Heritage Statement, Design & Access Statement and Impact Assessment

in support of an application for ‘changes to the vehicular access’

at SYCAMORE HOUSE, KIRKTHORPE LANE, HEATH, , WF1 5SL

For NOEL STACKHOUSE

OCTOBER 2020

National Grid Reference: SE 35555 19993

Britt Harwood PG Dip (Arch) PG Dip (Bldg Cons) RIBA SCA AABC

inc-architecture ltd, the barn, mock hall farm, 63 leeds road, mirfield, west yorkshire wf14 0da m. 07831 275394; w. inc-architecture.com; e. [email protected] Registered in England company no. 6039806 A Royal Institute of British Architects Chartered Practice LIST OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of the Heritage Statement 1.2 Methodology 1.3 Background Information 1.3.1 The Character of the Area 1.3.2 The Historic Development of Heath 1.3.3 Heath during the 19th and 20th centuries 1.3.4 Planning History

2.0 HERITAGE STATEMENT & IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2.1 The Listing Description 2.2 Statement of Significance 2.3 Proposal 2.4 Impact Assessment

3.0 LIST OF QUOTATIONS

4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fig 01. (Cover photo) Front elevation of Sycamore House (Grade II) in 2017 from the north- west 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE HERITAGE STATEMENT

1.1.1 Sycamore House lies within a terrace of houses situated on the southern side of Heath Common in the West Yorkshire village of Heath. The property was bought by the current owner Mr Noel Stackhouse in February 2017. Following an initial phase of urgent repairs to the roof (permission for which was granted in April 2018), Planning and Listed Building consent were awarded in November 2018 for the building’s repair and minor alteration and the fabric repairs have now been complete in a sensitive manner using methods and materials contemporary with the buildings original construction.

1.1.2 Historically the building was accessed via a horseshoe shaped carriageway to the front of the property over the common. At some point towards the end of the 20th century this access fell out of use and the front garden was fully enclosed by fences and hedges. Since then the only vehicular access to the property has been into the rear yard with right of way over a narrow drive in the ownership of the neighbouring property, Little Sycamore. The rear yard is narrow (intended only for horses which were stabled in the rear range) and not of sufficient width for a vehicle to turn into or park without obstructing the doors opening out onto the yard, so for some time the owners of Sycamore House and their visitors have been forced to park on other parts of the common.

1.1.3 The purpose of this Heritage Statement is to compile Historic Evidence of the original horseshoe carriage drive and its link across the Heath and assess their significance and historic development in support of an application to reinstate this historic landscape feature and regain the owners right of access over the common.

1.1.4 A Heritage Statement for Sycamore House was prepared and submitted with the Planning & Listed Building applications in 2018 and whilst this report does not intend to repeat the detail of that report, the background information relating to the historic development of Heath has been included in a condensed form in this report with additional historic maps and photographs not previously included to help establish the origins and longevity of the horseshoe-shaped carriage drive.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

1.2.1 This Heritage Statement has been prepared by conservation accredited architect Britt Harwood of inc. architecture ltd in line with Historic England 2019 Statement of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets Historic England Advice Note 12. The Statement is illustrated by her photographs taken in October 2020 and other archive material (the sources of which are identified).

1.2.2 In developing the proposal, due reference has been made to the following guidance: - Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (2014) - Historic England’s Advice Note 2: Making Changes to Heritage Assets The Historic Development of the site is based on an assessment of relevant material from Wakefield Local Studies Library and the West Yorkshire Archives in Wakefield and Leeds.

1.2.3 The Heritage Statement is divided into two sections and is supported by two appendices. Section One provides the Background Information and includes: - A description of the character of the area and Heath’s location in relation to its neighbouring principal towns and cities. - A summary of the historic development of Heath. - The development of Heath during the 19th and 20th centuries. - The Planning history of Sycamore House.

1.2.4 Section Two contains the Historic Record and Impact Assessment and includes: - The listing description of The Terrace (which includes Little Sycamore, Sycamore House and Sycamore Cottage). - A Statement of Significance. - An assessment of the impact the reinstatement of the historic carriageway would have on the significance of the listed building and the wider Conservation Area.

Fig 02. The current OS map showing the location of Heath (identified by the red circle) in relation to Wakefield. Crown copyright. 1.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.3.1 THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA

1.3.1.1 Heath village lies approximately 2 miles east of Wakefield and 8 miles west of Pontefract in the parish of Warmfield and the West Riding of Yorkshire (Fig 02). The village comprises around fifty houses overlooking Heath Common and centred on Heath Hall, constructed c.1709 by the Smyth family (Fig 03).

Fig 03. Heath Hall from the north-west

1.3.1.2 Heath Old Hall (Fig. 04) (demolished in the 1960’s) originally stood on the western side of the settlement and was thought to date from 1595, “It comprised two storeys and a

Fig 04. Archive photograph of Old Heath Hall (now demolished) [Source: www.lostheritage.org.uk ] symmetrical front with central porch and flanking turret bays in a Palladian villa style. Alterations were carried out in C18. Ashlar front with hammer-dressed stone to rear and Welsh slate and lead roof….. Ingham includes this Elizabethan house in his list of fortified houses. Had decorative battlements but otherwise not fortified although the turrets do reflect the continuity of castle architectural forms.” (1)

1.3.1.3 There are 43 listing entries within the Heath Conservation Area (Fig. 05) on The National Heritage List for England (Fig. 06). These include at least 33 individual listed buildings (some listing entries are for rows of houses/cottages or groups of farm buildings), the remainder of entries being made up of landscape features such as gate posts and other enclosures.

Fig 05. Heath Conservation Area Map, Wakefield Council copyright. [http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/planning/planning- developmentmanagement/conservation-area-maps.pdf]. Little Sycamore, Sycamore House and Sycamore Cottage identified in red.

1.3.1.4 There are five Grade I, two Grade II* and six Grade II listing entries for the buildings and landscape features at and in the vicinity of Heath Hall alone, which provides an indication of the status and significance of the estate and the village as a whole in its national context.

