3 huntsman*s cottagesgrade ii listed neoclassical country house of 1796-1799, built for the...

33 HHUUNNTTSSMMAANN�’�’SS CCOOTTTTAAGGEESS

MELLOR, BOROUGH OF RIBBLE VALLEY, LANCASHIRE

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

GGAARRRRYY MMIILLLLEERR HHiissttoorriicc bbuuiillddiinngg ccoonnssuullttaannccyy

3 HUNTSMAN�’S COTTAGES, MELLOR, RIBBLE VALLEY, LANCASHIRE: heritage assessment Page

GARRY MILLER historic building consultancy

2

3 HUNTSMAN�’S COTTAGES MELLOR, BOROUGH OF RIBBLE VALLEY, Lancashire

Heritage assessment, July 2013

GARRY MILLER Historic Building Consultancy Crosby House, 412 Prescot Road, Eccleston Hill, St Helens, Lancashire WA10 3BT Telephone: 01744 739675, 07803 100995 [email protected] © Garry Miller 2013



3

Contents

1: Key Data 4 2: Executive Summary 5 3: Location and Setting 6 4: Planning Context 8

5: Woodfold Hall and Woodfold Park 10

6: Huntsman’s Cottages 15

7: Assessment of Significance 20 8: Assessment of Impact 23

Appendix 1: National Heritage List descriptions 28 Appendix 2: Register of Parks and Gardens description of Woodfold Park 29 Appendix 3: Principal Reference Material 31 Appendix 4: Garry Miller Historic Building Consultancy 31

Cover image: Number 3 Huntsman’s Cottages



4

1: key data

Heritage asset: 3 Huntsman’s Cottages Location: Woodfold Park, Mellor, Borough of Ribble Valley, Lancashire NGR: SD63802965 Designation: undesignated heritage asset Date: circa 1892-1900 with modern additions and alterations Development proposal: extension



5

2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report relates to proposed development affecting 3 Huntsman's Cottages at Mellor, within the borough of Ribble Valley in Lancashire. Huntsman's Cottages are a trio of undesignated cottages which lie within Woodfold Park, a Grade II nationally-designated landscape park of special historic interest. An application is being made to Ribble Valley Borough Council for planning consent for an extension to 3 Huntsman’s Cottages. Woodfold Park extends to around 175 hectares and forms the setting of Woodfold Hall, a Grade II listed Neoclassical country house of 1796-1799, built for the Blackburn textile manufacturer and financier Henry Sudell above the steep valley of the Arley Brook. Usually attributed to James Wyatt, the house may in fact have been designed by the Manchester architect Charles McNiven. The designer of the park is unknown; it is separated from surrounding farmland by high stone walls and comprises extensive woodland and lakes, with the mansion located close to its northern boundary with picturesque views across the wooded valley below. The park also contains several ancillary buildings, largely contemporary and now mostly listed, comprising lodges, coach house and stables, an orangery and an ice house. Huntsman’s Cottages also belongs to this group, but are significantly later, dating from the late 19th century. They were built as workers’ cottages, probably in two stages, on the site of an earlier farm named Shorrock Green. Befitting their status in the hierarchy of the site, the cottages were well-distanced from the mansion, around 400 metres away close to the north entrance to the park. The buildings form an H-shape, with a central cottage – the oldest of the trio, existing by 1892 – flanked by gabled wings, the right wing containing Number 3.

In 2000, planning consent for refurbishment and alterations to Huntsman’s Cottages was granted, followed two years later, by consent for the rebuilding of Woodfold Hall and conversion to apartments. Woodfold Park has appeared on English Heritage’s ‘Heritage at Risk’ register since 2008.

In accordance with national planning guidance concerning the historic environment, this assessment informs the design and planning processes of the significance of 3 Huntsman’s Cottages and its setting, and the impact of the proposal upon this significance. In comparison with Woodfold Park, Woodfold Hall and other designated heritage assets of the site, which are of high significance, the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages is moderate as they are of more recent date and possess a relatively lower degree of architectural and historic interest. However they make an important contribution to the historical character of the park and setting of the hall. The impact of the proposed extension upon the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages will be low. The character of Woodfold Park and setting of Woodfold Hall will be unharmed.



