Clayworth Manor House, Wiseton Road, Clayworth Heritage

Clayworth Manor House, Wiseton Road, Clayworth

Heritage Statement

April 2021

Humble Heritage Ltd Registered in England and Wales Company Number: 9927233 Registered Office Address: Humble Heritage Ltd, Highfield House, Street Lane, Highfield, Selby, YO8 6DL

CONTENTS PAGE

Executive Summary 4

1.0 Introduction and Methodology 5

2.0 Site Location and Heritage Planning Context 6

3.0 History of the Site 9

4.0 Description of the Site 16

5.0 Assessment of Significance 23

6.0 Heritage Impact of the Proposed Development 25

7.0 Conclusion 31

Appendix A – List Description 31

Clayworth Manor House, Wiseton Road, Clayworth

Heritage Statement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Site Name: Clayworth Manor House Address: Clayworth Manor House, Wiseton Road, Clayworth, Retford, Nottinghamshire, DN22 9AB Local Planning Authority: Bassetlaw District Council Statutory Listing: Grade II Conservation Area: Clayworth Conservation Area Scheduled Monument: N/A Date of Property: 17th century origins to house with extensive 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century additions and alterations Report Production: Liz Humble Enquiries To: Liz Humble, Director Humble Heritage Ltd Highfield House Street Lane, Highfield Selby, YO8 6DL Telephone: 01757 289 095 / 07548 624 722 Email: [email protected] Website: www.humbleheritage.co.uk

Humble Heritage Ltd is a professional built heritage and archaeological consultancy operating in the specialised area of the historic environment. The practice has extensive experience of historical and archaeological research, assessing significance and heritage impact and preparing heritage statements, archaeological desk-based assessments, statements of significance, conservation management plans and so forth. Humble Heritage Ltd provides heritage and archaeological advice on behalf of a wide variety of clients across much of England and is recognised by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation as a professional Historic Environment Service Provider.

Humble Heritage Ltd completed this Heritage Statement during April 2021 on behalf of the owner applicant and in consultation with their project architects Max Design and planning agent Mark Simmonds Planning Services. Heritage advice was provided throughout the design process and has informed the proposals submitted with the application.

This assessment is intended to inform and accompany a planning application in connection with the proposal to demolish part of the existing extension to the dwelling, erect a detached garage/annexe building, construct an open air swimming pool, and construct a new gravel driveway. It assesses the contribution that the application site makes to the significance of Clayworth Manor House, and the Clayworth Conservation Area that it falls within. It also analyses the contribution that the application site makes to the setting and the heritage significance of any nearby listed buildings/structures. It then assesses the impact of the proposed works upon these heritage assets.

Clayworth Manor House was built in the late 17th century on a hall and parlour plan with cross wings and central cross-passage, but has since been much altered and extended and today forms a multiple phased building with a late 18th century wing, early 19th century remodelling and expansion and 20th and early 21st

5 century works to the rear. In the late 1960s the top storey of the house was removed and roof rebuilt and there has been 21st century remodelling and rebuilding and further expansion to the east side of the house. While some of these extensions and alterations have been more successful than others, the house generally retains a unified appearance due to a sympathetic use of brick with reclaimed brick used for more recent additions, the use of hipped tile roof covers and modern window and door openings that respond to a historical design aesthetic. Most recently, an attractive single storey orangery extension and a two-storey extension to the rear of Clayworth Manor House, have been approved and erected replacing existing 20th century extensions with minor internal modifications.

The assessment of significance in this report finds that Clayworth Manor House has special interest on the basis of its origins as a late 17th century house and for the survival of some original 17th century fabric. It is also significant on the basis of the survival of architectural builds, features and elements typical of the Regency and Victorian periods, which display a good level of craftsmanship and historical character. The 20th century extensions and interventions generally have a neutral level of significance. This includes the garaging area within the application site. However, the modern annexe (a former dental surgery) built in the 1970s that falls within the application site, has a detrimental harmful impact upon both the listed house and the conservation area as its materials and appearance is jarring and unsympathetic, especially at the rear elevation.

The garden area within the application site was historically an orchard with a lost ancillary building shown on the site of the proposed annexe on the 1885-1921 Ordnance Survey maps. This area has not retained any designed (historic) landscape or buildings and so its current interest is simply that it allow private views to the house and is aesthetically pleasant.

In assessing the heritage impact of the proposals this report finds that the use of traditional materials for the proposed buildings, a traditional ancillary design, height and footprint that is very much subservient to the listed building preserves its prominence within the site. Furthermore, historically the house had a number of ancillary buildings (three of which have been demolished since 1921) and thus the historical character and appearance of the site is preserved as ancillary buildings and structures are part of its historical character. This report has not identified any harm to heritage. The proposals preserve the special interest of the listed Manor House and character and appearance of the conservation area. Indeed some elements of the proposals (such as the replacement to the existing annexe) are enhancements and improve the setting of the Manor House. This report has not identified any heritage based reasons for refusal of consent.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.01 This Heritage Statement has been completed by Liz Humble (MA, MA, MCIfA, IHBC), Director, Humble Heritage Ltd, on behalf of the applicant and in consultation with their project architects Max Design and planning agent Mark Simmonds Planning Services. Heritage advice was provided throughout the design process and has informed the proposals submitted with the application. This report regards the Grade II listed building and its grounds at Clayworth Manor within the Clayworth Manor Conservation Area. A site visit was made on 2 February 2021 and heritage advice offered which, together with pre-application advice, has informed the final designs.

1.02 This assessment considers the heritage impact of the proposal to demolish part of the existing extension to the dwelling, erect a detached garage/annexe building, construct a swimming pool, and construct a new gravel driveway upon both the special interest of Clayworth Manor and the Clayworth Conservation Area.

1.03 The aims of this report are to: . Inform the applicant and their specialist advisors with respect to the heritage implications of the proposed works at the application site at Clayworth Manor House.

