereisanindicationofthisinthebackgroundofFig3,totherightofthispage)withacedarshingledbroachspire.Amajor schemeof restorationandalterationwascarriedout in1986followingafirewhichdestroyedtheroof. At thistimethefloorandseatingwerereplacedinternally.

Itissomethingofamysterywhysuchalargechurch(forthetime)wasconstructedinanareawhichwaspredominantlyforestedinthe 11thCentury,howeveritisknownthattheforestwasreservedforhuntingandwasgrantedtoWilliamdeWarrennebyWilliamtheConquerorin1065,andsoitisbelievedthatStNicholasservedasaplacefordeWarrenne’svisitorstoprayincomfort.

Thechurchbuildinghasnecessarilychangedandevolvedoverthelast1000years,anditisnottheintentionofthisbriefappraisaltodetail thisevolutionwherenot strictly relevant to theproposalsor their immediate context. Generally, the church building hasbeenextended,restored,rebuiltandrepaired.Importantly,ithascontinuedinitsecclesiasticaluse,andisthoughttobethelongestcontinuallyusedchurchbuildinginthecountry.ItistheopinionofthePCCandtheInspectingArchitectthatthis;itsevolutionandadaptationtoallowthechurchbuildingtocontinuetoprovideaplaceforChristianprayerandworship,hasbeenandremainsitsmostimportantfunction.

The context of the church too has evolved, it no longer sits ina forest,withCrawley to itswest and theM23motorway to itseast.ItdoeshoweverformthecharacterfulcentreoftheWorthConservationArea,andsitsinasecludedchurchyardsurroundedbytrees,someofwhichareimportantandancient.

It is listed at Grade I, has a consecrated open churchyard andcontains several Commonwealth war and other notable graves.Thelychgateis listedseparatelyatGradeII,asisStreetHouse,asingle familydwellingtothenorthof thechurchand immediatenortheastofthelychgate.ThelistingdescriptionsforStNicholas,thelychgateandStreetHousecanbefoundintheappendicesofthis document.

St Nicholas Church (alsoknownasWorthChurch).

LychGate.

Fig 1: Site Location Reference, Google Maps Extract.

Fig 2: East end of St Nicholas, showing apsidal chancel in foreground. Fig 3: Print of St Nicholas (with the former tower in the background), by Richard Henry Nibbs from the ‘Sussex Churches’ series of 1851.


1.3–Theneedstowhichthisapplicationrelates

ChichesterDAChaspreviouslybeenconsultedbythePCContheircurrentneedsin2018,withasitevisitcarriedouton22ndMarch2018 with the previous Inspecting Architect, Robin Nugent, inattendance.Thepurposeofthatvisitisnotedinthesitevisitnotesas:

“…to discuss the development of their plans for better access to the church, the possibility of significant tree works or felling, and the provision of a toilet.”

The author of this document was not present at that meeting,thoughhehasreadthethoroughanddetailednotespreparedbytheDACfollowingthemeeting,aswellasdiscussingtheproposalsat length with the PCC. With this in mind, it is thought thatitwouldbeuseful to return tofirst principles, theneedsof thechurch congregationand thewiderusersof thebuilding, ratherthan startingwith a list of proposals for which a justification ispost-rationallysought.AssetoutintheEcclesiasticalJursidictionandCareof ChurchesMeasure2018, it is a general duty of thechurchtohavedueregardtotheroleofachurchasalocalcentreofworshipandmission,perhapsmorenotablyatStNicholasthaninmostinstancesduetotheextendedlengthoftimeforwhichithascontinuallyservedthispurpose.

ThePCCseekstofacilitatethecontinueduseofStNicholasbyaswidearangeofusersaspossiblewithintheconfinesofitshistoricGradeIbuiltfabricanditsbeautifulchurchyardsetting.InordertoallowthechurchtobeusedbyawideusergroupthePCCwouldliketo:

Improve access to the church from the lychgate

The access pathway from the lychgate to the west end of StNicholas is a straight but slopedpathway,with substantial treestoeitherside.Thetreesareamixtureofturkeyoaks,limes,andahorse-chestnut. Thepathway is surfaced in tarmac,undulatesalongitscirca35metrelength(withacirca3.5metrelevelchangebetweeneitherend)andhasavariedwidthofbetweenoneandahalfmetresandlessthanametre(duetothetreestoeithersideencroachingonthepathway).Beyondthetreestherearetombs,graves and memorials, with patches of clear grass interspersedbetween.

The pathway was resurfaced four years ago in an attempt toimproveaccessalong it,thoughrootdamagefromthetreeshashadasignificanteffectontheusabilityofthepathwaysincethen.Thechurchwardenshavenotedthatwithanelderlycongregation,members of the local community have been forced tomove toother local churches due to the inaccessibility of the pathwaysurface for wheelchair users and ambulant disabled members. Theyalsoreportaccessissuesforfuneralpallbearersandweddingparties.

Provide modest modern amenities

StNicholassitscentrallywithin itschurchyard, ithasnohallandno facilities internally, either toilets or an area for refreshmentpreparation.Thechurchiscurrentlyusedforservices,communitymeetings,eveningfunctions,andisopentothepublicgenerally.Though the PCC do not seek to harm the special quality of thebuilding or propose an extension which might change the character ofthebuilding,theywouldliketoprovidemodestprovisionsforthe current and future users of the building.

The PCC are conscious that whatever provisions are proposed,theyshouldnothaveanadverseimpactontheuseofthebuildingforitsecclesiasticalfunctions,normustanyworksdetractfromthespecialqualitiesofthechurch.Aswiththeentrancepathway,theywouldlikeanyalterationstofacilitatethechurchbeingmademoreusabletoawiderangeofusers,includingthoseinwheelchairs.

Fig 4: Photograph of access pathway from lychgate to church, taken in Summer 2018.

Fig 5: Photograph of access pathway from lychgate to church, taken in 1955 show-ing the more generous pathway width in the mid-20th Century (Francis Frith).

Fig 6: Current W.C. facilities, circa 150 metres away along Church Road to the west of St Nicholas, adjacent to the Rectory.


1.4 – The brief for the proposed works

Following a careful review of the feedback provided by theDAC following theirMarch 2018meeting at StNicholas Church,and after several discussions with the PCC and Michael Boag,the Rector of Worth Parish, we agreed the following brief fordevelopingproposalsforimprovingtheaccessibilityandusabilityofStNicholasChurch:

- Investigate several options for re-locating the entrance pathway to the church from the lychgate.Theseoptions shouldassessthepossibleimplicationsofre-routing theexistingpathway–Coulditbelengthenedtodecrease thesteepnessofthepathway?Coulditberepositioned toallowsomeoralloftheavenueoftreestoeitherside ofthecurrentpathwaytoberetained?

- Prepare a concept design for inserting a W.C. and Kitchenette into the church to improve the usability of the building by a wider range of people and for a greater range of functions.DuringthepreviousDACvisit,a proposal was presented to insert an accessible W.C. into afineVictoriansouthporch.Whilstrelativelymodern, itistheopinionoftheInspectingArchitectthatthisdoes notwarrantitsconversion,shouldamoreviableandless damagingoptionbeshowntobeavailable.IfaW.C. (orpotentiallytwo,toimprovethepracticality ofthechurch forlargergatherings)weretobe inserted,itshouldbeaccessibletoall.Thekitchenette shouldlikewisebedesignedinsuchawayastoallowa widerangeofusers’accesstoitsfacilities.Ifpossible, anynewinterventionshouldimproveaccessibilityto theinteriorofthechurchfromthewestendentrance, where there is a large internal threshold stone step from theexternalgroundleveldownintothechurch.The proposalsshouldnotseektoremoveordamagehistoric builtfabricwherepracticallyavoidable.

