 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sufficient material has now been provided [25th July 2005] to be able to make available online a second update on the history and fate of Haltemprice Priory and its farmhouse. This has all been so very kindly provided by Mrs. Claire Hadgraft the current owner of the site, who has been and remains a true friend to www.yorkshirehistory.com Included in the latest package of papers and plans to arrive with me is the Interim archaeological Report no. 2003/199.R03 Dated June 2005; Author: Ed Dennison of Ed Dennison Archaeological Services Ltd, 18 Spingdale Way, Beverley, East Yorkshire, HU17 8NU; on behalf of Mrs C. Hadgraft, Hull. It begins : "Restoration of Ruined Farmhouse and Residential Development on Site of Farm Buildings, Haltemprice Priory, Willerby, East Yorkshire - Summary of Archaeological Investigations and Revised Mitigation Strategy." and comprises 23 pages of Arial 12 font text. The final archaeological report I am led to believe is expected by September 2005, so a further update after this seems likely. It is not necessary, nor is it even advisable to repeat everything contained in the above report, much of which is technical bureaucracy required of the report for planning and other purposes. The immense amount of paperwork is demanded due to the simple fact that the land site in question falls entirely within the Scheduled Monument, which also extends further to the north and east. The report continues to provide an outline historical background to the site, not too far removed from that provided on this web site - how could it be, the known facts are the same! There then follows an itemised list of the previously described test pits in their archaeological context, which in the main are nothing exceptional until test pit 3. In this was discovered the brick lined culvert that measured c.1.10m wide by 0.60m in depth. The hand made bricks appear contemporary with the west wall of the stair tower. The culvert was filled with a "grey brown silt loam (015), containing fragments of glass, pottery, coal, brick and oyster shells; one fragment of a probable medieval glazed floor tile was also recovered." Test pit 5 was more revealing than most of the others, and deserves quoting in full. "Test pit 5 was located to the south and east of the farmhouse and was linear in plan, incorporating a number of returns. It had maximum dimensions of 11.70m east-west by 10.10m north-south, and was excavated to a maximum depth of 1.05m BGL at the west end, although the majority was much shallower. The pit originated from a desire to test a potential geophysical anomaly. "Following the removal of a 0.11m depth of turf and topsoil (022), a shallow deposit of mid-brown silt loam (023) was exposed, which contained fragments of pottery, brick and glass; the pottery within this material included sherds of Humberware, which had a date range of the 14th to 19th centuries, pieces of 18th century tin glaze and Staffordshire slipware, and one sherd of Raeren stoneware dating 1475 - 1550, while there were also two clay pipe stems of the late 17th/early 18th century date. More about Humberware and Raeren stoneware can se seen at: http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mono/001/rep_ceramics_humber.html and http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/issue7/cumberpatch.html "In the deeper west end of the trench, this loam overlay a very clean deposit of light brown silt loam (026). At its north end, it was disturbed by a steep sided cut (024), apparently made to expose the foundations of the south elevation of the farmhouse. This cut was backfilled with a mixed silty loam fill (025) containing frequent fragments of slop moulded red brick in the upper part. The cut had also disturbed the north end of a roughly constructed line of possible footings (027), built from red hand made bricks varying from 0.04m to 0.06m in depth. "The south end of the footings (027) were built over the barrel vault of what was presumed to be a large culvert (028). The vault of the culvert was 1.35m wide and was built of red hand-made bricks (average dimensions 0.25m by 0.04m by 0.13m)set with a light brown lime mortar. In order to trace the path of the culvert, a small additional pit (5a) was dug 10m to the east on its projected line. This confirmed that the culvert continued at least this far to the east; its western extent is as yet unknown. There appears to be very little fall between the two sections of the culvert which were uncovered. "In the shallower main section of the trench, the main feature to be exposed was the base of a north-west/south-east aligned brick wall (029). At its west end, the wall emerged from beneath the south elevation of the farmhouse, and appeared to have been truncated by its construction. It incorporated the remains of a small buttress at the base, then ran 11.50m to the east, where it thickened and returned to the north to form a substantial gate-pier on one side of what was eventually once a large gateway (see plate 2). The wall (029) was built of hand-made bricks (average dimensions 0.23m by 0.04m by 0.13m) set with a buff lime mortar and apparently laid in Monk bond, a variation of Flemish bond with two stretchers between each header, and was a maximum of 0.6m wide. The south-east corner of the wall incorporated a chamfered plinth made of rubbed brick (see plate 3), and a number of other ex situ moulded bricks were recovered from this general area. The core of the wall was constructed from chalk blocks, and the central section had been disturbed by a number of service pipes. The top of the gate pier lay at 4.39m OD, immediately beneath the turn and topsoil. "Around the gate pier at the east end of the wall (029) were the remains of a cobbled surface (030), composed of smooth rounded pebbles of different colours, perhaps recovered from the banks of the Humber estuary (see plate 4) [According to 'A History of Hull' Gillett and MacMahon, page 104, many of the cobbles that paved the streets of Hull during the 16thC came from Iceland as ballast for the stockfish trade, so this assertion that these at the Priory were from the Humber estuary should perhaps be reconsidered.] The cobbles had been disturbed to the north of the gate pier but then resumed, continuing a further 5m to the north and incorporating a number of drains formed by larger flat stones. The top of the cobbled surface lay at 4.07m OD, 0.32m BGL. The cobbled surface terminated at the remains of a substantial buttress (031), 0.95m wide, which was evidently once part of a larger building here. The buttress rose from a chamfered limestone plinth, which supported the remains of a chalk wall core faced with brick; the top of this feature lay at 4.65. OD, again immediately below the turf and topsoil. The structure to which the buttress was once attached was truncated on three sides, but it appeared to continue to the north beyond the extent of the trench."