1.3.1.5 The Common comprises around 131 acres of open land which remarkably survived enclosure and in the late 19th century gained registered common status. It provides a relatively unspoilt and powerful setting to the village.

1.3.1.6 “Heath lies within the parish of Warmfield, whose chief constituents are, Warmfield Green itself to the east, Kirkthorpe to the north and Heath occupying the north-western sector. The River Calder forms the most obvious natural boundary, supplemented in the nineteenth century by a triangle of railway lines, whilst the busy traffic route between Wakefield and Doncaster, now to the outsider at least, appears to divide Horse Race End from the remainder of the village. Heath itself occupies the higher ground in the parish, and has splendid views overlooking the Calder valley, a natural asset that was recognised by the builder of Old Heath Hall in the sixteenth century. This prospect subsequently tempted other wealthy merchants to build their grand houses on the choicest sites round the Common, though it should be emphasised that before the age of the enclosure movement, commons as such were a common place! As power was accumulated in the hands of one family, the Smyths, there was the temptation to achieve total enclosure of the village, a scheme successfully resisted in the 1840s. This first sign of decline of one family’s power was further emphasised by the failure of their scheme of 1894 to link Wakefield and Heath directly, by roads lined with conventional Victorian housing. Because these schemes proved abortive Heath today remains an ‘unimproved’ village.” (2)

Fig 06. Extract map from the National Heritage List for England website identifying (with blue triangles) the location of the listed buildings and landscape features within the Heath Conservation Area (source: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/map-search )

1.3.1.7 The distinctive value of Heath was recognised as early as 1851 by Joseph Hunter, who remarked in his book: Antiquarian Notices of Lupset, The Heath, and Ackton, “Around the Heath various mansions have been built, the residences of families of distinction; and along with them houses of humbler pretentions have risen, and cottages also. But the mansions are in so much higher a ratio to the dwellings of an inferior class that the scene is almost unique, and it is certainly altogether one of the most pleasing which English rural scenery presents.” (3).

Fig 07. Extract of the first OS map of Heath surveyed 1849, published 1854 showing the layout and arrangement of the settlement which has little altered since that time and the enclosing boundaries of river, and railway.

1.3.1.8 Mr John Rennie, an architect from Cape Town, South Africa, who, studying for a diploma in conservation studies at York University in 1974, “was sufficiently struck by Heath’s unusual character to base his thesis on it” (4). Mr H Milne, agent for the Heath Estate in 1975, also published research about Heath and its special and unspoilt nature.

1.3.2 THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF HEATH

(NB: Please refer to Fig’s 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10 & 11 in the attached more expansive Heritage Statement which accompanied the Planning & Listed Building consent applications for illustrative historic maps to which this extract from Ivan & Elizabeth Hall’s 1975 publication, Heath: An Architectural Description, and the subsequent paragraphs on the canal and railway networks refer).

1.3.2.1 “The three residential nuclei of the parish developed separately, though all were dependant on the open fields such as Kirk Field, Middlefield, Pen Hill Field, Mill Field and, separated by the road, Horse Race End Field. Each of these fields comprised a series of closes, some given the names of prominent families in the area, others describing the nature of the soil. To the south for example, there were Ward Marsh, Marsh Close, and Wetlands, all part of Pen Hill Field. The Mill Field lay close to the south of Mill Hill, much as Kirk Field was closest to the medieval church.

The lay-out of the fields is recorded in an excellent series of estate surveys prepared for the Smyth family from the earlier eighteenth century onward. They show among other things, the intrusion of the great houses, especially Heath Hall and its park and gardens, which were already well developed when William Dickenson drew out his plan dated 1745. The old order still survived when George Charlesworth mapped the parish of Warmfield in 1824, for he shows numerous fields still laid out in strips. On the other hand the park of Heath Hall had more or less assumed its present aspect, for the gardens shown by Dickenson had been much modified to make way for a landscape park with the clumps and belts in the style of ‘Capability’ Brown.

An inscription on the Charlesworth map reminds the users how much the Smyths had continued to extend their estate. With minor exceptions – the school of 1873 and two post- war bungalows – the 1824 map marks the stabilisation of the village. The only later field name is Brick Kiln Field (which then lay between Mill Field and Middle Field), a reminder of the fact that many of the eighteenth-century stone-faced walls at Heath are lined with brick. In Dickenson’s day Brick Kiln Field was known as Castle Furlong but neither Dickenson nor Charlesworth hint at the existence of a large quarry in the middle of Heath Common – an interesting omission.” (5)

1.3.2.2 “Like most ancient villages Heath grew haphazardly. Visually it comprises three loosely knit yet distinct areas, the northern one approximately a square, bounded by the park of Old Heath Hall, Heath House, the Terrace, and Cobbler’s Hall; the middle zone bounded by the Dower House, the island group of buildings clustered around the King’s Arms, Beech Lawn and the Manor House; and finally a widely scattered group stretching south from Rose Cottage to Heath Farm and Horse Race End. Tucked away behind a plantation cluster the Old Hall and its attendant buildings, which are grouped around a grassy courtyard and known as Old Hall Cottages. The isolation of the Old Hall itself from the rest of the Common was intensified by tree planting and it may be because of this that its architectural importance as an Elizabethan house escaped general notice.

The other major houses were architecturally better integrated within the village and have consequently attracted champions to their defence. Such factors have effectively created a living architectural museum at Heath, and members of the public can approach near enough to any of the houses to appreciate their varying qualities, while from time to time interiors of houses such as Heath Hall can be seen as well.