- Assess the surface treatment of the wider pathways of the churchyard. The immediate proposals are to improveoraltertheentranceroutetothechurch, howevertheotherpathwayswhichencompassthechurch buildingandruntotheformerrectorytothesouthwould alsobenefitfromachangetotheirsurfacefinish.The current tarmac surface has been noted to be a slip hazard infrosty,wetorautumnalconditions,itiscrackedin placesanddrainspoorly.

- Investigate the incorporation of a ‘memorial garden’ to land to the south-east of the church building. To theperipheryofthechurchyard’ssouth-eastcorner thereisagrassfield,formerlythekitchengardenofthe oldrectory,whichhasbeengiftedtothechurch.ThePCC wouldliketoinvestigateitsconversionintoamemorial garden,withmarkersorkerbsforlocalpeople,plantedin anappropriatemanner,andwithseatingforvisitorsset aroundthepathway.

Fig 7: Photograph of Victorian south porch.

Fig 8: Photograph of a section of cracked tarmac pathway around the periphery of the church.

Fig 9: Photograph of the proposed memorial garden area, to the south-east of St Nicholas.


2.1–EcclesiasticalGuidance

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018

Section35statesthatthoseinvolvedinthecareandconservationofchurchesunder theMeasurehaveaduty tohaveregard toachurch’spurpose,whichitnotesastobealocalcentreofworship and mission.Brokendown,worshiprelatestohowacongregationmeetswithGod,whilstmission relates to outreach and catering to visitors.

InthecaseofStNicholas,thebriefpreparedbythePCCmustbeviewedinthelightofthisduty,andinordertofacilitateworshipandmission,appropriateaccessandfacilitiesmustbeavailabletoallowthecongregationandvisitorstoreachthechurchbuilding,and facilitate its use once it has been reached.

ChurchCare Guidance Note – Summary of Guidance to works to trees

ThisdocumentnotesthatworksmaybecarriedouttotreesunderaListAorBapplicationifcertaincriteriaaremet.ThesecriteriaincludeconsultingwiththelocalauthorityiftreeworksareproposedinaConservationAreaorifTreePreservationOrders(TPOs)areinplaceforanyofthetreestowhichworksareproposed.Necessarystepsmustbetakentoprotectwildlife.Anarboriculturist’sadvicemustbesoughtwhereworksareproposedtotrees.ItalsonotesthatanytreeslistedintheGazetteer of Ancient Yews or the Ancient Tree InventoryshouldbenotedintheStatementofSignificance,andtreesgenerallyshouldbeconsideredaspartofthisStatement.

Aspecialistarboriculturist,HalAppleyard,hasbeenconsulted inrelationtoproposalsatStNicholas,andhis report is referencedlater in this document as well as forming an appendix. The Gazetteer of Ancient Yews and theAncient Tree Inventorywerebothconsultedonline,bothofwhichnoteanancientyewtotherearofStreetHouse(theadjacentproperty),whichfallsoutsideofthechurchyard.

ChurchCare Guidance Note – Improving the Visitor Experience

ThisguidancenotegivesfurtherguidancetotheCareofChurchesMeasure’sSection35‘localcentreof…mission’.Itdescribesthegeneral spiritofwelcoming thosebeyond thecongregation,andnotesthatformostvisitorstheprimaryreasonforvisiting isnotlikelytobearchitecturalorhistoricalinterest.Thedocumentgivesguidanceonhealthandsafety–avoidtriphazardsandeaseaccesswhere practicable, make the churchyard welcoming, use bestendeavourstoallowvisitorstofeelincluded.

Some of the guidance in this document couldmore pertinentlybe used by the PCC once any access improvements have beenimplemented, however it does highlight the importance of theaccessibility (both literally and figuratively) in helping furthermissioninacommunity,andencouragevisitors.IthasbeennotedbythePCCthatwhenthetreesalongtheentrancepathwayareinbloom, it is difficult todiscern the church through them, andcoupled with St Nicholas being tucked away from the publicthoroughfare,thismaydiscouragevisitors.

ChurchCare Guidance Note – Accessibility and Disabled People

ThisguidancenoterelatestoTheEqualityAct2010,whichreplacedthe Disability Discrimination Act, and details the duty ‘serviceproviders’ (in this case the church) have to provide access forworshipandwideractivitiestoasmanydifferentusersaspossible.TheActcoversawiderrangeofusersthanjustthosewithphysicaldisabilities,thoughthescopeofthisdocumentdoesnotextendtoaddressingtheuseofStNicholasbyotherdisabledusers,thismustbeconsideredbythePCCatanothertime.

Thesuggestionsincludeconsideringaccesstothechurch,partsoftheinterior,useofW.C.s,andchurchyardsandpaths.

ChurchCare Guidance Note – Reordering – Alterations and Extensions

This brief guidance details the typical process of developingalterations to church buildings, of which this concept designdocumentformsasmallpart. Thenoterecommendsconsultingwith theDAC, thinking critically about the needs of the church,andbeingpreciseinwhatyouwouldlikeanyproposalstoachieve,ratherthanstartingfromanideaofwhatthoseworksmightbe.

2. Relevant Legislation and Guidance

ChurchCare Guidance Note – Guidance to parochial church councils on trees

Thisdocumentexpandsonthesummaryguidancesetoutintheprevious guidancenote. It notes that the fellingof treeswhichare not dying and have not become dangerous requires Facultypermission.Ifoptionssetforthasaresultofthisconceptdesigndocumentrequirethefellingoftrees,aFacultyapplicationwouldthereforebenecessary.

Thedocumentadvisesthatsecularlawappliestochurchyardtrees,andtheLocalPlanningAuthority’s(LPA)LocalDevelopmentPlan(LDP)shouldbeconsulted.TheLDPmayadviseonthetreesandtheirroleinthelocalarea,aswellastheirsignificance,asperceivedbytheLPA.

Pertinently,thedocumenthighlightstheimportanceofdiscussingwhatmakes the trees specialwith localpeople. Anexplanationofwhatmightmakea treeor groupof trees important follows,notingthatgroupsoftreesplantedinthe17th/18thCenturymayhavesomesymbolicsignificance,givingtheexampleofagroupof12treesmaysymbolicallyrepresentthe12apostles.Anecdotally,localsrefertothetreesalongthepathwaytothechurchas ‘the12apostles’ (though thereareactually13),however theauthorof this document could find no reference beyond this anecdotetosupportthis. Severalofthetreesaremuchyoungerthanthegeneralgroup,andsothismightnothavebeentheoriginalintentofthetreeplanting,oritmayhavebeenpost-rationalisedwiththeadditionofseveraltreesatalaterpoint.

Theguidancenoteadvisesthathistoricphotographsofthechurcharereviewed,tocompareviewstothechurchhistoricallytothosenowpresent,toassesstheimpactofremovingthetrees.