The report continues to describe the findings of the remaining test pits, but none proved as significant as these. It then moves on to the Discussion and Conclusions section quoted here in full. "The results from the excavation of the test pits can be summarised as follows. Probable natural deposits (004) were only exposed in Pit 8, at the north end of the site, c.0.5. BGL or 4.15m OD. The earliest structural features were all contained in Pit 5, along the south and east sides of the existing farmhouse. The size and form of the brickwork in wall 029 indicates that it is probably late medieval in date, and appears to have once formed part of the Priory's precinct boundary (see below). The exposed section had a substantial gateway at the east end, leading onto a space with a cobbled yard (030) and a large buttressed building (031) immediately to the north, both probably late medieval in date. The alignment and brickwork of culvert 028 to the south suggests that it may be contemporary with wall 029 and may therefore also [be] late medieval in date, although its function is presently unclear. It is possible that the mass of brickwork (010) in Pit 2 might represent the remains of a priory structure, whilst the chalk footings (010) in Pit 9 could relate to an outlying boundary wall. "The culvert (014) recorded in Pit 3 on the west side of the farmhouse might support previous suggestions that this end of the building once housed garderobes, although if this is the case, they can only ever have been present on the ground floor. The clay deposits (017) and (007) noted in Pits 3 and 2 respectively may pre-date or be associated with the construction of the south-west wing of the farmhouse, whilst the widespread dark brown silt loam observed to the south of the farmhouse is probably the result of former garden or agricultural cultivation. Summary of other Archaeological Investigations Geophysical Survey "Three phases of geophysical survey have been undertaken on the site (GSB Prospection 2003a; 2003b; 2003c) but the results were affected by the previous ground disturbance, mostly as a result of former gardens, extant services, building debris etc associated with the now ruined farmhouse and the demolished farmyard granges. Nevertheless, a number of suggestive anomalies were noted, some of which were targeted by the test pits described above. "A resistance survey to the south of the farmhouse identified the area of the former garden and a pipe which was seen in Pit 6; no other features were noted in this area (GSB Prospection 2003b). another survey revealed some potential structural anomalies along the south and east wall of the farmhouse (GSB Prospection 2003c, anomalies 9, 8, 3 and 2) which proved to be wall footings 029, 030 and 031; a possible cellar seen outside the front door (GSB Prospection 2003c, anomaly 10) was not revealed by the excavation of Pit 1 although it may lie at a lower level. The buried culvert 014 on the west side of the farmhouse was noted as a linear high resistance anomaly while the other culvert (028) running parallel to the south wall of the house lay in a general area of low resistance (GSB Prospection 2003a, south of anomaly F; 2003c, anomalies 4 and 5). "The earliest survey along the western boundary of the site and around the north side of the farmhouse did not suggest any definite archaeological structures in these areas, although the end of a possible moat was noted in the north-west corner of the site and a former fish pond was seen in the south-west corner (GSB Prospection 2003a, anomalies E and G); this survey also noted a possible drain connecting the two (GSB Prospection 2003a, anomaly H)." A further and updated building survey of the farmhouse and ancillary structures then follows, from which the flowing has been extracted. This avoids un-necessary repetition, and therefore concentrates on the latest and additional interpretations. "The survey has showed that, as expected, the farmhouse has a complex history, and the following represents an initial summary of the findings. Perhaps the earliest surviving element in the building is a 5.0m long section of a chamfered stone plinth, which survives at the base of the north elevation of the main range. This is of a high quality construction, and appears to be in situ remnant of a much larger, more substantial medieval structure, possibly 14th century in date (phase 1). Another early feature, but later than the plinth, is the lower part of the south wall of the main range which incorporates an elaborately moulded early 16th century doorway/gateway and perhaps also decorative coping (phase 2). This wall can be traced further to the west through the farmhouse, as the wall separating the stair tower from the south-west wing, and it is truncated just beyond the west elevation. This wall is interpreted as being a freestanding boundary wall at least 8m long, it was c.2.2m tall and surmounted by chamfered brick coping, and the previous geophysical survey suggest that it may have returned to the north at its west wend. Shortly afterwards, in the mid 16th century, just before or just after the Dissolution, s structure of mixed chalk / timber framed construction was built against the north side of this boundary wall (phase 3); its chalk block walling survives in the west and north walls of the stair tower, and the north and