Of the three main components of the parish of Warmfield it is easy to understand why Heath developed as it did, for neither Warmfield nor Kirkthorpe had that much sought-after combination of assets: aspect, prospect and amplitude. Moreover, there is little doubt that the principal inhabitants of Heath sought both to see and be seen, and to indulge their sense of the picturesque. That Heath became genteel was perhaps inevitable, leaving many of the craftsmen, the colliers, labourers and farmers to live in Kirkthorpe, Warmfield and Goose Green, while the cottages of Heath were often occupied by the numerous servants of the nearby mansions. Anxious parents could in the latter half of the eighteenth century accommodate their children at the Heath Academy in Cobbler’s Hall or (between 1790 and 1821) at the Convent that tenanted the Old Hall. In short to this day Heath has looked like an Estate Village (which Kirkthorpe and Warmfield do not).

…..Until at least the seventeenth century the minor architecture of the area was timber- framed – that is buildings had an oak frame infilled with wattle and daub, or were of the much cheaper construction of mud and stud, typically a single storey of a light wooden framework coated on both sides with a clayey mixture usually bound together with straw. The roofs were thatched. Before the rebuilding of the 1780s, Kirkthorpe Rectory was largely built of mud and stud and the building was repeatedly described as ‘comfortable and commodious’. Except perhaps in White Cottage, no examples of either form of construction survive at Heath (though nearby Sharlston Hall retains much of its timber frame beneath and outer casing of stone or stucco). However, the gradual replacement of the oak frame by stone walling gave carpenters the opportunity to re-use the timbers, as is betrayed by the presence of mortices and peg holes (visible in a number of the village houses). Such re-use can today be identified in the arched entrance to the yard at Heath Farm or beneath the stone slabbed roof of the cart sheds of Heath Home Farm. These newly built stone cottages reflect something of the refinement required for the building of the great houses, whose expensive materials were painstakingly finished.” (6)

1.3.2.3 “Unlike most English villages it is not dominated by its church and steeple, nor by any one of its mansions, all of which can or could be readily inspected by the public, as with the exception of the Old Hall they are surprisingly close to the edges of the ‘village green’ in contrast to most great houses in proximity to a village, which are carefully screened from public gaze. There are other contrasts. At the southern end of the Common there are few trees and acres of unkempt grass, while at the northern end there is a variety of mature trees and shrubs, set off by areas of grass, carefully tended by the residents. By accident or design there is also a series of picturesque vignettes of houses or cottages, seen or half seen through groups of trees in exactly the same way as the late Georgian painters of china painted their rustic scenes upon vases and plates. There is also a fascinating interplay between rival owners and between them and rival architects, for inevitably all were competitors for public attention. In terms of mere assertiveness Heath House wins the prize for it plays a major/minor part in so many views of the Common, on the other hand its near neighbour, Heath Hall, had a less favourable site, and John Carr had the unenviable task not only of competing with James Paine’s Heath House, but also of masking as best he could, the difficulties with which he was faced. He thus adopted an essentially picturesque approach knowing that for the most part the visitor would see the house in perspective rather than elevation.” (7)

1.3.2.4 “For 200 years or more Heath has had the intriguing combination of very big and very small houses, and while this may not have been so uncommon once, to find a similar balance today is a rarity. It must be expected that such a mix is unlikely to recur, for none can now afford to build on the scale of the heath mansions….(importance of views of Heath Hall from the surrounding smaller houses and equally important to retain views from the principal houses of the village and common). In this context the present bounds of the Conservation Area, which are drawn virtually up to the back doors of the houses at the northern end of the Common, could give the less scrupulous so-called ‘developer’ countless opportunities to wreak havoc of the kind so familiar elsewhere.” (8)

1.3.2.5 “In this relatively small area of fewer than 30 cottages and with a population of about 120, there are still today, in close proximity, five major houses – Heath Hall, the Dower House, Heath House, the Manor House and Beech Lawn….” (9).

1.3.2.6 Wakefield, 2 miles due west of Heath had, since medieval times, been an inland port on the river Calder and centre for the woollen and tanning trades. After the passing of an Act of Parliament in 1699 the Aire and Calder Navigation linked the town to the North Sea and Wakefield became an important market for wool and grain (10), “Great quantities of barley were grown in the neighbourhood and in 1885 more malt was made in Wakefield "than in any district of equal extent in the kingdom" (11).

1.3.2.7 “The Canal was approved by Act of Parliament in 1793. The section between Barnsley and the Aire and Calder Navigation near Wakefield opened in 1799” and was later bought by the Aire and Calder Navigation Company. (12).

1.3.2.8 “The railways arrived in Wakefield in 1840 when Kirkgate Station was built on the Manchester to Leeds line” (13). The Calder, the Barnsley Canal and two branches of the railway (marked London, Midland and Scottish Railway on the late 19th century hand drawn map of the Smyth estate at Heath) enclose the village and to some extent have protected the settlement from encroaching development. It is easy to understand why Heath became such a popular destination for the town’s wealthy merchants and industrialists.

1.3.3 HEATH DURING THE 19TH & 20TH CENTURIES

1.3.3.1 The earliest map of Heath in the archive is a map drawn by Charlesworth in 1824 of the Smyth estate (Fig’s 08 & 09 of the more expansive Heritage Statement).

1.3.3.2 The first OS map of Heath was surveyed in 1849 and published in 1854 (Fig. 07). The only adopted road serving Heath apparent on the map is Kirkthorpe Lane which terminated at the northern edge of the common at the gateway to Heath Hall farm and stables. All other properties in Heath at that time are accessed via unmade tracks across the common, indicated on the map by dashed lines.

1.3.3.3 A closer inspection of the same map (Fig. 08) shows the range containing Sycamore House, Little Sycamore and Sycamore Cottage (directly above the notation for Cobblers Hall). The garden boundary is indicated and within it a tree (identifying the enclosure as a garden) and some faint dotted lines indicating paths or possibly a carriage driveway but the precise configuration is not entirely clear.

Fig 08. Extract from the first OS map of Heath (published 1854) showing the range comprising Sycamore House, Little Sycamore and Sycamore Cottage directly above the notation for Cobblers Hall.