6

3: location and setting

Huntsman’s Cottages are sited within Woodfold Park at Mellor, a rural civil parish within the borough of Ribble Valley in Lancashire. Woodfold Park was designed in the 1790s as a landscaped park surrounding Woodfold Hall, a Neoclassical mansion built in 1796-1799 above the valley of the Arley Brook, a tributary of the River Darwen. The cottages lie at the northern extremity of the park, close to its gated entrance on Further Lane, and around 400 metres northeast of the hall. This distance, along with tree belts and the steeply falling valley side, means Huntsman’s Cottages are entirely screened from the mansion they served. Similarly, the park’s gated entrance, high perimeter wall and planting allows only glimpsed views of the cottages from the public realm.

1. Setting: Huntsman’s Cottages, looking northeast from inside the park, with Number 3 indicated



7

2. Looking south into the park from Huntsman’s Cottages, with Number 3 indicated

3. The gated north entrance to the park allows only glimpsed public realm views of Huntsman’s Cottages beyond



8

4: planning context 4.1 Designation

Huntsman’s Cottages are undesignated heritage assets situated within Woodfold Park, which is listed Grade II in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of special historic interest in England. They also lie within the setting of Woodfold Hall, nationally-listed Grade II under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended, for its special architectural or historic interest.

4.2 Proposed development The owners of 3 Huntsman’s Cottages are seeking planning consent for an extension to the property to create an additional bedroom.

4.3 Relevant planning policies

As the application affects both designated and undesignated heritage assets, it will be considered in the context of national guidance and local planning policies governing the historic environment. Nationally this guidance is contained within Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, March 2012), and locally by saved policies of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (1999) and Ribble Valley Council’s published Draft Core Strategy (April 2012). These are examined further in Section 8 of this report.

4.4 Objective/methodology of this assessment

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of the heritage assets affected, including the contribution made by their setting. Garry Miller Historic Building Consultancy has been appointed to evaluate the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages and their setting within Woodfold Park, and the impact of the proposal upon this significance. The methodology employed was as follows:



9

1. Documentary research to place Huntsman’s Cottages and Woodfold Park in their historic context, using historic maps and other sources identified in Appendix 3 2. A rapid assessment of Woodfold Hall and Woodfold Park to gain an understanding of their historic character and special interest (Section 5) 3. A similar assessment of Huntsman's Cottages (Section 6) 4. Evaluation of the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages, Woodfold Park, Woodfold Hall and the other buildings of the park (Section 7)

5. Evaluation of the impact of the proposal upon this significance, with regard to national guidance and local policies governing the historic environment (Section 8).



10

5: WOODFOLD HALL AND WOODFOLD PARK 5.1 Woodfold Hall

Woodfold Hall was built in 1796-1799 for the Blackburn cotton manufacturer and financier Henry Sudell; although long attributed to James Wyatt, it may have been the work of Manchester architect Charles McNiven. The hall’s history and qualities have been extensively documented elsewhere (see Appendices 1 and 3), so only a brief description is necessary here. It is a monumental Neoclassical building that has been described as an ‘accomplished and memorable design’ (1) and ‘without question one of the finest late 18th century houses in northwest England’ (2). Its character derives not only from its restrained but powerful appearance – with nine-bay façade dominated by a portico of giant columns with Adam-style capitals – but also its spectacular valley-side setting against a distant backcloth of woodland. The building was abandoned after World War Two and after decades of decay was rebuilt and converted to apartments in 2006-2007.

(1) Claire Hartwell and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England, Lancashire North (2009) (2) CPR Consultants, The Landscape History of Woodfold Park near Blackburn (2001)

4. The restrained but powerful façade of Woodfold Hall



11

5.2 Woodfold Park

Woodfold Park was laid out for Sudell at the time the hall was built; its designer is unknown. It extends to around 175 hectares, with the mansion sited at the north end above the steeply sloping valley of the Arley Brook. The full listing description of the park appears in Appendix 2, so a brief summary is sufficient here. Much of the park is bounded by a high stone wall, with three gated entrances with serpentine drives beyond. The principal entrance is from the A677 where there are lodges at the gateway (Mellor Lodge) and within (Middle Lodge), all possibly by Wyatt. A second entrance to the north, off Further Lane, leads past Huntsman’s Cottages to Woodfold Park Farm. The final drive is from Pleasington Road, which marks the southern boundary of the site. The principal features of the park are its tree belts and perimeter planting, along with its lakes, Jeffrey Pond and White House Pond, created by damming the Arley Brook. The mansion itself is sited at the north end, in an open location designed to showcase the hall in magnificent, unchallenged isolation against a distant wooded backdrop. Set around 100 metres northeast of the hall, and screened from it by trees, is Woodfold Park Farm, which also comprises a coach house and stables. A further farm, Shorrock Green, originally lay beyond and preceded Huntsman’s Cottages (see Section 6.1). The distance and screening of these farms from the hall reflects a spatial hierarchy that ensured the mansion’s predominance was not compromised by service buildings.

