Peter Rogan (Architect) letter of objection

Text of letter of objection sent to Broxtowe Council on 4th April 2012 by Peter Rogan, the architect responsible for the restoration of Hempshill Hall

Land Adjacent to Hempshill Hall: Application

Reference: 12/00123/OUT

I am writing to record by strong objection to the above application for residential development in the fields surrounding Hempshill Hall.

I was the architect employed in 2005 by the owners of Hempshill Hall, Mr & Mrs Hunt, engaged on the restoration of the building, I having originally been approached by Broxtowe Borough Council in 2004 when the authority was considering issuing taken action against the previous owners and minded to commission the preparation of surveys necessary to issue a Urgent Works notice.

The restoration of Hempshill Hall, funded by the current owners, removed an important building from the ‘At Risk’ register. The work revealed far more of the history of the building than previously known and through dendro-dating of timber we know that the felling date of timber for the main close-studded timber frame is 1497. It also became clear that there was far more of the original fabric surviving that originally suspected and still in its original siting.

You will hopefully be aware from the planning history that the option of enabling development to fund restoration of the building was firmly ruled out to potential buyers of the hall given the importance of its setting and environs. It was therefore fortunate that new owners took on the challenge driven by a genuine interest in history and heritage, rather than the chance of personal financial gain. It would therefore be unfortunate, embarrassing and hugely discrediting to the authority and the principles of heritage protection if consent was now unnecessarily granted to a development that will have a hugely damaging impact on important assets and yet was not permitted as a mechanism to facilitate the restoration of those assets.

I hope that my concerns are unnecessary. In examining the preliminary views of Planning Officers, the Environment Agency and others it seems clear that the steer being given that the concept of development on the protected land around Hempshill Hall was, for a variety of reasons, undesirable and contrary to policy. Since, to the owners of the land, the land value to them as amenity space is minimal and, as residential development land, considerable, there is nothing to be lost for them in submitting an application regardless of the pre-application advice given. However, I still write since I believe that complacency could be dangerous when the potential harm to heritage assets could be so great.

I was yesterday giving a talk to the Nuthall History Society, recalling the fascinating nature of the project for me, a

chance to uncover the history of a previously poorly research site, and made a pleasure by the enthusiasm of the new owners. The talk that I gave was booked many months ago, but in view of the recent application, it was a timely
opportunity to review and appreciate again what an important site Hempshill is, how much could still be learnt, and how much a development such as that proposed could destroy.

I appreciate that the reports prepared for the archaeological and heritage impact reports and produced as much factual information as could be expected from walkover and desktop assessments without access to the more recent ‘hands on’experiences of the site that myself and others have enjoyed. However, I must express disagreements with the conclusions of the Heritage Impact Statement as follows:

“9.1 The study undertaken by CgMS and the work presented in this report show that the proposed development area will have no direct physical impact on any standing or known buried archaeology. The potential to cause harm to buried remains also appears to be slight with the DMV already being located under new development.”

My understanding is that the possible location of the deserted mediaeval village of Hempshill under nearby housing estates is only speculation and not confirmed, nor does this rule out the potential of other significant archaeological finds within the development areas. The lack of reported/known buried archaeology may reflect the lack of opportunity for investigation afforded by past ownership rather than the lack of potential.

“9.3 What is clear is that the developments of mainly the 20th century and in particular those of the later 20th century have had a significant impact on the setting of Hempshill Hall and the farm with its listed buildings.”

I strongly disagree with this statement. From many angles and locations, including from public rights of way, the setting of the Hall and other Listed buildings to their historic setting remains strong but would be very significantly harmed by the proposed development. The siting of the hall, terracing, orientation and relationship to topography are clearly linked to outward views over lower-lying land to the south, west and east, the land forming the application site.

“9.4 With the developments in Hempshill Vale and the earlier developments to the south at Nuthall the listed buildings have been left without a clear historical setting. What is seen on the ground in the case of the farm is a group that has little context left , that have been altered and in parts rebuilt to suit new uses and to allow new development to take place around them. The Farm has lost its land, its original form and its original use.”

At the talk that I gave to Nuthall History Society I showed a slide that showed the changes to the wider area around the site since the Ordnance Survey map. Aside from the alignment of Nottingham Road and the old Temple Drive, the site around Hempshill is the only significant surviving part of the grain that has survived, but fortunately to a scale and size that is still cohesive and appreciable. I therefore strongly disagree that the Listed Buildings lack context and rather argue the importance of the protection of the site through the designations that the local planning authority and other relevant authorities have applied.

“9.5 Hempshill Hall has also lost its place as a manorial estate, becoming in the later 19th century a gentleman’s house. It was separated from the farm by ownership and occupation and its parkland, if it had any, has been lost to agriculture.”

The division in ownership between the Hall and the land on which development is proposed in one that has occurred only very recently. The historic link between house and land is one that remains strongly embedded in local memory with the ownership of the Roberts family, until 2005, whose members included Lord Mayor’s of Nottingham. This was made evident from the evidence of ‘oral history’ given by passers by as the restoration project was undertaken –dog walkers and passers-by using the footpath relating stories of parties held at the hall by the Roberts family, and the occupation of the building by the armed services in the second world war amongst other tales The potential for the landscape to reveal a better understanding of its earlier relationship to the hall and historic links to Greasley parish remain. I therefore have to disagree with the implication that the connection between hall and land is somehow unimportant.