1.3.3.4 However, on the subsequent OS map surveyed 1890, published 1893 (Fig. 09) the layout of a horseshoe carriage drive extending across the common from the north-western corner of the garden to meet Kirkthorpe Lane is clearly discernible and this layout continues to be clearly indicated on subsequent maps published in 1907 (Fig. 10), 1913 (Fig. 11), 1938 (Fig. 12).

1.3.3.5 All these historic OS maps appear to indicate that although all routes across the common were unadopted tracks, the primary route, given its greater width, was an extension of the adopted part of Kirkthorpe Lane which runs alongside Sycamore Terrace and that all properties in the settlement were, throughout that time, accessed via a network of tracks and footpaths off this primary route over the common land.

Fig 09. Extract from the subsequent OS map surveyed 1890, published 1893 showing Sycamore House and Little Sycamore in red (the remaining buildings in Heath are coloured pink) and the horseshoe shaped carriage driveway within the garden and its link across the common onto Kirkthorpe Lane (all indicated with dashed lines).

Fig 10. Extract from OS map revised 1904, published 1907 with Sycamore House and Little Sycamore identified in red. Though the horseshoe shaped carriage drive within the garden enclosure is not shown in this revision it is present on previous and subsequent maps.

Fig 11. Extract from OS map revised 1913, published 1914 with Sycamore House and Little Sycamore identified in red.

Fig 12. Extract from OS map revised 1930, published 1938 with Sycamore House and Little Sycamore identified in red. 1.3.3.6 More recently during the second half of the 20th century some of the tracks were widened and hard surfaced, though the current OS map continues to identify them with dashed lines, and some of the footpaths have ceased to be identified.

Fig 13. Extract of the current OS map of Heath. Crown copyright.

1.3.3.7 Two early 20th century photographs of Sycamore House in the archive (Fig’s 14 & 15) show the horseshoe shaped carriage driveway to the front of the house, the link over the common onto Kirkthorpe Lane and the hedges, fences and gate which define the boundary.

Fig. 14. A photograph of Sycamore House taken in 1902 showing the horseshoe shaped carriage driveway to the front garden, overlooking the common.

Fig. 15. Early 20th century photograph of Sycamore House showing the horseshoe shaped carriage driveway and its link over the common onto Kirkthorpe Lane.

1.3.4 PLANNING POLICY OF RELEVANCE TO THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

1.3.4.1 Sycamore House, Heath and the adjoining houses Little Sycamore and Sycamore Cottage are listed as a row under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for their special architectural or historic interest at Grade II (refer to 2.1 for the full listing description). The buildings were added to the list in November 1966 and their list entry number is 1300730. The Heath Conservation Area was designated in March 1972 (refer to Fig. 05) and seeks to protect 63 individual historic buildings, 33 of which are listed, and at least 10 listed landscape features or historic boundaries.

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

1.3.4.3 For listed building consent applications Section 16(2) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that ‘In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’. For planning applications Section 66(1) of the same 1990 Act states that ‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’.

1.3.4.4 With regards to conservation areas, these are defined as ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ (section 69 (1a)). Section 72(1) of the Act requires that: ‘In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any powers under the provision mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’.

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

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

1.3.4.7 Paragraph 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

1.3.4.8 The Wakefield Council Local Development Framework (LDF) comprises the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted on 15 April 2009), Development Policies, Strategies and Plans. Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.3.4.9 Core Strategy, Policy CS10: Design, Safety and Environmental Quality sets out the aims of new development in the district which include, ‘c.) protect and enhance the district’s historic assets particularly Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Conservation Areas, historic buildings, archaeological remains and historic landscapes. d.) protect and enhance the district’s biological and geological diversity and green infrastructure including the need to increase tree cover across the district, safeguard designated sites of international, national, regional and local importance, ancient woodland and other ecological assets, including priority habitats and species.’

1.3.4.10 This relates to National planning policy on the natural environment set out in: - Planning Policy Statement 9 and its accompanying guide which seeks to ensure that biological and geological diversity are conserved and enhanced as part of sustainable development. - Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 which provides guidance on the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and the historic environment. - Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 which sets out national planning policy on archaeological remains.

1.3.4.11 Sections 9.14 and 9.15 of Core Strategy, Policy CS10 outline the Council’s commitment to protection and enhancement of historic and natural assets in the district which include: - Sites of Special Scientific Interest; - Local Nature Reserves, Ancient Woodland, protected species, - The open countryside and its landscape character; - Woodland, trees and hedgerows; - Lakes, rivers and watercourses; - Sites of recreational and amenity value; - Archaeological sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and sites identified in the Historic Environment Record; - Species-rich grasslands, wetlands and other priority habitats and species; - Buildings and areas of historic and architectural interest – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas; - Historic parks and gardens, historic landscapes and historic battlefields; - The character and identity of individual settlements; - Footpaths, cycle routes and public rights of way

1.3.4.12 Core Strategy, Policy CS12 outlines the Council’s aim to protect the Greenbelt as defined by the Local Development Framework Proposals Maps.

1.3.4.13 Local Development Framework, Policy D6: Landscape Character, sets out the Council’s aims to protect, maintain and enhance the character of the district's landscape, its biodiversity, and where appropriate, the recreational quality of the area.

1.3.4.14 Local Development Framework, Policy D18: Development Affecting Historic Locations, states, ‘Development within or likely to affect the district’s Historic Parks & Gardens, Historic Landscapes, Conservation Areas and Sites of Historic Battles will only be permitted where there is no adverse impact on: a. open spaces, views, landmarks and landscape that contribute to their character, appearance or setting; b. the character of any buildings or structures having regard to local scale, proportion, details and materials; c. the preservation of features of architectural, archaeological and historic interest. The Council will require that plans for development clearly illustrate the impact of the proposal on any features of architectural, archaeological and historic interest of the area. Such applications must also be supported with full details of the proposal.’