Map 1. Part of Woodfold Park, from the 1844-46 six-inch OS mapping, showing the mansion along with the Orangery (red arrow), Woodfold Park Farm (blue arrow) and Shorrock Green beyond



12

5. The design of the park was intended to showcase the mansion in unchallenged isolation

6. Looking down the valley from Woodfold Park Farm, with the mansion screened from view



13

5.3 The ancillary buildings of the park

Within the park are several other buildings built to serve the mansion and its estate, and which today are either listed or unlisted. Those listed, all Grade II, are the Orangery, early-to-mid 19th century, around 100m northeast of the hall and shown on the 1844-46 mapping as a hothouse (then one of two); an Icehouse, probably of circa 1800; Mellor Lodge and Middle Lodge; Pleasington Lodge; and the bridge over the Arley Brook carrying the drive to the hall. The list descriptions of these buildings appear in Appendix 1. In addition there are several undesignated buildings, including Woodfold Park Farm, which incorporates a former coach house and stables, and Huntsman’s Cottages.

7. The Orangery, which dates from the early-mid 19th century



14

8. Woodfold Park Farm, again now converted to apartments

9. The former coach house and stables at Woodfold Park Farm



15

6: HUNTSMAN�’S COTTAGES 6.1 Origins of the site

Evidence suggests the present buildings at Huntsman’s Cottages evolved only in the late 1800s, a century or so after Woodfold Hall was built. As noted earlier, they were preceded by a farm named Shorrock Green, shown as two long ranges of buildings upon the six-inch Ordnance Survey map surveyed 1844-46. The occupant of Shorrock Green at the time of the 1851 census was Richard Redwright, farmer of 80 acres.

Map 2. Enlargement of the 1844-46 OS map showing the two buildings at Shorrock Green 6.2 The development of Huntsman’s Cottages

By 1892, the buildings at Shorrock Green had been replaced by a single house named Huntsman’s Cottage on the 25-inch Ordnance Survey of that year (Map 3, below). This building is probably now the middle cottage, a view also supported by local anecdote which suggests it is the oldest of the three. The census of the previous year still names



16

the building as Shorrock Green however; its occupant was gardener William Helsby, 58, who is likely to have been employed at Woodfold Park.

Map 3: 1892 25-inch OS showing what appears to be the middle cottage of the present trio

Although the name Shorrock Green was still used in the 1901 census, the presence of three households there suggests the two other cottages had now been built. Their occupants were widow Emma Parker, 57; carter William Hornby, 39; and gardener Joseph Skilling, 38. Their presence is confirmed by the 25-inch mapping of 1910 (Map 4), which shows the cottages (referred to by their present name) were then of H-form. Thereafter, the 1930 revision (Map 5) shows no change.

Map 4: 1910 edition of the 25-inch OS showing the H-shaped trio of cottages

Map 5: 1930 edition shows no further development



17

6.3 Form and appearance Huntsman’s Cottages form a west-facing H-shaped two-storey building, comprising a central block flanked by projecting gabled wings on each side. Each element contains a separate cottage; Number 3 lies within the south wing. Relative to the hall, coach house and stables etc, the cottages are of modest size and appearance which befits their original role as workers’ houses.

6.4 Elements of Number 3 3 Huntsman’s Cottages comprises three distinct elements:

The original building, a gabled two-storey wing which documentary evidence suggests was built between 1892 and 1900

A single-storey porch and short two-storey extension, dating from circa 2000 A single-storey garage, also dating from circa 2000

Figure 1. Elements of the building (sketch by Stanton Andrews Architects)

1

2

21

3

3



18

6.5 Description of Number 3

a. Exterior. Number 3 shares a uniformity of appearance with its two neighbours, suggesting the entire building was given a makeover at the time of the alterations in 2000. At that time, Lancashire County Archaeology Service noted that the properties ‘contain many original features including sash windows and decorative fascia boards on the gable’ (1). The windows of all the cottages are now mostly modern sashes, with plain raised surrounds, and the bargeboards are plain (Plate 10). The walls are rendered, and the wings have quoins, as does the modern extension to Number 3. The latter projects to the south of the original wing and has a ground floor french window and a first floor window with balcony (Plate 11). At the rear (Plate 12) is a small single-storey porch.

b. Interior. Most of the interior is modern and of no interest, with a later 19th century

fireplace in the kitchen seemingly the only period feature.

c. Garage. This too is of no interest.