. To provide a tool to help the local planning authority to understand the development of the site, its significance and the contribution that it makes to the conservation area and the setting of nearby heritage assets. . Assist those in the planning system advise and assess future plans for change at the site and satisfy the requirement of paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicates that applicants should provide a description of the significance of any heritage assets affected by their proposals (including any contribution made by their setting).

1.04 This assessment is based on fabric analysis during site visits, analysis of historical mapping and secondary and primary source material, in particular research by Archaeological Services WYAS on the property and 1960s onwards architectural drawings of the property. Other than the listing description, the WYAS report and old architectural drawings there is little further information available for this building. There are no records held by the Historic England Archives, no further information in the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record, Historic England's Pastscape or historic photographs in the archives of the Bassetlaw Museum (the Welchman Photographic Archive) or the photographic archive of the libraries and museums of Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ('Picture the Past'). This report has also drawn heavily upon the earlier Heritage Statement prepared for the site in December 2017 (Humble Heritage) to inform the application for a single storey rear orangery extension and a two-storey rear extension with some internal modifications.

SITE LOCATION AND HERITAGE PLANNING CONTEXT

Site Location 2.01 Clayworth Manor House is located on Wiseton Road in the village of Clayworth (figure 1) on its north-western edge at the approach to the village from the settlement at Wiseton along a road marked as a ‘Roman Road’ on Ordnance Survey mapping. Clayworth is a village and civil parish in Nottinghamshire. At the time of the 2011 census, it had a population of 419. The village is located approximately 4 miles north of Retford and 7 miles to the west of Gainsborough, on the River Idle.

Figure 1: Location plan with site and its immediate surroundings marked by red circle

Heritage Planning Context 2.02 Clayworth Manor House is a Grade II listed building of special architectural or historic interest located within the Clayworth Conservation Area. It is set in spacious grounds set well back from the Wiseton Road and is surrounded by to the north, west and south by open countryside.

2.03 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraphs 7-11). The purpose of this Heritage Statement is to satisfy paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contributions made by their setting’.

2.04 Paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework states, ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be)...’ Paragraph 194 states that ‘Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification…’

2.05 Paragraphs 195 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework make a distinction between proposals that will lead to ‘…substantial harm to (or total loss of significance)…’ of a designated heritage asset (paragraph 195) and proposals which will have ‘…less than substantial harm…’ (paragraph 196).

2.06 Paragraphs 200-201 cover Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites and the setting of heritage assets. Paragraph 200 states that, ‘Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.’ Paragraph 201 notes that ‘Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance…’

2.07 In terms of local policy, Bassetlaw District Council is currently preparing the Draft Bassetlaw Local Plan. This will be the new Local Plan for Bassetlaw and will establish the long term approach to development in the District up to the year 2034. On adoption the Bassetlaw Plan will replace the 2011 Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document. This document will help establish the direction for the Bassetlaw Plan and presents a proposed development strategy and thematic policy proposals that will shape the future growth of the District. Section 10 covers the Historic Environment with the key objective being to: ‘conserve and enhance the historic and natural environment of Bassetlaw’.

2.08 The proposed policy approach in the draft Local Plan is set out as follows:

. ‘Maintain a presumption against development, alterations, advertising or demolition that would be harmful to a heritage asset. . Adopt a policy that seeks to enhance heritage assets and their settings. . Adopt a weighted approach to heritage assets ensuring that designated heritage assets have greater protection over non-designated heritage assets in relation to alterations. . Adopt a clear criteria based policy for the demolition of non-designated heritage assets. . Maintain a need for heritage statements to identify the significance of the heritage asset affected. . Maintain a policy that ensures that the significance of the heritage asset is central to the decision making. . Continue to ensure that background documents, evidence, appraisals and relevant studies are researched, written and available and inform decision making. . Continue to ensure that Bassetlaw Heritage Mapping is publically accessible.

. Proactively seek to protect heritage assets and their setting by early identification through thematic projects. . Adopt a positive strategy for buildings at risk and continue to monitor them. . Maintain heritage asset type specific policy for those most at risk, i.e. shopfronts.’

2.09 The existing Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (adopted December 2011) predates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and therefore policies attract little weight where they conflict with those in the NPPF. Policies in the Core Strategy include: Policy DM4 (Design and Character) and Policy DM8 (the Historic Environment).

Planning History 2.10 A review of on-line planning applications pertaining to the application site has revealed the following:

Proposals Application Date Decision Reference Erect single storey rear extension and first floor rear 18/00040/LBA 2018 Grant extension 18/00039/HSE

Erect Two Storey Rear Extension to Dwelling and Alterations 15/00013/HSE 2015 Refuse to the Existing Roof to Create a Hipped Roof Structure and Erection of Orangery to Side of Dwelling Alterations and extension to dwelling 11/10/00004 2010 Grant 11/10/00005/L Detached single garage with store and log store 2008 Grant

Demolition of garage/store and erection of two storey 2006 Grant pitched roof extension with balcony, single storey porch to rear elevation and single storey extension with porch to front elevation

Pre-Application Enquiry 2.11 Advice was sought for a similar, earlier scheme, to demolish part of the existing modern extension to Clayworth Manor House, construct a swimming pool, erect an oak framed building, annexe/garage, construct tennis courts and construct a new gravel driveway.

2.12 Bassetlaw District Council provided pre-application advice via letter dated 28 September 2018 (reference 18/00972/PREAPP). In terms of heritage within the advice, this can be summarised as follows:

‘The property is a Grade II Listed Building. In determining this application, the impact of the proposals on the special architectural and historic interest of the building…Bassetlaw’s Conservation Officers do not have great concerns with the proposal in principle; subject to the new garage/annexe’s position, scale and appearance. The proposed building should appear ancillary and subservient to the main house with layout and landscaping respecting the historic layout of the site…The existing garage/annexe are constructed of combination of timber and brick, not of historic or architectural interest; as such their demolition is likely to be supported.’

