Property Overview

No. 6 is a Grade II listed semi‑detached estate cottage, constructed around 1840 using coursed squared limestone, a slate roof, and a central brick ridge stack. Over its lifetime, the cottage has undergone multiple phases of alteration, including the addition of an upstairs bathroom and a modest rear kitchen extension. A previous historic building survey concluded that, aside from the core structural fabric, few internal historic features have survived earlier interventions.

Historic, Aesthetic & Communal Value

Originally built as part of the Grafton Estate, the cottage is a classic example of 19th‑century rural workers’ housing. The two‑storey property features distinctive Gothic-style two‑light casement windows framed by chamfered stone jambs and lintels. A four‑panel entrance door sits beneath a gabled porch, also with chamfered stone detail. Additional characterful elements include a stone plinth, a horizontal storey band, and projecting timber eaves.

Although the cottage is not located within a designated conservation area, it sits in close proximity to several listed village buildings, including a Parish church with a First World War memorial and a traditional thatched cottage.

The village’s oldest surviving buildings date from the 17th and 18th centuries and are predominantly constructed of coursed rubble limestone. No. 6 sits within this historic setting, with its immediate surroundings reflecting the familiar vernacular—aside from a small terrace of three 20th‑century houses situated to the north. An access lane serving these houses and their garages runs alongside the cottage.

Evidential Value

Historic Environment Records show that the village name likely derives from “Hart spring/stream,” and its nearby forest carries significant medieval heritage as a royal hunting ground and a source of timber for shipbuilding.

By 1830, the gradual enclosure of open medieval fields led to the emergence of isolated farmsteads around the village. The number of cottages grew steadily—from approximately 30 in the late 18th century to twice that number by 1875.

As originally built, estate cottages like No. 6 followed the typical “two down, three up” layout common for agricultural and industrial workers during the 19th century. Although successive modifications have altered much of its historic character, the cottage’s fundamental plan form and spatial relationships remain largely intact, as confirmed by historic mapping.

The Proposal

In alignment with Historic England Advice Note 18: Adapting Historic Buildings for Energy and Carbon Efficiency (July 2024), the homeowners aimed to improve the energy performance, running costs, and year‑round comfort of the single‑storey rear addition. They also sought to reinstate the kitchen to the rear room of the original cottage—enhancing views of, and connection to, the garden.

The proposal involved rebuilding and modestly extending the lean‑to rear structure, incorporating new high‑level windows and a replacement roof.

Assessing Harm

Any heritage impact was considered minimal. The proposed changes affect only the later rear addition, not the original 1840s cottage. Earlier planning documents show the rear structure has been altered multiple times, including various openings being created and later infilled. The existing walls were little more than rendered single‑skin brickwork with negligible insulation.

Reinstating the kitchen within the original cottage reverses a past alteration and allows previously concealed exposed stonework to be appreciated once again.

Guidance Consulted During Retrofit Design

The design approach was informed by:

• Historic England guidance
• NPPF (2021)
• Local Historic Environment Records (HER)
• Advice from the Local Planning Authority and Conservation Officer
• Local design guides for extensions

Unexpected Discoveries and Resulting Design Changes

During demolition of the cloakroom, it became clear that the end wall of the lean‑to addition was severely deteriorated and structurally unsound. A significant portion of the roof structure—approximately one third—was also found to be poorly built. These issues required a greater extent of rebuilding and new foundation work than originally planned.