Conservation Casework Log Notes January-February 2014

CONSERVATION CASEWORK LOG NOTES JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2014

The GHS conservation team received 332 new cases in England and 6 new cases in Wales in January and February, inaddition to ongoing work on previously logged cases. Written responses were submitted by GHS and/or CGTs for the following cases. In addition to the responses below,9‘No Comment’ responses were lodged by GCTs in response to planning applications included in the weekly lists.

Site / County / GHS ref / Reg grade / Proposal / Written response
English Heritage Model Consultation / E13/0802 / NATIONAL POLICY DCMS consultation on remodelling English Heritage / CGT WRITTEN RESPONSE
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new arrangements for providing advice on heritage matters and the future of the collection of heritage assets.
The Dorset Gardens Trust [DGT] was set up in 1989 as a charitable trust to research and record the historic parks and gardens of the county and to stimulate an awareness of the richness of this heritage by its programme of lectures, visits, publications and work with schools. The Trust builds upon the statutory listings of nationally important sites by English Heritage, and with the help of owners has recorded some 250 Dorset gardens and identified many others that deserve investigation. The Trust’s surveys include not only historic gardens and landscapes, but also cottage-type gardens, important contemporary gardens, public parks and cemeteries. It is now finalising a gazetteer of local sites it considers worthy of inclusion into Local Lists. It also seeks to ensure that local planning policies provide adequate protection for statutory and non-statutory parks and gardens of importance.
There is little that the DGT can say in principle about the measures now being contemplated to split English Heritage in two. No doubt this is driven as much by financial matters as by any thought as to how EH provides its services. However, on the basis that such a split is going to happen, the DGT does have some comment on the implications of this.
First, the trust has concern about the level of service that will be provided in the future. Some months ago, we were advised on a new business model based on the nine established regions, and what is now proposed appears to follow what was said then. If this structure is to work then it has to be properly funded, and the number of posts filled. It seems to be too often the case that while the structure might look good on paper, a lot of posts remain empty.
This is increasingly important because of what is happening in local government. As DCLG funding reduces, it is the case that local authorities are cutting back on those posts that can be argued as not being part of the ‘core’. Heritage issues, including listed buildings, landscape (both historic and current) increasingly no longer benefit from local expertise. It is to be hoped that planning staff might turn to you for advice, but they will not do this without a clear statement from EH that this expertise is available.
At present, even your expertise is spread very thinly. It is understood that there will not even be a historic landscape presence in every region. With local authority cuts, this does not bode well for the future.
There is always some scope for local amenity bodies – including this one – to be able to help. However, this will never be as good or as comprehensive as professional personnel in the right place.
Our second point concerns names. “English Heritage” is, after some time, now fairly well recognised as the body that provides advice. This name should stay: name changes take many years to become established, with a consequent loss of understanding what the organisation stands for. Do not do that: it is for the new heritage charity to find its own new name. Even if the two names proposed are changed around, “Historic England” hardly describes what the new charity will include either, but it is hardly for us to suggest any alternative.
The Dorset Gardens Trust hopes that these comments may be helpful in the general discussions that will take place following this consultation.
Yours sincerely
C Clarke
CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION SUB-COMMITTEE, DORSET GARDENS TRUST.
Cliveden / Buckingham-shire / E13/1003 / I / PLANNING APPLICATION Temporary permission for fun slide, associated staircase and public view area. Cliveden Estate, Cliveden Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire SL6 0JA. VISITOR ATTRACTION / CGT WRITTEN RESPONSE
The Buckinghamshire Gardens Trust is a registered charity which is a member of the Association of Gardens Trusts. It exists to record and conserve the gardens and parks of the historic county of Buckinghamshire, and to aid the creation and restoration of gardens, parks and green spaces in the county. The Trust seeks a close working relationship with local planning authorities in the county, so that the considerable pool of expertise within the Trust can assist in policy formulation and in decision-making. We are consulted from time to time by District Councils and by Bucks County Council’s Museums and Archaeology Services HER on planning applications as well as by local amenity groups.
We submit these comments in conjunction with the Garden History Society which is the statutory consultee for planning applications which affect registered sites and is also committed to conserve designed landscapes of local and regional significance. Our comments relate solely to the issues regarding the historic designed landscape.
We urge that these applications should be REFUSED, on the grounds that the proposed structures (viewing platform and slide) are not needed, and their impact is too great. More specifically:
Justification
• The justification put forward in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) relates entirely to visitor experience in accordance with National Trust policy RP2 on the promotion of enjoyment and understanding. The previous temporary installation of the slide, in response to 'contract area 2' of the south terrace works (the steps) was understandable, at least, as it offered an additional means of descent whilst the steps were themselves out of action, but there is no such justification for the current proposal (relating to 'contract area 3'): there remain other means of descent from the terrace, and the terrace works can be viewed without the proposed viewing platform (as stated on page 37 of the DAS, ‘there are alternative viewing areas onto the south terrace’).