2.13 A full consideration of this advice is provided in section 6 of this report.

HISTORY OF THE SITE

3.01 This section examines the historical development of the site from its earliest known origins to the present day. It is based upon a cartographic analysis, review of previous planning applications, a site visit, and review of 20th and 21st century architectural drawings and research by Archaeological Services WYAS prepared in June 2010. The listing description is reproduced in Appendix A.

Clayworth Village 3.02 Most antiquarian accounts record that the village of Clayworth lies on a Roman road (from Lincoln to Doncaster), with remains of the road supposedly recorded at nearby Drakeholes (Curtis 1844, Scott-Moncreif 1909) although some were more circumspect, ‘.. on by Clayworth and Everton to Bawtry, there are roads which may indicate the line of the Roman road’ (Codrington 1903, 154). There is no reference to the discovery of a road in Drakeholes in the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER) or Historic England's Pastscape. The HER does record the discovery of a number of Roman artefacts during the excavation of the canal cutting at Drakeholes, although the evidence appears to be confined to antiquarian accounts and the location of the finds is unknown. The road is recorded by the Ordnance Survey. The HER records the chance finds of three fragments of Roman pottery in the fields around the village. In the area around Clayworth Manor the HER records the discovery of the top half of an Iron Age or Romano-British beehive quern, 200m to the north.

3.03 Clayworth is recorded in the Domesday Survey of 1086 as 'Clavord' and Roger de Busli held the manor (Thoroton 1796, Curtis 1844). In the Domesday Book, 37 households were registered in the parish, a thriving population at this date. There is no mention of a church. A moated manor site is recorded c.500m south of St Peter's Church. Little information is recorded in the HER, except to note that the moat is shown on the first edition of the Ordnance Survey and that the moat is square- sided. Typically moated sites are medieval high status sites and this may be the original site of the village manor. Medieval ridge and furrow earthworks are preserved south of The Grange, and these are the remains of the agricultural fields around the medieval village.

3.04 Given its rural location, the village has developed with agriculture as its main source of employment and activity until the mid-late 20th century.

Clayworth Manor House 3.05 Clayworth Manor was built as a late 17th century house with a hall and parlour plan form with cross wings. The core of this house survives today, albeit much altered and extended from the 18th century onwards. The earliest map showing the house is the 1749 enclosure map (figure 2) showing the land of Thomas Dickonson. The house forms a U-plan with two projecting cross wings facing the road and a garden with a garden building and surrounding wall to the south-east facing the road. There were substantial detached outbuildings arranged irregularly around a courtyard to the south- east and an area of woodland to the north, south and west. It is not clear how accurate this footprint is for the site, but it does vary in several major respects from that surviving today.

Figure 2: 1749 enclosure map showing the land of Thomas Dickonson. Note the manor house and its outbuildings display a very different footprint to that present today (map kindly supplied by Bassetlaw District Council Principal Conservation Officer in 2018)

3.06 In 1792 the site was still owned by the Dickonson family. The enclosure map of this date (figure 3) shows the house with a T-plan form closer to the current arrangement and indicative of major rebuilding between 1749 and 1792. The range of outbuildings to the immediate east are also closer in footprint to the 19th and 20th century arrangement. An oval shaped garden is depicted in front of the house.

Figure 3: An enclosure map of the township of Clayworth, 1792 (map kindly supplied by Bassetlaw District Council Principal Conservation Officer in 2018)

3.07 In the late 18th century, based upon fabric analysis of the standing fabric today, a two storey single bay wing was added to the rear (north-east of the house). Although currently a single room with stairs to both floors, this could historically have been subdivided. A phased plan (figure 21) illustrates the changes described below.

3.08 The next phase of known expansion - remodelling and restyling in the latest fashions - occurred in the early 19th century. Two storey extensions were constructed against the south-west and north- east sides of the late 18th century wing. To the south-west this involved the replacement and rebuilding of the late 17th century house and openings on the south-west and north-west sides of

the early house were replaced or newly introduced; the windows narrower and taller, with sash frames, the new entrance door in an ashlar casing with a glazed door and fanlight. Internally the new entrance led to a passage with an open-well stair. The principal staircase also appears to date to this phase of work. A smaller two-storey extension to the north-east may have provided additional service functions.

Figure 4: Ordnance Survey map, 1885. This map shows the late 18th and early 19th century extensions. A series of linear outbuildings are shown in the grounds

Figure 5: Ordnance Survey map, 1899. Note that the historical form of the south-east elevation is different today as it has been rebuilt in the early 21st century

Figure 6: Ordnance Survey map, 1921

3.09 The addition of a sub-basement between the two early 19th century extensions designed as a cold room, later used as a boiler house was dated to the late 19th or early 20th century by WYAS in their analysis. Cartographic evidence (see figure 6) would suggest that it post-dates 1921, as it is not shown on the map of that date.

3.10 The map evidence combined with architectural drawings and planning applications is useful for elucidating the later history of the house, the ancillary buildings and the grounds. The house changed little from 1885 to 1921, with no changes of ground plan evident. Between 1921 and recent years the present day the only additions visible on the maps was the small lean-to extension on the rear elevation and the refacing of the southeast elevation, creating a continuous flat front where in 1921 (and earlier) a recessed elevation was shown.

3.11 The grounds have a range of buildings extending southeast from the house. By the late 20th century the original range had been largely demolished, to be replaced by a series of garages on a different alignment but retaining a gap between the house and the ancillary range. This also included an annexe built in the c.1970s that was reputedly the dental survey of the previous owner. In 2010, the range was remodelled, with the northwest half rebuilt, and additional structures linking the range to the house (see paragraph 3.16).

3.12 Other 20th century changes to the grounds since 1921 include the demolition of a number of ancillary buildings that date to before 1885: a rectangular building to the northeast of the present day garages; two buildings to the southwest of the garages; a range of barns to the northeast of Manor Cottage. The Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record records the demolition of the latter, though no detail or dates are recorded beyond that it was an early modern/modern barn. The plots of Clayworth Manor House and Manor Cottage have been divided, the wider grounds of Clayworth Manor have been altered and trees felled.

