DOCSLIB.ORG

Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Strategy & Update To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Strategy & Update To Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Strategy & Update to Heritage at Risk Register – July 2020 Prepared by the Conservation Team July 2020 Document details Title: Bassetlaw District Council: Bassetlaw Heritage At Risk Strategy & Update to Heritage at Risk Register – July 2020. Summary: This document sets out the Council’s strategy to tackle heritage identified as being ‘at risk’, both in the short, medium and long term. Approved: This strategy document, including the updated Heritage at Risk Register, was adopted at Cabinet on 7th July 2020. Document availability: Copies of this document, together with details of heritage ‘at risk’ in general, are available on the Council’s website (www.bassetlaw.gov.uk) or by contacting the Conservation Team by telephone (01909 533427) or email ([email protected]). 2 Foreword Bassetlaw has a rich tapestry of built heritage, spread across the district, covering a vast range of types of buildings and structures, both large and small in scale, many of which are designated. These sites are often in prominent locations and help to establish or reinforce a settlement’s sense of place. In some cases, these ‘heritage assets’ can fall into disrepair, for a variety of reasons. In these circumstances, the buildings and structures are identified as being ‘at risk’. Heritage ‘at risk’ can impact on local communities and the environment in which we live – not only are there the visual signs of neglect, but there can also be social, economic and public safety concerns too. As the Heritage Champion for Bassetlaw District Council, it is my role to raise the profile of built heritage in Bassetlaw, particularly with regard to its care and its future. Heritage is a valuable and finite resource: once it’s gone, it’s gone. The District Council, together with building owners and external partners, has secured the repair and conservation of a large number of historic buildings, overseeing them being brought back into long-term use. This document, put together by the Council’s Conservation Team, sets out the Council’s strategy for tackling heritage ‘at risk’ going forward. It also gives examples of where the various techniques employed in the past have resulted in improvements to some of the more important heritage assets across Bassetlaw. I am delighted to endorse this strategy, which is aimed at everyone who is concerned with the historic environment – whether local residents, building owners, developers, external organisations, councillors and officers. This strategy will help the Council to achieve its regeneration objectives and conserve those important historic buildings which contribute so much to our wonderful District and our quality of life. Councillor John Shephard Bassetlaw District Council, Heritage Champion 3 Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION 05 2. WHAT IS HERITAGE ‘AT RISK’? 05 3. WHY DOES HERITAGE BECOME ‘AT RISK’? 06 4. LEGAL POWERS 06 5. A STRATEGY FOR BASSETLAW 11 6. UPDATED HERITAGE AT RISK REGISTER – JULY 2020 15 4 1. Introduction Bassetlaw District has a rich and varied built heritage with over 1000 buildings, structures and monuments that are regarded to be of national significance, these are designated as either Listed Buildings or Scheduled Ancient Monuments. In addition, Bassetlaw has many areas that are of special architectural or historic interest designated as Conservation Areas, together with 4 historic parks and gardens on the national register. There are also a range of buildings and sites of local interest referred to as non-designated heritage assets, including both local interest buildings and unregistered park & gardens. Together these are collectively known as Heritage Assets. The majority of the District’s built heritage is in good condition, being occupied and well maintained. However, there are a number of Listed Buildings that have fallen into disuse and disrepair. Further, several Conservation Areas have buildings and sites in a poor condition or appearance that affects their character. These structures and sites are commonly referred to as heritage ‘at risk’ (HaR). Heritage ‘at risk’ within the district is monitored by Bassetlaw District Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Historic England. Historic England monitor Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas at risk, while Bassetlaw District Council monitor these and also Grade II Listed Buildings. Heritage at Risk registers are published by Historic England, Nottinghamshire County Council and Bassetlaw District Council and are available on the website of each organisation. This Heritage at Risk Strategy for Bassetlaw sets out the Council’s approach to dealing with those heritage assets at risk identified on all the Heritage at Risk Registers. The forthcoming 2020 Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Register is discussed in section 5 of this report. 