south walls of the main room of the main range, and it is likely that this material was salvaged from the priory. "In the early 17th century, this chalk and timber structure (including the earlier boundary wall) was then enlarged and incorporated into a house which comprised a single east-west range, measuring c.15m long by c.6m wide, definitely of two but perhaps rising to three storeys, with a three storey stair tower at the west end. This new house made much use of re-used late medieval brick and stone, and possibly also utilised surviving medieval foundations, as evidenced by the in situ chamfered plinth at the base of the north elevation. Nevertheless, it is essentially, a 'new build'. The housebody of the main range was located on the ground floor and was heated by a large lateral stack, which was probably used for cooking at this date as well, and above the housebody, there was a heated chamber, perhaps also with a further room to the east. There is no convincing evidence that the stair tower ever functioned as a garderobe tower, although there may have been latrines on the ground floor. It is likely that the well to the rear of the farmhouse also belongs to this phase "This phase 4 building underwent a radical alteration in the late 17th century by the insertion of a new stack at the east end of the earlier main range, which was its self extended eastwards over a vaulted cellar (phase 5). It is probable that the lateral stack fell out of use at this date, to be replaced by fireplaces in the newly constructed central stack. The new eastern extension was probably a kitchen, and the chamber over may have been used as storage. A new stair-case was inserted into the stair tower during the same period, and perhaps a north-west wing was also built at this time. Some of the windows in the south elevation were blocked when the new stack went in, interestingly with medieval bricks. "In the mid 18th century, a south-west wing was built (phase 6). This was then shortened in the later 18th century (perhaps after 1787) and its status was upgraded by the introduction of re-used carved woodwork from Hotham House in Beverley. The ground floor of the wing formed a panelled parlour, whilst the first floor was a chamber fitted out with re-used woodwork. At the same time, the main range was re-roofed and re-fenestrated, and the fireplace at the east end of its main ground floor room remodelled. The small courtyard to the rear also probably started to develop at this time, and it had reached its full extent by the mid 19th century. "The farmhouse underwent no further major changes until the late 20th century, although internal sub-division and minor alterations were undertaken, such as replacing the late 18th century windows and blocking up others (phase 7). There was a body of photographic evidence which depicts the house when it was still occupied and this, together with plans produced in the late 1970's by Hutton and by Hall (Hall 1976), and other survey work done by RCHME in 1992, provide a good record of the building before the recent spate of vandalism and destruction. The report then moves on to the Earthwork/Topographical Survey, here once more, in full. "A new topographical survey was made of Mrs Hadgraft's landholding using electronic distance measuring (EMD) equipment. This plan, together with modern Ordnance Survey detail, was used to produce a sketch survey of the earthworks and other features within the area of the Scheduled Monument, at a scale of 1:1250. "The remaining earthworks within the scheduled monument to the north of the farmhouse were bulldozed in 1960 [discussed elsewhere within this article], and that the area to the east was heavily ploughed in the 1970's. Although observed at several different times of the year, the land to the north-west of the farmhouse is almost always covered with long grass, even in winter, making earthwork recognition very difficult. "A number of individual elements were noted by the sketch survey. Some 260m to the north-east of the farmhouse there are remains of an enclosure, c.60. square, which is depicted on the historic maps of the site. A further bank is shown running south from the south-east corner of this enclosure, but it has since been destroyed by the cutting of a drainage ditch. The water supply for the priory was probably two springs, one called Lady Well located off the south-east corner of this enclosure (c.250m north-east of farmhouse), and another to the west of here. Both these springs supplied a significant quantity of water, such that in 1518, it was resolved that the Priory should give then to the City [sic] of Hull to supply them with water in return for the royalties of Willerby and Newton (Stamp 1989, 19-20) [see section 1 of this article for a total transcript of this order, and digital photographs of the actual document]. "Approximately 130m to the north-west of the farmhouse there is a complex of earthworks, now much denuded, which appear to form a sub-rectangular enclosure, c.150m north-south by c.50m east-west, with an entrance in the centre of the south side. To the south of this there are a series of linear banks or ditches running parallel to the south side of the enclosure. These earthworks might be associated with the priory, or be part of the village of Newton, which was displaced by the coming of the priory, or be