AG00381240Brief for a Supplement to the Holme Lacy Park

Historic Landscape Management Plan for

Holme Lacy Park, Holme Lacy, Herefordshire

Brief for a Supplement to the Holme Lacy Park

Historic Landscape Management Plan for

Holme Lacy Park, Holme Lacy, Herefordshire

Prepared for:

Herefordshire College of Technology

Holme Lacy Campus

Holme Lacy

HEREFORD HR2 6LL

Prepared by:

Imogen Sambrook; Esther Stephens and Geoff Newman

January 2013

Tel: 0300 060 1605

Email:

Reference: AG00381240 - Please quote on all correspondence

Introduction

The holding at Pound Farm is owned by the Herefordshire College of Technology and although linked historically to the hall adjacent to the farm, this Grade II* parkland is no longer managed in relation to this building, which is now a privately owned hotel. The historic parkland within the holding comprises woodland (including orchard), grassland andarable land. There is also some surface water where designed pools have been built into the landscape.

The background to the environmental interests of the site is given in the previously compiled Historic Landscape Management Plan (HLMP), which was written for the site between 2003 and 2005.

There is an Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) agreement on the site, but Natural England (NE) would like to encourage management through a Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) agreement over the estate, including a supplement to the extensive HLMP already carried out for the site. Management Plans are designed, usually, to be valid for a minimum of 10 years for a parkland and as the previous HLMP is only around seven years old, we would hope that much of the content is still valid for the Holme Lacy Parkland.

The HLMP Supplement (HLMPS) for which this brief has been written aims to identify and reiterate the works required to bring the landscape and its environmental features into enhanced management, and to provide a fully-costed Schedule for this work. NE and the Agreement Holder will use this document to effectively manage the historic elements of any HLS agreement taken up over the site, in line with HLS prescriptions, which the HLMP does not take into account.

This Brief sets out the purpose of the HLMPS, how it should be carried out and presented. Any queries or uncertainties on how to approach the management of features through the correct use of the options and capital items available under HLS should be addressed to NE.

Area to be covered by the Plan

Figure 1 (below) shows the extent of the Registered Parks and Gardens boundary (in green). This HLMPS should encompass all land within this boundary as depicted by the green outline on the map.

Figure 1: Parks and Gardens Registered Boundary of the Holme LacyParkland

The Plan should include all of the RLR registered land within this boundarythat makes up the holding of the Agreement Holder’s Estate.

Objectives of this Brief

  • The Agreement Holder should use this Brief to obtain at least three submissions for the preparation and production of the HLMPS by a competent consultancy or authority. Quotes should be submitted based on the requirements set out in each section of this Brief and each item of work costed separately.
  • The submission should include:
  • A Methods Statement
  • Identification of who will undertake the work including their area of professional expertise (ecological, archaeological, landscape conservation, etc.).
  • A draft project timetable for the completion of the Plan, including key consultation/discussion stages.

The consultant who has produced the accepted tender will be notified in writing and engaged by the Agreement Holder and may be expected to attend a site meeting to confirm the requirements of the HLMPS.

Content of the Management Plan

Consultants must prepare work to the following content:

EVALUATION

  1. In order to fully enable a proper understanding of the parkland at Holme Lacy, the consultant should refer to the HLMPfor all known information about the site. The consultant shall provide any additional survey information needed to inform the analysis and development of management policies. The information in the HLMP should be referred to throughout the HLMPS. It is assumed that the existing HLMP will be available to the consultant at no extra charge.

Identification of land ownership, physical character and usage of the park

  1. In relation to the agreed area of the Parkland Plan, the consultant will:
  • Identify any changes in land management/ownership and national/local designations of the area outlined in Figure 1, above, since the production of the HLMP.
  • Identify any obligations, such as those required for Inheritance Tax exemption.