2. What is heritage ‘at risk’? The term ‘Heritage at Risk’ refers to a designated building or site that is suffering from neglect and decay. These structures/sites are usually vacant, under used and/or decayed. In Bassetlaw, ‘at risk’ sites include: Listed Buildings and structures Conservation Areas; (including places of worship); Registered parks and gardens. Archaeological sites; Heritage assets at risk are assessed in accordance with nationally set criteria produced by Historic England. This ensures continuity between the national and local registers. When assessing a heritage asset, consideration is given to the level of risk to the structure, looking at its external appearance, occupancy and vulnerability. The categories range from A - in very poor condition, to F - repairs in progress. The risk scale is as follows: Category A: Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; no solution agreed. Category B: Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; solution agreed, not yet implemented. Category C: Slow decay; no solution agreed. Category D: Slow decay; solution agreed but not yet implemented. Category E: Under repair or in fair to good repair, but no user identified; or under threat of vacancy with no obvious new user (applicable only to buildings capable of beneficial use). Category F: Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented. 5 The risk levels previous used by the Council, including in the 2012 survey, were using the scale of 1, 1A, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A and 6 (with 1 being the most severe and 5/6 being not ‘at risk’, at ‘A’ referring to buildings which cannot be occupied). That scale was consistent with Historic England (was English Heritage) guidance at that time. However, now the scale A-F is used by Historic England and so for consistency has been adopted by the Council. For comparison, categories A and B are broadly equivalent to 1 and 2, categories C and D are equivalent to 3 and 4, and categories E & F are equivalent to 5 and 6, although with some overlap. Dependent on the nature of the risk, a heritage asset will remain on the register until: a) all repairs are completed; b) the heritage asset is wind and water tight; c) the heritage asset is free from structural damage; or d) the heritage asset is occupied. Heritage assets will often move between categories, according to the work undertaken, yet remain on the register. In certain instances, for example Scheduled Ancient Monuments or ruinous Listed Buildings, the above requirements may not always be appropriate. In these exceptional cases, the heritage asset will only be removed once consolidation works have been completed and a ‘managed decline’ approach agreed between the owner(s), the Council and in some cases Historic England. 3. Why does heritage become ‘at risk’? Buildings and sites may become at risk for a number of reasons. Some of these may include: An owner that is not fully aware of the heritage significance of their building or site, or that it is legally protected; An absent owner who is not aware of the condition of their property; The cost of repair works being prohibitive; A lack of understanding of basic maintenance,; Vacancy through death, inability to sell, or inability to identify a viable use; An owner that simply does not care. 4. What legal powers are available to the Council? Legislation recognises that there will be times where the District Council will need to intervene in order to ensure that a building or site is preserved for future generations. Intervention may be in the form of planning enforcement action, grants and loans, or assistance through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). These different tools are discussed below: Enforcement: a) Urgent Works Notice Section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, hereafter referred to as ‘The Act’, enables local authorities to execute any works which appear to them 6 to be urgently necessary for the preservation of a Listed Building in their area. If the building is occupied, the works may be carried out only to those parts not in use. The use of Urgent Works Notices should be restricted to emergency repairs to keep a building wind and weatherproof and safe from collapse, or action to prevent vandalism or theft. The steps taken should be the minimum consistent with achieving this objective, and should not involve an owner at great expense. The first step of the Urgent Works Notice process is to establish who own the building/site in question and who may have an interest in the land, so that correspondence, and if necessary notices, may be served appropriately to the correct people. This may be done using one of the following methods: Land Registry Information on ownership and those with an interest such as a lessee on a full repairing lease will be a matter of public record. Details can found at the land Registry records post April 2000 also indicate purchase price paid for a property.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment
    UK Coal Operations Limited Proposed extension of time for colliery spoil tipping Environmental Statement operations at Harworth Colliery No. 2 Spoil Heap TECHNICAL APPENDIX 6 – Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment in support of an extension to Planning Permission for Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Report ref: HC/HIA Final June 2013 Report prepared for: UK Coal Mining Ltd Harworth Park Blyth Road HARWORTH DN11 8DB BARKERS CHAMBERS • BARKER STREET • SHREWSBURY • UNITED KINGDOM • S Y 1 1 S B TEL : 01743 355770 FAX: 01743 357771 EMAIL : [email protected] Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment in support of an extension to Planning Permission for Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Report ref: HC/HIA Final June 2013 For Data Protection L Brown MSc FGS CGeol C C Leake BSc MSc FGS UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 Data sources 1 1.4 Methodology of investigation 1 2 SITE SETTING 3 2.1 Location 3 2.2 Landform 3 3 BASELINE CONDITIONS 4 3.1 Background 4 3.2 Hydrology 4 3.2.1 Rainfall 4 3.2.2 Watercourses 4 3.2.3 Springs 5 3.2.4 Ponds and waterbodies 5 3.2.5 River flows 5 3.2.6 Surface water abstraction 5 3.2.7 Discharge consents 6 3.2.8 Surface water quality 7 3.3 Landfill sites 7 3.4 Protected sites and areas of ecological interest 8 3.5 Geology 9 3.5.1 Regional 9 3.5.2 Local geology 10 3.6 Hydrogeology 11 3.6.1 Aquifer status and regional context
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Fifth Annual Report 1991-92
    NaITINGHAMSHIRE BUILDING PRESERVATION TRUST LIMITED A company limited by guarantee and Registered in England Registration No. 897822 Registered Charity No. 254094 Registered Office: 2 Priory Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 SHU Telephone: Nottingham 819622 (STD 0602) Twenty-Fifth Annual Report 1991-92 REPORT ON THE YEAR'S ACTIVITIES OffICERS During the year, the Trust has suffered from the effects of the recession, Chairman: Cllr. R.P. Gilbert especially from the fall in property prices and the slump in the housing market. Vi ce-Chairman: Cllr. M.E. Adlington This would be an ideal time to purchase buildings under threat and to invest in Honorary Legal Adviser: Mr. C.P. McKay MA future projects for the revolving fund programme. Honorary Secretary: Mr. G.A. Turner RIBA Ho norary Treasurer: Mr. J. farrer IPfA IRRV Unfortuna tely, the Trust, like many ot·her Building Preserva tion Trusts, is caught in the situation where its capital and money borrowed is tied up in buildings which stand restored but unsold. This six almshouses at St. Leonard's Court, Newark, purchased by the Trust and MEMBERS Of THE COUNCIL Of MANAGEMENT largely financed by a loan from the Architectural Heri t.age Fund, have been restored and refurbished to a high standard. The contribution to the street scene Mrs. C. Atkins (CPRE - Nottinghamshire Branch) in the heart of Newark Town Centre is considerable and represents an excellent Mrs. J. Bennett example of conservation in action. The decision whether to let the properties on Cllr. K. Bullivant (Nottinghamshire County Council) short term leases or to reduce the selling price dramatically has been exercising Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2018, East Midlands
    East Midlands Register 2018 HERITAGE AT RISK 2018 / EAST MIDLANDS Contents The Register III Nottingham, City of (UA) 66 Content and criteria III Nottinghamshire 68 Criteria for inclusion on the Register V Ashfield 68 Bassetlaw 69 Reducing the risks VII Broxtowe 73 Key statistics XI Gedling 74 Mansfield 75 Publications and guidance XII Newark and Sherwood 75 Key to the entries XIV Rushcliffe 78 Entries on the Register by local planning XVI Rutland (UA) 79 authority Derby, City of (UA) 1 Derbyshire 2 Amber Valley 2 Bolsover 4 Chesterfield 5 Derbyshire Dales 6 Erewash 7 High Peak 8 North East Derbyshire 10 Peak District (NP) 11 South Derbyshire 11 Leicester, City of (UA) 14 Leicestershire 17 Charnwood 17 Harborough 20 Hinckley and Bosworth 22 Melton 23 North West Leicestershire 24 Lincolnshire 25 Boston 25 East Lindsey 27 Lincoln 35 North Kesteven 37 South Holland 39 South Kesteven 41 West Lindsey 45 North East Lincolnshire (UA) 50 North Lincolnshire (UA) 52 Northamptonshire 56 Corby 56 Daventry 56 East Northamptonshire 58 Kettering 61 Northampton 61 South Northamptonshire 62 Wellingborough 65 II HERITAGE AT RISK 2018 / EAST MIDLANDS LISTED BUILDINGS THE REGISTER Listing is the most commonly encountered type of statutory protection of heritage assets. A listed building Content and criteria (or structure) is one that has been granted protection as being of special architectural or historic interest. The LISTING older and rarer a building is, the more likely it is to be listed. Buildings less than 30 years old are listed only if Definition they are of very high quality and under threat.