3.13 The house was listed Grade II in 1967. This coincided with a major period of change at the site when, under the direction of Doncaster based architects T. H. Johnson & Son, in 1967-1968 a variety of changes in different phases occurred on the site, notably;

. The complete loss of an attic (second) storey with the current roof and eaves matching the details of the former roof in materials, water goods and brick eaves. This resulted in some rebuilding of the roof of the rear extension(s) too.

. Changes to window at the boiler house/cold store extensions and changes to early 19th century bathroom/north corner where there was a two storey WC bay with loss of functional WCs, loss of first floor window and ground floor door and new connection with loss of first floor WC and window, loss of ground floor door to WC and new opening at ground floor level to connect the WC (that became the current lobby to the 1960s extension) to the hallway. . New two-storey extension at the north-west corner, which connected to the house via the former WC (that was changed to a lobby). . Changes to fenestration/door openings, especially to the south-east elevation. . Minor change to internal floor plan, specifically around the former WC.

3.14 The form and appearance prior to these late 1960s works is captured in drawings (for example see figure 7).

Figure 7: Manor house prior to c.1967-68 works that removed the top storey of the house and significantly altered the early 19th century bathroom/WC extension in terms of floor plan, external openings, height and roof form. This predates the erection of the extension that forms the main application area today

3.15 Recent planning applications available on-line reveal that consent was given for the demolition of a garage/store and erection of a two storey pitched roof extension in 2006. In 2008, consent was granted for a detached single garage with stores.

3.16 The current owners purchased the property in 2009 when the house was in poor condition. In 2010, an application was granted and implemented to alter and extend the house to the designs of buildinglinkdesign architects (drawing number 1968.4A). The main changes were:

. Part demolition and much rebuilding and alteration to the eastwards range to create a kitchen diner, cloak room and three-bay open garaging. An existing potting room and scullery with larder were partially taken down and rebuilt as was an existing garage. . The south-east elevation of the house was refaced with reclaimed brickwork and the fenestration altered and a new entrance door with a Georgian character created to replace two 20th century glazed doors. . On the south west elevation a new glazed door and frame replaced the previous one. . Three new/renewed chimneystacks. . Renewal of a number of sash windows to the house and introduction of a new first floor window to the 1960s extension to create two windows here (this latter was not implemented).

3.17 These changes are illustrated through comparing contemporary photographs (see section 4 of this report with historical ones – see figure 8) and though comparing contemporary (figure 9) and historical mapping.

Figure 9: Modern site plan showing the changes to footprint following the 2010 planning and listed building consent

Figure 8: Photographs taken in 2010 by WYAS showing the rear (above) and south east (below) elevations of the house

3.18 Following the approval of permission to erect a single storey rear extension and first floor rear extension (application references 18/00040/LBA & 18/00039/HSE) in April 2018 the work has now been completed (figure 10) and provides a sympathetic, well designed addition to the house.

Figure 10: Rear elevation of Clayworth Manor House with modern orangery and first floor extension recently completed

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

4.01 Clayworth Manor House stands in extensive private grounds on the edge of the village of Clayworth. It is set well back from Wiseton Road.

4.02 The listing description describes the house as follows but does not cover the full extent of 20th and early 21st century change such as the loss of the attic storey, the two-storey rear extension and rebuilding of the ancillary range to the east:

‘Manor house. C17 with extensive C18 and C19 additions. Coursed rubble and brick with hipped pantile roof. Chamfered rubble and brick plinth, ashlar dressings, dentillated eaves. Single side wall and single rear wall stacks. Square plan. Main west front has central C19 ashlar doorcase with scrolled brackets to hood, geometrical overlight and glazed door. Flanked by single glazing bar sashes with keystones, and above, 3 smaller similar sashes with keystones. South side has 2 C20 glazed doors with overlights, and 3 C20 glazing bar casements, all with segmental heads. Interior front room to right has beams with chamfers. C19 open well staircase with turned balusters. Door made from framed oak panelling, with C18 latch.’

4.03 A fuller description is provided in the archaeological analysis of the standing building by Archaeological Services WYAS in 2010 (NB references to figures have been added by the author of this report and link to the figures). This reads:

External description ‘The house is aligned north-west to south-east with the principal elevation facing south-west (figures 18-19). Near to the centre of the ground floor is a doorway with stone doorcase and moulded hood carried on scrolled brackets. The glazed door has a geometric overlight and is reached by a flight of four stone steps. To either side of the doorway are tall window openings with brick heads and keystones. Both have projecting stone sills. The sash frames are modern replacements. Above are a further three shorter window openings, all with brick heads, keystones and stone sills. To the right of the doorway is a straight joint that coincides with a stone plinth with quoins and a chamfered band. Above the stonework the brick is handmade and laid in English Garden Wall bond and ends on a horizontal line level with the first floor window head, this, together with the stonework is of 17th-century date. To the left of the straight joint the brickwork is of lighter fabric, laid header and stretcher bond; this represents an early 19th century rebuild. The openings on this side are contemporary with the brickwork; on the other side the windows have been inserted. Later brickwork continuing above the head of the window on the right-hand side implies a raised roof. Brickwork in the lower part of the left side of the facade is set as a plinth with quoins and a chamfered ashlar course. The eaves are of dentillated brick.

The north-west facade is of two parts. The first part represents the end of the 17th century house but rebuilt in the early 19th century. This is two storeys in height with window openings to both floors, of similar design to those on the south-west side. The sash frames are of 19th century date. The brickwork is mainly random English Garden Wall bond, but a section of courses rising from ground-level are earlier darker bricks similar to those on parts of the front facade. The roof over this part is hipped with a brick stack rising off the face. The second part of the facade is added in the [1960s] and has a single sloping roof. The brickwork is in stretcher bond with a single segmental- arched window opening at ground floor level…

The rear of the house faces north-east and comprises a number of separate builds (figure 20). At the north-west end is part of the [1960s] addition with the sloping roof. The brickwork is in stretcher bond with a segmental-arched first floor casement window and, on the ground floor, double opening French doors with a segmental-arched head with a segmental-arched side-opening casement window to the side.