to where the village was located to, once the priory had arrived. "The farmhouse is located towards the centre west side of a large moated enclosure, c.200m north-south by 140m east-west. This feature is depicted on the historic maps, and it may have been sub-divided into two equal halves by another ditch (see below). There is a gap in the south-west corner of the moated enclosure which marks the point at which 'Abbey Lane' enters the site. The maps also depict a rectangular pond in the north-east corner of the enclosure. Since 1965 many of these ditches have either been infilled or re-dug, so that most of the original alignments have been lost and there is no longer an impression of the large enclosure. The only surviving and apparently unaltered section of moat lies in the north-west corner, where the ditch is a shallow broad linear depression, c.8m wide at the top, c.3m wide at the bottom, and 1.2m deep. On the 1855 map also note the expression 'Extra Parochial' printed to the north-west of the farmhouse. This indicates the location of land that was outside of the local parish, in other words in this case, it was Priory land. Such additions to early OS maps were included from earlier 'Enclosure' maps dating back sometimes to the 1600's, but more generally dating from a century later. That no such 'Enclosure' map has survived for this site is a shame, but the shadows of such provide for an enthralling mystery - where exactly was the priory church? "A further moated enclosure measuring c.180m east-west by c.130m north-south lies to the east, named 'Ash Hill' on the historic maps. The east end of the enclosure is rather irregular, and internally it contains two rectangular ponds aligned almost east-west and joined by a channel. Once again, these ponds have been infilled since 1977, many sections of the moats infilled, and the interior of the enclosure heavily ploughed. "The 1855 Ordnance Survey maps show that there was a series of farm buildings located to the east of the ruined farmhouse. At this time, they are depicted as two conjoined yards separated by a long north-south aligned range with smaller structures scattered around the edges. There is also a small building with its own attached yard just to the north. And two other free-standing structures to the south. By the time of the 1888 edition, the farm had been remodelled into a larger quadrangular complex comprising four ranges enclosing a central yard with an entrance in the south-east corner. These are the buildings that were demolished in 1996, leaving the concrete base on which they stood. The absence of any detailed pre-1855 maps of this area means that it is not known whether there were any earlier buildings here, although they would not be un-expected, and may explain why the first farm complex had been an unusual plan form. There then follows detailed examination of points previously discussed, including HUA DDX / 16 / 339 and 340, dated 12th July 1959, purporting to be a plan of excavation of a building that might have been the conventual church. This has previously been discussed herein, but it has to be emphasised that the location of this plan drawing was not recorded; its subsequent value to the interpretation of the site is therefore very small. This section of the report also mentions, quite rightly too, that this current phase of investigation, is the very first to provide a systematic scheme of archaeological investigation and recording, and provides the first attempt to 'synthesise' the substantial body of material relating to previous works. It then continues: Interim Conclusions: "The wall foundation (029) revealed in Pit 5, underneath and slightly misaligned with the south wall of the farmhouse (see plate 2) represents the earliest exposed phase so far uncovered on the site. The form of construction and the size of the brickwork in the wall suggest that it is late medieval in date, perhaps as early as the 14th century. In its original form, the wall comprised a free standing boundary at least 11.4m long, with the remnant of a buttress at the western end and a substantial gatepier at the east end. This gatepier formed one side of a gateway, perhaps a similar but larger and earlier version of the four-centred arched example existing in Friars Lane, Beverley, which is associated with the Dominican Friary. [The four-centred Gothic arch is an architectural feature, build mainly from brick, and seen most often as the curved top to doorways. This diagram from: http://www.brickcutting.net/hbc/fcgothic.htm "The rubbed/moulded brickwork plinth at the base of the south face of the wall shows that its construction incorporated elements of display, as well as being merely functional; it was designed to be both seen and approached from the south. This wall appears to be of a similar date to the phase 1 chamfered plinth seen at the base of the north central side of the ruined farmhouse, but the precise relationship between the two has not yet been determined. The current evidence suggest that the wall was a free-standing boundary containing a substantial gateway, and that the plinth is associated with a separate detached structure just to the north of the boundary; this building would now lie under the ruined farmhouse. The northern return of the wall shows that there was a second entrance just inside this gateway, perhaps