As part of the reorganisation of the Society’s conservation and planning work, we wish to appoint a part-time Deputy Conservation Officer for England.

The Deputy Conservation Officer will work in close association with the Principal Conservation Officer and the Conservation Casework Manager in planning casework.

The Deputy Conservation Officer will also be involved in developing and updating the Society’s generic conservation advice (known as Planning and Conservation Advice Notes), and will be closely involved in training and support for county gardens trusts and other local and national amenity societies who are undertaking conservation and planning work.

Details of this part-time post are available from the Society’s office, by emailing a request or if writing for details, please address to Administrator (address  below) and enclose an SAE.

Closing date: Friday 13th January 2012.

The Society’s offices are closed over the Christmas and New Year period.

CONSERVATION CONSULTANTS (ENGLAND)

We are also looking to appoint a panel of appropriately experienced and qualified Consultants upon whom the Society can call to deal with specific conservation cases. Consultants should be members of the Society, but Trustees are ineligible for this role. This freelance work would be undertaken on the basis of a standard inclusive case fee.

Download a .pdf version of the GHS Conservation Jobs advert

Expressions of interest in covering letter and c.v. may be lodged at any time.

Working Together

The Working Together Feasibility Study Group, comprising GHS, AGT, the Garden Museum and the Parks & Gardens database (P&GUK), continues to discuss a possible way forward towards closer co-operation between its members.

A prime motive for undertaking this study, which has strong support from English Heritage, is the prospect of reduced Government funding for historic parks and gardens, and particularly the likelihood of a reduction in financial support from English Heritage for our work in 2012–13.

Facing the prospect of reduced public funding as well as potentially harmful changes in national planning policy, we know that our current individual resources will not be sufficient to address threats to the parks and gardens about which we all care.

As part of the Study, each organisation has also undertaken a thorough review of its activities and the way in which each organisation operates. This has included a critical analysis of each others’ operations. The conversation has been wide-ranging and occasionally challenging, but also stimulating.

It is already impossible for the GHS alone to respond to all planning threats to our parks and gardens. Collectively, and by building on our respective strengths and expertise, we stand a much better chance of making our views known to, and understood by, national and local government.

The Study Group has concluded that uniting our skills and resources will give us a more effective voice and avoid confusion as to which body is giving what advice. Giving County Gardens Trusts’ membership more ability to get involved with direct conservation action underpins this thinking. These conclusions have been welcomed by English Heritage.

Future GHS Conservation Activity

During October, following recommendations from the Conservation Committee, GHS Council decided to implement a reorganisation of conservation practice within the GHS.

Jonathan Lovie will remain as Principal Conservation Officer and Policy Adviser in England; Linden Grove’s role as Casework Manager (England), and the Casework Log are unaffected by this reorganisation. In Scotland, Alison Allighan remains as Conservation Officer; and a Casework Log, similar to that operating in England, will also now be created and maintained. As part of this process, three of our existing Conservation Officers in England will be redundant from 4 April 2012.

The way forward

Under the Principal Conservation Officer, a new post of Deputy Conservation Officer (England) has been created; you can see an advertisement for this post elsewhere in this section, and an invitation for expressions of interest from individuals wishing to be Conservation Consultants in England. The freelance Consultants will be commissioned to deal with specific conservation cases, complementing the work of the Principal and Deputy Conservation Officers in England. Our current Conservation Officers may, of course, apply for both the advertised roles.

Planned changes to the Society’s conservation operation include:

• Moving away from a geographical structure for responding to consultations.

• Reinvigorating the Society’s role as a campaigner for Parks and Gardens.

• Providing support and training for county gardens trusts and others to engage in more conservation work, especially where this affects sites on which they are the undoubted experts.

• Ensuring, with the help of the Society’s colleagues in the CGTs, that local government recognises the importance of Parks and Gardens when drafting local plan policies.

The Society also intends to concentrate resources on responding to changes in Government policy affecting Parks and Gardens; and responding to the major cases and generic threats which face Parks and Gardens.