At this point the development of the building is complex. Projecting out of the original 17th century house is a late 18th-century wing. This has a brick stack aligned with the north-east wall face with a tall stair-light window with segmental-arched head to the side. The casement frame is a replacement and the opening itself may belong to the early 19th century. Dentillated eaves continue on the three sides of the wing. The brickwork is in an interrupted stretcher bond.

Attached to the north-west side of the wing, and extending back to the original south-west side of the house, is a two storey extension with single sloping roof and dentillated eaves. In the north-west face are staggered ground and first floor windows; both are similar and have segmental-arched heads and casement frames. The brickwork is in English Garden Wall bond and may be of early 19th- century date. Between this extension and the later one to its northwest is a single storey in-fill with segmental-arched opening and plank door providing access to a small storage area. Above the in- fill can be seen a section of the original building with an inserted segmental-arched window opening and casement frame. The brickwork, in English Garden Wall bond, belongs to an early 19th-century rebuild and it is interesting to note that, at this point, the dentillated eaves have been dispensed with.

Projecting off the rear 18th-century extension is a second early 19th-century extension. This is of two storeys with a lower roof than the 18th-century build but of similar height to the early 19th-

century build mentioned above, which may be contemporaneous. There are no visible external opening. The brickwork is in English Garden Wall bond with dentillated brick eaves. This projection has been neatly extended to the north-east in the 20th century. There are no features in the north- west wall, nor in the south-east wall (most of which is hidden). In the north-east wall is a segmental- arched first floor window with casement frame with a similar window in the ground floor together with a glazed door and side window under a segmental-arched head. The brickwork (using salvaged brick?) is in English Garden Wall bond. The dentillated eaves continue seamlessly into the early 19th- century work with the implication that the pantile-clad hipped roof is also of 20th-century date.

Nestled between the two early 19th-century rear extensions is a single-storey projection with a sloping pantiled roof. This low structure covers an internal half-basement used as a cool room. It dates from the late 19th early 20th century and has a segmental-arched casement window in its north-west face. The brickwork is fairly random with elements of several bonds.

The most recent structure is the single storey block attached to the eastern corner of the house. This is used to house the pool maintenance equipment on one side and functions as a utility room on the other side [NB this was rebuilt as part of the 2010 works]. Externally the brickwork appears 19th century but is entirely reclaimed and was constructed no earlier than the middle of the 20th century. In the north-east face is a plank door set into a segmental-arched opening with a small segmental arched casement window to the side. In the south-east face are a further two segmental arched casements, whilst in the south-west face is a plank door with segmental-arched head. The south-east face of the house is constructed of a number of different types of brickwork [NB this has been refaced and the openings altered in 2010 to create the current arrangement with Regency style front door flanked by two nine over nine sash windows to the left and one segmental-arched window to the right. These window styles are replicated on the first floor above].

Selected internal features A number of features were noted internally. Within the large southern room, the hall or housebody of the 17th century house, is a substantial oak floor frame supporting a first floor lime ash surface. Moving to the north-west is a stair hall with an early 19th-century open well stair with turned balusters. Cased beams and plasterwork in the adjoining room again appear 19th century.

Few features of note survive in the north-east half of the house although two reused doors to the second staircase and to the half basement in the current kitchen are of interest, as is a door above the kitchen on the first floor which has been fashioned out of oak panelling which retains an 18th- century latch. All of these features are concentrated in the late 18th-century wing.’

4.04 The single storey range to the host building has been rebuilt in phases during the late 20th and 21st centuries. The easternmost building at the end of the range was built in the early 1970s following planning permission in c.1970 and reputedly operated as a dentists surgery owned by the previous owner of the house. It is now a gym. There were also facilities associated with the dental practice and a five bay garage in this area. 21st century remodelling/rebuilding of this range nearest the house has created a kitchen (from a plant room/garage).

Figure 10: Looking towards village from access to the Figure 11: There are no views to the site from the church Manor House. One house (Rose Cottage) can be glimpsed due to the distance and intervening trees and Rose in the distance Cottage and Manor Cottage

Figure 12: There are no views to the site from the Figure 13: The dwelling at Manor House is not visible from churchyard due to the distance and intervening trees and the roadside, although there are glimpses to its buildings associated with Rose Cottage outbuildings

Figure 14: There are glimpsed views to the outbuildings Figure 15: View of outbuildings from the forecourt from the drive to Clayworth Manor House but the house itself is obscured by its secluded set back location and by mature trees in the garden

Figure 16: View to rear of house and outbuildings viewed Figure 17: Detail of rear of modern, unsympathetic annexe from application site extension to outbuilding range

Figure 18: House now has two ‘front’ elevations following alterations in 2010

Figure 19: Original front to house with late 17th and early 19th century building work. C.1960s extension (removed in line with recent application) glimpsed to rear

Figure 20: Multi-phase and complicated history of extension and renewal to the rear of the dwelling (prior to the recent changes at the rear (see figure 10)

Figure 21: Basic phased ground floor plan that captures the main changes over time. NB openings have been altered on multiple occasions and so have not been assessed individually on this plan. WYAS assessed the cased beams and plasterwork in the front (south-west) room as being early 19th century and therefore the rear wall here and wall to the hallway is potentially part of an early 19th century rebuild

Figure 22: View of application site in context with house and its range of outbuildings and ancillary building

Figure 23: A former open air swimming pool in poor condition has been removed from the rear gardens of the house in anticipation of forming an improved open air swimming pool (included within the works proposed in this application)

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

5.01 Significance is the concept that underpins current conservation philosophy. ‘Significance’ in terms of heritage-related planning policy is defined in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework as ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’. In legislation and designation criteria, the terms ‘special architectural or historic interest’ of a listed building and the ‘national importance’ of a scheduled monument are used to describe all or part of what, in planning terms, is referred to as the identified heritage asset’s significance.