Insection1.3ofthisdocument,theonlyavailablephotographofthe avenue of trees is presented for comparison to the existingtreegrowthfromthesameviewpoint.However,thetreescouldbe considered one of the latest chapters in a many chapteredhistory,andthoughwedonothaverecordsoftheviewpointfromthelychgatetoStNicholasChurch,wedoknowfromthedateoftheconstructionofthelychgatethatthisviewmusthaveexistedwithoutbeingobscuredbytrees,andwedoknowthatthetreesrelativetotheentirehistoryofthebuildingareyoung.Itmustbenotedthoughthatrevertingbacktoanearlierlandscapingformforitsownsakeisnotasufficientjustificationfortheremovaloftrees,inthesamewayasearlierinternalformofachurchbuildingdoesnotnecessarilyjustifyremovingalaterphaseofinternalworks.


2.2–SecularGuidance(National)

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

WhilstChurchofEnglandbuildingsarenotsubjecttoListedBuildingConsent in the samemanner as secularbuildings,Section 16(2) requiresspecialregardtobehadtothedesirabilityofpreservingthebuildingoritssettingoranyfeaturesofspecialarchitecturalorhistoric interest which it possesses.

TheActwould typically be used inweightingother elements ofplanningpolicy against the impact of proposals on ensuring thepreservationofaheritageasset(inthiscaseStNicholas’church),andtherefore this approach should be borne in mind when considering proposalstoecclesiasticalbuildingswithinaConservationArea,asin this instance.

National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposeddevelopmentonthesignificanceofadesignatedheritageasset, greatweight should be given to the asset’s conservation.Themoreimportanttheasset,thegreatertheweightshouldbe.In this instance,wehope that thisdocumentdemonstrates thattheconservationandfutureofStNicholas’churchdependsonitscontinueduse,anditscontinuedusedependsontheaccessibilityandusabilityofthebuildingbeingupgradedtomeettheneedsof21stCenturycongregationandwidercommunity.

Paragraph 196statesthatwhereadevelopmentproposalwillleadto less thansubstantialharmto thesignificanceofadesignatedheritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the publicbenefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viableuse.TheproposedworkswouldallowStNicholastocontinueinitsoptimumviableuse,asachurchbuildingandcommunitymeetingplace.

Paragraph 170 states that proposed works should contribute to andenhancethenaturalandlocalenvironmentbyprotectingandenhancingvaluedsitesandlandscapes,commensuratewiththeirstatutorystatusoridentifiedqualityinthedevelopmentplan.TheCrawleyLocalDevelopmentPlanisreferredtoinsection2.3ofthisdocument.


Crawley Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document

Part4oftheLPA’sDesignGuiderelatestoConservationAreasandListedBuildings.InthesectiondetailingWorthConservationAreaitnotes:

“Worth Conservation Area was designated by the council in March 1987 when it was recognised that it was important to preserve and enhance the character of the setting of St Nicholas’ Church, which has been described as one of the most perfect specimens of a Saxon building in England.”

ThisschemeseekstohonourtheaimssetforthintheLPA’sdesignguidance.

2.3–SecularGuidance(Local)

Crawley Local Plan 2015-2030

Policy SD1clarifiestheLPA’spresumptioninfavourofSustainableDevelopment,inlinewiththeNPPF’sconfirmationthatthisisthepurposeoftheplanningsystem.Itnotesthethreedimensionsofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalrolesthatdevelopmentmustbalance.ParticularlyrelevanttotheschemeatStNicholasistheimportance placed on respecting the heritage of the borough,providingasafeenvironmentforresidentsandvisitors(inrelationtothecurrentunevenandnarrowentrancepathwaytothechurch)and provide for the social needs of the Crawley’s current andfuturepopulation (in relation to theprovisionof facilitieswithinthechurchbuilding,andtheadditionofamemorialgardentothesouth-east).

Policy CH13relatestoCrawley’sguidanceonConservationAreas,noting that all development within a Conservation Area shouldindividually and cumulatively result in the preservation andenhancement of the character and appearance of the area. Itreferences the relevant (in this caseWorth’s) ConservationAreaStatement,andasksforconsiderationtobemadetorespecttheelementsoftheareawhichparticularlymakeitspecial,includingthe landscape value of trees, set against preserving the area’sarchitectural quality. This document seeks to demonstrate thatthisisthecaseintheoptionproposed.

Policy CH15 describestheLPA’sapproachtoListedBuildings,andnotes that any change must preserve and enhance the designand character of the building, with due regard to its historicsignificance. ThoughFaculty replaces ListedBuildingConsent inthisinstance,thepolicyinterestinglynotesthattheLPA’sapproachthatdemolitioncanonlybeacceptablewhere(abuilding)cannotberetainedinitsoriginalform,andwhenasignificantbenefitthatcannot be facilitated should (the building) be retained, can bedemonstrated.Ifthisapproachweretobeappliedtothepotentialremoval of any trees, an argument couldbemade tooffset thenegativeeffectsoftreeremovalwiththepositiveeffectsofusableaccess to the heritage asset.

Fig 10: Worth Conservation Area boundary, with church indicated with arrow head.


Inrelationtotrees,theStatementnotesthat:

“Any loss of the enclosure provided by trees would cause significant harm to the character of the Conservation Area, revealing the Church to make it seem much closer to the urban area, losing its rural setting and concealed nature, which is a key feature of the church’s setting. Therefore, it is vital that the existing tree cover is retained”. (page 36)

Inrelationtothetreeavenueinparticular(asthereareothertreesbeyond those twelve,which collectively screen theChurch fromtheurbanarea),itnotes:

“The council is aware that the row of trees known as the ‘twelve apostles’ in the churchyard of St. Nicholas’ are, as a result of root and trunk growth, obscuring access to the path for church users, particularly for people with mobility issues and also pallbearers during funerals. The Crawley Borough Council Arboriculture (sic.) Officer has advised that the trees are near the end of their natural life, and it is possible that the trees may need to be felled in the near future. Given the important heritage contribution made by the tree-lined avenue, particularly in shaping the secluded rural character of the churchyard, should the trees need to be felled, the tree-lined avenue should be reinstated through replacement tree planting of a suitable species”. (page 38)

Assetoutbytheauthorearlierinthissection,thoughanimportantlandscapefeaturenowthetreelinedavenuewillnothavealwaysbeenadefiningcharacteristicofthesettingofthechurch,priortothemid-19thCentury.Optionsforthereplacementofthetrees(ifthisisdeterminedtobethemostviableoption)mustbesought,howevera‘suitablespecies’mightbeonewhichgrowstoamuchsmallersize(topreventtheimpingingofaccessduetotrunkandrootgrowth inthefuture)andsuchaspeciesmightbefoundtohave a negative rather than a positive impact on the setting ofthechurchbuilding.Alternativeoptionsareexploredlaterinthisdocument,andwouldbedevelopedinagreaterlevelofdetail iffoundtobeviable.