The site of the house and garden at Sayes Court — John Evelyn’s London residence by the then Royal Dockyard at Deptford — is currently subject to a planning application from a property developer which would see the site of the garden built over. A small group of concerned locals has mounted a campaign to conserve the site with a view to seeing it re-emerge as a public garden or park, integral to the riverfront residential development envisaged by the developers. At present, the entirety of the Sayes Court estate lies under an apron of concrete, but it is believed that garden archaeology could reveal much of its layout; the cellars of Evelyn’s house survive and have already been subject to some archaeological investigation. The site of Sayes Court takes up about one-sixth of the area to be developed, now known as Convoys Wharf. The proposal from developers Hutchison-Whampoa is for 3,514 residential units, 80% of them one- and two-bedroom flats, in three tall blocks of 32-, 38- and 46- storeys, plus a variety of smaller blocks typically between 8–18 storeys; one of the blocks is directly over the site of the principal parterre of the garden.

The masterplan gives some idea of the scale of the intended development, see http://www.sayescourtgarden.com/campaign.html for more.

The GHS supports this campaign and is adding its voice to those suggesting that Lewisham Council looks favourably on the idea of conserving the site of Sayes Court as part of an overall development plan when the application is considered by Lewisham’s planning committee in either January or April. A revised plan would potentially mean the construction of approximately half the number of residential units, with a greater mix of commercial, community, artistic and other uses at the site, as well as the integration of green space on the footprint of the old garden.

The garden at Sayes Court (see Garden History 25:2, Winter 1997) was laid out by Evelyn from 1653 and included an oval garden, a terrace walk or mount, an orchard and the grove, which contained more than 500 specimens of standard oak, ash, elm, service, beech and chestnut. Numerous unusual and exotic spice and citrus plants were grown here (the proximity of the docks playing its part) and there was also a substantial kitchen garden of 38 beds laid out systematically. Other attractions included a banqueting house and an island reached by a drawbridge. All of this is well delineated in Evelyn’s own plan of the garden, held by the British Library and viewable in the online gallery section of its website.

Wooden model of Sayes Court made by George Carter in 1988, for the V&A Garden exhibition. The (originally) Thames side walk to the right of the model can still be detected on aerial photos of the site today. Picture by Tim Richardson.

Charles II visited the garden on several occasions, though the most celebrated story was the time when Peter the Great of Russia, who leased the house for a period, ruined some of Evelyn’s prized holly hedges having been pushed around the garden in a wheelbarrow for fun.

After Evelyn’s death in 1706 Sayes Court was used as a poor-house for 125 years. By the end of the 19th century both the house and garden were in disrepair. The old dockyard was transformed into the Foreign Cattle Market, leading to the conversion of a great double-arched slipway cover into cattle sheds. This is now a Grade II listed structure and must remain as part of any future development. The house itself was slightly damaged during the Second World War by a V1 rocket and was subsequently demolished. The local activists suggest that the great arched structure could be used again as a boatyard for the construction of historic wooden ships, and to that end they have teamed up with historic ship experts who have submitted their own detailed proposals based on other schemes which have been successful, not least as tourist attractions, in France and the Netherlands.

Today the surrounding local area is taken up by light-industrial units and low-rise residential blocks, but John Evelyn and the garden at Sayes Court is commemorated in local street names and remains very much a part of the folk memory of Deptford. Sayes Court has even been ‘saved’ on one previous occasion, when a descendant of John Evelyn mounted a campaign in the 1880s with the help of Octavia Hill (prior to her creation of the National Trust) to turn it into a public park. The campaign was successful and Sayes Court Park remained a public amenity until the First World War, when 3/4 of the park was absorbed into the Dockyard and never returned. The remainder of the park was remodelled in the 1950s.

In 2000 Lewisham Council commissioned a report on Sayes Court, its significance and the impact of development. Prof Burdett’s report recommended the reinstatement of the complete area of John Evelyn’s garden as part of the scheme and highlighted the role of the wharf area as a historically important site in terms of both ship-building and horticulture.

For more information see: www.sayescourtgarden.com and londonslostgarden.wordpress.com

See our Events pages for April 2012 Study Day info.

We are working through this complex document, and will be submitting a full response to Government in due course. However, it is clear that the proposed Framework contains some very worrying changes which have the potential to allow unchecked and damaging development on a scale not witnessed since the 1930s.