History of the park

Documentary research
  1. A full historic development investigation has been carried out previously and can be referred to in the HLMP.If the consultant considers that additional research would be both useful and necessary, this should be clearly identified as a separate cost within their tender. For example, the existing HLMP refers to, but does not illustrate, Bryant’s map, an 1820 estate map, the tithe plan and the O.S. 2nd edition. Consideration should be given to including these in the HLMPS.
Field survey
  1. The consultant shall review all existing survey information available for the site in the HLMP, to identify where new surveys must be commissioned if existing survey information is inadequate or out of date. Survey should not be attempted beyond the expertise of the contractor, and specialist survey work should be sub-contracted to relevant expertise where needed. Due to the significance of the ancient trees at Holme Lacy, a review of the tree survey for example would be valuable as there have recently been a number of failed Horse Chestnuts within the park. Also there may be a need for halo thinning around existing veteran trees within the wooded parkland landscape.

5. Field survey provides valuable baseline information: this has already been obtained and included in the HLMP. However, NE has identified that further work should be undertaken on a couple of the archaeological/structural features:

  • Conduct surveys of the Cellar and the Kennels to English Heritage’s Level 2 Descriptive Record using suitably qualified staff. Use the surveys to assess the condition and significance of each feature and propose appropriate levels of repair where necessary accompanied by realistic cost estimates (not detailed quotes at this stage): see requirements in Appendix 1). Consideration should also be given to future vulnerability, including the need for scrub management, and this should be presented with the appropriate prescriptions.
Landscape design evaluation
  1. A views analysis has been carried out in the HLMP but further analysis of the landscape design in relation to circulation, approaches and the relative importance of different views is desirable.

ANALYSIS

  1. A full understanding of the site’s development has been researched and included in the HLMP, this should be referred to in order to understand the previously proposed management recommendations and to inform the requirements under Issues and Constraints, below. A short statement of significance is required.

Vulnerability

  1. Using the survey information collated in the HLMP assess the overall condition of the historic parkland and identify threats to the historic value of the land.

Issues and constraints

  1. The HLMPS must identify all issues and constraints that may affect the significance of the site as a whole and/or its significant character areas (as identified in the HLMP) and features in terms of future management. Issues and constraints to consider include:
  • Policy framework for the area including relevant local planning authority policies;
  • Other policy documents such as the UK biodiversity habitat action plan for wood pasture and parkland;
  • Public access and common rights;
  • Other rights of access and wayleavesetc;
  • Field sports, licences and rights;
  • Management principles such as environmentally sensitive farming and sustainability;
  • Identify the ideal management for every significant feature of the parkland and highlight potential issues raised by these management proposals (refer to HLMP);
  • Impact of present and possible future uses and management on historical, archaeological, ecological, and horticultural interest;
  • Any conflicts created by the present, principal land-uses and the most significant phases of design;
  • Obligations/limitations imposed by designations such as Tree Preservation Orders, the presence of archaeological sites, grant conditions;
  • The main opportunities and most appropriate phases for restoration across the estate;
  • Other – location, size, landscape setting, intactness, risks, legal etc, gaps in information or need for particular surveys, changes in land use, changes in landscape management, loss of skilled personnel, planning background including any proposed new developments or intrusive developments, split ownership, public access, visitor experience, rights of way, security, finance etc.
  1. On completion of the Evaluation and Analysis, a draft of the report should be sent out for consultation and comments by the Agreement Holder, NE, and English Heritage (EH), including an agreed period for submission of comments. If there are significant comments, it may be necessary for a meeting with this group and the consultant, who should include a price for this in the tender. The draft report will require agreement by all parties before the consultant proceeds to develop management policies.

DEVELOPING MANAGEMENT POLICIES

  1. With the Evaluation and Analysis completed, the HLMPS should then use the HLMP to identify an overall integrated vision together with policies for restoration, repair, conservation and management. The policies should refer to, and cross-reference extensively with, the previous sections of the HLMPS and the HLMP. Therefore, the policies should arise clearly and logically from the format of the HLMP and fromany issues and constraints identified above.