“9.8 The proposed development does not encroach into this formal garden space and as such it retains that remaining element of setting that is directly associated with the Hall itself.”

I disagree with this statement. The proposed development land is also directly associated with the Hall: any division in ownership is only a recent phenomenon and one that the current application could be argued to show has been an undesirable change.

9.14 notes that “Area 3” has the greatest potential to impact on the setting of the Hall, but 9.13 notes the need to retain mature tree screening to minimize impact on the Halls setting. The trees referred and relevant to screening are not on the development land but on land controlled by the owners of Hempshill Hall – it would be wrong to place on the owners of the hall a duty to maintain screening to reduce the impact of otherwise unacceptable development on adjoining land. In winter there any screening effect will in any case be largely negligible and indeed the hall is visible from the dual carriageway in Winter.

“10.1 The proposed development is a continuation of a process of urban expansion that has continued since the 19th century. This process included not only the development of houses, but also the highway network that forms the south and west boundaries of this area.”

The purposes of Planning Policy and the duty of local planning authorities is to facilitate and manage the creation of sustainable and acceptable development. The development of the land identified is not part of an inevitable process as here suggested. The protection of green space as an amenity asset (even if private land) is an essential part of urban planning, and the land at Hempshill has long been designated for this reason. There is no justification for relaxation of past stances in this respect.

“10.2 The CgMs report shows the lack of known archaeology in the area and the lack of any other heritage assets other than the three listed buildings.”

The lack of known archaeology should not be taken to reflect the lack of potential, rather than absence of investigation.

The development is on land associated with the three Listed buildings identified.

“10.3 The most recent developments around the farm and Hall have, in the case of the farm, virtually severed all connection with the adjacent land and the Hall is now set on the edge of a modern housing estate. This has caused a significant degrading of the wider setting of the Hall but has retained its immediate formal garden area.”

“10.7 In the second half of the 20th century numerous new developments have taken place in the area of Hempshill. These include the redevelopment and in part rebuilding of the farm buildings now converted to residential use. The construction of the Hempshill Vale housing estate with its later extension into the eastern farm yard at Hempshill hall farm necessitating the demolition and rebuild of one of the barns to turn it away from the new housing.”

“10.8 In addition to these works the improvements to the roads bordering the development site has also had a marked modernising and urbanising effect on the whole area which now when visited shows the clear signs of suburban development.”

“10.9 The historic setting of both the hall and the farmhouse have been heavily eroded by these 20th century developments to the extent that both buildings do seem to have lost their original setting and in particular they have lost their original context which cannot be preserved by the retention of 3 small areas of open space.”

The most recent development was the restoration of Hempshill Hall. This was influenced and driven by planning briefs and guidance emphasizing the importance of the building and identifying that enabling development to fund restoration was undesirable because of the importance of the setting of the listed buildings. Therefore to accept the argument in 10.3 would be to reverse previous planning requirements for the area. The reality is that the protected land around the hall, by which I mean the proposal site, is important for the enjoyment of the setting of the hall and the impact of the development of the barns and housing north of the hall having far less impact on the setting of the hall than implied.
In

contrast the proposed development would completely urbanise the setting of the hall and other listed buildings and so
harm all buildings. I therefore strongly disagree with the conclusions reached.

“10.4 The test that applies in case is that set out in Policy HE10 of PPS 5. In this case the test is not whether the development preserves the setting of the heritage assets but, do the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the buildings?”

“10.5 this case the benefits of the proposal are the provision of new and much needed housing. The harm caused has to be judged against the clearly, very degraded, setting of these listed buildings.”

“10.10 The test in this case is policy HE10 of PPS which does not prevent development within the setting of heritage assets it requires a test to be made balancing the public benefit against any perceived harm. In this case the harm would be minimal and only affect what little of the setting that has so far remained in its late 20th century form. The provision of housing particularly in today’s economic and social climate is a substantial public benefit which should outweigh the minor harm done to the degraded settings of two existing heritage assets which in themselves will remain untouched by the proposal.”

I disagree that the test of HE10 of PPS 5 justifies this development. The land is not, as far as I am aware, allocated for housing in the local plan or development framework and indeed afforded protection against development. There is no case proven that the land is needed for development, let alone an overriding need of such strength as justifying harm to heritage assets. It is, however, interesting to note that there is therefore presumably a de facto acceptance that this development will cause harm. I could strongly disagree that such harm would be minor – the character of the hall would be significantly harmed by the urbanization of the site.

I have responded in detail to the heritage impact of the proposals given my past involvement with the hall restoration project. I would also question the project, if allowed, in terms of generally weakening the protection of designated open spaces afforded by the save local plan or development frameworks and impact on the amenity of local residents; I would also be concerned about the risk of flooding to properties and concerns of the environment agency and the amenity of the residents of the new houses where close to the dual carriageway and significantly below the carriageway level. However, I hope that such concerns will be self-evident.

I therefore ask that the application be refused, and would further that a refusal is worded such as to emphasize the importance of the protected status of the site and so remove the hope from the owners of enhanced land values that might accompany the glint of possibility of consent for residential or commercial development at a future date.

Yours sincerely

Peter Rogan