The policies are clearly designed to promote significant additional development in an attempt to stimulate the economy. While this is a legitimate objective for national planning policy, the planning system should not be seen solely as an engine for economic growth. A credible planning system must safeguard the needs of people and the environment (in the broadest sense) as well as the economy.

With a presumption in favour of permitting new development in “undesignated” areas of the countryside (all areas outside Green Belt, National Parks and AONBs) where the planning authority does not have a core strategy in place (and 47% of local authorities do not have a local plan in place); and a requirement for every local authority to identify an additional 20% of its land for development, historic landscapes, and particularly their settings, will be at unprecedented risk from harmful change.

We strongly support the campaign launched by the National Trust to win changes in the Draft Framework. The consultation period expires on 17th October, so time is short. Please consider adding your name to the Trust’s on-line petition to Government: www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main

The text of the Draft National Planning Framework can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf

It is also possible for individual GHS members to respond to the Government’s consultation. We would be very pleased if members’ responses could please be copied to the Office at Cowcross Street, or emailed to: enquiries@gardenhistorysociety.org

Jonathan Lovie, Policy Advisor

You may want to look at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/8745764/New-planning-laws-already-in-force.html

As many members are now aware the conservation office in Scotland has undergone some radical changes over the past few months. During 2010 and ongoing discussions with Historic Scotland (HS), it became clear they were no longer able to fund the project which we had been undertaking over the past three years, assisting with the protection and conservation of gardens and designed landscapes not included in the Inventory. They were however prepared to support and help expand our volunteer recording project for twelve months until April 2012. A lower level of grant than previously received was duly confirmed in February, leading to a cut in conservation officer hours of one-third and the closure of the Edinburgh office. As no alternative source of funding has been identified so far for conservation casework in Scotland, this effectively ceased on 31 March this year, despite continuing consultations and requests for advice. Our work for the Forestry Commission remains unchanged.

Support and development of the recording groups thus continues; a very successful day was held at Broich, Stirlingshire in May to introduce more members to the project and we are very grateful to Sir Peter and Lady Hutchison for allowing us to take over their home and garden for the day. On 9 September we are holding an initial training day for an East Lothian group. This will take place at the Town House, Haddington, and nearby Amisfield; please contact the conservation officer scotland@gardenhistorysociety.org if you would like further details of this event or group.

Interest has also been expressed by members in Central Scotland in establishing a group there, which will probably broadly cover Stirlingshire, Clackmannanshire and Falkirk. Again please contact the conservation officer for further details if you would like to be involved in this, or any other area.

Changes for dealing with gardens and designed landscapes have also been taking place at HS with this function now split between the new ‘Policy & Outreach’, and ‘Heritage Management’ Divisions. With the gradual enactment of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill throughout 2011 re-survey and updating the Inventory is being undertaken by HS, particularly in the Scottish Borders, parts of Aberdeenshire, and Morayshire. These changes are now included on the re-vamped gardens and designed landscapes section of the HS website.

The future for conservation in Scotland, in its broadest sense, remains uncertain, just as it now also appears to be in the rest of the UK. For GHSS the only realistic way forward is to ask you, the members, to assist with this role. With appropriate training and support, the membership and recording groups could take on much of the monitoring of planning applications, identification of potential threats, and compiling of advice and responses to the planning authorities. This would prove a very effective way forward for the Society’s conservation role in Scotland.

Lastly I should just like to thank members for all their support with the Gardening Scotland Exhibition at Ingliston in June. With the help of your donations, contributions to the display, setting up and looking after the stand for three days, we won our first medal, a Bronze at the event! Thank you all.

Alison Allighan

Proposed High Speed Rail Link Consultation Paper, February 2011

This consultation response is submitted jointly by The Garden History Society, The Association of Gardens Trusts and The Georgian Group.

The Garden History Society is the national amenity society concerned with the conservation of Britain’s heritage of historic designed landscapes. It is also the Statutory Consultee charged with considering the impact of proposed development on designed landscapes of national significance which have been included by English Heritage on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. The Society comprises some 2,000 members worldwide. Its Conservation Committee, which has reviewed the High Speed Rail Link proposals, is composed of landscape historians, landscape architects and landscape conservation specialists of national and indeed international standing.