leading onto cobbled yard associated with this detached building. Just to the north of the gateway were the remains of a substantial medieval buttressed building, of uncertain function or alignment." There then comes a quite revealing insight, that even if there now remains but little, the aspirations of the founder were no less grand than those for the foundation of a Fountains Abbey, but better I think in the report's words rather than mine: "There has been a tendency, based on the well documented poverty of the priory in the later 14th and early 15th centuries, to assume that the priory was always poverty stricken and therefore built on a commensurate scale. This would almost certainly be mistaken. The founder, Thomas Wake [or Wyke] was an important and wealthy individual and there is no reason to believe that he did not start with grand plans for Haltemprice. Recent survey work has demonstrated that the remains of Ellerton Priory in North Yorkshire, the second poorest house in England at the Dissolution, contain at least 20 buildings as well as a claustral complex, although these may not all have been in use at the same time (Dennison 2000); Haltemprice, although still classed as one of the smaller houses at the Dissolution and contained a Prior and twelve cannons, was far better endowed. In addition, Thomas Wyke and Sir John Neville were buried in the priory church, and there is no evidence to suggest that they were removed after the Dissolution." For those who have wandered through the various pages of www.yorkshirehistory.com some will recognise the name of Sir John Nevill[e], or Lord Fauconberg, perhaps. There have been several Sir John's Nevill through the Middle-Ages, and it would be presumptive to state which of them, and his reasons for, being interred at Haltemprice. The report then continues: "It is clear from the historic maps and comparative studies that priories were originally organised around a number of enclosed areas or precincts, and the main precinct area was often divided into two or more courts. This also appears to have occurred at Haltemprice, where the core or inner precinct appears to have been defined by the relatively large moated enclosure (D), c.200m long by c.140m wide, and covering c.3.6hectares. Abbey Lane ran into the south-west corner of this enclosure, and it is assumed that there was a gatehouse or portal here; a gatehouse was documented as having been destroyed by fire in the early 15th century." This could be hugely interesting as an interpretive suggestion. While the report has no misgivings about declaring the sub-structure of the farmhouse as some sort of gateway, it seems also to be recommending that the primary entrance to the priory site was not at the farmhouse, but at the south-west corner of the moated enclosure, where it links with Abbey Lane, and that there perhaps aught to be a structural building, in some form of survival, all be it at best, archaeological. It goes further to imply that it was this removed gatehouse that fell victim to fire. One can but assume that had the fire taken place at the structure underlying the farmhouse, then evidence of burning would have been discovered archaeologically, but none has been reported. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that this 'new' vision, of the main gatehouse well to the south, and west, cannot be easily discounted. "As on other sites, this precinct seems to have been divided into two halves, separated by and east-west ditch or moat, perhaps into an inner or outer court. The phase 1 wall (029) noted above would appear to respect this division, and it is suggested that it represents the remains of a dividing wall located on the north side of the dividing ditch - if projected east, this line would continue along the north side of the farm buildings as depicted in 1858 [sic] and join up with the short length of ditch depicted in 1888 and into which the ponds on Ash Hill drained. The gateway in the dividing wall, which was obviously designed to be visible, would have allowed passage across the ditch and between the two courts. The culvert (028) running parallel to this wall might also represent a later attempt to infill the dividing ditch, or it could be associated with the water management and/or waste disposal at the priory itself. It is possible that the northern, inner court was surrounded by a high boundary wall as well as a moat, and possibly the whole of the inner precinct as well. Bourne Abbey, the Arrouaisian house in Lincolnshire also under Wyke's patronage in the early 14th century also had a cloister precinct and an outer precinct in 1422 (Roffe 2000). All of the above would appear to make the northern precinct the main cloister complex of the priory, there are however some aspects not fully considered. Among these has to be the simple matter of alignments, the east-west alignment of such complexes in the Christian tradition. The dominant alignment in the northern 'precinct' is southeast-northwest. Also, had this complex been sighted in this 'precinct', as close as it is to the 'Lady Well', then some mention of this proximity would have I feel sure, been mentioned at the time of the 'water conflict'. In truth, the location and layout of this now enigmatic site might never be fully resolved, too much damage has been done over the last few decades for an accurate