Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 1
Kirby Knowle Castle, Kirby Knowle HERITAGE STATEMENT
August 2016
Project Ref: DK2016KNC001
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 2
DR EMMA J. WELLS
Maxwell House, Crabtree Hall Business Centre, Little Holtby, Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL7 9NY [email protected] www.ejwheritageconsultancy.co.uk
All rights in this work are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any mans (including without limitation by photocopying or placing on a website) without the prior permission in writing of Emma J. Wells Heritage Consultancy except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Applications for permission to reproduce any part of this work should be addressed to Dr Emma Wells at [email protected]. Undertaking any unauthorised act in relation to this work may result in a civil claim for damages and/or criminal prosecution. Any materials used in this work which are subject to third party copyright owner except in the case of works of unknown authorship as defined by the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. Any person wishing to assert rights in relation to works which have been reproduced as works of unknown authorship should contact Dr Emma Wells at [email protected].
Emma J. Wells Heritage Consultancy asserts its moral rights to be identified as the author of this work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
© Emma J. Wells Heritage Consultancy
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 7 1.1 Reason for the Report ...... 7 1.2 Authorship ...... 7 2. POLICY AND GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK ...... 8 2.1 Legislation ...... 8 2.2 Policy ...... 8 2.2.1 National ...... 8 2.2.2 Local ...... 9 2.3 Guidance...... 12 2.3.1 National ...... 12 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 13 3.1 Compilation of Sources ...... 13 3.2 Assessment of Significance ...... 13 3.3 Assessment of setting ...... 14 3.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 14 4. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT ...... 16 4.1 General overview ...... 16 4.2 Development of Kirby Knowle Castle ...... 17 5. CARTOGRAPHIC REGRESSION ...... 21
6. BUILDING DESCRIPTION ...... 23 6.1 Phase 1: 13thC ...... 24 6.2 Phase 2: 16thC ...... 26 6.3 Phase 3: 19thC ...... 27 6.4 Phase 4: 20thC (several alterations) ...... 27 6.5 Proposed Development Area: North Wing ...... 28 7. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 33 7.1 Significance of Proposed Development Area: North Wing ...... 35 7.2 Conclusion ...... 37 8. OUTLINE OF PROPOSED WORKS ...... 38
9. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACT...... 40
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 62 10.1 Sources ...... 62 10.2 Websites ...... 63
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location of Kirby Knowle Castle, Whinmoor Hill...... 6 Figure 2 Location plan of Kirby Knowle Castle with HER data ...... 17 Figure 3 Aerial photograph of Kirby Knowle Castle taken 1949 showing western elevation of north wing ...... 18 Figure 4 Layout of Kirby Knowle Castle in relation to description and phase development ...... 25 Figure 5 1838 tithe map by C. Greenwood ...... 44 Figure 6 1854 (6 inch) 1st edition OS map ...... 44 Figure 7 1893 (1:2,500) OS map ...... 44 Figure 8 1912 (1:2,500) OS map ...... 45 Figure 9 1952 (1:2,500) OS map ...... 45 Figure 10 1979 (1:2,500) OS map ...... 45 Figure 11 West elevation of Kirby Knowle Castle ...... 46 Figure 12 North wing...... 46 Figure 13 South elevation ...... 47 Figure 14 Looking out over south lawn ...... 47 Figure 15 Subterraneous passageway in northwestern most corner of cellar ...... 48 Figure 16 Remains of earlier construction phases including supposed allow loops in wall separating cellar ...... 48 Figure 17 Late medieval/early modern lintel and architrave of doorway allowing access to north and south wings ...... 49 Figure 18 Sowing second floor fireplaces sited in roof space of walls ...... 49 Figure 19 Reconstruction drawing of second floor fireplace, C.R. Greenwood, 2004 ...... 50 Figure 20 Remaining tower flanking north and west wings ...... 50 Figure 21 Late 19th century (c.1875) ‘Alterations and Additions to New Building for Charles Elsley Esquire’ by Mr Fowler Jones, Architect of west elevation showing original western entrance ...... 51 Figure 22 Early/mid 19th century photograph showing original west wing ...... 51 Figure 23 Carved lintel displaying Constable crest now in north garden wall ...... 52 Figure 24 Late 19th century photograph showing ruined state of north wing ...... 52 Figure 25 Basement Plan, Late 19th century (c.1875) ‘Alterations and Additions to New Building for Charles Elsley Esquire’ by Mr Fowler Jones, Architect ...... 53 Figure 26 First Floor, Plan Late 19th century (c.1875) ‘Alterations and Additions to New Building for Charles Elsley Esquire’ by Mr Fowler Jones, Architect ...... 53 Figure 27 Eastern elevation showing original ‘Tudor’ window ...... 54 Figure 28 North room of ground floor of north wing showing vaulted ceiling formed from brick-arch method supported on transverse cast-iron beams ...... 54 Figure 29 Eastern elevation showing stepped plinth and buttress from earlier phases of construction .. 55 Figure 30 North elevation of north wing ...... 55 Figure 31 First Floor Plan, Heating Installations to New Building, Thirsk’, W. G. Richardson & Co, dated 8th April 1919 ...... 56 Figure 32 Basement Plan, Heating Installations to New Building, Thirsk’, W. G. Richardson & Co, dated 8th April 1919 ...... 56 Figure 33 Proposal Alterations to basement of Kirby Knowle Castle, May 1952 ...... 57 Figure 34 Staircase from first to second floor ...... 57 Figure 35 East elevation of north wing showing current access doors to ground and basement levels . 58 Figure 36 Staircase from basement of north wing to ground floor looking down from ground floor level to show stud partitioning ...... 58 Figure 37 Existing ground floor plan prepared by Chris Robinson & Son...... 59 Figure 38 Existing elevations prepared by Chris Robinson & Son ...... 59 Figure 39 Proposed window details and sections prepared by Chris Robinson & Son ...... 60 Figure 40 Proposed elevations prepared by Chris Robinson & Son ...... 60
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 5
Figure 41 Proposed plans prepared by Chris Robinson & Son...... 61
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 6
Figure 1 Location of Kirby Knowle Castle, Whinmoor Hill.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 7
1. INTRODUCTION This Heritage Statement was commissioned by the client, Mr David Kempley to make an assessment of the potential effects of a scheme of alteration and development on the Grade 11 Listed property, Kirby Knowle Castle, Whinmoor Hill, Kirby Knowle, North Yorkshire. The report first considers the significance of the heritage asset comprising the listed building, its current setting and relevant component elements, before going on to consider the potential effects of the proposed works on that significance, with the intention that it should inform and underpin this process of change.
1.1 REASON FOR THE REPORT This assessment has been prepared to support a proposed outline scheme of development at Kirby Knowle Castle, Kirby Knowle. The proposal entails renovation and development work to the existing north wing in order to remove several internal walls at ground floor and basement level, interior staircases, alter the current access route of the east elevation and re-fenestrate the western, northern and eastern elevations. The process undertaken is an assessment of the various component parts of the significance of the Listed Building and a brief assessment of how the proposed development may impact upon that significance.
In accordance with Paragraph 128 of the NPPF (March 2012), and in line with advice and recommendations given by Hambleton District Council, the purpose of the report is to assess the significance of the heritage asset to be affected and the impact of the proposed development to the structure in accordance with the requirements of national and local planning policy and to professional standards as set out by Historic England and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2008). It has been produced to comply with this policy framework and with current Historic England guidance, including Conservation Principles (2008) and The Setting of Heritage Assets (updated 2015).
1.2 AUTHORSHIP This Heritage Statement was prepared by Dr Emma J. Wells, Heritage Consultant of Emma J. Wells Heritage Consultancy. Emma provides specialist advice and services focusing on historic buildings, their conservation and other elements of the historic environment. Emma has over ten years’ experience of researching historic buildings throughout the UK, in both the private and public sectors. She is a full Member of the CIfA (MCIfA) and an Affiliate member of the IHBC.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 8
2. POLICY AND GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK
2.1 LEGISLATION
Key national legislation that applies to the consideration of cultural heritage within development and the wider planning process is set out in Table 1 below: Table 1 Legislation relating to cultural heritage in planning Title Key Points Ancient Monuments and Scheduled Monuments, as defined under the Ancient Archaeological Areas Act 1979 Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979), are (amended by the National Heritage sites which have been selected by a set of non-statutory Act 1983 and 2002) criteria to be of national significance. Where scheduled sites are affected by development proposals there is a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. Any works, other than activities receiving class consent under The Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1981, as amended by The Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1984, which would have the effect of demolishing, destroying, damaging, removing, repairing, altering, adding to, flooding or covering-up a Scheduled Monument require consent from the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Planning (Listed Building and Buildings of national, regional or local historical and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 architectural importance are protected under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Buildings designated as ‘Listed’ are afforded protection from physical alteration or effects on their historical setting. In addition, it states that special attention should be made to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. A number of more recent pieces of legislation, most recently the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, have amended specific provisions and the application of certain passages, though the overall level of protection always refers back to the 1990 act. The 1949 National Parks and The site is within a National Park, and the statutory Access to the Countryside Act purposes of this designation are: - to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park; and - to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park.