(1) Referenced in Ribble Valley Borough Council, planning refusal report re application number 3/2012/0141/P

10. Number 3, showing the original wing on left and modern porch and extension on right



19

11. View looking north showing side of the extension

12. View looking northwest showing the rear of the building



20

7: assessment of significance 7.1 Objective/methodology

Paragraph 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework states local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of a heritage asset, including its setting, and take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal in order to avoid or minimize conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. This section will therefore identify the significance of the heritage assets affected by the proposal, which are:

Huntsman’s Cottages, as the subject of the application Woodfold Park, Woodfold Hall and the buildings within, as heritage assets

whose setting is potentially affected.

7.2 Significance of Huntsman’s Cottages

a. Objective. As Huntsman’s Cottages are unlisted, no formal evaluation of their architectural and historic interest has hitherto been undertaken. A means of establishing their significance therefore is to apply the criteria used for listing purposes, which are:

Age and rarity: most buildings built before 1700 which survive in anything

like their original condition are listed, as are most built between 1700 and 1840

Architectural interest: through architectural design, decoration and craftsmanship and also important examples of particular building types and techniques

Historic interest: i.e., buildings which illustrate important aspects of the nation's social, economic, cultural or military history, or close historical association with nationally-important people or events

Group value: especially where buildings are part of an important architectural or historic group or are a fine example of planning (such as squares, terraces and model villages)

Furthermore, a heritage asset derives significance from its setting, as this represents the surroundings in which it is experienced; its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset.



21

b. Evaluation. In terms of age, Huntsman’s Cottages are relatively recent, dating from the late 19th century, with the central cottage existing by 1892 and those in the wings added by 1901. As estate workers cottages (originally), they are of no special rarity as a building type. Their architectural interest lies mainly in the contrast of style and scale with Woodfold Hall and other buildings of the site, their modest size and appearance illustrating their place in the park hierarchy. For similar reasons, the cottages share group value with the hall and its other ancillary buildings. The cottages’ historical interest is principally local, illustrating the provision of accommodation for workers on the estate. The immediate setting of the cottages within the park is also important, with their original status reflected in their distance and concealment from the hall.

c. Conclusions. Huntsman’s Cottages are of less intrinsic interest than Woodfold Hall and Woodfold Park, which are heritage assets of high significance. Their significance is therefore judged to be moderate, making them buildings of local rather than national importance. This significance is embodied in the original elements of the buildings, i.e. the H-shaped trio of cottages as built in the late 19th century. Therefore the plan form, exterior appearance and openings and any surviving original internal features of Huntsman’s Cottages are of high importance, while the modern additions, made circa 2000, are not.

7.3 Significance of Woodfold Park

The significance of Woodfold Park has been formally recognised by Grade II designation in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. This confirms Woodfold Park is of high importance to the nation as an example of a landscape park laid out between 1790 and 1799; this significance also cascades locally to make the park a heritage asset of high importance to Ribble Valley and to Mellor. The features and character from which the park’s significance is derived is detailed in the listing description (Appendix 2).

7.4 Significance of Woodfold Hall

Woodfold Hall is the principal heritage asset of the site, the focal point of the surrounding park and of its satellite buildings. Its high significance has been recognised by Grade II designation, which denotes it is a building of special architectural or historic interest to the nation, and thus to Ribble Valley and Mellor. This significance derives from being a fine example of a Neoclassical country house, financed by wealth amassed from the Lancashire textile industry, and located within an extensive landscaped park.

7.5 Significance of the ancillary buildings

These fall into two types, those which are designated and undesignated. Those which are designated – the Orangery, Mellor, Middle and Pleasington lodges, Arley Bridge and Icehouse – have been formally recognised as being of national importance for their



22

individual intrinsic architectural or historic interest, and are thus of high significance. The characteristics which establish their significance are detailed in the individual list descriptions (Appendix 1). Those not selected for national listing, such as Woodfold Park Farm and its stables and coach house, can, like Huntsman’s Cottages, be considered to be of moderate significance and of local rather than national importance. However all the buildings, whether designated or undesignated, are significant in terms of their contribution to group value and historic setting within Woodfold Park.