1.3.4.15 The Policy Justification 6.99 relating to Conservation Areas goes on to state, ‘The preservation or enhancement of the special character or appearance of Conservation Areas and their settings will be secured by: - a programme of Conservation Area Appraisals and management schemes to manage change; - a presumption in favour of the preservation of buildings and structures, both listed and unlisted, identified as making a positive contribution to the special character or appearance of that Conservation Area; - ensuring that development within or which would affect the setting of a Conservation Area will not have an adverse impact on its special character or appearance; - safeguarding spaces, street patterns, views, vistas, uses and trees which contribute to the special character or appearance of that Conservation Area.’

1.3.4.16 The Policy Justification 6.105 relating to Listed Buildings further states, ‘The preservation of buildings and structures of special architectural or historic interest and their settings will be secured by: - a presumption in favour of the preservation of Listed Buildings and structures; - ensuring that proposed alterations, extensions or changes of use to Listed Buildings, or development within their vicinity, will not have an adverse impact on the special architectural or historic interest of such buildings and their settings; - taking measures to ensure that neglected Listed Buildings are appropriately repaired and re-used.’

1.3.5 PLANNING HISTORY

1.3.5.1 Planning & Listed Building applications relating to the property:

- Ref: 16/01835/TCA: T1 Sycamore with basal decay remove to ground level, Sycamore House, Heath, Wakefield WF1 5SL; Decision date 16th August 2016. - Ref: 18/02687/FUL: Repair and minor alteration of a grade II listed dwelling, Sycamore House, Heath, Wakefield WF1 5SL; Decision date 11th April 2019. - Ref: 18/02688/LBC: Repair and minor alteration of a grade II listed dwelling, Sycamore House, Heath, Wakefield WF1 5SL; Decision date 11th April 2019. - Ref: 18/02687/FUL: Discharge of Condition 3 (photographic recording), 4 (materials), 5 (window & door schedule) from approved application 18/02687/FUL; Sycamore House, Heath, Wakefield WF1 5SL; Decision date 29th August 2019.

1.3.4.2 Applications 18/02687/FUL & 18/02688/LBC originally included ‘changes to vehicular access’ but this element was excluded from the application at the request of Ben Mitchell, Planning Officer, Wakefield Council following an objection from the Countryside Officer, Wakefield Council that the proposed access ‘encroached across common land currently leased to the local authority’ and that, therefore, the planning application of this element would attract a formal objection and the applications refused. As a result, the vehicular access was removed from the applications, however, the following consultation responses to the initial submission were issued in support of the reinstatement of the historic vehicular access.

1.3.4.3 Consultation response for 18/02687/FUL & 18/02688/LBC from Conservation Officer, Wakefield Council dated 30th January 2019: “Overall Conservation is supportive of this application. The application submission is detailed and generally the proposals are designed to respect or enhance the architectural and historic significance of the heritage asset. Certain aspects of the proposals also seek to better reveal the significance of the building by removing inappropriate or incongruous additions/fabric……Conservation considers the external changes to the hard landscaping to the frontage of the dwelling including the re- opening of a driveway to be acceptable in heritage terms as the evidence provided supports the assertion that a driveway to the front of the house previously existed. As such the harm to the significance of the asset is negligible. Notwithstanding this, it is unclear what impact such proposals will have on any mature trees within the curtilage of the building. Given the prominence of the dwelling within the Conservation area and the positive contribution made by the existing tree cover Conservation defers on this aspect to the Councils Arboricultural officer for their assessment on the potential loss or harm to any trees which may subsequently impact upon the visual amenity of the Conservation area and any views of it.”

1.3.4.4 Consultation response for 18/02687/FUL & 18/02688/LBC from Yorkshire Gardens Trust dated 7th January 2019, “Thankyou for consulting the Gardens Trust. The Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee regarding proposed development affecting a site on the Register. The Yorkshire Gardens Trust (YGT) is a member organization of the Gardens Trust (GT) and works in partnership with it in respect of the protection and conservation of registered sites, and is authorised by the GT to respond on GT’s behalf in respect of such consultations. Sycamore House is a grade II listed building and situated in the historic village of Heath; a conservation area. The gardens and landscape are not on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. We have no objection to the reinstatement of a horseshoe-shaped drive in front of the house as shown on an early 20th century OS map.” This letter signed by Val Hepworth (chair) was also copied to Neil Redfern, Historic England and Margie Hoffnung, the Gardens Trust.

1.3.4.5 Article 4 Direction: Sycamore House has been included on a list of 53 properties within Heath Conservation Area (designated 14th March 1972) by Wakefield Council as being affected by Article 4 Directions. Article 4 Directions redact 'Permitted Development Rights' for alterations to domestic properties in sensitive areas where changes could be particularly damaging to the character and appearance of an area, usually Conservation Areas. Article 4 direction controls the following development: - The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house. Up to 50 cubic metres or one-tenth the cubic content of the original house. Extensions above this limit are already covered by normal planning controls. All garages, stable looseboxes and coach-houses are also covered by Article controls, although small outbuildings such as greenhouses and garden huts are not included. - The erection or construction of any gates, fences, walls or any other means of enclosure, and their maintenance, improvement or any other alteration. This does not include hedges. NB: Walls and fences above 1m where next to a highway and above 2m anywhere else are already covered by normal planning controls.