2.2 POLICY
2.2.1 National The principal instrument of national planning policy within England is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CLG 2012) which outlines the following in relation to cultural heritage within planning and development:
Table 2 Key passages of NPPF in reference to the proposed development Paragraph Key Points
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 9
7 Contributing to protecting and enhancing the historic environment is specifically noted as being a part of what constitutes ‘sustainable development’ – the ‘golden thread’ which, when met, can trigger presumption in favour. 17 A core planning principle is to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for the contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’. 128 During the determination of applications, ‘local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting’. This information should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and only enough to ‘understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance’. The normal minimum level is expected to be a desk-based assessment of proportional size ‘and, where necessary, a field evaluation’. 129 Paragraph 129 identifies that Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. 131 Paragraph 131 highlights the importance, in determination of applications, of three key areas: ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’. 132 It is noted that significance – the principal measure of inherent overall heritage worth – can be harmed or lost through development within its setting. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and any adverse effects require ‘clear and convincing justification’ relative to the significance of the asset in question. 133-4 Paragraphs 133-134 deal with the concepts of harm to designated heritage assets and introduces the balance of substantial to less than substantial harm. Where there is substantial harm or total loss of significance then consent can only be given where substantial public benefits outweigh this harm, or where a series of tests can be met relating reasonable and viable use of the site. Where harm is less than substantial then this harm is weighed against public benefit. 137 Paragraph 137 highlights the positives of development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets enhancing or better revealing significance, and states such proposals should be treated favourably. 138 Paragraph 138 confirms that not all elements of Conservation Area make equal contributions to the overall significance of the area. 141 In paragraph 141 amongst other matters it states that planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.
2.2.2 Local Under planning law, the determination of an application must be made, in the first instance, with reference to the policies of the local development plan. For the proposed development this is the Hambleton Local Development Framework (adopted 2010). While an emerging new Local Plan is in preparation, until such time as such a document is adopted, the current Core Strategy DPD (adopted 2007) and Development Policies DPD (adopted 2008) will be used.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 10
Table 1 Key passages of Hambleton Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD in reference to cultural heritage Policy/ Text Paragraph Policy 8 To protect and enhance the historic heritage and the unique character and identity of the towns and villages by ensuring that new developments are appropriate in terms of scale and location in the context of settlement form and character; - careful planning for and design of the nature and type of development will help to secure the sustainability of the District and maintain and enhance the distinctive character of Hambleton, a main contributor to a high quality of life for its communities. Policy CP17 The requirement to achieve a high quality of design of both buildings and landscaping is a priority in the case of all development proposals. Support will be given for proposals that are consistent with the LDF’s detailed design policies and meet all the following requirements: i. provide an attractive, functional, accessible, safe and low maintenance development; ii. respect and enhance the local context and its special qualities, including its urban design, landscape, social activities and historic environment, and incorporate public art where appropriate; iii. optimise the potential of the site; iv. minimise the use of scarce resources; v. adopt sustainable construction principles; vi. facilitate access through sustainable forms of transport; vii. secure improvements to public spaces.
Policy DP28 Conservation of the historic heritage will be ensured by: Conservation i. preserving and enhancing Listed Buildings; ii. identifying, protecting and enhancing Conservation Areas; iii. protecting and preserving Historic Battlefields and Historic Parks and Gardens; iv. protecting and preserving any other built or landscape feature or use which contributes to the heritage of the District. Development within or affecting the feature or its setting should seek to preserve or enhance all aspects that contribute to its character and appearance, in accordance with the national legislation that designates the feature, and in the case of a Conservation Area, any appraisal produced for that Area. Permission will be granted, where this is consistent with the conservation of the feature, for its interpretation and public enjoyment, and developments refused which could prejudice its restoration. Particularly important considerations will include the position and massing of new development in relation to the particular feature, and the materials and design utilised. Policy DP30 The openness, intrinsic character and quality of the District’s Protecting the landscape will be respected and where possible enhanced. character and Development within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty shown appearance of the on the Proposals Map will be subject of particular controls, in countryside accordance with national planning policy, in order to secure the conservation of these important landscape assets. Throughout the District, the design and location of new development should take account of landscape character and its surroundings, and not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment and on any important long distance views. The design of buildings, and the acceptability of development, will need to take full account of the nature and distinctive qualities of the local landscape. The use of
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 11
techniques such as landscape character analysis to establish the local importance, and the key features that should be protected and enhanced, will be supported. Where possible opportunities should be taken to add appropriate character and distinctiveness through the contribution of new landscape features, particularly to landscapes which otherwise lack interest. Policy DP32 The design of all developments must be of the highest quality. General design Attention to the design quality of all development will be essential, and the submission of design statements supporting and explaining the design components of all relevant proposals will be required. Development proposals must seek to achieve creative, innovative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and settings, and promote local identity and distinctiveness, and reflect the following principles: i. development should seek to support the creation of sustainable communities, that respect their local context. Mixed use developments will be encouraged where the uses are complementary to each other and to those in the existing community, and where the development is capable of supporting a range of services and public transport; ii. proposals should where possible promote a density and mix of uses which creates vitality and interest; iii. opportunities should be taken to create connected layouts that provide choice, and improve access to facilities and public transport; iv. provision should be made for walking and cycling, including the provision of footpath links, cycleways and cycle parking facilities, in accordance with Policy DP3; v. where the nature of development permits, a framework of connected spaces should be developed that respects all users by offering a safe attractive environment for all; vi. proposals must respect local character and distinctiveness (including that of the surrounding landscape, in accordance with Policy DP33) by enhancing its positive attributes whilst mitigating its negative aspects; vii. in terms of scale, volume and massing, development should result in built forms that contribute positively to the townscape or surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the area; viii. development should relate to and respect any historic context of the site, including plot patterns, street layout and block size (and taking account of the guidance contained in Policy DP28); ix. development should take every opportunity to create good design that respects and safeguards key views, roofscapes, landmarks, and focal points; x. development should pay due regard to traditional design and forms of construction, and avoid the use of inappropriate details; xi. development should incorporate high quality building design and detailing, with particular attention given to appropriately designed elements; xii. sustainable forms of development should be designed, incorporating sustainable energy use (as indicated by Policy DP34), minimising waste production and providing opportunities for recycling (as indicated by Policy DP36), and minimizing pollution. Developments should seek to minimise water use (including through the incorporation of grey-water recycling), and where possible include Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). Use or re-use of sustainable materials will be encouraged. Orientation and layout of development should maximise the potential for passive solar heating, taking account of the implications of solar heat gain;
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 12
xiii. proposals should create people-friendly places that allow for necessary vehicular access; xiv. places should be safe and secure, with effective natural surveillance; xv. well designed private and semi-private open space should be incorporated for all buildings, appropriate to the design character of the area; xvi. opportunities should be taken to support the development of a varied network of attractive, usable and safe publicly accessible spaces; xvii. provision for parking should where possible be made in discreet but safe locations within the development; xviii. design should seek to retain existing important species and habitats and maximise opportunities for habitat enhancement, creation and management, in accordance with Policy DP31.
2.3 GUIDANCE
2.3.1 National During the assessment and preparation of this document, the following guidance documents have been referred to, where relevant:
Table 4 National guidance documentation consulted Document Key Points Conservation Principles, This document sets out the guiding principles of conservation as Policies and Guidance seen by English Heritage and also provides a terminology for (EH 2008) assessment of significance upon which much that has followed is based. Principles of Selection Whilst not relating to Listed Building Consent specifically, this for Listed Buildings guidance effectively sits as an annex to the 1990 act providing (DCMS 2010) the principles of selection for listing. These are expanded below in the methodology section. The Setting of Heritage This document represents the latest statement by English Assets (EH 2015) Heritage as to best practice for the assessment of potential effects of development upon the setting of heritage assets. It provides a loose framework for this assessment, and is normally held to be industry best practice. It advocates a staged process of assessment outlined in the appropriate section below. National Planning The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) Practice Guidance released the guidance to NPPF in March 2014 in a ‘live’ online (NPPG) (CLG 2014) format which, it is intended can be amended and responsive to comment, particular as case law develops in relation to the implementation of NPPF. In relation to cultural heritage the NPPG follows previous guidance in wording and ‘keys in’ with, in particular, extant English Heritage guidance documents.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 13
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 COMPILATION OF SOURCES The following tasks were undertaken as part of this heritage statement:
Consultation of local authority Historic Environment Record and local archives Consultation of all appropriate desk-based and online resources including National Heritage List for England Site visit to establish ground conditions and assessment of potential effects Synthesis of sources consulted and preparation of this heritage statement.
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Significance can be defined using a number of criteria derived from varied sources, all of which can contribute useful factors to the process. Where assessment of significance is necessary, particularly in determining potential effects of the development, the following criteria have been adopted in part or in whole, depending on what can best articulate the nature of the heritage asset:
Table 5 Criteria for assessment of significance Source Significance Criteria Conservation Principles, This document highlights four ‘values’ contributing to Policies and Guidance significance: (Historic England 2008) Evidential Historic Aesthetic Communal NPPF (CLG 2012) The now-cancelled PPS5 and its associated Practice Guide required the assessment of significance based upon four PPS5 (cancelled) (CLG ‘interests’ and their relative ‘importance’. This terminology of 2014) significance has been transferred wholesale to NPPF, and the four ‘interests’ are still a useful way of articulating certain aspects of the significance of heritage assets: Archaeological Architectural Artistic Historic Principles of Selection for This document sets out the considerations and principles for Listed Buildings (DCMS selection for Listed Buildings, effectively outlining the key 2010) characteristics of significance as relevant to the process. The criteria are: Statutory criteria: o Architectural Interest: ‘To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms’. o Historic Interest: ‘To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 14
and/or have close historical associations with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing’. General principles: o Age and rarity o Aesthetic merits o Selectivity o National interest o State of repair.
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF SETTING As outlined in The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015) and largely reiterated in the over-arching National Planning Practice Guidance (CLG 2014), setting is defined as ‘the surrounding in which an asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and it surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral’ (Historic England 2015, 2). Once the significance of a heritage asset is established, and the contribution that setting makes to that significance, it is possible to assess how the proposed development may change that setting, and therefore its contribution to significance. This change can also be positive, negative or neutral.
The changing nature and mutability of setting is acknowledged in its definition, and therefore an assessment of setting can only consider its current contribution to significance. It is not appropriate to ‘second-guess’ future changes to the setting beyond the potential effects of a proposed development or associated mitigation and off-setting, as this would render an objective assessment meaningless. This axiom also helps resolve an apparent contradiction within guidance (Historic England 2015) which states that ‘setting … is the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’ and also that ‘while setting can be mapped in the context of an individual application or proposal, it does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described for all time’.