TheConservationAreaStatementnotesthat:

“The sense of place surrounding the church is tangible, its presence revealed when leaving the wooden path and arriving in the clearing immediately surrounding the church and thus its historical context has been retained”. (page 18)

Itisimportanttounderstandthatconservationisthemanagementofchange,andnot thepreservationofabuildingand itssettingin aspic, nor is it a sufficient rationale to propose reverting theformorsettingofahistoricbuildingbacktoanearlierstageofitshistoric formwithoutsoundand justifiablereasoning. However,thenotesabovedemonstratethatthetreeavenueislikelytohavebeenaVictorianadditionandnotpartofitshistoriccharacterforthepreceding800yearsof thechurch’shistory.Whilst thisdoesnotjustifytheremovalofthetreesifthisisfoundtobenecessary,the importance of the treesmust be carefully balanced againstthehistoricalsignificanceofthecontinualuseofthebuildingforecclesiasticalfunctions,andthepotentialalternativesof;thelossofusabilityforthecongregationandcommunity,therelocationofgravesandmemorials to facilitateanalternativepathway route,and the potential for archaeological sensitive assets to areas ofundisturbedgroundsurroundingthetreesandpathway.

TheStatementalsonotesthatgiventhehistoricandarchitecturalimportanceofthechurch,anychangeswouldneedtobestronglyjustified, and applicants seeking such changes should preparea Heritage Impact Assessment for submission to the council’sDevelopmentManagementteam.ItdoesnotethatecclesiasticalexemptionfromListedBuildingConsentmaybesoughtfor‘certainminorworks’tothechurchbuilding.Itstates:

“The key objective of Worth Conservation Area is the retention of the countryside setting of the historic St Nicholas’ Church”. (page 34)

This document seeks to demonstrate that the proposed works wouldhonourthisobjective.

2.3–SecularGuidance(Local)-continued

Worth Conservation Area Statement 2018

The recentlyadoptedConservationAreaStatement forWorth iscomprehensiveandinformative.ItparticularlymakesreferencetothesenseofplaceevidentwithintheConservationArea,andtheimportance of St Nicholas church as the centre point of the area.

In relation to the proposals set forth in this document it notesparticularly the important features of the church internally, andthe proposed options have been developed to ensure that anyalterationswouldnotnegativelyaffectthesefeatures.

It gives a more detailed overview than that presented in thisdocument of the history of the area and the church building inparticular. Itdescribestheavenueof trees fromthe lychgatetothechurchasthe‘TwelveApostles’,andnotesthattheyareshownon the Ordnance Survey of 1875. Interestingly, the documentincludes an etching (undated and uncredited) of the churchprior to its ‘restoration’, including the removal of its buttresses,potentiallythechangeofitsroofform,andthereplacementofthetower.ThisimageisshowninFigure11(below),anditappearstoshowthattheavenueoftreeswasnotakeyfeatureatthistime.The architectural features of this etching appear to match those of theimageshowninFigure3ofthisdocumentonpage5,whichisdated1851.

Fig 11: Undated and uncredited etching, presumed to date from the mid-19th Century.


Fig 12: Existing site plan, indicating 3 potential options for a pathway from the Lych Gate to the Church. (Scale 1:200 @A3)

3. Concept Design Entrance Pathway

St Nicholas Church

3.1-OptionsforRelocatingEntrancePathway

The primary aim of the works proposed in this document is toensure the future access and use of St Nicholas Church in Worth. Thoughthisdocumentconcernsarangeofsensitiveamendmentsandadaptationstotheexistingbuildinganditscontext,themostpressing issue is the lack of safe and unobstructed access to the churchbuildingfromitsentrancepointattheLychGate.

Asnotedelsewhere,theexistingpathwayislinedwithmaturetreeswhichseverelyimpingeonthewidthofthepathwayinplacesandhavecausedsignificantundulationsinitssurfacewhichprecludeitsusebyawiderangeofusers.

Though a range of options were discussed by the InspectingArchitectandtheP.C.C.,theywerenarrowedto3keyapproachesas presented over the following pages, each with benefits anddrawbacks. Figure12is intendedto illustratethecontextoftheproposed entrance pathway in as simple amanner as possible,omitting superfluous information whilst including as muchinformation as is deemed necessary by the design team todemonstratehoweachoptionwasarrivedat.

NAVE

NORTH TRANSEPT

SOUTHTRANSEPT

LychGate

Street House

Key:- Dashed Lines =indicativepotential pathwayroutes.

- Double Circles=indicativeresting pointsevery10minutes.

The three proposed options are:

Option 1 (shownhere in red) – Thisoptionhas the longestpathway, it aimsto retainallof theexisting trees,however itwould involve relocatingagoodnumberofgravesandmemorials.

Option 2(shownhereinblue)–Thisoptionhasamediumlengthpathway,itaims to retain all of theexisting trees, involves relocating several graves andmemorials (though fewer than option 1) andwould allow a less convolutedroute to the church.

Option 3(shownhereinyellow)–Thisoptionwouldremovetheavenueoftreestoeithersideoftheexistingpathway,whichcouldthenbegraded,widened,andresurfaced.Itwouldnotinvolverelocatinganygraves.


Fig 14: Example images of a similar resin bound gravel pathway in a church-yard within the Diocese of Chichester.

Lighting Fixtures

The pathway is currently lit by substantial metal and Perspex‘lantern’styleexternallightfittings,satonconcreteplinthsalongtheedgeofthecurrentpathway(seeFigure15).

Inreplacingthesurfaceofthepathway,itisproposedtoremovethesefittingsandreplacethemwithdiscreetrecessedfittingssunkintothesurfaceofthenewpathway.Again,thishasbeencarriedoutsuccessfullyinaprojectintheDioceseofChichester,asshowninFigure16.

Therationaleforusingthistypeoflightfittingisthatitisdiscreetindaylight(theycanbeseenuponcloseinspectionintheimagetothe lefthandsideofFigure14,totheedgesofthepathway),theycastlightacrossthesurfaceofthepathwaywithoutcausinglightpollutionacrossthechurchyardgenerally,andtheyarerobustenoughtobestoodon/rolledover/drivenoverinanemergency.Figures17and18showtwoalternativefittingsofasimilardesign,afinalchoicewouldbesubmittedaspartofasubsequentFacultyapplication.

Materiality

The existing pathway is a tarmac surface running up to thesurrounding grass of the churchyard. It has been noted by theChurchwardens that in wet weather the surface drains poorly,and during the autumn becomes very slippery once the leaveshavefallen. It isalsofeltbytheP.C.C.that it isnotaestheticallysympathetic to the church building, and should a new path bepermitted,analternativesurfacewouldbeproposed. Followingdiscussionsofappropriatesurfacefinishesandpathwaydesign,aswellas inspectionsofsimilarsuccessfulchurchpathwayprojectsin theDiocese, theP.C.C. proposes to replace thepathwaywithresinboundgravelwithsomeformofhardmaterialedging.Thepotentialcolourpaletteofthegravel isproposedtobeagoldencolourwithdarkerandlighterfleckstocomplementthecolourofthe Wealden Sandstone of the church building.

Example precedent images of this sort of pathway in a churchsettingareshownbelow,andafullrangeofsamplegravelbiscuitsareshowninAppendixV, includingthepreferredsamplesinthisinstance.

3.2–GuidingPrinciplesforNewPathway

Building Regulations

Indevelopingoptionsforanewpathway,certainassumptionsandguidingprincipleshavebeenusedbythedesignteam.

Firstly, every effort has beenmade to ensure that the pathway,whichduetotheslopeofthesite(some3metresovera32.5metrelength,whichequatestoslightlyshallowerthana1 in10slope)meets current Building Regulation guidance for access routestowardsabuilding.Therearebenefitsanddrawbackstoeachofthepotentialoptions,assetoutinthefollowingpages;oneoftheoptionsachievesacompliantgradientofpathwayforexample,butlosesthehistoricaccessrouteandwouldresultinseveralgravesrequiringrelocating.