7.6 Conclusions

A hierarchy of significance exists upon the site, which is reflected in the designation of the heritage assets within. Those of highest significance are Woodfold Hall, Woodfold Park, the Orangery, Mellor, Middle and Pleasington lodges, Arley Bridge and the Icehouse as nationally-designated buildings of special architectural or historic interest; of these, the hall is the principal heritage asset. It is therefore imperative their significance is sustained or enhanced by any future proposals. Huntsman’s Cottages, while an undesignated heritage asset of moderate significance, nevertheless make an important contribution to the character of the park and group value and setting of its other heritage assets. It is important therefore that the elements from which this significance is derived (the original 19th century plan, fabric and features) are sustained or enhanced. The modern extensions however are of no significance and may offer more scope for development, providing this development does not harm the character and significance of the original building.



23

8: assessment of Impact 8.1 Relevant policies

The impact of the application will be considered in the context of both national and local planning policies concerning heritage assets and their setting. Those which appear relevant to the application are now examined: Nationally, guidance is established by Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, March 2012). Paragraph 131 states that in determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation

The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality, and

The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness

Paragraph 132 states that ‘great weight’ should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset, and the more important the asset, the greater that weight should be; that significance can be lost through development within its setting; and that as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building should be exceptional; substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including Grade II* buildings, wholly exceptional. Paragraph 133 states that where a proposal will lead to substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Paragraph 134 states that when a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Paragraph 135 gives specific guidance concerning undesignated heritage assets, such as Huntsman’s Cottages, stating:

The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.



24

In relation to setting, Paragraph 137 states local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to better reveal their significance, and proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. Further guidance on setting is provided by English Heritage’s Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (March 2010), which remains relevant in terms of applying the NPPF. Paragraph 116 states: ‘The setting of a heritage asset can enhance its significance whether or not it was designed to do so.’ Paragraph 114 states:

The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration; by spatial associations; and, by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. For example, buildings that are in close proximity but not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each. They would be considered to be within one another’s setting.

Paragraph 121 states:

The design of a development affecting the setting of a heritage asset may play an important part in determining its impact. The contribution of setting to the historic significance of an asset can be sustained or enhanced if new buildings are carefully designed to respect their setting by virtue of their scale, proportion, height, massing, alignment and use of materials. This does not mean that new buildings have to copy their older neighbours in detail, but rather that they should together form a harmonious group.

Relevant also is The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance (October 2011) which states (2.4):

Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting, to accord with PPS5 policies, consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset; and (4.5) ‘The cumulative impact of incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the setting of a heritage asset as a large-scale development.

Regarding alterations and additions to heritage assets, Paragraph 182 of the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide states:

The plan form of a building is frequently one of its most important characteristics and internal partitions, staircases (whether decorated or plain, principal or secondary) and other features are likely to form part of its significance. Indeed, they may be its most significant feature. Proposals to remove or modify internal arrangements, including the insertion of new openings or extension underground, will be subject to the same considerations of impact on the significance (particularly architectural interest) as for externally visible alterations.



25

Paragraph 178 states:

The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets, including new development in conservation areas, are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, alignment and treatment of setting. Replicating a particular style may be less important, though there are circumstances when it may be appropriate. It would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset’s significance and its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate.

Locally, relevant policies are those saved from the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (1999). In relation to the setting of a heritage asset, saved policy ENV19 states:

Development proposals on sites involving the setting of buildings listed as being of special architectural or historic interest which cause harm to the setting of the building will be resisted.

Relevant also is Policy ENV21, which states that ‘development proposals affecting a historic park or garden and its setting will be strictly controlled to ensure they do not harm the appearance or function of the area. Proposals will be assessed in terms of scale, size, design and materials’. Further local policies relating to the historic environment are outlined in Ribble Valley Council’s published Draft Core Strategy (April 2012), in which policy EN5 states:

There will be a presumption in favour of the conservation of heritage assets and their settings where they are recognised as being of importance. The authority recognises that the best way of ensuring the long term preservation of heritage assets is to find an optimum viable use that strikes the correct balance between economic or other uses and the impact upon the significance of the asset.

As to extensions and alterations to dwellings, Ribble Valley Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance, adopted September 2000, states (5.2):

Any extension should reflect the character of the original house and the wider locality; As a general rule any extension should not dominate the original house. This is particularly important in relation to buildings of historic or architectural importance; the size of an extension is an important consideration. Over-large extensions can dominate the original dwelling, they are also more likely to harm the amenities of neighbours.