3.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Data and information obtained and consulted in the compilation of this report has been derived from a number of secondary sources. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of secondary information, its accuracy has been assumed in good faith. The information accessed represents a record of known assets and their discovery and further investigation. Such information is not complete and does not preclude the future discovery of additional assets and the amendment of information about known assets which may affect their significance and/or sensitivity to development effects. All statements and opinions arising from the works undertaken are provided in good faith and compiled according to professional standards. No responsibility can be accepted by the author/s of the report for any errors of fact or
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 15
opinion resulting from data supplied by any third party, or for loss or other consequence arising from decisions or actions made upon the basis of facts or opinions expressed in any such report(s), howsoever such facts and opinions may have been derived.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 16
4. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW This parish of Kirby Knowle is situated in the Vale of Mowbray, at the base of the Hambleton Hills, and is bounded on the other sides by the parishes of Cowesby, South Kilvington, and Felixkirk in North Yorkshire. The village of Kirby Knowle is situated about five miles north east of Thirsk. It nestles in a low warm valley, begirt by an amphitheatre of hills, or knolls, which hide it from the approaching view. This position has been appended to the name, Kirby-under-Knoll, to distinguish this Kirby from the many other places bearing that name in Yorkshire. The derivation of Kirby Knowle also comes from Kirk from the old Norse ‘kikje’, a church; by meaning a farm or estate, later a mallet; and knoll, a hill or outcrop. Kirby Knowle was therefore a hamlet with the church under the hill (Greenwood 2004).
It is mentioned in Domesday Book, and appears to have been at that time (1086 A.D.) the berewic, or manor-village to Bagby. Baghebi was then head of the manor, to which there belonged six berewicks (grange or manor villages, from bere, barley), among which were included Kirby Knowle and Islebeck. The original manor house site sits beneath the present Manor House Farm and a second medieval manor house existed at the western end of the village, with the present church (rebuilt 1872 on the site of an earlier building dedicated to St Wilfrid thus suggestive of a pre-Conquest foundation) being incorporated into its enclosure (NAA 2003, 2).
At the time of Domesday, the manor was then the property of Hugh, the son of Baldric, and tenanted by Orm (DB). Shortly afterwards the whole district was granted to Robert de Mowbray (whom the Vale of Mowbray was named after), of whom it was held by subinfeudation by Baldwin le Wake. By 1217 the village was held by Hugh de Magneby who had dealings with a Lady Gunnora of Kirby-Under-Knoll, afterwards by Hugh de Upsall, and then by the family of Lascelles (Bulmer 1890). Sir Roger de Lascelles, who died A.D. 1297, applied to King Edward I for permission to erect a castle here, called Kirby Knowle Castle.
In 1870-72, John Marius Wilson’s Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales described the village as the following (VBTT):
KIRBY-KNOWLE, a township and a parish in Thirsk district, N. R. Yorkshire. The township lies under the Hambledon hills, 4¾ miles NE by N of Thirsk r. station. Acres, 1, 556. Real property, £1, 197. Pop., 116. Houses, 22.—The parish contains also the township of Balk, and that of Bagby-with-Islebeck; and includes two small detached portions. Post town, Thirsk-Acres, 4, 101. Real property, £5, 233. Pop., 504- Houses, 100. The property is divided among a few. The living is a rectory in the diocese of York. Value, £404. * Patron, Lady Frankland Russell. The church is partly ancient, and was partly rebuilt in 1815. There is a chapel of ease at Bagby. Charities, £6.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 17
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF KIRBY KNOWLE CASTLE Located around five miles northeast of Thirsk, in the Vale of Mowbray and on the south-western aspect of the Hambleton hills, Kirby Knowle Castle is centred at SE4590587467. A mile northwest of the village, the building sits atop a steep gradient known as Whinmoor Hill, with the northern boundary of the site formed by Highwood House as well as land belonging to the estate, the rest being formed by the estate woodlands and grounds, some of which comprise a former deer park.
Figure 2 Location plan of Kirby Knowle Castle with HER data
Kirby Knowle Castle is listed Grade II. It is a crenelated medieval and 17th-century three-storey, 4-bay main block stone house restored in 1875 with two-storey canted bay extensions on the east, west and north sides, the latter altered in the later 20th century. In the rear angle, i.e. between the north and west wings, is a 5-stage tower; at the west end of the main block is a further, lower, two-storey 1 x two-bay addition.
The whole district was granted to Robert de Mowbray, of whom it was held by subinfeudation by Baldwin le Wake, afterwards by Hugh de Upsall who sought permission from Edward I to build in the latter part of the thirteenth century and it was then called Kirby Knowle Castle. This Roger left four daughters, co-heiresses, one of whom married Sir Robert Constable, and received a quarter of the manor of Kirby Knowle for her share. She survived her husband, and subsequently became possessed of the whole estate, which she conveyed to her son, Sir John Constable, from whom was descended another Sir John, who married, first, Margaret, daughter
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 18
of John, Lord Scrope of Bolton Castle, and secondly, a daughter of Henry Neville, fifth earl of Westmoreland.
About the year 1568, the castle was accidentally destroyed by fire. It has been reported that one of the four towers remained largely in its entirety and this is that which still survives between the north and east wings. Sir John, now far advanced in years, commenced the work of restoration, but did not live to complete it. A contemporary survey described this castle ‘begune by the forsaid Sir John Constable, knight, as an Mancion house of a great hight and length, pasyng beautiful of itself and faire of prospecte, Wharto belonges one goodlye haulle, great chaulmer, parler, and bed chaulmer, with a noumber of other pleasaunt loogynge and chambrge.’ (Grainge 1859).
Figure 3 Aerial photograph of Kirby Knowle Castle taken 1949 showing western elevation of north wing
The Constables remained firmly attached to the old religion, and for their recusancy, as the crime of professing the Catholic faith was called, and loyalty to the Crown, their estates were sequestrated by the Cromwellian parliament. It was left in a dilapidated state until 1653 when it was bought by James Danby of York, who repaired the old parts of the mansion using stone from the adjoining castle at Upsall and built the south front and western wing, giving it the name of Newbuilding, which
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 19
it retained for many centuries thereafter. Mr Danby left two daughters, co-heiresses Ursula and Milcah, who married two brothers, Sir Thomas Rokeby (a knight and one of the Justices of the King’s Bench) and Joseph Rokeby, Esq. During his lifetime Sir Thomas ‘Judge’ Rokeby was patronised by King William III and Mary Queen of Scots and it is believed that Mary visited the castle on several occasions. As the first couple left no issue, the whole estate devolved upon Milcah and her husband. Her son and heir, Mr Joseph Rokeby inherited the castle in 1741, who set about repairing and modernising the mansion (NYCRO ZS). He also destroyed the mullioned windows and inserted wooden sashes (Page 1914). Dying unmarried he was succeeded by his nephew, Joseph Buxton, Esq., who made some additions to the mansion. He was never married, and on his decease the estate was inherited by Francis Smyth, Esq., son of his sister, Phœbe. Mr Smyth was an industrious antiquary, and an F.A.S. He died in 1809, leaving a widow, in whom the whole estate was vested, and family. After the death of Mrs Smyth, the estate was sold, with the consent of the Rev. Joseph Smyth, the eldest son to Colonel Gregory Elsley of Mount St John, from whom it has descended to Charles H. Elsley, Esq., J.P. and Recorder of York (Bulmer 1890).
The final phase of alterations and additions took place in 1875 under the guidance of Charles Elsley who is documented to have rebuilt and remodelled ‘the mansion’ and ancillary buildings resulting in the present façade. Mr G.S. Thompson succeeded to the property in about 1902 and is reputed to have formed the Rock Garden. On his death, the estate passed to the late Brigadier-General John Hotham C.B. who carried out many modern improvements (NYCRO ZS).
In 1933 the Castle, then called ‘Newbuilding’, went up for sale at auction. The lot included the house together with terraced gardens, the Famous Rock Garden, finely timbered parklands with Lodge entrance, two farms, smallholdings, village properties, well-disposed woodlands giving high birds and a small moor containing valuable ironstone deposits. The house itself featured electric lighting from its own plant, central heating water supply from sprints and a septic tank sanitation. It also reported of a ‘Tudor archway’ with an inscription depicting ‘1568 I. and M.C’ together with the Constable crest: a griffin surrounded by a rope border (which is now inserted above the archway of the north face of the outer northern garden wall) – this was likely to commemorate Sir John Constable and his wife, Margaret who rebuilt the castle at this time (NYCRO ZS).
During both the First and Second World Wars, the house was occupied by the military as a place of recovery for soldiers and officers. By the time of its purchase by owners in 2002, the castle had fallen into disrepair after being empty since the 1950s. It had been owned by a Chilean countess and her husband. He died in a car accident and she left the area (YP 2015). Its early 21st-century owners then changed its name back to Kirby Knowle Castle due to an address conflict with a similar named property in Yorkshire (Greenwood 2004).
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 20
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 21
5. CARTOGRAPHIC REGRESSION The earliest map detailing the property is the 1838 tithe map (Fig. 5). This map depicts an L-shaped structure with a stepped plan to the west: this elevation features a small square outshut projecting off the southwest corner and the north-western corner of the L. The north wing is clearly differentiated by a line running east to west – it is also a slightly smaller width. The immediate surroundings include a long linear building directly to the east, a small horizontal rectangular building immediately above that to the northeast and then a final outbuilding directly to the north of the north wing of a square or rectangular shape. Finally, Highwood House is depicted further northeast while the land surrounding the rest of the Castle is demarcated as the estate grounds with several paths and driveways separating the woodlands.