    [Show full text]
  • Lodge Farm Fisheries Landscape & Visual Effects Assessment Angling Lakes
    LODGE FARM FISHERIES LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ANGLING LAKES December 2012 Our Ref: JSL1930/REP/01 Rev B RPS Lakesbury House Hiltingbury House Chandlers Ford Hampshire S053 5SS Tel: 023 8081 0440 Fax: 023 8081 0449 Email: [email protected] rpsgroup.com QUALITY MANAGEMENT Prepared by: Paul Hopper Authorised by: Craig Thomson Date: December 2012 Project Number/Document JSL1930/REP/01 Rev B Reference: COPYRIGHT © RPS The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lodge Farm Fisheries and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of RPS. rpsgroup.com CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 4 3 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE .............................................................................................. 9 4 LANDSCAPE BASELINE.................................................................................................................14 5 VISUAL BASELINE..........................................................................................................................20 6 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS...........................................................................................................22 7 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012
    Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 BUILDINGS AT RISK REGISTER 2012 AT RISK REGISTER BUILDINGS 2012 LISTED 2 Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 Document details Title: Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012. Summary: This document provide service users with information about how redundant, vulnerable or decay historic buildings and a register of which buildings are currently regarded as being at risk by the Council. Approved: This document was approved by Planning Committee on 6th February 2013 at Retford Town Hall. The document was published on 7th February 2013. Document availability: Copies of the document are available at Bassetlaw District Council Planning Services and on the Council’s website: www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/ Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 3 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 4 What is a Building at Risk? 6 What is a listed building? 6 What does a listed building grade indicate? 7 Why produce a Register? 7 What buildings are included in the Register? 8 When is a building taken off the Register? 9 What are the reasons for historic buildings being at risk? 9 How can the District Council ensure that buildings are being restored? 9 What help is available for owners of buildings at risk? 10 2. THE REGISTER 11 Key to the entries 12 Register entries 14 3. STRUCTURES REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER 77 4. REDUCING THE RISKS 89 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 91 Useful contacts 92 Grants 93 Publications and guidance 93 Heritage at risk on the web 94 Contact us 95 Summary table of listed buildings at risk 95 4 Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The State and the Country House in Nottinghamshire, 1937-1967
    THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY HOUSE IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, 1937-1967 Matthew Kempson, BSc. MA. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2006 Abstract This thesis considers the state preservation and use of Nottinghamshire country houses during the mid-twentieth century, from the initiation of mass requisition in 1937 until 1967 when concerns for architectural preservation moved away from the country house. This thesis reviews literature on the landed estate in the twentieth century and the emergence of preservationist claims on the country house. Three substantive sections follow. The first discusses the declining representation of landowners within local governance in Nottinghamshire and the constitution of the County Council, and considers how estate space was incorporated within broadened concerns for the preservation of the historic environment and additionally provided the focus for the implementation of a variety of modern state and non-state functions. The second section considers how changing policy and aesthetic judgements impacted upon the preservation of country houses. Through discussion of Rufford Abbey, Winkburn Hall and Ossington Hall I consider the complexities of preservationist claims and how these conflicted with the responsibilities of the state and the demands of private landowners. The third section considers how estate space became valued by local authorities in the implementation of a variety of new modern educational uses, including the teacher training college at Eaton Hall and a school campus development at Bramcote Hills. The thesis concludes by considering the status of the country house in Nottinghamshire since 1967, and contemporary demands on the spaces considered historically in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Blyth Appraisal and Management Plan