5.02 The importance of identifying the significance of a site is highlighted in the National Planning Policy Framework as this is essential in informing future change to heritage assets. The aim of conservation is to manage change to ensure that significance is protected, and also revealed, reinforced and enhanced, at every possible opportunity.

The Significance of Clayworth Manor House 5.03 As a Grade II listed building, the Manor House at Clayworth has been designated on the basis of its special architectural or historic interest. It is significant on the basis of its age (being built in the late 17th century) and for the survival of some original 17th century fabric. It is also significant on the basis of the survival of architectural builds, features and elements typical of the Regency and Victorian periods.

5.04 The 20th and 21st century domestic extensions to the house are of neutral interest, mainly due to their more recent construction date, but also given their lack of association with a significant figure, event or historical period.

5.05 The house contains evidence relating to a number of phases of rebuild and change such as the loss of the top storey in the late 1960s and survival of some foundation courses from the 17th century where the walls were largely rebuilt in the early 19th century. It is clear that externally and internally there is evidence - some hidden and some apparent from close analysis - of change over time and changing fashions and construction techniques and such elements contribute to the historic and architectural interest of the house.

5.06 The different building phases and styles form a largely coherent ensemble. For example, all the roofs are clad in pantiles and most are hipped and brickwork is usually traditional handmade and reclaimed/reused in the later phases. This gives the dwelling a traditional historical character and contributes to its architectural (aesthetic) interest.

5.07 The building is also of significance for its historical development as a substantial dwelling in this locality – acting as the “big house” and its owners in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were likely important local landowners and figures in the social and political life of the village. This positively contributes to its social history.

The Significance of the Application Site 5.08 The National Planning Policy Framework and Historic England have defined setting as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’. The contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views, but other factors can also contribute. Historic England notes that ‘…if the development is capable of affecting the contribution of a heritage asset’s setting to its significance or the appreciation of its significance, it can be considered as falling within the asset’s setting…For developments that are not likely to be prominent or intrusive, the assessment of effects on setting may often be limited to the immediate surroundings…’ (English Heritage, 2015, 8).

5.09 The house is set in extensive secluded grounds with a high level of privacy with the house and ancillary buildings set well back from the public road. The site forms part of the garden land and includes a modern annexe built in the 1970s. The garden is not a heritage asset and there is no mature vegetation or evidence of historical designed landscape (according to old maps there was historically an orchard in this area with a building positioned on the site of the proposed annexe. However, more recently there was an open air swimming pool here. The gardens are aesthetically pleasing and enable good private views to the house when visitors move beyond the public realm into the private grounds.

5.10 The modern garaging and annexe etc in the single storey range to the parking area have neutral heritage value at best. Indeed inspection of the easternmost building permitted in c.1970 and built shortly thereafter reveals that it is built from a modern brick to the rear typical of that often used for suburban housing of the 1960s/1970s and has UPVC rainwater goods. Its materials and character are detrimental to the significance of the historical Clayworth Manor House.

The Contribution that the Application Site (and Clayworth Manor House) makes to the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area and Designated Heritage Assets within the Conservation Area 5.11 The manor house and its grounds do positively contribute to the conservation area. However, the application site does not positively contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area as the buildings are modern and the garden area is hidden from view from the public realm. Indeed the existing annexe within the application site is a detrimental feature given its unsympathetic character and materials.

5.12 There are other listed buildings within Clayworth. However, the application site does not fall within the setting of any of these listed buildings (other than Clayworth Manor House itself) as this is a secluded site in extensive grounds with intervening fields, gardens, other buildings (Manor Cottage) and hedged boundaries that separate it from the church and other designated heritage assets within the village such as Rose Cottage and the Old Rectory. It is not possible to experience the site from any other heritage asset or experience any other heritage asset from the site.

Summary Statement of Significance Clayworth Manor House has special interest on the basis of its origins as a late 17th century house and for the survival of some original 17th century fabric. It is also significant on the basis of the survival of architectural builds, features and elements typical of the Regency and Victorian periods, which display a good level of craftsmanship and historical character. The 20th and early 21st century extensions and interventions generally have a neutral level of significance. This includes the garaging area within the application site. However, the modern annexe (reputedly a former dental surgery) built in the 1970s, that falls within the application site, has a detrimental harmful impact upon both the listed house and the conservation area as its modern materials and appearance is jarring and unsympathetic.

The garden area within the application site was historically an orchard with a lost ancillary building shown on the site of the proposed annexe on the 1885-1921 Ordnance Survey maps. This area has not retained any designed (historic) landscape or buildings and there was latterly an open air swimming pool here and so its current interest is simply that it allow private views to the house and is aesthetically pleasant.

HERITAGE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The Proposal 6.01 This assessment has been prepared in connection with the proposed scheme to demolish part of the existing extension to the dwelling, erect a detached garage/annexe building, construct an open air swimming pool, and construct a new gravel driveway.

6.02 The assessment of heritage impact is presented below based upon the architectural drawings prepared by Max Design. In addition to the existing drawings and location plan, the following proposal drawings have been consulted:

. Proposed Location / Site Plan – drawing numbers 1863 105 and 1887 102 . Proposed Floor Plan – drawing numbers 1863 103 . Proposed Elevations – drawing numbers 1863 104

Pre-Application Enquiry 6.03 Advice was sought for a similar, earlier scheme, to demolish part of the existing extension to Clayworth Manor House, construct a swimming pool, erect an oak framed building, construct tennis courts and construct a new gravel driveway.

6.04 Bassetlaw District Council provided pre-application advice via letter dated 28 September 2018 (reference 18/00972/PREAPP). In terms of heritage, the advice can be summarised as follows:

6.05 The Conservation Team at Bassetlaw commented as follows in the pre-application advice:

‘The existing garage/annexe are constructed of combination of timber and brick, not of historic or architectural interest; as such their demolition is likely to be supported.