plan to be formulated; all that can be attempted is suggestions. In furtherance to this the report continues: "The major priory buildings, such as the claustral complex, prior's lodgings, guesthouse, infirmary and cemetery, would normally be located in the inner court of the inner precinct, while for priories without external granges, the outer court would be similar to a large farmyard containing farm buildings, service and industrial structures and other accommodation (Gilchrist 1989). Dissolution documents and slightly earlier corrody suggests the presence of domestic accommodation, a brew house, farm buildings, a dovecote, and an orchard at Haltemprice. "One of the aerial photographs examined by the project appears to show a sub-rectangular enclosure or quadrangle, c.40m east-west by c.30m north-south, slightly north of the 19th century farmstead, which might possibly correspond to a typical smaller Augustinian church and associated claustral ranges. This site, formerly within the inner court, now lies within the west end of Ash Hill, which has been heavily ploughed in the past. This interpretation might be borne out by other accounts of disturbance to the site during 1960-1; chance finds made during later ploughing to the north of the farmhouse imply that many brick and tile fragments were uncovered but no foundations or substantial stonework were seen. Whilst ploughing in Ash Hill revealed "notable quantities of building materials..." (Hall 1976, 30); the 19th century accounts also imply that carved and worked stones were found in the vicinity of the farm complex rather than to the north of the farmhouse." This archaeological section of the report concludes with this final paragraph, which of its self seems rather meek after the bold assumptions just detailed, it says: "If this interpretation of the division of the inner precinct into two equally sized courts is correct, the ruined farmhouse would lie in the south-west corner of the inner (northern) court, just on the north side of the division, and the 19th century farm complex would straddle this division. The extent of Mrs. Hadgraft's landholding covers the south-west corner of the inner court and approximately half the outer (southern) court. The claustral complex would lie just to the north of the 19th century farm buildings, just outside the proposed development site. [my emphasis RGH] The area as currently scheduled covers the whole of the inner precinct, as well as the rest of Ash Hill, the northern enclosure and area of possible village earthworks, and the area to the west of the farmhouse." Here, for the first time, we have provided, a clue, even a suggestion, to the location of the priory church and the associated cloister and usual ranges. Now at last, there is the possibility of laying down some form of ground plan, based on solid archaeology and historical sources. The following plan based almost entirely on the above, constructed by myself, with some discrepancies, provides arguably the best case scenario for the plan of Haltemprice Priory using the currently known evidence. It is most unlikely, one suspects, that any major alterations to this plan would be forthcoming even in the event of some impossible archaeological breakthrough on the site, due to the severe depredation inflicted on it over the last century. If one change to the presented plan might be offered, it is this, that the priory church and the claustral buildings associated with it, could perhaps be places just a little further to the north so that the southern range was clear of the proposed dividing ditch between the precincts. The Future
Due to the complex nature of the site both historically and geographically, there have arisen over the decades, a number of solutions to the same number of problems, however, it seems that from time to time, the goal-posts keep moving. The following is from the latest planning application for the site. This in its self is a long document, detailing the history of the various planning applications from 1975 to 2001, of which there have been no fewer than ten! This latest makes the total eleven and no less certain of success than any of the others. They are as follows: 328-182 : LBC for demolition of farmhouse: Refused September 1975. 328-182A : LBC for demolition of farmhouse: Withdrawn November 1977. 328-182B : LBC for demolition of out buildings: Approved November 1994. 328-1793 (Part 1) : Use of land and buildings as a golf course: Approved April 1990. 328-1793 (Part 2) : Erection of building for use for recreational facilities: Approved November 1994 328-10665 : LBC demolition of farmhouse: Refused December 1999. 328-10665A : Erection of 7 dwellings: Refused December 1999. 328-10978B : Outline Erection of dwelling: Refused February 2001. 01/0184/OUT : Outline Erection of a dwelling: Refused June 2001: Appeal dismissed October 2001. 