Generally the PartM guidance which could be achieved for alloptionsinclude:

- Surfacesshouldbefirmenoughtosupporttheweight of a user in a wheelchair and smooth enough to allow themtomanoeuvre.

- Thewidthofthepathwayshouldbeatleast2000mm,for pedestrianpathswithapotentialdualflowofpeople.

- Landingsalongthelengthofthepathwayshouldbesame lengthastheyarewidth(2000mmby2000mm).

- There should be a landing at the head and the foot of the ramp.

There would potentially however, be elements of the pathwaywhichmightnotbecompliant,dependingontheoptionchosen.Ineachcasewhereanoptionisunabletocomply,thisisasaresultof some element of the church building or its context, and therationaleforthenon-compliancyissetoutclearlyintheassociatednarrative.

Fig 13: Diagram indicating Part M and best practice compliant ramp inclines, lengths and landing dimensions.

Fig 15: Existing light fitting. Fig 16: Nordlux Tilos fitting.

Fig 17: Gardenzone Fusion 4 fitting. Fig 18: X-terior Micro fitting.


Fig 19: Pathway Option 1. (Scale 1:200 @A3)

Landing1+0.80m1:12.5

NAVE

NORTH TRANSEPT

SOUTHTRANSEPT

Key:- Red Markers =gravemarkers/ memorialslikelytorequire relocatingforthisoption.

3.3–PathwayOption1

ForOption1,weaimedtointroducearampedentrancepathwaywhichadheredascloselyaspossible(withinthephysicalrestrictionsandexistinglevelchangeofthesite)totherecommendationsofthePartMApprovedDocument.

ThenotestoFigure19indicatethelevelchangefromadatumofzeroaroundthewestentrancetothechurch(uptothedashedlinewherethepathwayslopewouldbegin),withthelevelchangeofeach landing,andtheassociatedpathway inclineratiouptothelanding.Thedistancebetweeneachlandingis10metres,andthewidthofthepathwayis2metres.

Thelandingsareshowntositwherethecurrentcontourlineslie,however the steepness of the more inclined sections could beamelioratedbyslightlyraisingorloweringtheadjacentlandingstodecreasetheirsteepness,gradingthegroundaroundthemtosuit.

Benefits:- Thisoptionistheclosesttoachievingbuildingregulationcompliant gradientsbetweenthelandingsofthepathwayof1:13.5,ratherthan 1:15.- Itmaybepossibletoretainallofthetrees(subjecttodetailingof pathwaysaroundtherootzonesofthetrees–someofwhichsitvery closetotherouteproposedinthisoption).- A somewhat axial entrance route to the west end of the church is retained.- Thisoptionattemptstoachieve‘parityofesteem’forallusers,by havingasingleentrancerouteforbothableanddisabledusers andvisitors.Apotentialsub-optionwouldbetoretainthenarrow pathwaybetweenthetrees,thoughthiswouldhavetobequite narrowatthebaseoftheramp,aswellasconstructingthisnew disabledaccessroute.Thiswouldhoweverpotentiallymeanthatable anddisabledvisitorswouldtraversethechurchyardbydifferent routes,and/orcauseconfusionforvisitors.

Drawbacks:- Anumberofgraveswouldhavetoberelocated.Thosehighlighted inredontheoptiondrawingofFigure19arethosemarkedonthe sitesurvey,thoughthisshouldbeviewedastheminimum–other vaultsorunmarkedadjacentgravescouldalsobeaffectedbytheworks.- Thepathway,thoughshallowerthanthecurrententrancepath,still doesnotcomplywithbuildingregulations.- The route does not align with the presumed historic route between thelychgateandchurch.Theavenueoftreesispresumedtohave referencedthelocationofapre-existingroute,andwiththelossof thisroutetheavenueisfelttobesomewhatnegated.

Landing2+1.77m1:10

Landing0+0.00m(BaseLevel)

Landing3+2.39m1:16

Landing4+2.97m1:17



Landing1+0.25m1:40

NAVE

NORTH TRANSEPT

SOUTHTRANSEPT

Key:- Red Markers =gravemarkers/ memorialslikelytorequire relocatingforthisoption.


Option2consideredanalternativeroutebetweenthelychgateandchurch,retainingalltrees(subjecttoadvicefromanarboriculturistregarding creating a pathway sub-base close to the trunks ofseveraltrees)whilstcreatingalessconvolutedwindingpathwaytothechurchthanOption1.

Unfortunately, this option would also require relocating severalgraves, and as with Option 1 would not meet current buildingregulationsfortheslopeoftherampedpathwaybetweenlandings.Again,thelandingsshownonthediagramtotheleftindicatethefallsbetweenthecurrenttopographical levelsofthechurchyard,thoughifthisoptionwereprogresseditisimaginedthatthepathwould sit lower/higher than the surrounding ground level toachieveamoreconsistentinclinetotherampedsections,withthegroundgradedaroundittosuittheexistinglevelsoftheground.

ThebenefitsanddrawbacksofthisoptionarebroadlysimilartothoseofOption1.

Benefits:- Thisoptionisclosertoachievingbuildingregulationcompliancethan theexistingpath,withgradientsbetweenthelandingsofthepathway of1:10.4,ratherthan1:15.- Itmaybepossibletoretainallofthetrees(subjecttodetailingof pathwaysaroundtherootzonesofthetrees–someofwhichsitvery closetotherouteproposedinthisoption).- A somewhat axial entrance route to the west end of the church is retained.- Thisoptionattemptstoachieve‘parityofesteem’forallusers,by havingasingleentrancerouteforbothableanddisabledusersand visitors.

Drawbacks:- Anumberofgraveswouldhavetoberelocated.Thosehighlighted inredontheoptiondrawingofFigure19arethosemarkedonthe sitesurvey,thoughthisshouldbeviewedastheminimum–other vaultsorunmarkedadjacentgravescouldalsobeaffectedbytheworks.- Thepathway,thoughshallowerthanthecurrententrancepath,still doesnotcomplywithbuildingregulations.

Landing2+1.28m1:7.7


Landing3+2.05m1:9.1

Landing4+2.97m1:6.5



Landing1+1.00m

NAVE

NORTH TRANSEPT

SOUTHTRANSEPT


Option3 looks at retaining the existing access route, starting atthelychgateandtakingthemostdirectroutetothewestendofthe church. It proposes the removal of the avenueof trees (tobe replaced with new trees in a more sensitive location in theproposedMemorialGardentothesouth-eastofthechurchyard).As the starting and ending point of the pathway aswell as thelevelchangebetweenthetwoaresetoutbytheexistingsite,thisoptionattemptstoimprovetheaccessibilityofanewpathwaybyprovidingrestingpointsalongtherouteratherthanlandings,whichwouldnecessitateincreasingtheinclineofthegradedsectionsofthepathway.

As noted earlier in this report, the Worth Conservation AreaStatementacknowledgestheneedtoremovethetreestoeithersideofthepathwaytoimprovetheaccessroutetothechurchasfaraspracticable.TheDAC’spreviousnotesfromtheir2018sitevisit indicate that the removal of the trees may be acceptable,subject todetailedproposals and justification for theproposals,whichitishopedthisdocumentprovides.