8.2 Methodology of assessment

In the context of the above policies, the impact of the proposal will be evaluated thus:

Upon the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages Upon the significance of Woodfold Park, in terms of its special historic interest Upon the significance of the setting of Woodfold Hall and other buildings of the

park



26

8.3 Impact upon Huntsman’s Cottages

The architectural significance of the buildings, as reviewed above (7.2), lies in the surviving original 19th century H-shaped plan form, fabric and exterior and interior features. NPPF 131 requires that any proposal would sustain or enhance this significance. In RVBC’s refusal of a rear extension to Number 2 Huntsman’s Cottages (3/2012/0141/P) it was cited (Page 7) that the plan form would be ‘significantly harmed’ by infilling the recess between Numbers 1 and 3. Similarly, RVBC’s SPG 5.2 requires the extension should not dominate the original house and reflect its the character along with that of the wider locality; the proposal for Number 2 was also refused on grounds that its ‘…greater projection at ground and first floor (together with the imitating gables which detract and confuse in respect of both the rear and front elevations)’ would make it ‘unduly prominent and dominant in the range.’ The proposed extension to Number 3 comprises a single-storey link from the house to the garage, and a single-storey extension at the rear of the latter (Figure 2). It therefore avoids disruption to the historic fabric of Huntsman’s Cottages, and allows the original H-form of the building to still be read. The design, mass and scale of the extension do not challenge the predominance or character of the original building. Its impact upon the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages will therefore be low.

Figure 2. The proposed extension (Stanton Andrews Architects) 8.4 Impact upon Woodfold Park

In the context of RVBC policy ENV21, it is considered that the relatively small scale of the development, along with its design, size and materials, would not harm the special historic character of Woodfold Park. The scale of the building, and its siting, means it



27

would not be unduly prominent in views of Huntsman’s Cottage or harm views of the park from this point (e.g. Plates 1 and 2).

8.5 Impact upon Woodfold Hall

In the context of RVBC policy ENV19, the setting of the hall will be unharmed due to the small scale of the development, the wide separation (approximately 400 metres) and screening between the hall and Huntsman’s Cottages.

8.6 Impact upon the other buildings of the park For reasons similar to those quoted in 8.5 above, the setting of the other heritage assets will be unharmed.

8.7 Conclusion

The impact of the proposal upon the significance of Huntsman’s Cottages will be low; as they are undesignated heritage assets, NPPF 135 requires a balanced judgement, with regard to the scale of harm and their significance, to be made. The character of Woodfold Park and setting of Woodfold Hall will be unharmed by the proposal.



28

Appendix 1: national heritage list descriptions

a. Woodfold Hall (II) Woodfold Hall (formerly listed as 27-8-1952 Woodfold Park). Country house, now unoccupied and derelict. 1798 by James Wyatt. Sandstone rubble with main facades of ashlar and with brick flues. Now roofless. 2 storeys, with plinth, band, and cornice. South facade of 9 bays, the 3 central bays flanked and separated by pilasters under a tetrastyle portico. The columns and pilasters are of a Composite order: their capitals are fluted above a band of acanthus leaves. The windows have plain ashlar reveals, only a few sashes with glazing bars remaining. The east and west facades are each of 5 bays, the central bay on each side projecting and having tripartite windows, the ground-floor ones under a super-arch. At the rear 2 wings run back towards the north and enclose a courtyard. Their outer walls are mostly standing, but the inner walls, facing the courtyard, have collapsed. Interior not fully accessible at time of survey, but little of the decoration or architectural features seems to remain. RCHM report with plan and photographs dated November 1956.

b. Orangery at Woodfold Hall (II)

Orangery in grounds of Woodfold Hall (q.v.), early-to-mid C19. Walls of brick faced with sandstone ashlar, with iron-framed glass roof. 7 bays long by 4 wide. The 3 central bays on the south side project forwards as a bow. Windows have horned sashes with glazing bars. The bays are separated by engaged columns on the south side and pilasters on the other sides.These have a foliated band above the necking, stand on pedestals, and support an entablature. Inside, the walls between and above the windows are cased in wooden panelling. Between each bay a very slim iron column rises to the roof, the outer part of which is coved and meets a central lantern of rectangular plan. The building is now derelict: part of the roof has collapsed and all the glass is broken. Marked on 1st edition of 6 inch Ordnance Survey map, published in 1847 as 'Hot House'.