The 1854 (6 inch) 1st edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 6) depicts a similar plan to the tithe map but unfortunately the scale and position of the site on the area of the map makes it difficult to analyse the building in detail. Nonetheless, the property is still clearly an L-shaped stepped plan with two projecting outshuts at the south- western corner. There are again several outbuildings in the eastern and north-eastern areas but these appear to comprise several small square buildings and a larger L- shaped building directly to the east.
By the 1893 (1:2,500) OS map the alterations made previously to the castle are more clearly depicted (Fig. 7). The outshuts are clearly the south and west porches. There can also be seen a further porch within the L section. Also, there appears to be a small bay window projecting from the eastern end of the south elevation. The north wing appears to have been increased in width at its most northerly elevation whilst there are also additional structures almost adjoining its north-westerly corner. There is now a larger property sited to the east, in place of the smaller outbuildings that stood here with a projecting porch to the south and L-shaped outbuildings to its rear (north). Finally, steps lead down into the southerly gardens whilst the rear gardens (north) also appear to be geometrically laid out, indicative of herb/vegetable planting.
The 1912 (1:2,500) OS map (Fig. 8) shows little change to the main property but more so the surrounding outbuildings. There are access symbols indicated where the front (west) and back (east) doors are located, which appear to be almost opposite one another but the former actually appears to be on the north elevation of the main body of the house thus slightly more north than where the current west entrance is sited. The primary change concerns the surrounding land which now appears to be largely open rather than ornamental gardens and the eastern outbuilding has been greatly extended southwards creating in essence a large long linear structure abutting the eastern boundary. Moreover, to the very west is now a reservoir.
The 1952 (1:2,500) OS map shows little change to the main property (Fig. 9). The small differences lie in the land to the east as in-between the reservoir is now an area of woodland called ‘The Belt’.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 22
Finally, the 1979 (1:2,500) OS map shows no further changes to the plan form of Kirby Knowle Castle (Fig. 10). Minimal changes to the surroundings include reduction of the former woodland area to the west in place of the reservoir, and also, once again, a reduction in the size of the structure bordering the eastern boundary line directly to the east of the main house. It should be noted that all of these historical maps identify the property as ‘Newbuilding, formerly Kirby Knowle Castle’, right up until this version when it is referred to as ‘Newbygill’ and Highwood House is instead termed ‘New Building’.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 23
6. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The Listed Building description for Kirby Knowle Castle is relatively limited with regard to the interior and exterior character of the site (see Appendix A), and so an attempt will be made not to repeat the same detail, but to expand upon it. Given the scope of this assessment, principally as an accompanying document to the application process in regard to a Listed structure, it was not considered necessary to recount a full room-by-room descriptive analysis in so much as the detail informs about the historic value and character of the building over time. As the building comprises various phases of construction, certain elements therefore have greater significance than others and where significant features are particularly relevant to this report, they will be considered within the context, and therefore room, in which they are located. However, further detail may be required and may be more relevant at a later stage of the proposed development such as historic building recording. The site comprises the Grade II Listed Kirby Knowle Castle, Garden Walls to the south, west and north, the former Deer Park and a complex of ridge and furrow and several lynchets of probable medieval or post medieval date, visible on air photographs.
The architectural character of the collective property makes reference to the 19th- century date, 16th - and 17th-century core, coursed ashlar, Welsh slate and lead roof, and the Jacobethan stylistic elements such as obelisk corner finials, crenellations, hoodmoulds, kneelers and mullion and transom windows (some of which could also be defined as Gothic revival). There are also vertical sliding sash and casement windows, the majority of which date from the 19th and 20th centuries (Fig. 11).
In general, the building is in a good condition, having been consistently inhabited throughout the majority of the 20th/21st century, with the recent owners carrying out regular high-quality maintenance. Where features survive, these are thus in a good state of survival and the primary aspects of the main building are structurally sound – these are discussed further below. The following summary description of the property derives from data contained in the Historic Environment Record which largely comprises an historical and archaeological study undertaken by Colin R. Greenwood between 2001 and 2003 (filed 2004 as SNY 8832). Given the detail in this source, a brief overview only will be provided here but will be elaborated on/deviated from where necessary – information taken from other sources is referenced throughout. However, more detail will be given with regards to the north wing to which the proposed development refers.
While the building retains some original/early features, there is also evidence of a significant amount of modification throughout the life of the property, particularly illustrated by the subsequent development of the linear plan form of the building northwards into the almost L-shaped plan form. Beginning as what would largely
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 24
have been a somewhat symmetrical medieval keep surrounded by a curtain wall with corner turrets/towers, there is very little of this original structure still extant. As mentioned above, the castle was then rebuilt in the 16th century, following the fire, and it would appear that there are remnants of this phase of the building’s construction remaining in the lower basement levels, towards the more easterly portion of the property. It then, however, saw an entire renovation and refacing in 1875 for Charles Elsley by Mr Fowler Jones of York when it was transformed and thus remodelled into a large Victorian mansion set within its own parkland/grounds. The plan therefore grew around a single rectangular site. In general, the earliest and residential part of the main building relates to the north (Fig. 12), with the later additions developing further south and east, in addition to further additional outbuildings along the northern boundary.
A general plan of the property can be found in Figure 4 with more detailed plans and accompanying photography in Appendix B. In order to assess the date and chronological development of of each major part of Kirby Knowle Castle, the building will be analysed in four separate ‘phases’ which coincide with the construction of each stage in its plan form development. They are described as follows:
6.1 PHASE 1: 13THC The current Jacobethan/Gothic-style country house facing its associated estate or parkland features a south front of local ashlar sandstone (likely from the disused quarry sited directly to the north of the estate, to the rear of the reservoirs) comprising two wings forming an L-shaped structure, with further walls of rubble with cut dressings. The primary part of the house is sited within the south wing and features the main receptions rooms, dining room, and the majority of bedrooms situated on three floors over a basement which houses the central heating system (Fig. 13). The north wing abuts the eastern end of the south wing and contains further living accommodation, the kitchen and recreational areas. The south elevation looks out over formal gardens – formally the bowling green and site of the original medieval castle – that are enclosed within a castellated stone boundary wall (Fig. 14). Finally, to the east is a further large property, likely sited on the former stable block (supposedly built by Joseph Buxton in the 18th century) which would have served as the housekeeper’s or estate manager’s lodgings.
The property has gradually grown from the north of the site to the south, primarily in a linear manner within the property’s boundaries via four main stages: a medieval fortified house to which was likely added an H-Plan in the 16th century, then into a grand Victorian mansion in the 19th century, followed by additions and alterations in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The earliest house on the site, for which there are some surviving remains, may have comprised an open hall with a dual purpose stone-built storied cross wing at the east end, possibly dating from as early as the 13th century.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 25
1 2
3
Figure 4 Layout of Kirby Knowle Castle in relation to description and phase development
Although the original internal arrangement of the house is somewhat difficult to ascertain given several successive developments, it is suggested that all the structural walls of the ground floor and cellars/basement except the north wall of the north wing, bow of the south elevation and parts of the south wing, date from the first phase of the castle’s history, i.e. the 13th century. The vaulted cellars under the south wing particularly are said to date from this period and are believed to be part of the original castle fabric (and were then coal cellars followed by servants’ halls) though they have since been divided into separate rooms by later brick walls to create larders and wine cellars. In the extreme north-western corner is a blocked subterraneous passage that legend has it led to Upsall Castle (Fig. 15). It appears more likely that this in fact was the original sally-port that led out underneath the original west and north wings, thus allowing access straight out to the north curtain wall.
It also appears that the walls that enclose the current main staircase are a section of one of the original towers of which its core, together with the east wall of the north wing and the most easterly wall of the southerly cellar with its supposed two arrow slits, are said to be 700 years old (Fig. 16). It is perhaps more correct to suggest that these specific areas comprise a mixture of fabric dating from all construction phases of the property’s history as they certainly do appear to contain early stonework embedded within their walls which is likely reused stone.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 26
Few real features survive from this period besides a sandstone doorway on the second floor which forms a corridor between the south and north wings (Fig. 17). It has an elaborately carved architrave allegedly consistent with a date of 1300 to 1350 and allowed access into the one of the former towers. Moreover, some of the more contentious early features are two fireplaces which are currently either ex situ or suggest that a wing projected southwards from this point (Fig. 18) – they are sited in the roof wall space, to the west of the hipped roof on the three-faced bay–front projection to the east of the south front. The lower fireplace is of good quality suggesting a high-status chamber whereas the lesser, wall-recessed fireplace on the floor above may have accommodated a bedchamber. They correspond to descriptions given by Grainge (1859) who states they were made of ‘dressed stone, with double pillars on each side. The upper one is smaller than the lower, but in the same style, with a small niche on either side’. Greenwood (2004) drew reconstruction drawings drom which he dated them to 1300-1350 based on their stylistic detail but goes no further in his assumptions (Fig. 19); however, from examination, it would appear these may be much more appropriately dated to the Elizabethan or Jacobean era, i.e. 17th century which would be much more fitting with the second phase of the castle’s construction. This suggestion derives from the presence of the neo-Classical double columns, the lozenge or ovolo shaped decorations, four centred arch and decorated spandrels, strapwork, all crudely stacked with shallow niches either side which was characteristic of this period (Yorke 2009). Even still, the decorated overmantel looks more like a neo-Jacobethan copy so this is still a conjectural assumption.
6.2 PHASE 2: 16THC This second phase of development comprises the most significant in terms of change and was borne out of the fire of 1568 which caused considerable damage. It included the erection of the south wing from ground floor level and the internal structure of the north wing and tower which are constructed in a similar style as the remainder of the 16th-century work (Fig. 20). However, the discrepancy mentioned earlier about the tower’s style deriving more from the 17th century as well as the style of the windows etc. also being more in line with this slightly later period may attest to the fact that in 1653 Danby rebuilt the south front of the south wing and installed the original south porch and entrance – the ghosted outline of this original entrance can still be made out at the west end of the north elevation of the south wing. The architectural plans relating to the 1875 changes also depict its former design (Fig. 21). The same phase of building likely also saw the construction of the west wing and these alleged slightly later 17th century alterations.