Benefits:- Nogravesareenvisagedtorequiringrelocating,unlessonewere foundunderthecurrentpathway,thoughthisisconsideredunlikely duetothegroundalreadyhavingbeendisturbedandcloselybounded bythecurrentavenueoftreeroutesbelowground.- Thehistoricanddirectroutefromthelychgatetothechurchwould beretained,whichitisimaginedpre-datesthetrees(thelychgate wasoriginallyconstructedinthe17thCentury,thechurchismuch older).- Theexistingaxialentranceroutetothewestendofthechurchis retained.- Thisoptionretainstheexistingsingleaccessroutetothechurchwhich wouldbesharedbyableanddisabledusersandvisitors.- Assecondarybenefitsofremovingthetrees,historicviewstowards thechurchwouldberestored,whichincombinationwiththetrees whichgenerallysurroundthechurchyardwouldverymuchgive theimpressionofa‘churchinaforestclearing’asSt.Nicholas’was historicallyunderstoodtobe.

Drawbacks:- Theavenueoftreeswouldberemovedaspartoftheseproposals, andthoughtheyarenotedtocauseseveralissuetoaccessibilityto thesite,theirlossisstilladrawbackofthisoption.- Thepathway,thoughshallowerthanthecurrententrancepath,still doesnotcomplywithbuildingregulations.Itishopedhoweverthat bynothavinglandingsalongthepathway,insteadhavingtwoto eithersideatcirca10metreintervals,thegradientwouldbe1:11.2, whichisbetterthanthatproposedinOption2wherelandingsare includedalongtherouteat10metreintervals.

Landing2+2.00m


Landing3+2.97m1:11.1


associateddocumentationfromthatconsultationformsoneofthesupplementarydocumentssupportingthisapplication,shouldthereaderwishtointerrogatethisinformationfurther.

Beyondasking theDAC for advice regarding the acceptability ofOption 3 prior to the P.C.C. investing in the necessary work toprepareaformalFacultyadviceapplication,thispageisintendedtogiveanindicativeimpressionofhowthisapproachmightvisuallyimpactand/or improvethecurrentroutetowardsthechurch,aswellassuggestingotherpotentialarchitecturaldetailswhichmightsurroundthepathway,togaugetheDAC’simpressionofeach.Forthesakeofclarityofintent,thesketchshowninFigure22doesnotinclude potential landings alongside the proposed pathway, nordoesitshowpotentialbenchesorplanting.

Fig 22: Pathway Option 3, sketch visualisation.

3.6–DevelopingOption3

Following an exploration of the three options set out overthe previous pages, the author and P.C.C. consulted with HalAppleyard,Arboriculturist(seeAppendixVforfurtherdetails,andhisfullreportwhichhasbeensubmittedaspartofthisapplicationforinformaladvice).Thepreferredoptionbasedonthebenefitsanddrawbacksofeach,andMrAppleyard’sreviewoftheexistingtrees,wasdecidedtobeOption3;replacingtheentrancepathwayinitsexistingpositionandremovingtheavenueoftrees.

This is supported by public consultation carried out in 2014 bythe church within the parish which had a good response rate,and seemed to generally suggest that the improvement of thecurrent ‘direct path’waswell supported,whilst the ‘wheelchairfriendlypath’ (bywhich it ispresumed ismeantan indirectandshallower pathway) was opposed. The 2014 feedback and the

Fig 23: Example metal ‘estate’ edging strip between grass and resin bound pathway.

Fig 24: Potential indicative examples of contemporary bench designs, which could be set onto each side landing along the reformed entrance path, to provide opportunities for resting places for visitors. These benches might be formed from the felled trees, should their timber be found to be suitable.


4. Concept Design Internal Facilities4.1–OptionsforIntroducingNewInternalFacilities

Beyondtheworksproposedtoimprovetheexistingaccessrouteto the west end ofWorth Church, this document also seeks topropose potential internal alterations providing small scaleW.C.and kitchenette facilities, improving theusabilityof thebuildingforawiderrangeoffunctions.Aswiththepathwayalterations,anapproachofminimalandreversibleinterventionisproposed,beingmindfulnottoproposeworkswhichmightharmthesignificanceof the building.

ApreviousschemesoughttolocateanewW.C.intheSouthPorchwhilst retaining itsusabilityasanemergencyegress route. ThisproposalwouldinvolveliningtheinteriorofthisVictorianaddition,andisfeltbytheauthortopotentiallyharmthe legibilityofthisimportant element of the building. The continued use of thespace an egress route is also less than satisfactory. This optionisproposedas‘Option2’infigure25.Option2alsoproposestoadd a campaign chest style collapsible kitchenette in the SouthTransept,wherethereiscurrentlyarangeofstoredfurniture.

An alternative to theseoptions, shown in figure 25 asOption1istorationalisetheareatotherear(west)ofthenave,which iscurrentlyusedas informalseatingandstorage. Thisareaof thechurch has a relativelymodern (1980’s) French limestone floor,and joinery which is understood to date from the same period

Option1KitchenetteLocation

Fig 25: Potential Locations for internal facilities within the church (Not to Scale @A3)

NAVE

NORTH TRANSEPT

SOUTHTRANSEPT

CHANCEL

TOWER

Option1W.C. Location

Option2W.C.Location

Option2KitchenetteLocation

Existing Victorian South Porch

Existing Gallery and late-20th Century doors and panelling

Existing South Transept, used in part for storage

forming a draught lobby/porch andstoragefortheorganblower,electricaldistributionboardandsoundsystem.

The intention of Option 1 would betomakebetteruseofthisunderusedareaofthebuilding,makingreversiblealterationstogenerallymoremodernelementsof built fabric. Option1 isexplored over the following pages,beginning with an analysis of theexisting space and its issues andopportunities.


STORAGE, ELECTRICS AND ORGAN BLOWER

PORCH

FONT

SOUTH PORCH

NAVE

STAIRS TO GALLERY

STORAGE

Fig 26: Existing layout to rear of the church(1:50 @A3)

Existing stairs to gallery

Existing step to main door threshold

Existing general purpose cupboard

Existing storage beneath gallery stairs

Existing modern joinery (panelling, doors and over-light

4.2–TheExistingInternalContext

Thispageisintendedtoprovidethereaderwithsufficientcontexttomakeajudgementontheconstraintsoftheexistingareaofthechurchwhere change is proposed, aswell asdemonstrating thefixedelementswhichdetermine theway inwhich theproposalshavebeendeveloped.

The church is entered from the west end, with a stone stepdroppingapproximately100mmtotheinternalfloorlevel;inthephotographofFigure26amatwell. Totheright isasmalldoorleading to a narrow staircase up to the gallery (with organ andchoirstalls)andtotherightisanover-largecupboardcontaininganoldandbulkyorganblower,anelectricaldistributionboardandanamountofcleaningequipment.Asetofdoubledoorsstraightahead leadsoutof theporchand into thenave. Thereare twoslendertimbercolumnssittingonstonepediments,slightlywiderthantheexistingdoorsbeneaththeedgeofthegallery,withthefontandpewsbeyond this. To the righthand sidebeneath thegallery stairs is a restricted height cupboard housing the soundsystem.