• Whilst visitor experience is important, it certainly does not outweigh the impact on the house and gardens in this case; indeed, the proposed viewing platform and slide have a disproportionate impact for the perceived gain, and there is no apparent assessment of alternative visitor engagement solutions. Additionally, the emphasis of the proposals as described seems to be on the ‘enjoyment’ element of RP2 rather than ‘understanding’, suggesting that the structures are themselves meant more as a destination than a meaningful attempt to engage visitors in conservation practice.
Impact
• The site is acknowledged in the DAS as being ‘one of the most significant historic places in Britain’ (page 15), and yet the impact of the proposed structures on that significance is not assessed as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. That there will be an impact is self-evident from the scale and location of the proposals, and there is implicit acknowledgement of this in the DAS, which describes how the location of the viewing platform and slide has been selected so as to minimise their visibility from the hotel restaurant. There is no such consideration of the visibility of the structures in views of the house and garden.
Precedent and Good Practice
• The DAS cites historical information from Cliveden’s Conservation Management Plan (CMP), but the proposals themselves do not appear to have been considered within the context of this CMP. The National Trust is normally expected to set a high standard (particularly in such an important, Grade I registered landscape), but this is not good conservation practice.
• As there remain two further phases of work on the south terrace, accepting the current proposal on the basis of such limited justification would also set a worrying precedent.
I hope that these comments are useful. If you have any questions about the issues raised above please contact me via the Buckinghamshire Gardens Trust email address below.
Yours sincerely,
Victoria Thomson on behalf of the Planning Group
HS2 Phase2 / Cheshire / E13/0996 / n/a / GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE HS2 Phase 2 HS2 IN CHESHIRE – HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AT RISK / CGT WRITTEN RESPONSE
INITIAL ASSESSMENT USING GIS SITES DATABASE
Introduction
This initial report, which was originally prepared for Cheshire Gardens Trust internal use, is being forwarded to HS2 Phase Two for information.
Historic designed landscapes may cross a range of disciplines including archaeology, horticulture, built environment, biodiversity, arboriculture, cultural associations and influences.
In researching and recording Cheshire’s historic designed landscapes the Trust’s objectives are: To raise awareness of the value of designed landscapes – for tourism, the economy, regeneration, and learning To raise awareness of designed landscapes among owners and custodians To inform planning policies To enable us to work effectively with statutory bodies like the Garden History Society To enable informed comment on planning applications To make the information more widely available through Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, Cheshire Historic Environment Record, the UK Parks and Gardens database and via a series of themed publications
Cheshire Gardens Trust has identified over 400 non designated historic designed landscapes within the historic county of Cheshire and has completed research and recording reports on 10% of these.
We have now prioritised the research and recording of non designated sites potentially affected by HS2 as identified in this report. At the present time the Trust is not able to provide detailed information on the survival or significance of these sites.
The Proposed Route of HS2
The route through Cheshire is assessed from south to north, following the northern spur up to the old Cheshire county boundary at Warburton. (This spur eventually links with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, near Wigan.) The Manchester spur is then followed. The notes below are an initial identification of historic designed landscapes that are potentially affected.
HS2 IN CHESHIRE – HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AT RISK
Overview of HS2 route corridor through the old Cheshire County (not including tunnel under Manchester)
Sites on the EH Register (darker green) within 1.5 km, and undesignated sites on the Cheshire Gardens Trust GIS database (olive green) that are directly affected or fall within around 1 km of the route are mentioned. The site boundaries that are shown on the map extracts included below are the widest likely historic extent as deduced from historic maps, or from the Cheshire Historic Landscape Characterisation, but may be unconfirmed by detailed study. Sites may be extant, partial, lost or unknown, and any notes mentioned below are the result of an initial desktop study, and would need to be confirmed or otherwise by further work.
Cheshire-Staffs boundary to Crewe Station (Cheshire East)
Map 1 HS2 corridor between Cheshire-Staffs boundary and Crewe Station
The existing West Coast Main Line railway corridor is utilised by HS2 so noticeable change may be limited. Maintenance sidings for HS2 will also be created in Crewe next to an area of sidings known as Basford Hall sidings (Basford Hall itself is unknown). Although the HS2 route passes close to areas which were once within the Crewe Hall estate, they are now part of the Crewe Business Park and irreversibly lost. The area on the EH Register is enclosed and separated by development within Crewe. Shavington Hall is about 0.8 km from the route.