It was also during this period that the large oak staircase was installed in the tower and that the large mullion and transom windows were inserted into the north wing along with the ‘priest’s hole’ which was excavated into the thickness of the east wall adjoining the kitchen and library. Grainge (1859) described this space as reached by ‘a narrow winding passage in the thickness of the wall, and is square of three feet six inches, by six feet in height…on either side are closets and shelves’. A space of
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 27
similar length and width still exists in the eastern wall of the current kitchen which must be the space to which Grainge refers.
It may also have been at this time that the west wing was erected. A wing was built in this area that continued the line of the south front to the west of the formal porch and entrance. This two-storeyed wing is clearly depicted on 19th-century photographs but little is known about its design or function (Fig. 22). The photographic evidence shows that it stood lower in height than the rest of the property with minimal ornamentation and lower quality construction, all indicative that this was a servants’ wing. The date of the wing’s construction is unknown but the fenestration seen in the images, i.e. a three-light mullion dates to a 17th century era, perhaps earlier. Its demolition is also uncertain although its deteriorated state in the 19th century photographs and the works carried out in 1875 suggests it was likely removed during that latter period of refurbishment.
6.3 PHASE 3: 19THC This era of building is the most prominent and defines the current style of the castle. The south front comprises a Jacobethan/Gothic-style two-storey, four-bay central core block and flanking two-storey canted bay. This work was enacted in 1875 and commenced with the demolition of the west wing and a further entrance created in the west wall of the south wing (i.e. the current entrance). The south porch may also have been rebuilt at the same time with the carved lintel displaying the Constable crest now sited in the garden wall archway being removed (Fig. 23) – the porch is typical of this later Victorian period with its segment-headed doorway and corniced parapet (see Fig. 13). Alterations to the bay-fronted rooms may also have been made; however, the main area of construction was to the north wing which had fallen into disrepair by the 19th century period. Modern floors using cast iron beams and brick arches were installed, the west wall was reconstructed above basement level, the north elevation was completely rebuilt, and the south end of the east elevation redesigned. The roof parapet was also increased in height and additional ornamentation was installed above it, likely to disguise the irregularity of the the structure of the roof but also as it was a popular stylistic feature of the Victorian era.
6.4 PHASE 4: 20THC (SEVERAL ALTERATIONS) In 1914 the remaining tower still contained ‘a staircase of black oak’ (this was then removed in the 1952 renovations when the tower was altered to accommodate modern facilities) and a stone cut with the date 1374 (Page 1919). The castle also featured 50 apartments, vaults and a priest hole – a hidden cavity by which clandestine priests could escape. In fact, The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle’s Letter by Henry Hawkes Spink Jr (1902, 395) reads, ‘In Kirby Knowle Castle, embosomed in trees, is still to be seen a priests’ hiding-place.’ During the 1952 alterations, the current main staircase was installed which is also oak but stained to a light hue (Greenwood 2004).
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 28
Almost nothing remains visible in the interior of the castle that is attributable to before the 1875 refurbishments. All the plasterwork of the ceilings is plain, much of it replaced by plasterboard. The dados, mouldings and friezes are largely recent, along with the skirtings, doors and door casings. It may be that part of the roof construction is contemporary with the rebuilding after the 1568 fire and many of the internal walls of the south wing and some at ground floor level of the north wing will also date from that period.
6.5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA: NORTH WING The north wing is a four-storey projection featuring a single pitched roof. The basement houses a residential apartment with a staircase ascending to the ground floor which features a kitchen, dining room and small utility room. A further staircase leads to the first floor which comprises a bedroom, en-suite and landing space with open well stair to the third floor which houses a large games room.
The wing comprises at least four construction phases, the most northerly of which is the latest addition, but the proposed development refers to the entirety of the structure.
When William Grainge made an assessment of the property in the mid 19th century, he observed that the north wing, including the square staircase tower (i.e. the turreted tower which abuts the east, north and west wings of the castle) which he noted as being of the ‘Early English style’, were the oldest parts of the castle and ‘probably coeval with the first erection by Roger de Lascelles’. However, in the 1970s, English Heritage field investigators claimed that ‘A tower within the angle between the N and W wings, presumably that to which the VCH refers, does not appear to date before the 17th century’ suggesting that the remaining tower actually derives from latter part of the second phase of rebuilding (Page 1919) and its stylistic detailing such as the segmental arches, blind windows, strapwork, and four-pane casements are more characteristic of this 16th/17th century era.
Yet, in the later 19th century, the north wing was in a state of extreme dilapidation. Grainge explained that without necessary repairs it would soon fall into ruin (Fig. 24). As such, this suggests that this portion of the property comprises several phases of construction. From Grainge’s study and plans from around this time, it is clear that the north wing featured the library on the ground floor, a billiard room on the first floor, and a servants’ hall/kitchen, larder and other service rooms in the basement (Figs. 25-26). The library had been the Great Chamber of the Constables originally measuring 30 x 21 ft and had been lit from the east by a ‘Tudor’ window of four lights divided by a transom and from the west by a similar designed window of three lights – the former window still appears to exist, at the very top of the east elevation (Fig. 27). This window in the east façade of the north wing is thus one of the only surviving features from the earlier phases of the castle. However, as its design clearly derives from the 16th century, it must belong to the second phase in the property’s construction history. While the window still remains, the walls and spaces above had largely collapsed prior to the 1875 remodelling. The floors of the wing have also been
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 29
replaced and the height of the current kitchen ceiling are much lower than the original which means that the upper portion of this 16th-century window now protrudes above the ceiling height of the first floor. Moreover, the floors of the current kitchen and adjacent rooms throughout the wing are constructed using the brick-arch method supported on transverse cast-iron beams set into the original walls while the beams in the basement are partially supported on cast iron columns suggesting that they were undoubtedly constructed as part of the 1875 works (Fig. 28).
Although the walls of the north wing were entirely refaced in 1875, the stepped plinth that runs along its bottom and corner buttresses clearly comprise earlier phases of fabric (Fig. 29) and, given the presence of the ‘Tudor’ window and what appears to be evidence of earlier stonework interspersed throughout the existing walls, it is suggested that the rebuilding of the mansion following the fire in 1568 comprised the reconstruction of the north wing at ground and first floor levels, as well as the erection of the south wing using fabric from the original medieval castle’s construction. Two new windows were installed in the north wing at this time, one of which is the remaining window in the eastern elevation and one mirroring this design and situated facing it on the western elevation which could still be made out on 19th century photographs.
Thus, it may be suggested the majority of the eastern elevation of the north wing formed part of the original medieval castle structure, as is the stepped plinth that runs the entirety of this wing, a large part of which is built into the lower courses of the western elevation. Greenwood (2004) also suggested that the northern gable end may have extended further north, beyond the access arch and onwards towards the sunken garden. There is some credibility in this proposition as the 1893 OS map does show a much wider building with small projections to the east and west but, also, the L- shaped outbuildings which sit to the north of the north wing on the 1838 tithe map onwards sit perfectly in-line with the outer corners of the wing so may have formed the previous extent of the wing.
However, the north gable wall of the wing is also of inferior construction to the east or west walls, being of less than 0.8m thick and of poorer quality stone (Fig. 30). Thus, it is therefore likely that this wall was entirely reconstructed during the late 20th century remodelling, as were the supposed collapsed upper levels of the east and west walls together with the roof, all due to the fact that the wing was in such a bad state of repair. In fact, there are several photographs from this period that attest to the extreme state of the wing (see Figs. 22 and 24).
Accordingly, the internal structure of the north wing is of a much more recent date. During the 1875 renovations, the ceiling height of the first floor was reduced. In addition to the relationship of the ceiling to the ‘Tudor’ window described earlier, the position of earlier beams in the east wall, approximately 1.25m higher than the present ones, could be seen during recent alterations to the second floor. While Greenwood could not uncover the arrangement of the rooms at this level after the
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 30
1875 rebuilding, plans discovered in North Yorkshire County Archives for the 1875 alterations and for a heating installation system in 1919 show the first floor layout to largely comprise an open space containing a Billiard Room/Library but separated at the southern end into a bathroom and WC (Fig. 31). This floor was accessed by a rear staircase located at the north-western corner of the room which featured a segmental arched doorway with three square fan-light (see Fig. 21). This therefore suggests that the current layout – stud walling to create a separate bedroom and en-suite at the northern side – was not formed until the latter half of the 20th century or the 1952 alterations as the latter plans do show a similar layout to the current arrangement.
The 1919 heating plans also illustrate that the basement occupied virtually the same plan as it does to this day, apart from a change in the location of the stairs (though this staircase is still extant but is currently walled up) (Fig. 32). Prior to this, 1875 plans show that the space was simply two large rooms (a kitchen and a larder) (see Fig. 25) but between the two was a passageway which led straight from outside into the property and then turned north-eastwards and up a staircase. By 1919 the staircase was a straight stair from the rear door through the passageway between the rooms and up to the ground floor space, thus it has to date from this period yet today this stair has been walled in and the current stair is sited immediately adjacent to its north and still provides access from the east courtyard and straight up to the rear (north) ground floor room. It is not entirely clear when the first late 19th/early 20th century stair was made redundant and the current stair installed but proposed plans dating from 1952 (Fig. 33) suggest removal of the original straight stair yet do not depict the insertion of a further stair in the open space where the current structure now resides. However, as these were only proposed plans, they may have been updated following initial drafting and so the current arrangement may have been the intention of the final design.