Thesettingoutpointsinthisinstance,whichgovernthedesignoftheproposals,arethelevelchangefromtheoutsidetotheinsidewhichmustbemitigatedtoprovideaccess forwheelchairusers,theexistingstairstothegallerywhichmustberetainedforaccess,and the joinery of the gallery itself, which must remain visibleinanyproposedworks inthisarea(astheyaddtothecharacterof the interior and the visitor’s understanding of the building’sdevelopment).


4.3–TheProposedAlterations

Basedonthesettingoutpointsdescribedonthepreviouspage,theproposalsareintendedto:

- Retaintheexistingnarrowstairstothegallery.

- Addasmallkitchenettewithserveryhatch,intendedfor usebyasingleoccupant,forpreparingrefreshments. Therewouldbesomestorageforcups/plates(currently carriedtothechurchinboxeswhennecessary),asink, asmallfridge,andasmallserveryarea.Duringlarger eventsitisintendedthattablescouldbesetupoutsideof thekitchenette,inthespacebetweenitandtheclosest pews,toaugmenttheserveryarea.

- Removethecupboardtothesouthoftheentrance, relocatingtheorganblowerandelectricaldistribution board to the current storage cupboard under the stairs tothegallery,whichwouldbeenlargedtoextendbehind thekitchenette.

- Gradetheflooroftheporchtoformarampbetween theexistingstonedoorthreshold(thoughttobeamore ancientelementofbuiltfabric)andtherepositioned, retaineddoubledoorsfromtheporchtothenave.

- Construct two new W.C.s to the south side of the area liberatedbyremovingthestoragecupboardandunder- usedareatotherearofthenave.

Asfaraspossiblethe intentionwouldbetominimallyeffecttheexistingbuiltfabricofthechurch.Wherealterationsarenecessary,theywouldbedesignedinsuchawayastoonlyimpactmodernbuilt fabric (particularly the late-20th Century partitions andlimestonefloor). Areasofmorehistoric fabric,suchasthe11thCenturywalls of the nave around theW.C.s, and the early-17thCenturygallery,wouldbeprotectedandbuiltawayfrom,sothatiftheworksweretobereversedinthefuturetherewouldbenodamage to the historic building.

ACCESSIBLE W.C.

PORCH

FONT

SOUTH PORCH

NAVE

STAIRS TO GALLERY

STORAGE, INCLUDING ELECTRICS AND ORGAN BLOWER

KITCHENETTE

DISABLED W.C. WITH BABY CHANGE

Fig 27: Proposed layout to rear of the church(1:50 @A3)

Existingcolumnsretainedin-situ,withexistingdoubleglazed doors brought forward to sit between them.

Porchfloorgradedtomitigatelevelchangebetweeninsideand outside.

Pocket door to kitchenette.

Existing20thCenturypanelling reinstated in newposition.


4.4–ConsideringtheImpactontheInterioroftheChurch

As noted previously, the proposals would re-use the existingpanelling, double doors and over-light of the good quality 20thCentury joinery. The door to the enlarged storage cupboardmight be replaced to be taller and therefore more accessible for servicingtheorganblower,electricaldistributionboardandsoundsystem, and a servery hatchwould be incorporated into the re-used panelling.

Wherethefloorisproposedtoberampedfromtheinsidetotheoutside of the porch, it is felt that sufficient drainage from thekitchenettetothesouth,(exploredfurtherinsection4.5)whereafouldrainmayruntothenearbyformerVicarage,couldbeformedwith sufficient capacity. The existing 20th Century limestonefloor would require lifting locally, but could be partially reusedin the proposed porch floor (though a more readily cleanablefloorsurfacemaybeproposedtotheW.C.sandKitchenetteinasubsequentFacultyApplication). As thefloor in thisareawouldbepartiallyraised,themodernfloor lifted,andthenewinternalpartitionsformedoflightweighttimberstuds,itishopedthattheworkswouldnotinvolveanydeepexcavations.

Itwouldhoweverbeproposedtoemploytheservicesofasuitablyqualified Archaeologist to monitor below ground work as itprogressed,toensurethattheexcavationsdidnotcauseharmtoanyunknownbelowgroundarchaeology.

It is felt that the improvedaccessandusabilityof theproposalswould outweigh any potential drawbacks of the loss of lesshistoricallysensitivemodernfabricaboveground.

Furthermore,itisfeltthatthisoptionpresentsthemostviablewayofintroducingrampedaccessandbasicmodernamenities,withoutundulyanddisproportionately impactingthespecialcharacterofWorth Church.

Fig 28: Conceptual ‘cut-away’ of the proposed areas for inserting W.C.s and Kitchenette.

Existing20thCenturycupboard door replaced with a taller matching door.

Newserveryhatch,carefullyanddiscreetlyformed in re-used joinery.

ACCESSIBLE W.C.

KITCHENETTE

DISABLED W.C. WITH BABY CHANGE

Proposed W.C.s to be raised abovecurrentfloorleveltoallowdrainage,andsetawayfromhistoric adjacent walls.


4.5–ConsideringtheImpactontheExterioroftheChurch

The proposals have been carefully designed to have a minimalimpact on the exterior of the church building. The two W.C.s and kitchenettewould require adequate drainage, and a connectionpointhasbeenidentifiedbytheP.C.C.,toaneighbouringpropertyto the south (this is indicatedby the routeof thegreendashedarrow inFigure29). TheW.C.swould requireventing,andafterconsideringseveraloptionsforthepotentiallocationofasoilventpipe(tocauseminimalvisualandhistoricbuiltfabricimpact),itisproposed that themost appropriate locationwouldbe adjacenttotherainwaterdownpipetothewestsideoftheVictoriansouthporch. This SVP is shown indicatively in green, and explored inmoredetailoverleaf.

It is proposed that a macerator would serve each of theW.C.sand the kitchenette (to prevent all of the facilities being out ofuse at once should amacerator fail or block), and thesewouldbe connected to the external foul drain below ground under the existingsouthwallofthenave,runningthefouldrainunderthepathwayif itwastobereplaced,andinthesoftadjacentto it ifnot.Itishopedthatbykeepingdrainagerunsbeloworadjacentto historic pathway routes, the likelihood of discovering belowground archaeological remains would be minimal.

Wherethedrainpassesunderthesouthwall,itisproposedthatexploratoryopeningupandtrialpitswouldbepreparedaheadoftheworkscommencing,todiscernthemostappropriateroutetopassunder(ideally)orthroughthefootingsofthesouthwall.

Fig 29: Conceptual ‘cut-away’ of the proposed servicing and drainage connections of proposed alterations .


4.6–ExternalDetailing

Figure 29 indicates clearly that the south elevation has a rangeofcastirondownpipesrunningdownthearrisesofthejunctionsbetweennaveandtranseptandnaveandporch.

In order to ensure that the new soil vent pipe is as discrete aspossible, it is proposed that it is fitted adjacent to the existingrainwatergutterofthesouthporch,asshownasasketchoverlayin Figure 30. The SVPwould be cast iron, as shown in Figures31and32,andpaintedtomatchtheexistingadjacent ironwork.The holderbatswhich support the SVPwould be fitted into thebedjointsofthenavewallmasonry,withstainlesssteelfixingstopreventdamagetothemortarorstonework.ThiswouldallowtheSVPtoberemovedandthejointsrepointedinthefuture,withoutdamaging the surrounding stone.