The Georgian Group is the statutory national amenity society specialising in the understanding and conservation of our eighteenth and early nineteenth century designed heritage. It is the Statutory Consultee for development proposals which affect Georgian buildings and their designed settings. The Georgian Group comprises more than 3,500 members.

The Association of Gardens Trusts is the umbrella organisation for the county gardens trusts in England, which collectively represent some 7,000 members. The Association of Gardens Trusts is a respected voice in the heritage sector, responding to Government and other policy consultations; the county gardens trusts embody considerable locally-based expertise on historic designed landscapes and have a particularly valuable role in providing information about non-designated designed landscapes.

It is not the locus of these bodies to comment on the economic case for or against the proposed High Speed Rail Link. We note, however, the division of expert opinion on this case, and would comment that the economic imperative for this project appears far from established.
The Garden History Society, The Association of Gardens Trusts and The Georgian Group have given careful consideration to the revised proposed route for the High Speed Rail Link published in February 2011. We note and welcome the alterations made to the original proposed route published in 2010. However, we remain opposed to the preferred route on the grounds of its unacceptable impact on a significant number of nationally important designed landscapes.

We note with considerable concern that the impact of the proposed rail link on the various sites and their settings has not been assessed in detail as part of the process of developing this scheme. We consider this to be a fundamental and unacceptable methodological flaw, and would observe that it appears to conflict directly with the Government’s national planning policies for the historic environment set out in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5). Similarly, it appears that the guidance of English Heritage on assessing the impact of proposed development on the historic environment has not been followed. It is inexcusable for the planning of a major infrastructure project closely associated with the Government not to follow planning and conservation best practice.

We append to this letter a more detailed list of designed landscapes which would be affected by implantation of the preferred route (see below). Of particular concern is the impact on three eighteenth century designed landscapes (Hartwell and Shardeloes in Buckinghamshire, and Stoneleigh Abbey in Warwickshire) which are included on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest at Grade II*, indicating that these sites are of outstanding historic interest when considered in the national context. Each of these landscapes also forms the consciously designed setting for a Grade I listed principal building.

The route of HS2 at Hartwell House, Aylesbury showing potential damage to the views from the House, across the lake and up the North Avenue, not to mention the houses just to the north-east…

A 1-2m deep cutting crosses the Avenue just in front of the hedge seen on the brow of the hill. Photo by Charles Boot (Jan 2012)

The Register of Parks and Gardens is a highly selective designation comprising only some 1,600 sites in total (compared to c.360,000 listed buildings and c.18,000 Scheduled Ancient Monuments); of these sites, 10% are considered to be of international significance (c.160 sites), and 30% are identified as being of outstanding historic interest (c480 sites); the remaining 60% of sites are considered to be of ‘special’ historic interest (c.960 sites). It is clear, therefore, that sites such as Hartwell, Shardeloes and Stoneleigh are both rare and highly important surviving examples of eighteenth century landscape design – an aesthetic genre widely considered to be Britain’s greatest contribution to our international cultural heritage.

We note and commend to your attention the comments submitted by the Chilterns AONB Board; we also commend the response submitted by Bucks Gardens Trust and those of other county gardens trusts in affected areas: these embody a very high level of locally-informed expert comment which serves strongly to underline the absence of an appropriate impact assessment in the consultation documents.

The Garden History Society, in its role as Statutory Consultee for nationally designated historic designed landscapes together with The Georgian Group and The Association of Gardens Trusts, advises that the preferred route for the proposed High Speed Rail Link would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the historic environment and particularly on historic designed landscapes and their settings along its route by reason of physical impact on the historic fabric, or impact on views, vistas or by scale, movement, noise and light effects.

We further advise that there appears to have been a totally inadequate assessment of these impacts on the historic environment as part of the planning process for the preferred route, and comment that this represents an unacceptable approach to planning in this sensitive area.
For these reasons, all three bodies urge you most strongly to withdraw this damaging preferred route for the proposed HS2 rail link.

If, however, despite these and other considered objections this route is adopted, The Garden History Society and The Georgian Group (as Statutory Consultees), and individual county gardens trusts will wish to comment upon, and where appropriate offer advice on mitigation measures. However, it is our collective view that mitigation will not negate the terrible harm which would be inflicted on these fragile and outstandingly significant elements of our historic environment and inheritance.