Crewe Station to Winsford
The route enters twin tunnels to the south of Crewe Station, emerging in the Coppenhall area to the north of Crewe.
Map 2 HS2 corridor between Crewe Station & Winsford
Still within Cheshire East, the HS2 route follows the WCML which bisects the anciently enclosed parkland of Park Hall, Minshull Vernon, now shown on the HLC as Post Medieval enclosed parkland. This area is already affected by railway and brine extraction. It is not known whether any visible features of the Park remain.
Within Cheshire West and Chester, the route separates from the WCML and passes immediately to the east of Stanthorne Hall (grade II listed) as it enters a cutting. It is classified as post medieval parkland in the Cheshire HLC (current and previous).
Stanthorne Hall detail
Winsford to Tabley
Map 3 HS2 corridor between Winsford and Tabley
Continuing northwards through Cheshire West & Chester, HS2 skirts the eastern boundary of Bostock Hall. Here it is on a viaduct over the River Dane and Trent & Mersey Canal. The parkland is oriented towards the Dane Valley (although the Hall itself faces south west). There are small woodlands within the estate that will screen some views but the elevated track and passing trains will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the setting. The Hall was built in 1775 and is Grade II* listed with listed walled garden, stables and boathouse, plus lake and formal gardens. Much of the parkland is within a Conservation Area.
Bostock Hall detail
To the north east of Bostock Hall lies Whatcroft Hall (grade II* listed), about 0.8 km from the HS2 route. A small area of Post Medieval parkland is shown on the Cheshire HLC, both current and previous. There is a semi-circular lake to its south. There is a disused (?) railway line to the east of WhatcroftHall and farm, but the HS2 line will approach it on embankment and cross over it. It is not known how much of the route would be visible. The Hall itself is bounded by the Trent and Mersey Canal (a Conservation Area) and situated between the valley of the River Dane Canal, and the smaller valley of the Puddinglake Brook.
Whatcroft Hall detail
The HS2 route passes about 0.8 m to the west of Holford Hall near Plumley, Cheshire East, and since the line will be rising on embankment to cross the A556, it is likely to be visible. The Hall is grade II* listed, and the moat is a scheduled monument.
Tabley Hall, which is grade II on the EH Register lies over 1 km to the east of the HS2 route. This landscape is already affected by the M6.
Tabley Hall detail
Tabley to Warburton
The route passes through Cheshire East, up to the area of Agden Hall, then enters the Warrington local authority area, although no Warrington sites are known to be affected. It then passes through part of Trafford before leaving the old Cheshire county.
Map 4 HS2 corridor Tabley to Warburton
Over Tabley Hall (grade II listed) lies about 1 km to the east of the HS2 route which will be on embankment as it rises to cross the M6. The site is known to be of historic interest and will be impacted by the A556 Knutsford to Bowden scheme (start 2014/15)
Over Tabley Hall detail
The route then passes close to the parkland of Mere Old Hall (and Mere New Hall further east), a short distance to the west of the proposed A556 Knutsford to Bowden scheme which passes through the parkland.
Mere Old Hall
Mere Court Hotel (Meadowlands) will be directly affected by the HS2 route. This may be the site that is most affected within the area covered by Cheshire Gardens Trust. High Legh Park, with golf course, will also be close to the route, in the area where the line starts to split into two – one spur going to Warrington, the other to Manchester.
Mere Court Hotel and High Legh Park
The HS2 spur towards Wigan will pass through the former parkland of Agden Hall (grade II listed Georgian building) in a deep cutting, since it is proposed that the railway crosses beneath the M56. The M56 already cuts into the former park. Agden Park is shown on the HLC as Post Medieval enclosed parkland (formerly PM ornamental parkland).
Agden Park
Before reaching the old Cheshire boundary at the Manchester Ship Canal near Partington, the Lowton branch of the HS2 route bisects Warburton Park in Trafford, a former deer park whose boundary appears to be intact. The line is elevated, partly on embankment and partly on viaduct on the approach to the Manchester Ship Canal crossing. The park area is now subdivided by large irregular fields.
Warburton Park
Manchester spur, Dunham Massey to Davenport Green (north of Manchester Airport)
The route continues eastwards then curves to the north east, crossing the River Bollin on a viaduct, then crossing underneath the M56. Crossing and recrossing the local authority border between Cheshire East, Manchester City and Trafford, it skirts Manchester Airport to the north (although the line will widen to allow for a new Manchester Airport High Speed Station). At the edge of the Manchester conurbation it enters a twin tunnel (not shown on the map below), travelling under built-up areas and the River Mersey, until joining
the existing main line at Ardwick, and finally reaching the terminus at Manchester Piccadilly. Between Arden House and Piccadilly, no known historic parks and gardens are affected.