First Draft Local List Supplementary Planning Document

We write on behalf of our client to formally request a review and amendment of the current Local List entry for Montebello Castle, located on Millington Hall Lane, Millington.

While we acknowledge that the property retains elements of architectural and historic significance, we contend that its inclusion on the Local List in its entirety is disproportionate. Based on an assessment against the criteria set out in the Cheshire East Local List Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), we believe that only the principal front elevation of the building merits continued inclusion. The remainder of the building, having undergone substantial alteration, no longer meets the threshold for local designation.

This request is made in accordance with the methodology and criteria set out in the Cheshire East Local List Supplementary Planning Document (SPD, 2022), and in line with national policy guidance under Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), which stresses the importance of proportionately assessing the significance of non-designated heritage assets.

Historical Background

Montebello Castle is a mid-19th-century residential villa constructed in the style of a romantic Victorian folly. Notably, it was historically occupied by the Greek Consul to Manchester, and on later 19th century maps noted as School for Boys & Girls (see Appendix: Fig 1). The building was designed to be architecturally expressive, incorporating battlemented parapets, decorative chimneys, and terracotta panels-features that remain prominent on its principal elevation. Its Gothic-inspired form stands out within the rural Cheshire landscape and is an example of Victorian eclecticism in the borough.

Supporting documentation, including annotated historic mapping (1876-1938), photographic evidence, and comparative material, is appended to this letter. It should be noted that there is limited documentary material available through the Historic Environment Record (HER) and local archival sources in relation to Montebello Castle. The absence of substantial archival documentation may in itself be indicative of the building's relatively modest historical prominence. While not definitive, the lack of sustained reference in local records, planning documents, or contemporary accounts arguably reinforces the conclusion that Montebello Castle, outside of its visually distinctive front elevation, does not represent a building of notable historic or architectural importance within the wider regional context.

Local List Criteria - Cheshire East SPD The SPD sets out six criteria used to assess whether a building or site qualifies as a locally listed heritage asset. These are divided into two groups: primary and secondary.

Primary Criteria: 1. Architectural or Historic Character 2. Historical Association

Secondary Criteria: 3. Local Distinctiveness 4. Traditional Functional Character 5. Group Value 6. Townscape or Landscape Value

To be eligible for the Local List, a building must meet at least one of the two primary criteria, and at least one of the four secondary criteria. The more criteria a building meets, the stronger its case for inclusion.

Analysis of Montebello Castle

As mentioned, Montebello Castle is a mid-19th-century red-brick villa designed in the picturesque tradition, with a distinctive front elevation featuring crenellated parapets, decorative terracotta panels, and ornate chimney stacks. This façade remains the most intact and architecturally coherent element of the building, contributing to local distinctiveness character. However, the building has undergone a series of substantial and cumulative alterations that have materially affected its wider integrity, particularly from the early 20th century onward.

The Water Tower (Fig 12-14) at Montebello dates to the mid-19th century and was constructed as part of the original estate, reflecting Victorian estate planning practices. Designed in a castellated style to harmonise with the main villa, the structure served both a utilitarian purpose-likely associated with water supply-and an ornamental one, contributing to the picturesque character of the estate. Historic Ordnance Survey maps of the tower itself is inconsistent across subsequent editions (See Appendix). This inconsistency is likely due to cartographic oversight rather than the tower's removal or reconstruction.

Historic Ordnance Survey maps mainly provide clear evidence of the Castle's evolution (See Appendix). The 1876 os map (Fig 1) records the building without any significant extensions. There appear to be two wings running east-west off the principal building- with the southeast wing likely being single storey and later extended to two storeys as evidenced by the masonry changes on site today. It is unclear whether the building started out as typical 'square' plan with the wings being later addition as the earliest map found was 1876. Regardless, subsequent editions from 1897 (Fig 4) and 1908 (Fig 5) show the addition of a large, glazed extension to the southwest, alongside infill within the central courtyard. These elements were removed by the mid-20th century (Fig 7), marking a phase of alteration. Their removal, coupled with later interventions-including the addition of the front porch- which has disrupted the original composition of the principal elevation. The symmetry and rhythm of the frontage have been visibly compromised but not fundamentally lost.