Jonathan Lovie

Principal Conservation officer

Appendix

Outline Schedule of Historic Designed Landscapes and their Settings affected by HS2 Preferred Route

1.0 Nationally Designated Designed Landscapes

1.1 Sites in Buckinghamshire
•    Shardeloes, Amersham (Grade II*; Grade I listed principal building) – considerable damage amounting to the destruction of this outstanding landscape designed by Humphry Repton.
•    Hartwell House, Aylesbury (Grade II*; Grade I listed principal building) – the setting to the north and east will be particularly adversely affected with damage to the historic fabric including Park Lodge and the North Avenue; the opportunity for the reinstatement of the historic (early eighteenth century) designed view to the spire of St Mary’s, Aylesbury will be lost forever, as will historic designed views from the North Avenue and the Wilderness to open country.
•    Eythrope House (Grade II; Grade II listed building) – impact on the setting of the landscape through noise and visual impact on views.
•    Waddesdon Manor (Grade I; Grade I listed principal building; National Trust) – impact on the setting due to the elevated position of the house and surrounding designed landscape. Designed views north from the park will be particularly affected.
•    Quarrendon, Aylesbury (Scheduled Ancient Monument) – earthwork remains of Sir Henry Lee’s garden; the setting will be adversely affected.

1.2 Sites in Warwickshire
•    Stoneleigh Abbey (Grade II*; Grade I listed principal building) – the proposed viaduct across the River Avon to the north of the Abbey will compromise designed views within the eighteenth century landscape. The route through the former National Agricultural Centre will serve further to blight this area of the designed landscape, ensuring that the full aesthetic concept for Stoneleigh will never be appreciated.
•    Castle Bromwich Hall (Grade II*; Grade I listed principal building) – while the setting to the north of the Hall is already compromised by transport routes, the addition of HS2 will create additional noise and visual impacts, intensifying the degradation of this setting. The existence of harmful development should not be taken as justification for further adverse development.

2.0 Regionally and Locally Significant Sites
NB Due to the incomplete nature of the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens, some of these sites below may be of suitable quality and historic interest to merit national designation.
This list makes no claim to be exhaustive, but serves to highlight the inadequacy of the approach adopted to the historic environment in the Consultation document.

2.1 Sites in Buckinghamshire
•    Barton Hartshorn Manor – an important example of the work of the Scottish Arts and Crafts designed Sir Robert Lorimer, which remains more or less intact.
•    Chetwode Manor, Preston Bissett – impact on the setting of the garden.
2.2 Sites in Northamptonshire
•    Edgcote House – the proposed viaduct to the north of the lake will have an unacceptable impact on the eighteenth century landscape designed to form the setting of this important Grade I listed eighteenth century house (1747–52).
2.3 Sites in Warwickshire
•    Stoneythorpe Hall, Southam – the line to the south of the house and landscape may have a detrimental impact though increased noise levels.

Consultants were reappointed to update reports previously undertaken in 2006, and to give guidance on technical issues. All necessary planning & listed building consents have been granted. In 2008 the fabric of the house and garden structures were in rapid decline, in particular a the fabric of the Tea House and the dry rot was threatening the fabric of the house, with seven substantive outbreaks scattered throughout the building.

The dry rot is gone, the roof has been repaired and 100 of the 150 windows have been repaired. As well as the roof & windows, the house has been repainted, most of the garden walls have been stabilised & some have been rebuilt, large areas of brambles & undergrowth have been cleared, the hedges have been trimmed & the lawns cut. The survey of the condition of garden buildings and structures has been updated, a tree survey has been made & a conservation plan has been prepared.

On a recent visit I was shown the work done so far, it has certainly made a huge difference to the place, Wood now has an air of care about it.

Mr McDiarmid has committed himself, and his resources, to making the project a success.

John Clark

Conservation officer

The ‘new’ garden is a delight. This major landscape improvement not only enhances the setting of an important listed building by one of England’s most respected architects but, by realising his original design for the garden, is of considerable historic interest. Chris and his colleagues are to be congratulated on negotiating the landscape scheme as part of the planning application by Bass Taverns for alterations to the Drum Inn.