Vision and policies

  1. The policies establish guidelines for determining what is appropriate for the Holme Lacy parkland and provide a framework for making decisions. Where policies have been identified in the HLMP, information should only be referred to, not repeated, in the HLMPS. Existing and additional policies are likely to be needed for:
  • Archaeological features and sites;
  • Wildlife conservation;
  • Landscape repair and restoration – determination of the appropriate extent of restoration, historic period(s), designer or palimpsest, design principles where restoring or reinstating features e.g. fencing, planting, identifying further surveys/research needs (e.g. archaeological, building or fungi survey);
  • Appropriate future land use - agriculture, forestry, wood pasture and veteran trees, horticulture, sport and recreation;
  • Sustainability and environmentally friendly management – peat alternatives, recycling, reduced use of herbicides and pesticides, integrated crop management regimes etc;
  • Standards for restoration, repair and management work;
  • Plan led approach to handling any future development proposals and conservation led procedures for instructing future work. Policies should be based on an impact assessment and mitigation table;
  • Visitor access and enjoyment of the historic park – publicity and promotion, education initiatives, interpretation and information/maps, visitor facilities, access by public transport, disabled access, public rights of way, permissive public access;
  • Maintaining the archive for the historic park, and its further development e.g. maintaining a record of the restoration and management work;
  • Promotion of supporting policy framework in other strategic guidance e.g. the statutory Local Development Framework (Local Plan).
  1. Once the detailed policies for each interest have been prepared, it will be necessary for the HLMPS to identify any potential conflicts between policies to ensure that they are fully integrated. This may require a reassessment of priorities or techniques proposed, as well as identifying a need for additional resources.

Management Overview

  1. The HLMPS must set out how to implement the policies by defining and programming the work needed. Again this must refer to and cross-reference with previous sections and the HLMP.
  1. Based on the HLMPS so far, and taking into account the issues and policies - identify and describe the following:
  • Detailed management guidelines (prescriptions) required to achieve each policy (the consultant should refer to basic management prescriptions (“Recommendations”) given for the character areas in the HLMP master plan; page 94 onwards);and review/amend if necessary. Prescriptions should always make clear how they will better reveal or enhance the significance of the park and contribute to the wider vision’
  • Work needed to repair or, if appropriate, restore, and then conserve the features and historic value of the area, in the next 10 years (with a possible 20 year vision);
  • Patterns of regular management needed to secure this historic value for the future, including any specific measures needed to conserve a significant design and/orwildlife;
  1. Consideration should be given to the most appropriate way to present this information: recommendations already given in the HLMP may be repeated here, but these are expected to be the research foundation of this section anyway and should not be a simple repetition of the suggestions already given in the HLMP.

DRAFT SUBMISSION OF HLMPS

  1. On completion of this stage of the work, an illustrated draft of the HLMPS should be sent out for consultation and comments by the Agreement Holder, NE and EH, including an agreed period for submission of comments.
  1. The draft HLMPS should present all the information gathered in the process so far.
  1. The consultant and the Agreement Holder, NE and EH should then meet to discuss and agree the content of the draft HLMPS and to agree the type and extent of works to be specified in a Schedule of Works. The draft HLMPS will require agreement by all parties before the consultant proceeds to draw up detailed management proposals.

FINAL HLMPS AND SCHEDULE OF WORKS

  1. Once all changes have been made resulting from the outcome of the draft HLMPS comments and meeting, the final HLMPS should be submitted for NE approval.
  1. The final HLMPS must include a Schedule of Works detailing individual operations required to deliver the agreed repair/restoration proposals and optimum management of the parkland, showing clear prioritisation of the work required. This schedule must be achievable under a ten year HLS agreement, based on the recommendations in the HLMPS and drawn up in conjunction with the client. This part of the work must be in a format that can be readily used in an HLS application or Capital Works Plan. Full details of this are given in the HLS application pack (see
  1. The items in the Schedule of Works must have been considered in the HLMPS and justified for management, repair and restoration in terms of their historic accuracy. Where appropriate, this section should include detailed designs, specifications and schedules for the restoration work based on the evaluation and analysis of the site (i.e. historic research and site surveys) highlighted earlier in the Parkland Plan. Where necessary, within the Schedule of Works it may also be appropriate to include some specialist guidance notes, appropriate to the site and period of restoration, on the historic types, layout, position, selection, and structure of planting and its management to assist an understanding of the proposals, and for future planting and management.
  1. The restoration scheme should be based on conservation repair and restoration principles and be justified by supporting explanatory text.
  1. The Schedule must cover the following:-