The side and rear elevations have also been subject to extensive change. Photographic analysis reveals widespread brickwork infill, inconsistent coursing, and patched masonry indicating unsympathetic repairs and possibly later storey extensions (Fig 16-25) further suggesting an altered internal plan form to the original building. Fenestration across the building has been significantly altered through the insertion of modern units, of inappropriate proportions and materials. These changes have further eroded the building's architectural coherence.

Internally, the historic plan form has been markedly reconfigured and architectural detailing lost, particularly along the east-west 'wings' of the building and central core. While the late 20th-century conversion to flats has had an obvious impact-introducing subdivision and masking spatial hierarchy- the building had already undergone significant internal modification during the early 1900s, when the glazed extension was removed, and the central courtyard infilled (Fig 28-37). It is also likely in the mid-20th century that the west wing was extended to the south and an additional storey added (Fig 17-18). These changes indicate a departure from the original spatial logic and have resulted in the loss of legibility across much of the interior. These areas no longer contribute positively to the building's heritage value and fall short of the criteria established under the SPD.

Although there are isolated features that reference the building's historical use as the Greek Consulate, such as classical decorative motifs and fireplaces, these elements are limited in number and do not cohere into a distinct or significant design phase. Their distribution is sporadic and they do not substantially enhance the architectural or historical value of the building as a whole (Fig 30-35).

In terms of landscape character, the surrounding land was historically formalised, as evidenced by late 19th-century Ordnance Survey maps (see Fig. 2). This formal layout included mature tree planting, defined planting beds, and structured footpaths connecting the water tower and the castle building. However, much of this formal landscape has since been eroded through the site's progressive domestication, which has significantly diminished the immediate setting and, consequently, its contribution to the asset's Group Value. There is however a surviving brick wall with detailing to the north, east and south which appears original to the principal building (Fig 11 & 23).

In light of the above, Montebello Castle continues to meet the primary criterion of Architectural or Historic Character but limited to the front elevation. The front elevation retains largely undisrupted original detailing and demonstrates the quality of mid-Victorian architectural ambition. It arguably meets the second primary criterion-Historical Association-due to its former occupancy by the Greek Consul to Manchester, though the association is of minor historical value. The rear and side elevations have undergone significant change and alteration which has diluted the legibility of the buildings original layout.

In terms of the secondary criteria, the building satisfies Local Distinctiveness and Townscape Value due to its unique appearance of its front elevation and landmark quality within its rural setting. However, it does not meet the criteria for Group Value (beyond the limited relationship the front elevation has stylistically with the adjacent Water Tower) or Traditional Functional Character, especially considering its extensive internal alterations and change of use.

Justification for Proposed Revision to the Local List Entry

Given the above, we submit that the current Local List entry for Montebello Castle overstates the extent of surviving significance. While we support the continued recognition of the building's heritage value, we recommend that the Local List entry be revised to apply solely to the front elevation where historic detailing and legibility remain largely intact.

This approach aligns with national guidance under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024, para. 216), which requires that the significance of non-designated heritage assets be proportionately assessed. It also reflects the Local List SPD's emphasis on preserving the character of assets that make a positive contribution to the borough's identity, without imposing undue constraint on parts of buildings that no longer meet the required thresholds. A refined listing will allow for appropriate heritage consideration of the elements that retain architectural and historic merit, while offering greater flexibility for the future management of the altered and extended parts of the building. This will also support a more consistent and defensible application of heritage policy during planning decision-making. We respectfully request that Cheshire East Council consider this proposed amendment and welcome the opportunity to engage further in the review process. We would be pleased to provide any additional information the Council may require to support a formal revision of the listing entry.