John Clark

Conservation Officer

First published in GHS micro-news 87a summer 2011

In December the long-awaited replacement for the Memorandum of Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ was published by Historic Scotland. Consisting of an initial suite of fourteen freestanding guidance notes on a range of topics, the list will be expanded over time. At present there is no one leaflet specifically for Gardens and Designed Landscapes, but much of the content of the ‘Setting’ leaflet is relevant and contains a link to the GHS website and PCANs 11 and 13; Development in the Setting of Historic Designed Landscape, and Briefs for Historic Landscape Assessment. Further details of both the Inventory and the Managing Change in the Historic Environment guidance notes can be found on Historic Scotland’s website www.historic-scotland.gov.uk.

The steady flow of forestry consultations into the conservation office was maintained over the latter half of the year with a notable rise in applications for Woodland Creation under the Scottish Rural Development Programme’s Rural Priorities. In the majority of cases we supported the applications for native woodland creation in appropriate areas of designed landscapes, but have become increasingly concerned with applications received for planting-up parkland areas as woodland. Often described in an application as ‘uneconomic agricultural land’ and seen as a potential source of bio-fuel for the future, there is a danger that much parkland could become lost under blanket planting of native woodland. In most applications we have tried to encourage a reduced area of planting, usually towards the periphery and as an extension to existing woodland, retaining some open parkland space. In addition we have encouraged the replacement of individual parkland specimens and or clumps of trees, with the inclusion of non-native species where this is appropriate, reflecting the historical planting mix.

At Cammo House, on the western outskirts of Edinburgh we were consulted by the City of Edinburgh Council about the restoration and recreation of the Pinetum. The Cammo landscape was laid out by Sir John Clerk, later 2^nd Baronet of Penicuik, (1676–1755) in the early 1700s and this formed the framework for subsequent landscape developments. Cammo House was remodelled by William Adam in the late 1720s but was destroyed by fire in 1977. The ruin was consolidated and made safe in 1980 and remains the focal point of the estate. The landscape was remodelled in the 1770s and a small Pinetum laid out to the west of the house in the mid 19^th century. Since the acquisition of the estate by the National Trust for Scotland in 1980 the grounds have been managed as a countryside park on the Trust’s behalf by City of Edinburgh Council. Although now a popular green space and informal park, the management regime has resulted in a loss of detail of the designed landscape. The Pinetum has remained un-mown and largely unmanaged with a resultant invasion of Rhododendron and Ivy, and apart from one Cedrus deodara planted in 2006, no replacement planting undertaken. Some of the original trees have survived to the present day including a Pinus pinea (Umbrella Pine) which is thought to be the second largest in the UK; other specimens include a Pinus cembra (Arolla Pine) and Thujopsis dolobrata (Hiba). If works to the Pinetum are undertaken we hope this can be seen as the first stage inof restoring some of the more significant elements of the designed landscape. Other features which would benefit include the Canal to the south of the Pinetum (which may also have been designed by William Adam), the walled garden and the Home Farm.

In the Spring News 2009 (83) we discussed the Cumbernauld House designed landscape. Just before Christmas an application was submitted to North Lanarkshire Council for the conversion of this A-listed William Adam House to residential use with the recreation of the parterre garden to the south. Whilst the use of the building is not what many in the local community had hoped for, we are encouraged by the fact that this project can be achieved by minimal external alteration to the house, and without any enabling development. The only new building on the site will be two residential units on the footprints of buildings adjacent to the stable-block, which will itself be converted for residential use. With the recreation of the parterre garden the stone sundial, dating from 1725 (but thought to have been brought to Cumbernauld at a later date) currently standing somewhat forlornly to the rear of the house can be restored to its former location.

Our volunteer recording groups have been busy with the Dumfries & Galloway producing first drafts of their survey results at properties in the Nith Valley National Scenic Area including Southwick, Mabie, Conheath and Auchencairn. In Angus a new group established, trained and supported by Sue Hewer and Christopher Dingwall has begun work on the desk-top research element of properties in that area. As many of you will be aware our current funding from Historic Scotland (HS) ceases at the end of April, and an application for funding for the coming year is currently under consideration. HS has indicated that, rather than continue funding us to provide advice about the Regionally and Locally significant sites not included in the Inventory, any grant awarded should be used to expand the network of volunteer recording groups across the country. In this News you will see a notice advertising an event to be held in May at Broich, Stirling, to introduce members and volunteers to the work being undertaken. If you are interested please come along and find out what we are doing; we need your involvement to make this project successful. Any members in East Lothian in particular, please note that if our funding application to HS is successful this is one of the areas we hope to expand the project into next. If you cannot go to the Broich event but are interested in finding out more about the work, please contact the Scottish Conservation Office for further details: scotland@gardenhistorysociety.org.