    Blyth Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan November 2012 Document details Title: Bassetlaw District Council: Blyth Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. Summary: This document is the Council’s appraisal of the special architectural and historic interest of Blyth Conservation Area and a management plan with proposals for enhancement and preservation. Approved: This document was approved by Planning Committee on the 7th November 2012. Consultation summary: The Council has undertaken public consultation with local residents and property owners, English Heritage, Blyth Parish Council, Priories Historical Society, Retford and Worksop Historical Societies, Nottinghamshire County Council and other relevant consultees. Document availability: Copies of the appraisal document are available at Bassetlaw District Council (Planning Services) and on the Council’s website: www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/ A public meeting was held on 26th July 2012 at Barnby Memorial Hall, High Street, Blyth. The outcomes of this meeting (and wider public consultation on the draft appraisal and management plan) are summarised in a consultation report, also presented at Planning Committee on the 7th November 2012. The Consultation Report is available on the Council’s website and from Planning Services by request. For further information on this document or the Conservation Area designation and appraisal processes, please contact the Council’s Conservation Team on (01909) 533484, 533191 or 533427 or email [email protected]. Front page: Photographs of Blyth Conservation Area and its environs (source: Bassetlaw District Council, 2009-2012) 2 Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION 6 What is a Conservation Area? 6 What is an appraisal? 7 2. GEOGRAPHIC AND HISTORIC CONTEXT 10 Location and population 10 Landscape setting and topography 11 Origins and historic development 12 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2016, East Midlands
    East Midlands Register 2016 HERITAGE AT RISK 2016 / EAST MIDLANDS Contents Heritage at Risk III North East Lincolnshire (UA) 57 North Lincolnshire (UA) 59 The Register VII Nottingham, City of (UA) 63 Content and criteria VII Nottinghamshire 65 Criteria for inclusion on the Register IX Ashfield 65 Reducing the risks XI Bassetlaw 65 Broxtowe 69 Key statistics XIV Gedling 70 Publications and guidance XV Mansfield 71 Key to the entries XVII Newark and Sherwood 72 Rushcliffe 75 Entries on the Register by local planning XIX authority Rutland (UA) 76 Derby, City of (UA) 1 Derbyshire 2 Amber Valley 2 Bolsover 4 Chesterfield 5 Derbyshire Dales 6 Erewash 7 High Peak 8 North East Derbyshire 9 Peak District (NP) 10 South Derbyshire 10 Leicester, City of (UA) 13 Leicestershire 16 Charnwood 16 Harborough 18 Hinckley and Bosworth 19 Melton 20 North West Leicestershire 21 Lincolnshire 22 Boston 22 East Lindsey 23 Lincoln 31 North Kesteven 33 South Holland 35 South Kesteven 37 West Lindsey 42 Northamptonshire 48 Corby 48 Daventry 48 East Northamptonshire 51 Kettering 53 Northampton 54 South Northamptonshire 54 Wellingborough 57 II East Midlands Summary 2016 he East Midlands Heritage at Risk Register now incorporates entries in the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire local authority areas, which were Tformerly included in the Yorkshire Heritage at Risk Register. This move reflects the responsibilities for planning advisory and statutory functions in these areas that are now vested in Historic England’s East Midlands team. We welcome the restoration of historic Lincolnshire – at least for Historic England’s purposes! This administrative realignment largely accounts for the increase in East Midlands Register entries in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoner of War Camps (1939-1948)
    TWENTIETH CENTURY MILITARY RECORDING PROJECT PRISONER OF WAR CAMPS (1939 – 1948) PROJECT REPORT by ROGER JC THOMAS � English Heritage 2003 The National Monuments Record is the public archive of English Heritage NATIONAL MONUMENTS RECORD CENTRE GREAT WESTERN VILLAGE, KEMBLE DRIVE, SWINDON, SN2 2GZ. Telephone 01793 414700 Facsimile 01793 414707 http: //www.English-heritage.org.uk 1 CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 LIST OF TABLES 3 1 INTRODUCTION 4 2 DESCRIPTION 5 3 METHODOLOGY 8 3.1 Stage One: Assessment of Cartographic Coverage 3.2 Stage Two: Interpretation of Post-war Vertical Aerial Photographs 3.3 Stage Three: Assessment of Modern Vertical Aerial Photographs 4 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 9 5 PROJECT ANALYSIS 10 5.1 Site Survival 5.2 Change and Destruction 5.3 Recommendations for Further Research 6 REFERENCES 15 7 GAZETTEER LAYOUT 16 8 GAZETTEER 18 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Keith Buck, Wayne Cocroft, William Foot (DoB), John Harding, Dr Anthony Hellen, John Hellis, Alistair Graham-Kerr, Fiona Matthews (NMRC), James & Lisa McCleod, Dr Mike Osbourne, Medwyn Parry (RCAHMW), and Kelly Scutts (NMRC) in the preparation of this report. 2 TABLES Table 1 Classification of Survival of Known Population (England) Table 2 Classification of Survival of ‘Standard’ type Camps (England) Table 3 Distribution of Sites by County and Class Table 4 Distribution of ‘Standard’ type Camps by County & Class (England) Table 5 Agencies of Destruction of ‘Standard’ type Camps 3 1 INTRODUCTION To date, with a few notable exceptions, very little has been written about World War II Prisoner of War Camps in the British Isles.