328-10978C : Erection of a Spring Water Bottling Plant: Refused 2001. There then follows a lengthy discourse regarding the archaeology of the site using the aforementioned interim report as its basis. After which come some explanations of various aspects required of planning applications i.e. para. 4.3 states: "The whole of the proposed development site (including the farmhouse is a Scheduled Monument (No. SM32639), and the building its self is Listed Grade II*. The scheduled area was increased in February 2000 to include the ruined building, but it should be noted that the protected area extends for some distance to the north and east, beyond the applicant's ownership". Para 4.4 continues: "Because the building itself is scheduled, and Scheduled Monument Consent is required for any works affecting it, there is no requirement in this instance for Listed Building Consent to be obtained (s.61 Planning (LBCA) Act, 1990)." The document continues to explain that fully supervised archaeological investigations have been undertaken [as we have seen], all at the present owner's expense, which have aided in the preparation of the current application. There then follows a telling paragraph, 4.8, which says: "English Heritage's position with regard to the application has changed significantly since the scheme was commenced. Initially, their position was that the former farmhouse should be maintained as a controlled ruin. However, following discussions with the current applicants, English Heritage agreed to the reinstatement of residential use in the farmhouse on the understanding that all necessary survey and restoration works would be undertaken to their satisfaction. 4.9: This led to extensive negotiations and discussions between the architect; Mr. K. Miller (Inspector of Ancient Monuments, English Heritage, Yorkshire Region); and the applicants - all on the understanding that the principal of residential use was not in dispute. Indeed, the appearance of the current scheme owes as much to English Heritage's requirements as it does to the applicant's, or rather the architect's own inputs. 4.10: "Very recently (April 2005), English Heritage informed the applicant - with little or no explanation - that the position hade reverted back to requiring the site to be maintained as a controlled ruin. [My emphasis RGH] 4.11: "Quite clearly, this change in position casts doubt on the viability of the scheme. It also raises many issues regarding English Heritage's advice to the applicant over the last three years - not least because English Heritage has been instrumental in designing the present scheme for the restoration of the farmhouse and the erection of the new dwellings.
4.12: "Notwithstanding this background, the applicant maintains: (a) that residential use of the farmhouse has never been abandoned, and; (b) that the current proposals represent the best means of preserving the Scheduled Monument in the public interest." It has to be emphasised that the above is the view of the author of the report and the applicant, and does not necessarily reflect the views of this web site, which can only present that which it has been granted access to. In the interest of fair play, this web site hereby offers English Heritage the opportunity, should they ever read this article, to reply to the apparently shabby reversal of policy as described above. Should English Heritage respond, then they will be given all due opportunity to explain their decision, should they feel it necessary to do so. The invitation is here, the opportunity is now; any response can be emailed via yorkshirehistorian@hotmail.com The report continues with an appraisal of the "Traffic and Highways/Footpaths" to say [which is likely to be of some interest to local inhabitants]: "Vehicular access to the site is obtained via privately owned track leading eastwards from the northern end of The Parkway. This track provided access to the proposed dwelling and nearby agricultural fields only. It is not a public footpath. "Discussions with the Council's Highway Department have established that the existing track provides an acceptable form of vehicular access to the dwelling without the need for extensive widening or other improvement. "A public footpath, leading northwards from the eastern end of Carr Lane through to Cottingham, does pass through the site, between the existing dwelling and the (proposed) redeveloped range of farm buildings. The precise line of this track has been established and will be maintained both during site works and once the development is complete. There is no requirement, therefore, for a diversion of the public footpath and the utility of the path will not be affected in any way." The report continues with an analysis of the main issues, of which a selected few will be represented here. The section begins with more concerning English Heritage - see above: "In the present case the former farmhouse is not only scheduled but is also a Listed Building (Grade II*).** ** In the United Kingdom the term listed building refers to a building or other structure officially designated as being of special architectural, historical or cultural significance. A listed building may not be demolished, extended or altered without special permission being granted by the local planning authority who typically consults with the pertaining central government agency, particularly for significant alterations to the more notable listed buildings). Owners of listed buildings are, in some circumstances, compelled to repair and maintain the building, and can face criminal prosecution if they fail to do so, or if they perform unauthorised alterations. Because of this, and because listing can limit the options available for significant expansion or improvement, the law allows for owners of listed buildings to object to the listing.