Alison Allighan

Conservation Officer, Scotland

31 January 2011

In recent years the Royal Parks Agency has come to be seen as a standard-bearer for informed historic landscape conservation, striking the not always easy balance between preserving historic fabric and meeting the needs of contemporary Londoners and tourists. The inspiring work being undertaken at Kensington Palace, about which we heard at the GHS Study Day in November 2010, is just one such example of this approach.

The proposal, now seemingly a ‘done deal’ to transfer management of the Royal Parks to the Greater London Assembly (GLA) calls the management style of the parks into question. Commercial interests, and particularly the hosting of an increased number of large-scale events in the parks could have a significant impact both on the character and fabric of the parks, and the level of public access within them. The London Olympics next summer will be a significant test of the public’s reaction to this phenomenon, as almost every Royal Park will be hosting some aspect of the Games. At the same time, pressure on places such as Green Park and St James Park to become the repository for an ever-increasing number of public monuments (to the detriment of their historic character and fabric) continues, and requires a robust planning regime. We shall, along with the London Parks and Gardens Trust, be watching developments with great attention.

Jonathan Lovie

First published in GHS news 87 Spring 2011

On the other hand there are places where forestry activities, particularly where commercial timber production has predominated, have had a major and not always sympathetic impact on pre-existing designed landscapes. As I write, I look across the Taw valley in Devon, where in 1919 the Forestry Commission undertook its first plantation, now known as Eggesford Forest, within the eighteenth and nineteenth century designed landscape associated with Eggesford House. The original mixed ornamental and semi-ornamental plantations (discernable from a few remnant trees) have gradually been replaced by a predominantly coniferous crop, leading to a significant change in the character of the landscape and a loss of its designed intent; at the same time it could be argued that the Commission’s activities have, over time, assumed a relative historic significance of their own.

This is not to say that the Commission’s woodland is not well-managed, with good public access and benefits for wildlife; but there are places where the present forestry regime has a detrimental impact on the historic significance of the landscape, and where a change in ownership may allow a different management regime to be pursued. There may even be instances where inappropriately located plantations can be removed for the long-term benefit of the designed landscape. This is a particularly important consideration in a climate where new tree planting for fuel and biomass is being encouraged, often at the expense of historic parkland. Trees are of course good, but only when planted in the right place: the wrong tree in the wrong place has a very enduring detrimental impact.

The Conservation Committee has been considering this dilemma, and in preparation for this huge change in land ownership, is looking to prepare a list of designed landscapes which have been affected by forestry plantations, and where we might seek to influence a change in direction.

Jonathan Lovie

First published in GHS news 87 Spring 2011

We hope to work on a co-ordinated response to Government with the Gardens Trusts in the affected counties.

Jonathan Lovie

First published in GHS news 87 Spring 2011

As a philosophical principle, the empowerment of local communities is perhaps one with which many of us would feel an instinctive agreement. Too often in the past decisions have appeared to be taken at some remote bureaucratic or legalistic level with scant regard to the potential impact on individuals. As a statutory consultee (or remote expert voice, depending on one’s point of view) we have played our own part in that system. The Government’s legislation seeks to address this perception by requiring local authorities to hold referendums on any matter (including planning issues) if a petition is signed by 5% of local electors or a single councillor. Authorities are not obliged to follow the result of such a referendum, but they must show that they have taken it into account. Clearly, when applied to planning issues in particular, local referendums have great potential to be taken over by single-issue groups or campaigners who will not, perhaps, have an appropriate understanding of the longer term objectives of conserving the historic environment. For all its perceived faults, the present system of planning law does at least ensure a relatively level and objective basis on which decisions can be made.