2.0 HERITAGE STATEMENT

2.1 LISTING DESCRIPTION FOR SYCAMORE HOUSE

The Grade II listing entry for Sycamore House includes the two adjoining dwellings Little Sycamore and Sycamore Cottage. The listing entry of 1966 reads, “GV II, 3 attached dwellings, converted mid C19 to one dwelling, now returned to 3 separate dwellings. Late C17 cottage with early C18 addition at rear to left of house dated 1717 with another slightly later cottage added to right with coach-house to rear. Hammer-dressed stone, orange/red brick, stone slate roof. 2 storeys. Little Sycamore, on left: 2-cell central-entry plan with rear wing. Quoins. Doorway with monolithic lintel flanked on each floor by double-chamfered mullioned windows of 2 wide lights, formerly of 4 lights. Coped gable with kneelers to left, brick stack to rear pitch. Rising higher, but stone coursed through. Sycamore House, in centre: c1717. 2-cell central-entry plan. Quoins to right, at junction with Little Sycamore to left, is doorway (blocked) with tie-stone jambs with basket arched lintel and chamfered surround. Central doorway with overlight has architrave, frieze and cornice in wooden trellised porch. Above, original 2-light chamfered mullioned window with slightly raised surrounds. Flanking bays have full-height early C20 projecting bay with a 4-light mullioned window to each floor. Coped gables with kneelers. 2 early-C20 brick stack. To right, Sycamore Cottage: 2-cell central-entry plan with rear 1 1/2 storey outshut. Quoins to right only. Doorway has tie-stone jambs, flat arch and chamfered surround. Flanking windows have plain stone surrounds, those above have deeper lintels. Gable stack to right (rendered), other brick ridge stack. Rear: Sycamore Cottage: outshut has basket-arched doorway with chamfered surround (altered to window) to left of cross window with flat- faced mullions with inner chamfer. Coach-house breaks forward under 2-span roof and has in its left return an entry with monolithic lintel, and in its right return a wide semi-circular- arched doorway, with window above, set forward from doorway with tie-stone jambs and 2- light chamfered mullioned window, inserted mid-C20 window above. One gable is coped with shaped kneelers. Set back to centre, Sycamore House has doorway with composite jambs and lintel dated 1717 to right of C20 window with wooden lintel with same above. Addition to Little Sycamore of 2 builds with gables: that to left C18 brick, originally single storey with added C20 brick storey. 1st gable has small window with larger window above. 2nd gable, to right, of rendered stone, has a 3-light chamfered mullioned window (blocked) with same above; former doorway (blocked to window) with 3-light window above; coped gable with kneelers. Brick stack set in valley between 2 ranges. Chamfered corner to left return of brick addition which has segmental-arched window. Right-hand return of stone addition which has segmental-arched window. Right-hand return of stone addition: 2 bays to left have inserted doorway to left of former 2-light double chamfered window with same above (both lacking mullions); single bay to right breaks forward and has quoins, former 4- light window to each floor (each lacking 2 mullions); coped gable with kneelers Interior: Little Sycamore has finely carved C18 fireplace with architrave, pulvinated frieze carved with oak leaves and acorns, casement-moulded cornice with small triangular pediment; 2 spine beams and floor joists, stop-chamfered with ogee stops. Addition has brick fireplace with low elliptical arch. Dog-leg staircase has moulded handrail and some surviving splat balusters to landing. Oak roof with large principal-rafter truss crossed at the apex as an upper cruck supporting a diamond-set ridge piece. Collar to south gable is evidence of former smokehood. Cellar of 2 vaulted ranges, T-shaped in plan each range formerly lit by 2-light double-chamfered mullioned window. Sycamore House: has staircase with finely turned balusters. Underneath landing is long passage the length of the house for servants. Parlour chamber has fireplace with stone-basket-arched lintel and carved wooden frieze and cornice. (14).

2.2 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 2.2.1 The purpose of this Heritage Statement is to assess the significance of the cultural or natural assets and identify those aspects which are of lesser importance to help illustrate to the Local Authority and any statutory consultees, the impact of the proposal on any features of architectural, archaeological and historic interest.

2.2.2 The concept of ‘cultural significance’ is outlined fully in the Burra Charter (Australia, 1979, current edition 2013) and subsequent charters and conventions, and is amplified in texts on the theory and practice of Conservation Plans – particularly Conservation Plans in Action (Clark, 1998).

2.2.3 Levels of Significance: The level of significance of an asset will vary according to the context in which it is being judged. Historic England gives guidance on the choosing of categories of significance in its publication ‘Conservation Principles’. This promotes consideration of significance under three broad headings: historic, archaeological and architectural/artistic.

Assessment of significance is through comparison with other similar cultural or natural assets. Questions to be considered are: - Is it common/unusual/rare/unique/the sole survivor? - Is it typical/representative/a-typical? - Is it partial/complete? - Is it in poor condition/satisfactory/improving/excellent? There are various measures of significance which can be applied, for example: - None/low/medium/high/exceptional/unique; or - None/local/regional/national/international

2.2.4 There are approximately 374,081 listed building entries on the National Heritage List for England of which 2.5% are Grade I listed (buildings of exceptional interest and in some cases of international importance), 5.5% are Grade II* listed (particularly important buildings of more than special interest) and the remaining 92% are Grade II listed (of national importance and of special interest). Sycamore House, Little Sycamore and Sycamore Cottage are Grade II listed and therefore of ‘national importance and of special interest’. The Terrace also lies within the Heath Conservation Area. The common has registered common status but is not listed on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens.

2.2.5 As was established earlier in this Heritage Statement, Heath village and its Common have remained relatively unchanged since the 1824 map drawn by Charlesworth of the Smyth estate. It escaped Parliamentary Enclosure, resisted ribbon development along the Wakefield to Doncaster Road and maintained its separation from Wakefield’s urban sprawl. As a result, the approach to the village, with its grazing horses on the Common, retains its historic character and, along with the quality and variety of its surviving historic buildings, establishes the village as a national rarity.

2.2.6 The predominant form of construction in the region up to the 17th century was post and beam timber frame, infilled with daub applied to wattles woven between vertical staves. Apart from White Cottage, no examples of this form of construction are thought to survive at Heath, save some re-used timbers in a number of the cottages. The earliest surviving 17th century houses are of stone construction with substantial stone lintels and rows of chamfered mullioned windows.