c. Mellor Lodge with gates and railings (II) Pair of lodges to Woodfold Hall (q.v.), probably 1790s by James Wyatt. Sandstone ashlar with slate roofs. Both single storey, of square plan, linked by iron railings with gates. Each has a cornice with blocking course. Each facade is of one bay and has its central part projecting forwards slightly. The north-east and south-west sides have sashed windows with glazing bars within architraves with triangular pediments. Facing the drive each lodge has a door with architrave and pediment.

d. Middle Lodge with gates and railings (II)

Pair of lodges to Woodfold Hall (q.v.), probably 1790s by James Wyatt. Sandstone ashlar with slate roofs. Both single storey, of square plan, linked by iron railings with gates. Each has a cornice with blocking course. Each facade is of one bay and has its central part projecting forwards slightly. The east sides have blind windows within architraves with triangular pediments. Facing the drive each lodge has a door with architrave and pediment. West sides not visible at time of survey.



29

e. Pleasington Lodge and gateway to Woodfold Park (II) Matching pair of lodges with gates to Woodfold Park, c. 1800; originally a single dwelling, altered and part enlarged as house and garage. Sandstone ashlar. Each is single storey, square, with broadly splayed corners and pyramidal roof (that on the left recently extended to the rear in matching form and materials, the octagonal north end with a lower storey). Cardinal faces to front and sides have round arches, the heads of those at the front glazed, (with radiating glazing bars) over smaller windows, others with rectangular windows which have altered glazing. Rear of right lodge now has garage door. Between the lodges are cylindrical gate piers with decorated bands, linked to them by short screen walls with round-headed arches; all these openings have ornamental iron gates.

f. Ice House in Old Woodfold Wood, c.100 metres west of White House Pond (II)

Ice house, probably c.1800. Brick with sandstone rubble walls and earth covering. Egg-shaped brick-lined vessel mostly below ground, the upper part enclosed in square walls of sandstone rubble. Now damaged: entrance on north side was probably by a square porch of which only the foundations now remain.

g. Bridge over Arley Brook (II)

Bridge, c. 1800, carrying drive to Woodfold Hall (which is in Mellor CP). Ashlar. Single semicircular arch with rusticated voussoirs, pilasters, moulded cornice, and balustraded parapets with panelled piers and moulded coping, curved outwards over the abutments.

Appendix 2: register of parks and gardens description of Woodfold park

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC INTEREST A park laid out in the 1790s to accompany a country house. HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Towards the end of the C18 Henry Sudell, a cotton manufacturer and financier of Blackburn, purchased several estates in the area, including Woodfold Park. This he imparked and, in 1798, called on Charles McNiven, an architect from Manchester, to build a new house. The house and park were sold in 1831 to Mr John Fowden Hindle, but he died shortly afterwards. The estate passed to various members of the Hindle family in fairly rapid succession. The Woodfold estate was sold c 1878 to Robert Daniel Thwaites, a brewer of Blackburn. On Thwaites' death in 1888 the estate descended to his only daughter, Elma Amy. Through Elma Amy Thwaites' marriage in 1888 to Robert Armstrong Yerburgh, the estate became the property of the Yerburgh family. It remains (1990s) in private ownership. DESCRIPTION LOCATION, AREA, BOUNDARIES, LANDFORM, SETTING Woodfold Park, c 175ha, lies to the west of Blackburn, north of Pleasington, and c 1.75km to the east of Samlesbury Bottoms. From the northern end of the site the ground falls away steeply to the south, offering long views along the valley of the Arley Brook to south and east. Much of the park is bounded by a high stone wall, beyond which lies an agricultural landscape. Further Lane twice touches the park at its north-west corner and the southern boundary is formed by Pleasington Road.