Fig 30: Proposed soil vent pipe serving macerator. Proposed to be discreetly mounted adjacent to existing rainwater downpipe.

Fig 31: Proposed soil vent pipe cowl in cast iron.

Fig 32: Proposed soil pipe cast ironwork and clips. Holderbats to be fitted into bed joints of masonry pointing to allow the intervention to be reversed in the future if necessary.


5. Concept Design Memorial Garden

Fig 33: Proposed Memorial Garden design, prepared by Caroline Allen of Sussex Garden Solutions

5.1–TheInitialConcept

TheP.C.C.seekstoformaMemorialGardentothesouth-eastofthecurrentchurchyard,onanun-usedareaofland.Theproposalwould consist of a resin bound gravel pathway to match thatproposedacrosstherestofthechurchyard,laidoutandconnectedasindicatedinFigure33.

TheMemorialGardenwouldhavestoneedgingpiecekerbstothepathway,ontowhichitisproposedinscriptionscouldbeengraved.

The area is currently laid to lawns, the gardenwould introduceplanting of an appropriate scale and type, as indicated in thedrawing.

In the first instance, the P.C.C. seeks the D.A.C.’s advice andcommentsontheproposals,toallowthemtofurtherdevelopthisproposal,anticipatingthatitwouldformalaterphaseoftheworksset out in this document.


6. Summary

6.1-Conclusion

Itishopedthatthisdocumentgivesanadequatelevelofdetailforthereadertounderstandtheneedsthechurchfaces,thedesigndevelopedtoaddressthemandtheimpactoftheproposalsonthehistoric church building.

The proposals set forth in this document have been developingslowlyoverseveralyearsanditerations,andeachelementoftheschemehasbeencarefullyconsideredtogivewhatisfelttobetherightbalanceofchangeandretentionofexistingbuiltfabricandcontext.

Asnotedearlierinthisdocument,itistheassertionoftheauthorthat conservation is themanagement of change. This changeshould be proportionate and appropriate, and should not beentered in to lightly. Wherechanges formapartof largerandlongtermproposalstomeettheneedsofthechurch(inthiscasethe accessibility and usability of the churchyard and the churchbuilding)itisimportanttounderstandthe‘wholepicture’,andthisiswhy the threeelementsof; accesspathway, internal changes,and memorial garden have been set forward for considerationtogether.

WehopethattheDACfindsthisdocumentuseful,andfeelsabletogivesufficientfeedbacktoenabletheP.C.C.toproceedwithaFacultyApplication,initiallyforthepathwayworks.


Appendix I - Statutory List Description

The Parish Church of St Nicholas

Description: Cruciform building with tower to the north of thechancel and south porch. One of the finest Saxon churches inEnglandwith the largest Saxon chancel arch in the country andan apsidal east end to the chancel. Tower with broached shingled spireaddedbyAnthonySalvinin1871.SouthporchalsoC19.Pulpitdated 1577.

Listing:GradeI

ListEntryNumber:1187114


Appendix II - Statutory List Description

TheLychgatetoChurchyardoftheParishChurchofStNicholas

Description:C17,restored,infactlargelyrenewed,in1956,asaninscriptiononthebuildingrecords.Timberstructureconsistingof8squarewoodenuprightswithone largeandonesmallarchoneach of the north and south sides and 2 small arches on each of the eastandwestsides.Horshamslabroof.

Listing:GradeII



Appendix III - Statutory List Description

StreetHouse

Description:Originallyaninn.C17orearliertimber-framedbuildingwithredbrickinfilling,butmostofthegroundfloorrefacedwithbrick and above wholly weather-boarded. Horsham slab roof.Casement windows. Modern gabled porch and bay window oneachsideofitongroundfloor.Twostoreys.Fourwindows.

Listing:GradeII



Appendix IV - Arboricultural Inspection and AdvicePlease see appended (seperate) documents prepared by HalAppleyardofACS(Trees)Consulting:

-ArboriculturalInspectionandAdvice(Level2)

-TreeSurveyPlan(ChurchPath)-pleasenotethatthisA3drawingis itself appended to the Arboricultural Inspection and Advicedocument, and forms part of the same .pdf document whenviewedasadigitalfile.Thetreesurveyplanisshowntotheleftfor reference.

The conclusions of the reportare:

1. The Church has a duty to reasonably protect the public andother site users from incurring harm whilst using the grounds and premises of the St Nicholas Church and all the associated parts of the premisesincludingthepathway.Currently,theChurchisatriskofasignificantliabilityclaimforharmarisingfromclearlyidentifiabletree-related risks. These risks are to be addressed having hadconsiderationtovariouslandmanagementoptions.

2. In considerationof the conditionof the trees, theirmaturityand the impacts the many of the trees are having upon theaccesspathwayandtherestrictionsthetreesarecausing,itisnotunreasonabletoremovetreesNosT1toT13(excludingT11),tore-surfacethepathwayandtore-plantnewtreesinsuitablelocationswithinthechurchgrounds,whichcanprovideamenityforthelongterm.


Appendix V - Gravel Surface Sample Study

AsnotedinSection3.2,aresinboundgravelsurfaceisproposedforthenewentrancepathwayofStNicholasChurch. AspartoftheP.C.C.s longertermambitions,theywould liketoextendthissurfacetreatmenttothewidernetworkofpathwayssurroundingthechurchyard,eventuallyconnectingtotheproposedMemorialGardentotheSouth-Eastcornerofthesite.

ThebenefitsofusingresinboundgravelaretheirSUDS(SustainableUrban Drainage System) compliancy. In effect this means thatsurfacewater is able to drain through the pathway, rather thanpoolingonthesurfaceorrunningofftothegroundtoeitherside.

Thedrawbackofusingresinboundgravelarethatitrequiresasub-baseconstructionwhichisalsoSUDScompliant,andthissub-base tends to have a deeper construction build-up whencompared to impermeable surfaces such as the current tarmac. Another potential drawback is that this deeper sub-base mayrequiretheexcavationof theareabeneaththeexistingpathwayto a slightly greater depth, with associated risks in potentiallyuncovering archaeological remains. It is felt however, that dueto the pathway appearing to be the historic route between theLychgateandStNicholas,andduetothe lackof identifiedgravemarkersintheimmediatevicinityofthepathway,theriskofthisappears to be low.

Samples froma local resin bound gravel company are shown inFigure**,andapreferredsampleinFigure**.TherationaleforproposingthisgravelmixisnotedbelowtheFigure.

Seal 2-5mm Amber 2-5mm Flaxen Pea 2-5mm

Luna 2-5mm Bronze Trio 2-5mm

Brewers Malt 2-5mm

Havana 2-5mm Mocha 2-5mm Seville 2-5mm

Fig **: Sample resin bound gravel samples provided by Clearstone Paving of Hassocks, West Sussex.

Fig **: Enlarged sample of preferred sample, ‘Brewers Malt’. Whilst its colours do reflect the historic church’s stonework, it also has a proportion of darker aggregate to prevent the proposed pathway seeming too stark in its semi-rural setting.

St Nicholas Church, Worth - WordPress.com · 2019/02/27 · Concept Design Document St Nicholas...

Documents

Transcript of St Nicholas Church, Worth - WordPress.com · 2019/02/27 · Concept Design Document St Nicholas...