2.2.7 One of the earliest surviving houses, Marsh Close, is dated 1665, one of the King’s Arm’s Cottages 1725 and Holly Cottage and Bellamy House also have similar deep lintels, undated. The lintel at Little Sycamore and that to the rear of Sycamore House are dated 1717. The blocked door opening to the front elevation of Sycamore House is not dated but comprises chamfered jamb stones which tie back into the surrounding stone walling with a depressed Tudor arched lintel of the same depth as that to the rear elevation and most likely of the same date. The relatively shallow depth and slender profiles of the chamfered mullions and window jambs belie a similar early 18th century date as do the simple moulded copings and kneelers to the gables. Thus, within this rare village Sycamore row takes its place in the earliest surviving group of smaller houses. 2.2.8 The archive material relating to inhabitants of Heath serves as a testament to a similar pattern of expansion and prosperity experienced elsewhere in the Pennine uplands of West Yorkshire as the rising Yeoman class (the Smyths of Heath were agriculturalists and woolstaplers – dealers in wool who bought wool from sheep farmers, sorted it, graded it and sold it on to cloth manufacturers) increased in prosperity through woollen cloth production and wealthy industrialists established and developed estates hitherto in the ownership of the landed gentry and increased their wealth through coal and mineral exploration on their estates which, via the expanding navigable waterways, supplied the rapid industrialization of the major towns in the region. 2.2.9 The high proportion of listed buildings in Heath, compared for instance with the 67 buildings listed in the nearby market town of Pontefract which has a wealth of surviving historic buildings, provides clear evidence of the high significance of the settlement in historic terms in a regional and national context. 2.2.10 The significance of Sycamore House, the two adjoining properties Little Sycamore and Sycamore Cottage, its immediate setting and the wider Conservation Area can, therefore, be categorized as: - Historic: The historical significance of the settlement derives mainly through its connection with a series of prosperous industrialists (variously of local and regional significance) who built and developed the principal houses in the settlement and their connection with agriculture and woollen cloth production in the West Riding of Yorkshire over the years rather than connection to particular historical events. - Archaeological: There has been very little unearthed archaeologically in Heath though field and place names evident on historic maps (brick kiln field, mill field, lime kiln lane) belie early mineral extraction (limestone and clay quarrying) and associated industrial production, most likely corresponding with the construction of the more significant buildings in the settlement and thereafter abandoned. - Architectural: The architectural significance of the settlement derives from the quantity and unique open aspect of the settlement’s principal houses, the survival of the humbler houses and cottages and the relatively unchanged survival and legibility of the rural landscape character, the pattern of its irregular enclosed fields, managed woodland and the 131 acre common (which has registered common status). Though the settlement was not founded by a Gentry family, the combination of these three factors establishes the village as a national rarity. - Artistic: The village also possesses some artistic significance through the pedigree of some designers of its principal houses such as James Paine and John Carr (both of national significance).

2.3 PROPOSAL

2.3.1 Any new development in an historic or rural setting has the potential to negatively impact on its significance and therefore new development needs to take account of a number of factors: - The scale, massing, form and arrangement of the historic buildings in the settlement. - The materials and character of the historic buildings in the settlement. - The scale and form of the field boundaries. - The presence of any natural or man-made landscape features. - The principal views to and from the settlement by way of roads, bridle paths and footpaths. - The character and proportion of public spaces within the settlement.

2.3.2 No Conservation Area Assessment has been produced by Wakefield Council for Heath but a study of the historic maps of the settlement illustrate how little has changed over the last 200 years and, therefore, makes it easier to understand the reasoning behind its designation and the elements this designation seeks to protect.

2.3.3 The re-instatement of the historic horseshoe-shaped vehicular driveway in front of Sycamore House and its associated link over the common onto Kirkthorpe Lane has been carefully considered to minimise its visual impact on the significance of the listed building and the wider Conservation Area. The loss of vegetation which would result from reinstatement of the drive must be balanced against enhancement of the setting of the listed buildings by reinstating a lost historic feature which provided vital evidence of the status and aspirations of its owners from the mid-19th century. The feature only appears to have been lost relatively recently and this has negatively impacted a significant characteristic of the settlement, i.e. closing off the open aspect of the property onto the common by blocking the driveway with a hedge and fence and losing the historic vehicular access off Kirkthorpe Lane. The removal of the drive is contrary to the principles adopted at Heath Hall, Heath House, the Dower House, the Manor House, Cobbler’s Hall etc, all of which were built to open onto and be accessed and visible from the common.

2.3.4 The proposal seeks to replace a section of grass on the common with a carriageway/drive like that on the historic photographs (Fig’s 14 & 15), i.e. replicating the angle and width of the historic driveway. A gate is to be incorporated in the same position on the property boundary as the historic gate and of the same width and this seeks to reinstate the historic relationship between and visual aspect of the property from the common.

2.3.5 This report supports a formal planning and listed building consent application to reinstate the vehicular access to the property over the common and the horseshoe shaped carriageway and should be read in conjunction with the following information: - Ian Tavendale, Arboricultural Consultant: Tree Survey 25/02/20. - Ian Tavendale, Arboricultural Consultant: drawing showing tree survey including shadows cast by trees. - Paragon Highways 1287 01B – Proposed access including sectional details of the finishes and materials. - Paragon Highways – Access Statement May 2017.

2.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.4.1 A heritage impact assessment is a structured process for considering the implications on the significance of a heritage asset of proposed interventions while there is still an opportunity to modify the proposals and to help avoid or minimize any conflict between the two.

2.4.2 Assessing Impact: The NPPF differentiates between developments which cause ‘substantial harm’, ‘less than substantial harm’ and ‘no harm’, however, does not clearly define what ‘harm’ means. In terms of substantial harm, the Planning Practice Guidance advises that, ‘In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural of historic interest…works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all’.

2.4.3 The proposal seeks to reinstate an historic vehicular access across the common serving a horseshoe shaped drive in front of Grade II listed Sycamore House. The reasoning behind this is to provide the building owner with vehicular access to the property and a secure place in which to park. Reinstatement of the historic carriageway is seen as an enhancement to the setting of the listed building, the conservation area and the registered common in that it replaces a lost historic feature and re-establishes the open aspect and connection between the common and the property which is a key characteristic of the significance of the settlement.