Similarly, the ground floor plan has not changed a great deal since the 1919 plans (see Fig. 31) besides a wall separating the northernmost space into two rooms rather than it being one large open vaulted room, and again the location of the staircase which allows for a utility in place of the WC and access from the kitchen (i.e. Smoke Room) rather than staircase landing.
There was also an entire re-facing of the west façade of the north wing, along with a considerable portion of the east elevation, which also appears to have taken place in the latter half of the 20th century, likely the late 1950s/60s (see Fig. 12). This was a major period of alteration for the north wing. It included converting what was formerly the roof space by inserting three steel trusses, a steel fire escape to the north elevation which provided an alternative means of space for this newly formed second floor room (see Fig. 30) and strengthening and flattening what was formerly a lantern roof (see Fig 21). As a result, the present staircase that leads from the first to second floor was installed (Fig. 34), likely when the second floor was turned into a habitable space as there was no extant staircase during the remodelling in 1952.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 31
As a result of the many alterations to this wing, the fenestration on each elevation is random in design and the west façade particularly features modern windows that are not in-keeping with the rest of the house. In fact, the 1933 sale catalogue specifically stated that the mansion’s wings were ‘all with mullioned windows’ (JSS 1933, 9). The differences between the changes in window design can be observed by comparing the photographs of the pre-1875 property and those of later views. Before 1875, the windows are shown to be sash-style lights in openings without vertical mullions or horizontal transoms (see Figs. 22 and 24). The sashes appear to be of a style whereby both the top and bottom sections can be individually opened. This type of window became popular in the later years of the 17th century and continued throughout the 18th and 19th centuries (i.e. casements). After the refurbishment of the property by Elsley and as confirmed by the aerial photograph taken in the late 1940s, the windows were fitted with stone mullion and transoms throughout. Yet, the north wing no longer has many of these 19th-century windows remaining, at least none in its west elevation at all. This facade, as noted above, was entirely refaced and thus re-fenestrated in the later 20th century. If the 1875 plans were also entirely enacted, then in the early 20th century it featured a large vertical three-light stone window with mullions and transom which replaced the same design as what has already been inserted here (the ‘Tudor’ three-light window), i.e. two two-light mullion windows, a one-light opening and one three-light mullion window.
However, this elevation was then entirely refaced in the later 20th century and to a design which did not reference the former design or character of the rest of the property besides the reinstatement of the stepped plinth and kneeler/parapet reusing earlier masonry and continuing the stringcourse/drip/hoodmould at first floor level. In the 1950s/60s, seven horizontal timber-framed casements were installed. These featured three 24-lights and two 16-lights at first floor level, and two 18-lights and one 12-light at ground floor level. They did not include moulded or chamfered architraves but instead concrete cills and stone lintels.
Further obtuse modifications from this time include the likely insertion of a similar window in the east elevation, below the large horizontal 17th-century window (see Fig. 27) – this is again a 12-light casement window with concrete cill and stone lintel thus matching those 1950s/60s additions on the west hence very indicative it was installed at the same time. It also does not match any other window on this eastern façade. In addition, there has been a change in the access to and from this façade. There are currently two doors: one which leads to the basement space and one which leads directly to the staircase to the ground floor area (Fig. 35). Neither of these doors nor the southernmost window in this area is original – the 1875 plans (see Fig. 25) show that this area actually housed a large four-light window, no doubt similar to that which is still extant further up this wall and which is thought to date from the Tudor era (nor did it likely ever feature more than one doorway in this particular façade as there only needed to be one exit from the kitchen). The access doorway was thus sited almost centrally within this elevation, therefore it is argued, more to the north. As
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 32
such, neither of these doorways are original. The doorway further south and the window were installed by the time of the heating installation plans in 1919. These plans also show this northernmost staircase (Fig. 36) but this does not appear to line up with the same opening as that depicted on the 1875 plans. Therefore, it seems it was moved slightly northwards in order to remove the earlier four-light window and accommodate the insertion of the further doorway and window. In conclusion, none of these three elements are original features and instead derive from various 20th- century remodellings.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 33
7. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Each historic asset has a unique cultural significance derived from a wide range of varying interests and perspectives encompassing not just the physical fabric of the site but also its setting, use, history, traditions, local distinctiveness and community value. Successful management or development of a site is based on protecting these various elements, foreseeing any potential conflicts of interest within them, and minimising any potential threats arising in the future.
The following section looks at just what it is that contributes to the unique significance of the development site and its setting based on a preliminary site visit and search of records in the Northallerton Records Office as well as secondary sources such as the Historic Environment Records and the National Monuments Record, including the National Heritage List. This is to help assess any impact on the significance of the site and its setting, as outlined in the NPPF.
This assessment includes an assessment of the nature, extent and level of significance of the heritage asset and how this helps to understand its significance. The nature of the heritage asset is divided into archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic interest (NPPF, Annex 2).
Today, the development site of Kirby Knowle Castle comprises a much-altered residential property. The building has already been assessed as being nationally important and, as such, is designated as a listed building being of special architectural or historic interest. The property carries a relatively low level of listing being Grade II; 90% of listed buildings nationally are listed Grade II and there are about 500,000 listed buildings in England.
Although the property does not fall within the remit of any local Conservation Areas, the significance of Kirby Knowle Castle within its wider context is simple to evocate. Collectively, the historical associations, age, developing plan form, setting and architectural character, together with the internal features, are what contribute to the significance of Kirby Knowle Castle as a heritage asset.
Despite various changes of use and phases of modification, Kirby Knowle Castle still retains a number of key features which define its historic character. The majority of the features form part of the exterior facades, due to consistent development of the interior. Each of its buildings/sections is representative of a different architectural form, style and function, and this needs to be maintained and reflected in any future conservation or conversion work. In addition, there are various specific features, largely the fireplaces, staircases, windows and oak furnishings, which further add to the significance.
The property’s survival as a stone-built neo-Jacobean/Gothic revival dwelling deriving from the 13th to 21st centuries is of aesthetic value and architectural interest, as well as historic value – the survival of its form, fabric, fixtures and fittings of
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 34
relatively complete nature expounds evidential value of the development of the polite residential dwelling from the medieval to Victorian era, and then to the 20th century, not only in relation to the specific building itself, but also in the wider context of the North. The evidential value, however, is rather higher than with other similar buildings as more original fabric remains and, as such, ‘the potential of [the] place to yield evidence about past human activity’ (EH 2008, 28) is significantly retained in the overall layout and the arrangement of the surviving fabric to inform on the wider significance of the building’s domestic past. Where such features do survive, the potential value is moderate given the amount of surviving features; however, many areas have been renovated or refurbished in successive centuries. For example, while the listing description makes reference to the 16/17th-century construction date, it is clear that the most southerly and indeed northerly elevations include fabric dating from the medieval period with some fabric still in situ, whilst heavy renovations also took place in the 19th and 20th century thus removing a large majority of evidential value from the first phase of construction, as did the current building’s primary construction phase of the 19th century. Nonetheless, ‘the authenticity of a place indeed often lies in visible evidence of change as a result of people responding to changing circumstance’ (EH 2008, 29), which is clearly visible at Kirby Knowle Castle, particularly through the varying additions and alterations which reflect the developing nature of the site’s plan form therefore illustrating this authenticity. Fortunately, this lack of evidential value can be minimized, as the English polite house is largely well understood.
The main frontages, in general, are of moderate aesthetic value and architectural interest, and a full description is provided by the Listing. The southern façade, facing the formal gardens, possesses the highest significant contributory factor as it appears largely unaltered since its 19th-century remodelling, with simplicity in its symmetrical scale and is to be entirely unaffected by the proposal. However, it is of moderate historical value as a typical example of the politely-designed Jacobethan- inspired Victorian country house, but the aspects of the medieval fabric of the original castle are a welcome architectural interest in the local context and an area which is dominated largely by Georgian and Victorian farmhouse properties. Similarly, the eastern elevations and western elevation of the north wing also provide historical value because they contain some of the earliest fabric and features including the ‘Tudor’ window, and a developing linear plan form suggestive of stages in the history of the building, thus retaining some aesthetic value.
Where the depth of current understanding limits the potential information gain, and therefore the evidential value, it augments the historical value, and it is this that contributes most to the overall significance of Kirby Knowle Castle. The value of this structure as both a visible and tangible link to the past is considerable illustrating its historical value, particularly its previous inhabitants and owners who have been notable figures associated with both the history and development of northern England in addition to the country as a whole, such as Sir Roger de Lascelles and the
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 35
Constable family throughout successive generations. Moreover, the level of the surviving plan form, fenestration and internal features such as the late medieval/early modern architrave with its cambered four-centred doorhead (perhaps the primary original surviving element) and the two fireplaces currently sited at second floor level, provide a touchstone to understanding the varying processes of development here which can be absent from other similar Listed Buildings.
This historical value also links to the communal value and wider setting of Kirby Knowle Castle as defined by its place within the rural context of Kirby Knowle and rural Hambleton. The site is deliberately prominent in its wider landscape, renowned for the range and quality of its farmsteads and castellated structures which largely date back to the medieval period yet also with 19th century renovations. The long views across the south of the property over the lawns and gardens and the Hambleton Hills, the dramatic landscape setting out at the rear and across the woodland containing the disused access trackway, reservoirs and quarry, as well as its location on the outskirts of Kirby Knowle and Felixkirk, illustrate the importance of the frontages in maintaining the architectural coherence of the building’s wider context. As the nature of the site’s setting and former entrance route have not particularly changed (especially those providing views of the wild topography of the surrounding landscape), this means the experience of the aesthetic of the frontages is similar to that originally intended, although the house is no longer accessed from the original driveway but the new one further west. The siting of the castle in relation to views to and from the Hambleton Hills as well as how the castle was viewed upon entrance, make a substantial contribution to its significance.