There are three types of listed status (in descending order of 'importance' and difficulty to obtain planning permission): Grade I: buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II*: particularly important buildings of special interest. Grade II: buildings of special interest. The criteria for listing include architectural interest, historic interest, and close historical associations with significant people or events. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listed_building] "Although this negates the requirement for Listed Building Consent, it means that the building and site are of particular importance - thereby adding weight to the Government's comments in PPG's 15 and 16 regarding the need to save such sites from neglect. However, the recent change in advice from English Heritage does not appear to be in conformity with the requirements of PPG's 15 and 16 in this respect." PPG means Planning Policy Guidance - see: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=2263&l=2 for sections 15 and 16, as they pertain to the above argument. In furtherance to the planning application for the farmhouse, it became apparent from an early stage, that in order to finance the restoration of the historic farmhouse, some other means would be necessary to provide the shortfall of finance that would be incurred if the farmhouse was a stand alone project. In brief, the whole application called for some form of enabling development within the scheme. Previous commercial projects have already been refused, and it was then immediately apparent that in keeping with the planned residential purpose of the farmhouse, further dwellings would serve the enabling purpose, and enhance the site as a whole. Consequently plans have been drawn for the building of four single story dwellings on the site of the farm buildings immediately to the east of the farmhouse, in keeping with their original appearance, thereby providing a similar but hugely improved vista to that which existed prior to their demolition in 1996. This author is in possession of full plans for such dwellings, inside and out. However, when consideration is given to the security aspect of such access, then upon reflection, only external views will be here displayed, and they only minimally, enough to create an image of the appearance of the site should the necessary permissions be granted to this application. These have all been provided by the owner from original plans made by Ingleby and Hobson Ltd., Architects, Chartered Architects: Surveyors. R.I.B.A., of 114 Holme Church lane, Beverley, Easy Yorkshire. Colour has been applied by this author for added realism.
To clarify matters as they currently stand, Mrs. Hadgraft has provided the latest Statement of Intention, issued 6 August 2005: "Haltemprice Priory Farmhouse Restoration The application submitted is for the complete restoration of the farmhouse and associated farm buildings. The former courtyard is to be re-built on its previous footprint, but sympathetically converted into 4 single storey dwellings to represent a barn conversion. Under English Heritage guidelines for enabling development, the finances from this will then be used to fully restore the 16th century farmhouse to its former glory. I have been working on this restoration package for the last 2½ years together with top archaeologists, architects and planning consultants. (ED Dennison, EDAS LTD, Jonathan Hobson, of Ingleby and Hobson Architects and Dave Hickling, Hickling Gray Associates). My initial plan was to restore the farmhouse and build the courtyard to house an annex for my parents as well as a swimming pool etc. Unfortunately, due to rapid deterioration in my parent's health, this is no longer an option. I am now spending a great deal more time in the Lake District to be near my parents. I did make tentative investigations into selling the site, but the only interest was from the travelling community. This would not have led to the restoration of the farmhouse; therefore the plans were amended accordingly. Tremendous effort has been put into finding a use for the building that is sustainable and viable and will cause minimal impact on the below ground archaeology. English Heritage made it very clear in 2001 which were the most important parts of the farmhouse historically. Despite the continuing deterioration of the building, the historic fabric is still in place and only the more recent additions or extensions to the farmhouse have been lost. The scheme requires no government or grant funding, being entirely funded by the enabling development. It is a project easily run with a management plan to maintain the development for future years. We believe this is the answer that all parties have been looking for to find a sustainable future for this grade II* listed building. No other solution has been found to meet the criteria set down by English Heritage and the local authority. For those concerned that this development would be 'the thin end of the wedge' or a 'Trojan horse'; I would like to reassure you that the planning policy is quite clear on development in the open countryside. The additional dwellings applied for are under the 'Enabling Development' criteria set down clearly by English Heritage and ERYC. These dwellings would be allowed as a means of financing the restoration of the farmhouse, due to its listed status. No additional dwellings would be allowed. Furthermore, the sewerage, water supply and access road are all designed to maintain the 5 properties. They would not be able to service additional dwellings. Roads would need to be upgraded to tarmac surfaces with lighting and mains sewerage would need to be connected. None of this would pass planning regulations. Once planning permission is granted, there is still Scheduled Monument Consent to be granted by DCMS. This ensures that the archaeology is taken very seriously and is protected at all times. We are finalising the details of the SM application at present, but believe we have covered all relevant points. This is a totally separate issue to the planning permission. My team and I all firmly believe that this is the final attempt to reverse the trend and rescue an archaeological and historical landmark from becoming a curious name on a map. [My emphasis RGH] If you wish to view the application it is available at Anlaby customer service centre: application number 05/04383/PLF. If you have any questions regarding the application or the site in general, please e-mail me at chadgraft@hotmail.co.uk " Richard Hayton © 2005
| |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Designed by Richard Hayton 2006 |
|
|||||||||||||||