2.4.4 This approach seeks to preserve and enhance local character and distinctiveness of the conservation area, in line with the requirements of NPPF Section 16 (193c).

2.4.5 The impact of this is considered low or at the low end of the ‘less than substantial harm’ category identified by Historic England and outweighed by the enhancement of the Conservation Areas’ special interest resulting from reinstatement of a lost historic landscape feature. The materials have been chosen to be robust and in keeping with the listed building and the conservation area. The beech hedge along the boundary is to be reinstated to replicate the late 18th century treatment.

2.4.6 As stated earlier in the text, this re-instatement was judged by the local authority Conservation Officer as having ‘negligible’ impact and was supported by statutory consultee the Yorkshire Gardens Trust.

2.4.7 As noted previously in the text, historically all properties in Heath, excepting Heath Hall farm and stables, were accessed via unadopted tracks over the common and though some of these tracks have more recently been stoned or finished with tarmac, the vast majority of property owners in Heath continue to be afforded a vehicular right of access over the common into their properties. This application seeks to reinstate an historic vehicular access to provide the new owners of Sycamore House the same rights as their neighbours and the same rights as previous owners of the property over the common land.

2.4.8 In conclusion, by reinstating the historic access to the property, the development aims to make a positive contribution to the conservation area and preserve and enhance the significance of Sycamore House, Little Sycamore, Sycamore Cottage and the wider conservation area. In doing this, the proposal is in accord with the objectives of Sections 16(2) and 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Paragraph 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012), Sections 9.14 and 9.15 of Wakefield Council’s Core Strategy, Policy CS10 and Wakefield Council’s Local Development Framework, Policy D18: Development Affecting Historic Locations, Policy Justification 6.99 relating to Conservation Areas and Policy Justification 6.105 relating to Listed Buildings.

2.4.9 As a result, this report has identified no conservation grounds for refusal of consent that would outweigh the benefits of enhancing the setting of a listed building and the wider conservation area as presented in this application. It therefore finds that planning and listed building consent should be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

3.0 APPENDIX A – LIST OF QUOTATIONS (1) Hunter, Joseph; Antiquarian Notices of Lupset, The Heath, Sharlston and Ackton, 1851, p50-51. (2) Hall, Ivan and Elizabeth, Heath: An Architectural Description, publ. Muir and Mary Oddie at Heath in Yorkshire, 1975, p7. (3) Hunter, Joseph; Antiquarian Notices of Lupset, The Heath, Sharlston and Ackton, 1851, p50-51. (4) Hunter, Joseph; Antiquarian Notices of Lupset, The Heath, Sharlston and Ackton, 1851, p50-51. (5) Hall, Ivan and Elizabeth, Heath: An Architectural Description, publ. Muir and Mary Oddie at Heath in Yorkshire, 1975, p7-8. (6) Hall, Ivan and Elizabeth, Heath: An Architectural Description, publ. Muir and Mary Oddie at Heath in Yorkshire, 1975, p7-8. (7) Hall, Ivan and Elizabeth, Heath: An Architectural Description, publ. Muir and Mary Oddie at Heath in Yorkshire, 1975, p9. (8) Hall, Ivan and Elizabeth, Heath: An Architectural Description, publ. Muir and Mary Oddie at Heath in Yorkshire, 1975, p10. (9) Hunter, Joseph; Antiquarian Notices of Lupset, The Heath, Sharlston and Ackton, 1851, p50-51. (10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield (11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield (12) http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/barnsley/ba2.htm (13) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield (14) National Heritage List for England, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/listentry/1300730

4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ed. David Hey, Colum Giles, Margaret Spufford, Andrew Wareham, Yorkshire West Riding Hearth Tax Assessment Lady Day 1672, publ. The British Record Society, London 2007; P312, and Morley Wapentakes, .

Rural Houses of West Yorkshire 1400 – 1830 publ. the Royal Commission of the Historical Monuments of England, 1986

Hall, Ivan and Elizabeth, Heath: An Architectural Description, publ. Muir and Mary Oddie at Heath in Yorkshire, 1975.

Hunter, Joseph; Antiquarian Notices of Lupset, The Heath, Sharlston and Ackton, 1851.

Innocent, C.F., The Development of English Building Construction, first publ. Cambridge University Press 1916, this impression by David & Charles (Publishers) Limited, 1971.

Mulroy, Ron, The Benedictines at Heath (undated)

Page William, ed., The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of Yorkshire, Volume III, publ. The University of London Institute of Historical Research, reprinted from the original edition of 1913 by Dawson of Pall Mall, Folkestone & London, 1974. Page 525. Agbrigg Wapentake – Lower division: Warmfield with Heath Township

Pevsner, Nickolaus, Buildings of England: Yorkshire West Riding, 2nd Ed revised by Enid Radcliffe, Penguin Books, 1st publ. 1959, 2nd ed. 1967, reprinted 1974 & 1979

Summerson, J., Architecture in Britain 1530-1830, Yale University Press, 1993 (first published by Penguin Books 1953)

Taylor Kate, Wakefield District Heritage (volume I), Committee for European Architectural Heritage Year, 1975, publ. Wakefield EAHY Committee Hall, June 1976.

Walker, J.W., Wakefield its History and People (Vol II), Printed privately by The West Yorkshire Printing co ltd, Wakefield 1939.

Waters, S.H., Wakefield in the seventeenth century: A Social History of the Town & Neighbourhood from 1550-1710, publ. Sanderson & Clayton, ltd., Wakefield, England 1933

Volume II, June 1976 Committee for European Architectural Heritage Year, 1975

National Heritage List for England, https://historicengland.org.uk http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/barnsley/ba2.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield https://www.quora.com/When-did-working-class-males-in-Britain-gain-the-right-to-vote

ARCHIVE SOURCES

Survey and valuation of the estate of Henry Smyth, Esq in Warmfield cum Heath, Sandal and Wakefield, made by Elias Wright in 1809 & copied by Edward Gee in 1817