Finally, the castle also lies just to very east of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park (established 1952) which acquires its special character from the combination of buildings, mostly historic, the relationship between the beautiful natural and agricultural landscape and the surrounding undulating countryside means the heritage value of the area is reflected by the concentration of designated heritage assets evidencing the chronological development of the area from its prehistoric beginnings, through to the Victorian era and beyond. Kirby Knowle Castle and its inhabitants have played a significant role in this history.
7.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA: NORTH WING The specific architectural details of the north wing are highlighted within the Listing description (reproduced in Appendix A) and above, and it is clear that their survival makes a positive contribution to the overall significance of the building as a whole as they are collectively of high evidential and historical value.
As noted, the north wing comprises at least four construction phases. Although it would appear that it was partly constructed in the 13th century with alterations made in the 16th/17th century, it was then entirely refaced in the 19th century but the western elevation to which the proposed development primarily refers including its entire fenestration, is of a minor value. Although the design is somewhat in-keeping
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 36
with the building’s character (i.e. casement windows are used to match at least one further window on the east elevation and stone features are used), it is clear from the stonework and construction that these are later alterations (though it can be argued they illustrate a small amount of aesthetic value). Thus, although this elevation provides minimal evidential value of past building practices, aesthetic value is certainly present here as a result of the seemingly fortuitous outcome of the way in which the elevation has evolved and been used over time. This aspect of aesthetic value is common to many similar Listed dwellings where the passage of time has added evolutionary value to the surviving fabric and a sense of place to its wider setting. It is also of archaeological interest for the differing phases of construction that are evident. These elements should be refurbished and retained, as necessary, in order to retain this significance. However, alterations were also made to the fenestration in the 1960/70s again diminishing the significance of this elevation – while it can be argued this is also an example of aesthetic value due to change, it is less significant given it was a modern response to the degradation of earlier fabric. Yet, as various phases of building are evident, this makes the west wall of the north wing of some, but limited architectural interest.
As the confined nature of the proposed development site’s boundaries and walls to the north and east have not particularly changed besides the removal of the ground to first floor subterranean level in front of the western elevation of the north wing thus opening up the visual aspect of this elevation (especially those providing views of the wild topography of the surrounding landscape and hills), this means the experience of the aesthetic of the frontage is similar to that originally intended. While there are minimal views in and out of the north wing given the construction of the windows, the long views across the west of the property and its location in the very rural area of the county, illustrate the importance of the frontages in maintaining the architectural coherence of the building’s wider setting and context.
In addition, the somewhat haphazard attempt at continuity in terms of window style (particularly on the north wing, and even more so on the eastern elevation), the use of ashlar and tooled stone, concrete and sandstone, as well as the unintentional elements such as the blocked openings and the linear development of the site along the boundary of the original plot, also provide further evidence of some aesthetic value showing how the place has evolved and been used over time. Yet, the former grandeur of the 19th-century mansion is still evident in the quality and style of the stone mullioned windows of the south, east and north facades. However, as with much of the building, later renovation work has substantially limited this significance. For example, the current architraves/surrounds comprise later piecemeal additions interspersed with surviving early fabric (i.e. the alleged 16th/17th century ‘Tudor’ window) but it is virtually impossible to estimate which sections are in and ex situ, and even which derive from the first phase of the castle’s construction.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 37
7.2 CONCLUSION The building therefore represents an historic aspect of the area that began over 700 years ago and has continued in active use until the present day. The significance of Kirby Knowle Castle is undoubtedly magnified by its character as a fine building within a rural landscape of few surrounding or similar monuments and due to its location within such an open undulating terrain on the hill edge, yet stands in such contrast to this in terms of its symmetrical and formal design. Its exceptionally grand facades and scale (of both medieval and Victorian building) are, in fact, further proof that the castle was indeed meant to be a permanent example of social status, security and power.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 38
8. OUTLINE OF PROPOSED WORKS
The brief for this project is to undertake works employing a conservation-based approach, ensuring alterations and additions are sympathetic to the original design with the retention of original features, where extant, to remain in-keeping with the overall character of the site. Detailed plans prepared by Chris Robinson & Son can be found as Figs 37-41 with accompanying photography in Appendix B. The current outline of proposed development has been considered and evaluated in detail over several stages and now comprises the following:
Table 2 Outline of proposed works to north wing Category Summary Retention The substantial majority of the original structural fabric will be retained and utilised, where possible, as an example of the design of the original historic fabric. This will include preserving the overall form and detailing of all the external frontages after repair, with replacement undertaking only where necessary. Internal layouts will be retained where they can be accommodated within the constraints of the design. Renovation/Conversion External West elevation: Removal of existing side-hung casement windows including later concrete cills and stone lintels. Insertion of new stone architraves to entirety of elevation with architraves of double chamfered mouldings as per mouldings on eastern and other elevations. Replacement windows to be timber with Slimlite double glazing
Basement/Lower Ground Floor: North elevation: Removal and blocking of existing windows in matching stone and courses to surrounding stone East elevation: Removal of northernmost external door and blocking in matching stone and courses to surrounding stone including reinstatement of extant stepped plinth
Ground Floor: North elevation: Reinstate original stone mullion to easternmost window of pair at ground-floor level to match right-hand window but stone lintel, cill and surrounds to remain unchanged. East elevation: Removal of one existing side-hung casement window at ground-floor level including existing concrete cills and stone lintel and insertion of new stone architrave with double chamfered dressed side stones with mouldings to match other openings on this elevation. Replacement window to be timber, with Slimlite double glazing.
Second Floor: North elevation: Removal of existing door and frame extant in centre of northern elevation, partially stone up base to door, and insertion of new stone architrave in its place with mullion and transom to match mouldings of windows below. Replacement windows to be timber with Slimlite double glazing. Removal of existing metal staircase currently installed to this elevation – all remaining holes to be filled with lime mortar. Alterations to existing plumbing – to simplify drain runs to reduce the amount of pipes externally.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 39
Demolition/ New- There will be very minimal demolition here besides the removal of the Build/Replacement stud wall partitions and removal of staircases.
Internal Basement/Lower Ground Floor: Removal of timber stud partition walls to staircase, and staircase to ground floor
Ground Floor Lounge/Kitchen: Removal of timber stud partition walls which currently separate kitchen and lounge area of ground floor to create original open plan area Removal of staircase to first floor to expose full effect of barrel vaulted ceiling. Access The current driveway which curves northwards up from the Whinmoor Hill road will be retained which passes the old Lodge (although no longer visible through the woodland as private property), and it is proposed that primary access will be via this entrance directly and into the main driveway (adjacent to the west side of the house).
Subsequently, the proposed development entails conversion and development work to the existing north wing including the re-fenestration of the entirety of the western elevation, retaining as much original fabric as is possible.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 40
9. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACT The proposed development will involve re-fenestration of the entirety of the west elevation of the north wing, blocking of an access doorway and installation of new fenestration on the eastern elevation, removal of a fire escape stairway, blocking of two windows, installation of new fenestration on the north elevation and the removal of several stud wall partitions and staircases at basement and ground floor levels internally. Considering the outline scheme of works and in the context of the site as an original whole, the changes in the grain and loss of evidence of a small portion of the current north wing, the overall judgment is the application has a predominantly moderate to low impact on the significance of the Listed structure.
Above all, the proposal will ensure that the fabric of the structure is protected, that further deterioration will not occur and will maintain the integrity within the overall site of Kirby Knowle Castle. The retention of the majority of the historic fabric, including the most significant identified features such as the exterior stonework (primarily), the majority of the current fenestration and, most importantly, basic plan form as well as returning this back to its original layout, preserves the integrity of its historic value and the majority of its evidential value with a modern positive addition of a style in-keeping with the property’s overall design. This will include the repair and preservation of existing features and materials that will maintain the integrity and allow continued long-term use of an important architectural asset within the district of Hambleton.
It is expected that the new fenestration design of the western elevation of the wing will have a minimal impact on the existing structure and will, instead, allow the existing features of interest within the building to remain both preserved and exposed, where possible, thus allowing visibility and transparency of the current fabric, in addition to allowing the windows to return it to an in-keeping design characteristic with the rest of the property, whilst also removing the later detrimental cementitious cills and stonework on the western elevation specifically. In some cases, modern design can detract from the significance of historic buildings by causing the original fabric and constructions to appear incongruous or ‘out of place’. Where high-quality sympathetic designs are implemented, however, this can have a positive impact on the aesthetic value of the original fabric, augmenting the historic architecture through contrast, as well as introducing a new design aesthetic which may come to be seen as an important architectural development in the future.
Where any new work is enforced, it is important that the designs attempt to reference the surrounding historic fabric and form, and are specifically designed to be aesthetically complementary. Although there will technically be no additional structures or ‘new-builds’ at Kirby Knowle, the design of the windows will reference a style to the extant historic fabric, though will slightly deviate from the existing design being horizontal rather than vertical openings. While this will certainly remove some evidential and historic value, the current double-hung casements are of no
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 41
architectural interest and thus the planned design will allow the overall architectural significance to increase. The proposed changes to the exterior wing are intended to create a harmonious aesthetic appearance to the current façade(s) and link between the old and the new, whilst being clearly contemporary in design so as not to attempt to emulate the historic fabric but to be ‘in-keeping’ with it (e.g. using sandstone architraves with double mouldings with lime mortar and Slimlite glazing), where possible, therefore attempting to maintain the historic value of the building.
Where any features are to be removed, they are minor elements and are being removed for the long-term benefit/use of the building (i.e. the exterior fire escape stair, eastern doorway, stud walls and later stairs). The majority of the east and north elevation of the wing is to be retained with very minimal loss of original fabric.
Any minor loss of evidential value resulting from the removal of the doorway, north windows, stud walls and staircases will have a negative effect on the significance, though this could be off-set to a certain degree through building recording of the extant structure prior to its alteration, using its inherent evidential value to understand the development of the construction history of the site, which can therefore make a minor positive contribution to the overall historic value of the building as a whole, effectively transforming evidential value into historic value.