30

ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES The main drive leads off the A677 road at the north-east corner of the site, through the gateway at Mellor Lodge (listed grade II), the pair of lodge houses probably being of the 1790s, possibly to the design of James Wyatt. From here the drive runs westwards through a narrow strip of woodland before breaking out into the park at the gateway at Middle Lodge (listed grade II). This pair of lodges again probably dates from the 1790s and is likely to be the work of James Wyatt. From here the drive continues westwards across the park to arrive at the south front of the Hall. A second imposing gateway marks the entrance to the site from the public lane to the north, the drive here leading south to Woodfold Park Farm, where it branches eastwards to run through a band of woodland to join the east drive or continues south to the Hall. The access from the south is via the drive from Pleasington Lodge which stands on the Pleasington Road, the public road marking the southern boundary of the site. From here the drive leads northwards across the park, crossing the Alum House Brook as it runs east/west across the southern end of the park. The route continues past Old Woodfold Farm and the White House, then along the west side of White House Wood, which forms the eastern boundary of the site. The drive then bends sharply to the west to cross between two ponds, dog-legging back to run north up the steeply sloping ground to the Hall. PRINCIPAL BUILDING Woodfold Hall (formerly Woodfold Park, listed grade II) stands, unoccupied and derelict (1995), at the northern end of its park, enjoying views along the valley to the south and east. Built of sandstone rubble with the main facades of ashlar, the south front is of nine bays, the centre three flanked and separated by pilasters under a tetrastyle portico. To the rear (north), two wings run back to enclose a courtyard, their inner walls now collapsed. GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS To the south of the Hall the ground is levelled to form a rectangular platform, supported by drystone walls. North of the Hall wooded pleasure grounds lead to the track which forms the walled northern boundary of the site. Within the pleasure grounds, 100m to the north-east of the Hall, stands an early to mid C19 orangery (listed grade II). PARK The park is set within farmland from which it is separated by a 3m high stone wall, 6.5km in length. To the south of the Hall lies parkland, divided from the farmland to the west by a broken wooded belt, and contained to the east by Old Woodfold Wood which here clothes either bank of the Arley Brook. Within the northern end of the wood is a sawmill; at the southern end, the brook leaves the site under the Alum Scar Bridge (listed grade II). To the east of the Hall is a broad swathe of parkland, across which runs the east drive. The land falls from the northern boundary to the stream, the Arley Brook, which runs along the valley floor, Jeffery Wood beyond enclosing the south side of this stretch of the park. The flow of the Brook is broken by a series of weirs.



31

On the east side of the park, within Jeffery Wood, is Jeffery Pond. Below and to the south of the lake is a second, more extensive body of water, White House Pond, the south drive crossing the dam between the two. White House Pond lies parallel to the south drive, the two being separated by a strip of parkland sloping down to the water's edge. On the west side of the Pond, within Old Woodfold Wood and 100m from the water's edge, stands an icehouse, probably of c 1800 (listed grade II). KITCHEN GARDEN The kitchen garden lies 200m to the north-west of the Hall. It is enclosed on three sides by high brick walls, the fourth, the southern side, being open to the park and enclosed by a retaining wall. REFERENCES Edward Twycross, Mansions of England and Wales 1, (1847) The Victoria History of the County of Lancashire 6, (1911), p 261

Appendix 3: principal reference material 1845-46 six-inch OS mapping 25-inch OS mapping, 1892, 1910, 1930 (Lancashire Archives) Census returns, 1851, 1891, 1901 Anecdotal information given to present owner of Number 3 Huntsman’s Cottages www.pastscape.org.uk English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of special historic interest in England Claire Hartwell and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England, Lancashire North (2009) CPR Consultants, The Landscape History of Woodfold Park near Blackburn (2001) Ribble Valley Borough Council, planning refusal report re application number 3/2012/0141/P

Appendix 4: Garry Miller HISTORIC BUILDING CONSULTANCY Garry Miller is an architectural historian who has spent more than 35 years studying buildings of town and countryside, in particular those of North West England. His career as a consultant began in the mid-1980s with the Preston-based Nigel Morgan Historic Building Consultancy, of which he became a partner in 1992 upon its rebranding as Datestone. In 1997 he was commissioned by the Heritage Trust for the North West, a buildings preservation trust based at Barrowford, Lancashire, to produce an in-depth regional study of vernacular houses in southwest Lancashire: the result, Historic Houses in Lancashire: The Douglas Valley, 1300-1770 was published in 2002. Among the many positive reviews, it was described as ‘scholarship as its best’ by Country Life (June 2003), and ‘well analysed and presented’ in Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society (Vol 48, 2004). Extensive research on the houses of Georgian and Regency Liverpool has also been undertaken, with a view to future publication. Following the success of his Douglas Valley book, Garry Miller established his own consultancy, producing analytical and interpretive reports on historic buildings. His specialism are the heritage assessments required to support planning applications affecting the historic environment, and in this field his area of operation extends throughout the North West, Midlands and North Wales. In 2012-2013, a number of local authorities cited his assessments as examples of best practice.

3 huntsman*s cottagesgrade ii listed neoclassical country house of 1796-1799, built for the...

Documents