The proposal for a detached garage and annexe is located approximately in the location of a former rectangular building that was demolished at some time after 1921. The proposed building layout is T-shaped and appears to be a substantial building (compare to footprint of main house). Overall, the scale and positioning of the building is concern. Scale, position and design will need to appear harmonious in the setting of the Grade II listed Manor.

The garden has had an open swimming pool of many years. Repositioning an open pool is unlikely to harm the setting of the Manor house. The creation of a tennis court in unlikely to harm the setting of the Manor house. The submitted image of the proposed court suggests low level hedges and trellis fences to denote the court. This is preferably to high sides netted fences.

The proposed oak framed canopy may be considered to be a gazebo popular in garden design since the 17th century, designed to enjoy extensive views of a landscape. A gazebo is unlikely to be harmful to the setting of the listed building. Consideration could be taken to combining gazebo design and design for any structures/fences associated the tennis court so that both elements appear harmonious.

The existing driveway and parking area appears to have been a service yard and driveway area for many years. The 19th and early 20th century OS plans show this. Care should be taken not to remove the historic understanding of this space through new landscaping which could occur with introduction of fully grassed/lawn areas. A high degree of hard landscaping is likely to be considered more appropriate. There is no objection to the principle of extending the drive, or the use of gravel, to the northeast but this should not encroach substantially into the garden area. The extent of extending the drive will be determined by the position and design of the proposed garage, which does require further design work at this stage.’

6.06 The proposals involve the interventions as presented in the table overleaf with associated heritage impacts and how they have evolved in the light of the pre-application advice. In summary, this report finds that:

. The proposals have been developed on the back of an understanding of the historical development, significance and character of the Manor House and have further evolved following pre-application advice. . The proposals seek to recapture some of the lost ancillary buildings seen on historic mapping and allow the grounds to evolve in the 21st century in accordance with modern needs and lifestyles, allowing for improved garaging and storage for tractors etc, tack room for horses, swimming pool to replace an earlier one and detached annexe for visiting friends and family. . The design of the proposed buildings is traditional, based upon typical designs for ancillary buildings to a country house type host dwelling. . The buildings are clearly subservient in height and footprint to the host dwelling. . The materials are traditional and will harmonise with the host dwelling with York handmade brick facing walls (the same as the extension to the house), clay pantile roof covers, cast iron rainwater goods and timber window and door units.

6.07 Given the above, and assessment below, this report this not identified any harm to heritage. The proposals preserve the special interest of the listed Manor House and character and appearance of the conservation area. Indeed some elements of the proposals such as the replacement to the existing annexe) are enhancements that improve the setting of the Manor House.

Figure 24: Visualisation of the proposed scheme provided by the applicant

Proposal Significance / Heritage Impact to Listed Building and Conservation Area Justification and Design Evolution following Pre-Application Advice

Landscaping Replace the hard surfaced Neutral The pre-application advice noted the parking area with a garden / The current area of tarmac is modern and utilitarian in providing a parking area. It has no existence of a parking area/service yard in soft landscaped area such as a significance other than there is a history of hard landscaping in this area. Its replacement this location for many years and the kitchen garden with a kitchen garden will extend the soft landscaped gardens to the house and given its understanding of this space as a service proximity to the house will provide a more aesthetically pleasing approach to the house. The area should be retained. heritage impact is therefore beneficial as there is a cosmetic enhancement Were this area to become a kitchen garden, then combined with the location adjacent to the service/ancillary range that is proposed i.e. garage and stores, then this can remain legible as a more service area of the property. The work has the potential to be a cosmetic enhancement that improves the forecourt area to the house while providing a historically appropriate functional purpose

Form an open air swimming Low The pre-application advice notes that the pool within part of the rear The rear gardens are themselves not a heritage asset and do not retain any historic garden has had an open swimming pool for garden to the house with hard landscaping or planting in this area (that was historically part of an orchard) but positively many years and that an open pool is unlikely landscaping around the pool to contribute to the significance that the house derives from its setting as it allows good private to harm the setting of the Manor House. be a locally sourced natural views of the house and contributes to its character as a house of some status set in extensive stone type grounds.

An open swimming pool, with no superstructure, is a modest reversible intervention that will not block any views or remove any historic landscaping or fabric. The house will retain its prominence in the gardens. Furthermore, an open swimming pool within the grounds here has been a part of the property for many years and is part of its character (see figure 23). For these reasons the proposal would cause no harm and preserves the special interest of the listed house. It will not be visible from any public vantage points within the conservation area and preserves its special interest

Extend the driveway to the Neutral There was no objection in the pre- north-east with short flanking The existing area around the annexe building has no significance and there will be application advice to extending the drive in walls/gates to forecourt to the intervening buildings between the house and this modestly extended driveway. The work is principal to the north-east nor to the use of 29 rear of the proposed garage modest in nature and entirely reversible with no loss of historic fabric or character. It an area of gravel hardstanding associated (see below) therefore preserves the special interest of the Manor House and conservation area with the new garage.

Proposal Significance / Heritage Impact to Listed Building and Conservation Area Justification and Design Evolution following Pre-Application Advice

Buildings: Existing Demolish the existing garage Neutral (Garage) & Detrimental (Brick Annexee) The pre-application advice found these and annexe The existing garage and annexe are modern timber and brick buildings. They have no historic buildings to have no historic or architectural or architectural interest and indeed the brickwork and design of the annexe (rear elevation) interest and therefore that their demolition does not harmonise or reference the historic context of Clayworth Manor and is a detrimental is likely to be supported. feature. Their removal and replacement with more historically sympathetic replacements is therefore beneficial to the significance of the Manor House and conservation area The demolition is required in order to facilitate the construction of the new single storey garage/store room in this location