The Bill envisages rights for community groups to bid to provide services to the local authority. In a climate which is seeing local government spending radically reduced and funding for urban designed landscape such as public parks and cemeteries under increasing pressure, it is possible that we shall see the emergence of community groups managing such places on behalf of the local authority; however, whether sufficient motivated groups will emerge to bridge the looming funding gap remains to be seen.

With regard to the planning system itself, the Bill again produces mixed responses. Some proposals, such as the extension of the Community Infrastructure Levy on new development to cover on-going maintenance costs of elements of the historic environment such as ‘public green spaces’ – presumably encompassing public parks, cemeteries and other designed urban spaces – is to be welcomed. On the other hand the immensely complex regulations proposed for the development of Neighbourhood Plans, Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders raise the potential for seriously detrimental development affecting the setting of, for example, registered parks and gardens which would not be permitted under present regulations.

The new neighbourhood development procedures are intended by Government to bring forward more development than is presently the case. As such, neighbourhood planning does not have to be fully compliant with the Local Development Framework, and only has to have regard to national planning policies. The neighbourhood plan becomes part of the Local Development Framework, thus acquiring considerable weight in the planning process; and the statutory requirements to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the historic environment are dropped where a Neighbourhood Development Plan is developed.

Jonathan Lovie

First published in GHS news 87 Spring 2011

We all know that the younger generation needs to be persuaded of the delights of our historic parks and gardens, but the younger visitor all too often spends an unhappy afternoon fighting the urge to roll down banks, dabble in the fountain, clamber in the shrubbery, balance on walls and run across the lawn. If they manage their task then they are rewarded with half an hour on the ugly climbing frame by the car park, an ice-cream and a souvenir pencil sharpener as an affirmation that they enjoyed their day out in a historic garden.

As a result of an often formulaic approach to provision for children, the Society’s conservation officers have long been accustomed to considering the impact of new play facilities within historic landscapes. In urban public parks, playgrounds are perfectly valid and chime well with the site’s historic raison d’être, but in gardens with a history of being private homes, off-the-shelf proposals can sit uncomfortably with the site, its history, and its aim to have a relevance in today’s society.

By thinking a little more imaginatively, we may realise that many historic gardens are inherently suited to children’s play and engagement and suddenly it may no longer seem so necessary to spend those thousands of pounds on some new brightly-coloured play equipment. We may notice a fountain that would be perfect for sailing boats in, if only a little stash of them was left ready on the edge; a Broad Walk that is calling to have a hoop rolled along it; a pond perfect for fishing were there a row of nets; a hill on which a kite could be flown; a Hermitage that would be a thousand times more entertaining were there a hermit in it…

To tackle some of these issues and to generate fresh energy, inspiration and imagination in thinking about children’s play, the GHS has published a beautifully illustrated free leaflet called Beyond the Playground: new approaches to children’s play in historic gardens, with a text by Linden Groves, our conservation officer for the East of England & London. To receive a copy, please contact Louise Cooper, the Adminstrator at the GHS office.

It would be surprising if heritage protection featured as a major issue in the impending General Election; but the outcome of that event has the potential to have a significant impact on the way in which the historic environment is managed in England for many years to come.

With cuts of up to 20% in funding for the arts being forecast by some commentators, it seems impossible that funding for the heritage sector will not face similar constraints. Such a changed environment will inevitably force us to reconsider what The Garden History Society, in its role as a statutory consultee does, and how it delivers its work. Meeting this challenge will require constructive thinking both on our part, and on the part of partner organisations with broadly similar objectives.

As has been previously reported, the draft Heritage Protection Bill (2008) has been dropped from this Government’s legislative programme. What is not yet clear is the extent to which an incoming Government of any political complexion would seek to implement its provisions. Implementation of at least those sections of the Bill which deal with the streamlining and simplification of the heritage protection system becomes all the more desirable in an economic climate which favours de-regulation in the cause of economic growth, and where there can be a perception that heritage protection can be a brake on investment and development. Precisely this area is already the subject of two Government reviews; one being undertaken for the Department for Business, Industry and Skills and the other by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

In order to bring some clarity to the positions adopted by the different political parties prior to the Election, and to remind them of the importance, not least the economic importance, of the heritage sector, the Heritage Alliance (formerly Heritage Link) will be meeting with the three key shadow heritage and planning spokesmen.