Annual Management proposals

  • The timing and method of grass establishment (including seed mix) of any land to be reverted from arable or forestry use to grassland;
  • How grassland will be managed: grazing and cutting regime, use of fertilisers or pesticides, measures to increase species diversity etc;
  • Other annual management items as appropriate e.g. annual maintenance of built water features.

Standard Capital Works Plan items

  1. Prepare a work programme giving details of techniques, location and timing of all standard Capital Works Plan items such as: -
  • Tree and shrub planting (including a detailed schedule of tree and shrub species and plant stock, together with a planting plan at 1:500, or 1:250 scale for detailed areas);
  • Tree surgery/pollarding;
  • Fencing/water supply etc for newly introduced stock;
  • The restoration of walling and/or hedgerows;
  • Any items to facilitate access such as:
  • new open access or linear routes (permissive footpaths or bridleways), including facilities for disabled people;
  • educational use of the land;
  • interpretation/information provision on or off site;
  • any restrictions to use (e.g. temporary closure for shooting) should also be identified.

Special Projects

  1. Describe the need for any Special Projects. Special Projects are capital items outside the scope of standard HLS capital payments. Examples of such items include the restoration of historic non-domestic buildings (HLS code HTB), restoration of a historical or archaeological feature such as a lake or historic water feature (HLS code HAP), or restoration of another environmental feature such as a non-standard pond (HLS code OES). Full justification of the need for such items must be given, as well as cross referencing back to the HLMPS. It is not necessary to include detailed specifications, tenders etc at this stage. However it would be helpful to submit an idea of costs of each proposed Special Project.
  1. Identify ideal timing of projects during the life of the ten year HLS agreement, and if necessary a critical path analysis.

Other works

  1. The Schedule of Works should also give a brief description of any work which is beyond the scope of HLS (e.g. garden structures) but for which separate grant applications may be made.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Timetable

  1. A timetable for producing the HLMPS will need to be set in light of the extent of work involved, after initial discussion at the project inception meeting.
  1. The specialist consultant preparing the HLMPS should provide a work programme and method statementidentifying how they will meet the requirements of the brief. This programme will include an indication of project milestones, such as the date for submission of the draft Evaluation and Analysis report and the date for submission of the draft HLMPS to the Agreement Holder and NE. The work programme to prepare the HLMPS should not normally be more than six months as the majority of work usually encompassed in a Parkland Management Plan has previously been carried out and documented in the HLMP.
  1. The draft HLMPS must be submitted within three months of the consultant being awarded the project closely followed by a meeting with the Agreement Holder, NE and EH. Time must be allowed for the draft to be circulated and comments made before the meeting. Subject to comments by NEand EH, the final HLMPS (including HLS Schedule of Works) must be produced within six months of the project being initiated.

Output requirements

  1. Consultants shall follow good practice by ensuring:
  • Draft and final versions of the HLMPS are clearly labelled with full explanatory titles, their status and date;
  • All sections of all versions are adequately and sequentially numbered;
  • All people and organisations involved in developing the HLMPS are acknowledged;
  • All facts (including dates) and texts properly referenced;
  • A full bibliography, reference and archive of sources is provided;
  • Appendices with useful information are included;
  • Useful contact names and addresses are included.
  1. A4 plans will be easier to use – with A3 illustrative evidence folded into an A4 format, applicants should state their preferences. The current plan is limited by small maps on A4.

Plan format

  1. Maps, plans, illustrations and photographs must be full colour where original material is in colour or where colour is essential to preparation of new, illustrative material.
  1. Four copies of each stage of the HLMPS (draft and final versions) must be provided. One for the agreement holder, one to be retained by Natural England, one for English Heritage and one to be sent by Natural England to the local HER.

Digital data