Building: Proposed Garage Erect a single storey garage The position of the proposed building has been carefully considered to integrate with the The evolution in scale and positioning of the with space for tractor/storage service ranges and to replace existing ancillary buildings while being close to an amended building has evolved so that it will be and a tack room. The north access route to allow the building to function as a garage. harmonious in the setting of the Manor facing elevation will contain House as recommended in the pre- the timber double door This will be a traditionally designed simple building as reflects its ancillary functions. The application advice and it now relates very openings (4No.) with an building hierarchy at the site is retained as it is clearly subservient in height and design to well to the existing broadly linear form of adjacent pedestrian gate in a the principal historic buildings. The traditional materials (handmade brick, cast iron rainwater the ancillary buildings linking wall to the retained goods, timber doors) will better reflect and integrate with the historical context compared to building and access point with the garage and annexe that it will replace. The existing buildings will breathe physically and brick flanking walls to mark visually as this is a link detached building (with only a linking garden wall attached to the the new access point to the existing buildings). This also makes the proposed building a reversible intervention as there garage. The hipped roof will be is no loss of historic fabric or character. The south facing elevation is restrained in design finished with clay non- but is embellished with a dentil eaves brick course that continues to the north facing interlocking pantiles and the elevation. brick walls will be faced with York handmade bricks with The replacement of the existing garage/annexe with this carefully positioned and lime mortar and back cast iron appropriately designed subservient ancillary building that uses traditional external materials rainwater goods is a beneficial change to both the listed building and conservation area

Proposal Significance / Heritage Impact to Listed Building and Conservation Area Justification and Design Evolution following Pre-Application Advice

Building: Proposed Annexe Erect a 1½ storey detached The proposed annexe is to be located in the approximate area of a former rectangular The proposals allow for family/friends visits annexe linked to the proposed building that is shown on historic mapping up until 1921. Indeed historic mapping reveals within a two bedroom annexe that is garage via a short garden wall two other detached buildings in the vicinity of the house (along the approach drive and along separated from the family home while the with a pedestrian opening. The the south-west side of the forecourt to the house) that have been taken down since 1921. ground floor gym etc links to the swimming ground floor is to a gym and Given this it is apparent that the Manor House developed with a series of ancillary detached pool in providing opportunities for exercise utility/boot room with the buildings and these are part of the historic landscape character in the grounds around the with associated health benefits. upper floors forming two house. Hence, the principle and position of the proposed annexe (and garage) will not harm bedrooms and a bathroom. the significance that the house derives from its setting. The pre-application advice included concern The footprint is linear with a about the proposed detached garage and slightly projecting central bay The use of entirely traditional external materials and a design the references a coach house annexe with a T-shaped plan form that to hold the staircase and type building ancillary to the main house prevent it looking either overly domestic or in any appeared to be a “substantial building”. In entrance. This projecting bay way competing with the Manor House. Furthermore, as the drawings and visualisations show, order to address this concern the annexe will contain a wide entrance the annexe will be considerably lower in eaves and ridge height compared to the Manor and garage have been separated so that with gablet above containing a House (being a 1½ storey building). This, combined with the modest footprint compared to they no longer form one larger building. The circular window and breaking the house and its location to the rear where only the shorter end elevation facing the drive annexe has also been reduced in size massing to add design will be visible from the private approach drive and will be set back behind a proposed garden (footprint) and the dormer window omitted interest. The design is of a wall and the existing modern single storey range attached to the house mean it is a discrete in favour of sash windows traditional ancillary building intervention. There is a good breathing space between this proposed annexe and the house. such as a coach house. There For all these reasons the annexe will be read as a subservient, historically sympathetic, are two conservation style ancillary building to the Manor House. It will therefore preserve the significance that the rooflights to the east facing house derives from its setting and the special interest of the house and will also preserve elevation, and traditional the special interest of the conservation area and its character and appearance. Given how external materials (timber far back it is set back from the public road, it is unlikely to be visible from any public vantage sash windows, York handmade points within the conservation area and is a visually discrete intervention that allows the brick elevations with lime grounds of the Manor House to evolve into the 21st century mortar, dentil eaves detail, clay pantile roof with non- interlocking tiles and black cast iron rainwater goods)

CONCLUSION

7.01 This Heritage Statement has been prepared in connection with the proposed replacement garage / annexe with associated landscaping and open air swimming pool at Clayworth Manor House.

7.02 This report has identified the heritage significance of the site, which it finds to be generally high for the original, early and well-preserved parts of the Grade II listed house, neutral for modern extensions and ancillary buildings and detrimental for the modern annexe that is to be replaced. The older house and its grounds positively contribute to the character of the conservation area, but given the discrete position, that is well set back from the public highway it is not a particularly visible part of the area.

7.03 The use of traditional materials for the proposed buildings, a traditional ancillary design, height and footprint that is very much subservient to the listed building and preserves its prominence within the site and knowledge that historically the house had a number of ancillary buildings (three of which have been demolished since 1921) ensures that the historical character and appearance of the site is preserved. This report has not identified any harm to heritage. The proposals preserve the special interest of the listed Manor House and character and appearance of the conservation area. Indeed some elements of the proposals such as the replacement to the existing annexe are enhancements and improve the setting of the Manor House.

7.04 This report has not identified any heritage based reasons for refusal of consent and finds that the proposals accord with heritage provisions in the national and local planning policy.

APPENDIX A ~ LIST DESCRIPTION

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

Name: Manor House List Entry Number: 1045704 Location: Manor House, Wiseton Road County: Nottinghamshire District: Bassetlaw Parish: Clayworth Grade: II Date First Listed: 1 February 1967

Manor house. C17 with extensive C18 and C19 additions. Coursed rubble and brick with hipped pantile roof. Chamfered rubble and brick plinth, ashlar dressings, dentillated eaves. Single side wall and single rear wall stacks. Square plan. Main west front has central C19 ashlar doorcase with scrolled brackets to hood, geometrical overlight and glazed door. Flanked by single glazing bar sashes with keystones, and above, 3 smaller similar sashes with keystones. South side has 2 C20 glazed doors with overlights, and 3 C20 glazing bar casements, all with segmental heads. Interior front room to right has beams with chamfers. C19 open well staircase with turned balusters. Door made from framed oak panelling, with C18 latch.

National Grid Reference: SK 72449 88656