One of the key elements of significance identified above relates to the appreciation of the building within the setting of both the Kirby Knowle Castle estate and also the wider self-identification of Kirby Knowle as an historic, picturesque hamlet/village of few dwellings from its very inception. Given the substantial size of the site, the development will have a positive impact on this setting as the installation of the window at second floor level, removal of the staircase and the insertions of the new fenestration throughout, as well as the opening of the internal space through the removal of the staircase and stud partitions at ground and basement level will provide a more open and fluid view to across to the east (Hambleton Hill) and, more importantly, across the woodlands of the estate which flows directly to the west of the site (Figs. 22 and 23). Thus, the proposed works to this wing have the potential not to be particularly harmful to what are largely late 19th/20th-century interventions, but to be improved by the development by allowing greater visual access of the surrounding topography which the current plan form and windows do not allow.
Overall, it is considered that the proposed outline works will, on balance, positively impact on this element of significance. It is considered that the minor alterations proposed to the wing are outweighed by the positive impacts of enhancing the existing historic fabric, preserving the historic value of the Listed building through retention of the major surviving elements, whether internal fixtures or structural fabric, the in-keeping style of the new work, exposing original plan forms and fabric, and the enhancement of views out to the rear of the property. Whilst it is accepted that this proposal would result in the loss of a small aspect of the fabric of the castle, its significance relates more to its original age (the majority of which is 19th century
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 42
with later remodelling and 20th-century interventions) and historical value rather than its appearance or architectural merit.
The harm or loss is therefore deemed to be less than substantial as it is outweighed by the considerable benefit of bringing the wing into substantial use, which would positively impact on the property, setting and context.
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 43
APPENDIX A: LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS
Name: Kirby Knowle Castle, Whinmoor Hill
EH IUD: 1190919
Date Listed: 1 May 1952
KIRBY KNOWLE WHINMOOR HILL SE 48 NE (NORTH SIDE, OFF) 4/29 KIRBY KNOWLE CASTLE (formerly listed as 1.5.52 New Building)
GV II
Marked on O.S. Map as Newbygill. Large house. Mid C17 for James Danby with C16 origins; thoroughly restored 1875, and altered 1875. Ashlar, Welsh slate roofs. 3-Storey, 4-bay main block with 2-storey canted bay added to right in front of a further 2 bays which extend rearwards beyond the main range and has another block to the north (altered C20); in the rear angle so formed is a 5-stage tower; at the left (west) end of the main block is a further, lower, 2-storey 1 x 2-bay addition. Chamfered plinth, double-chamfered mullion-and-transom windows, continuous dripmoulds between floors, high panelled parapet screening roof with semi-circular crenellations and obelisk corner finials. South front; cross windows to main range and to each face of canted bay which has an openwork parapet and conical roof. Stacks at ends of blocks. Tower rises above roof line. Rear: quoined lower has a double- chamfered window to all but 5th stage and lowest stage which has a 2-light C19 window above a blocked segmental-arched opening; double-chamfered window to each floor of right return; parapet is corbelled and has moulded panels divided by baluster-like pilasters with finials and central semicircular crenellations. The 2 bays to right of tower have cross-windows to ground floor and transomed 3-light windows above; the 2nd floor dripmould has decorative head-stops. The added bay on right has a cross-window to ground floor and round window in lozenge above. Left return: the addition has a C19 single-storey porch with segment-headed doorway and corniced parapet; cross windows; 2 heart-shaped openings at eaves level and 2 crow-stepped gables. Right return: transomed windows of 2, 3, and 4 lights; a chamfered doorway to centre of left-hand block. Interior not inspected, but VCH notes an oak stair in the tower (VCH, p.45). A castle is said to have been built on this site in the late C13 by Roger Lascelles, but it burnt down c1568 while owned by Sir John Constable. Before he could finish the repair work Constable died and it was not until the 1650s that reconstruction began again, for James Danby. Danby repaired the old parts, built the south front and west wing and changed the name to New Building. By the late C17 the house had passed to the Rokeby family. (W. Grainge, pp. 238-247; VCH, P.45) W. Grainge, The Vale of Mowbray: a historical and topographical account of Thirsk and its Neighbourhood (1859). Victoria County History, North Yorkshire, Vol II.
Listing NGR: SE4590587467
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 44
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
Figure 5 1838 tithe map by C. Greenwood
Figure 6 1854 (6 inch) 1st edition OS map
Figure 7 1893 (1:2,500) OS map
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 45
Figure 8 1912 (1:2,500) OS map
Figure 9 1952 (1:2,500) OS map
Figure 10 1979 (1:2,500) OS map
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 46
Figure 11 West elevation of Kirby Knowle Castle
Figure 12 North wing
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 47
Figure 13 South elevation
Figure 14 Looking out over south lawn
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 48
Figure 15 Subterraneous passageway in northwestern most corner of cellar
Figure 16 Remains of earlier construction phases including supposed allow loops in wall separating cellar
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 49
Figure 17 Late medieval/early modern lintel and architrave of doorway allowing access to north and south wings
Figure 18 Sowing second floor fireplaces sited in roof space of walls
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 50
Figure 19 Reconstruction drawing of second floor fireplace, C.R. Greenwood, 2004
Figure 20 Remaining tower flanking north and west wings
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 51
Figure 21 Late 19th century (c.1875) ‘Alterations and Additions to New Building for Charles Elsley Esquire’ by Mr Fowler Jones, Architect of west elevation showing original western entrance
Figure 22 Early/mid 19th century photograph showing original west wing
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 52
Figure 23 Carved lintel displaying Constable crest now in north garden wall
Figure 24 Late 19th century photograph showing ruined state of north wing
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 53
Figure 25 Basement Plan, Late 19th century (c.1875) ‘Alterations and Additions to New Building for Charles Elsley Esquire’ by Mr Fowler Jones, Architect
Figure 26 First Floor, Plan Late 19th century (c.1875) ‘Alterations and Additions to New Building for Charles Elsley Esquire’ by Mr Fowler Jones, Architect
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 54
Figure 27 Eastern elevation showing original ‘Tudor’ window
Figure 28 North room of ground floor of north wing showing vaulted ceiling formed from brick-arch method supported on transverse cast-iron beams
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 55
Figure 29 Eastern elevation showing stepped plinth and buttress from earlier phases of construction
Figure 30 North elevation of north wing
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 56
Figure 31 First Floor Plan, Heating Installations to New Building, Thirsk’, W. G. Richardson & Co, dated 8th April 1919
Figure 32 Basement Plan, Heating Installations to New Building, Thirsk’, W. G. Richardson & Co, dated 8th April 1919
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 57
Figure 33 Proposal Alterations to basement of Kirby Knowle Castle, May 1952
Figure 34 Staircase from first to second floor
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 58
Figure 35 East elevation of north wing showing current access doors to ground and basement levels
Figure 36 Staircase from basement of north wing to ground floor looking down from ground floor level to show stud partitioning
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 59
Figure 37 Existing ground floor plan prepared by Chris Robinson & Son
Figure 38 Existing elevations prepared by Chris Robinson & Son
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 60
Figure 39 Proposed window details and sections prepared by Chris Robinson & Son
Figure 40 Proposed elevations prepared by Chris Robinson & Son
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 61
Figure 41 Proposed plans prepared by Chris Robinson & Son
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 62
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
10.1 Sources Bulmer, T. 1890. History & Directory of North Yorkshire (two volumes).
Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2010. Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) – Planning for the Historic Environment. London, The Stationery Office.
Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. London, The Stationery Office.
Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2014. National Planning Practice Guide. London, The Stationery Office.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). 2010. Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings. London, The Stationery Office.
Grainge, W. 1859. The Vale of Mowbray: A Historical and Topographical Account of Thirsk and its Neighbourhood.
Greenwood, C. R. 2004. A Historical and Archaeological Study of Kirby Knowle Castle (SNY 8832).
Hambleton District Council. 2007. Core Strategy: Local Development Framework - Development Plan Document.
Hambleton District Council. 2008. Development Policies DPD: Local Development Framework - Development Plan Document.
Historic England. 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. London, English Heritage.
Historic England. 2015. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. London, English Heritage. Hall, L. 2005. Period House Fixtures and Fittings 1300-1900.
(HET) Historic Environment Team, North Yorkshire County Council. 2010. The North Yorkshire and Lower Tees Valley Historic Landscape Characterisation.
(JSS) Jackson Stopps and Staff. 1933. The Magnificently Situated and Historical ‘Newbuilding Estate’ (formerly Kirby Knowle Castle) Near Thirsk, For Sale By Auction at The Royal Station Hotel, York Monday 12th June 1933.
(NAA) Northern Archaeological Associates. 2003. Water Pipeline Lining, Kirby Knowle, North Yorkshire, Kirby Knowle Medieval Settlement, Scheduled Monument No. 32701, Archaeological Watching Brief, Methods Statement (SNY 11816).
Kirby Knowle Castle, Heritage Statement, August 2016 63
(NYCRO) North Yorkshire County Record Office: Various Documents (Refs: ZS and ZCS).
Page, W. 1914. A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1. Originally published by Victoria County History, London.
White, W. 1840. History, Gazetteer, and Directory of the East and North Ridings of Yorkshire.
Yorke, T. 2009. Tudor Houses Explained. Berkshire: Countryside Books.
10.2 Websites (DB) Open Domesday, Domesday Book entry: Kirby Knowle:
http://opendomesday.org/place/SE4687/kirby-knowle/
(YP) Yorkshire Post (2015), Restored Yorkshire castle with Mary Queen of Scots connection
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/lifestyle/homes/restored-yorkshire-castle-with-mary- queen-of-scots-connection-1-7603777
(VBTT) University of Portsmouth, History of Kirby Knowle, in Hambleton and North Riding | A Vision of Britain through Time.
URL: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/13202