    [Show full text]
  • Item Subject of a Site Visit
    ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT Item No: a2 Application Ref. 19/00866/VOC Application Type Variation of Condition Site Address Land At Sunny Nook Farm, Blyth Road, Harworth. Proposal Vary Conditions 3, 4, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of P.A. 15/00971/OUT To Refer to Updated Application Drawing Package, Including Revised Parameter Plan, Illustrative Masterplan and Site Access Plans - Outline planning Application for an Employment Park Comprising of up to 235,000m² of B1(c), B2 and B8 Uses and Ancillary Development (EIA Development) Case Officer Dylan Jones Recommendation LGL - Grant - Subject to a Legal Agreement Web Link: Link to Planning Documents THE APPLICATION SITE CONTEXT The application site is approximately 81 hectares of predominantly agricultural land located 1.5 km to the south of Harworth Bircotes and 0.5 km north of junction 34 of the A1(M). The site is bounded by existing industrial land and Snape Lane to the north, the A614 Bawtry Road, isolated residential properties, Serlby Hall and associated parkland and agricultural land to the east, Blyth Road and the former colliery to the west and residential development beyond the southern boundary. The overall shape of the site is triangular and the site slopes from north to south and undulates over a number of field areas. There are no public rights of way across the site. Two buildings associated with Steer Bank Farm are located within the application site. PROPOSAL The original scheme as approved Outline planning permission was granted on the 14th March 2017 for the erection of an employment park comprising of up to 235,000m² of B1, B2 and B8 uses on this site.
    [Show full text]
  • The State and the Country House in Nottinghamshire, 1937-1967
    Kempson, Matthew (2006) The state and the country house in Nottinghamshire, 1937-1967. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/10259/1/the_state_and_the_country_house_in_Nottinghams hire_1937-1967.pdf Copyright and reuse: The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. · Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. · To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in Nottingham ePrints has been checked for eligibility before being made available. · Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not- for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. · Quotations or similar reproductions must be sufficiently acknowledged. Please see our full end user licence at: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact [email protected] ΤΗΕ ΣΤΑΤΕ ΑΝD ΤΗΕ ΧΟΥΝΤΡΨ ΗΟΥΣΕ ΙΝ ΝΟΤΤΙΝΓΗΑΜΣΗΙΡΕ, 1937−1967 Ματτηεω Κεmπσον, ΒΣχ.
    [Show full text]
  • Osberton Hall & Scofton Hall 0041
    Unregistered Park & Garden: Osberton Hall & Scofton Hall NCC/BDC Ref: 0041 Date(s): C18, C19, C20. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission Description & historic information: of Ordnance Survey. © Crown Copyright 2016, Bassetlaw District Council. License No. 100019517 Osberton Hall and Scofton Hall, two formerly separate estates brought under the same ownership in c1800, with Scofton Hall demolished soon after and the grounds becoming part of an expanded park all associated with Osberton Hall (grade II*listed). Scofton Hall – Pre-1800 In the medieval period, Scofton was part of the royal manor of Mansfield. It was historically separate from Osberton, divided by the course of the River Ryton. In the late-16th century, the Jessop family (of Broomhall, Sheffield) were owners of Scofton Halli. Scofton then passed to the Banks family (also of Sheffield) in the late-17th/early-18th century – Sir Joseph Banks is recorded as residing at Scofton in 1702. 1774 Chapman’s Map of Nottinghamshire, showing the distinctive settlements separated by the river. Scofton was sold to Brigadier General Richard Sutton in 1727. Brigadier General Sutton was responsible for planting a vast number of trees across the Scofton estate and in particular, several large clumps of Scotch fir trees (Black Hill Clump and the remaining parts of Scofton Wood are likely to have been planted at this time). He was also responsible for the distinctive rectangular wood at the west end of the site with its cross-pattern walkways, in addition to the planting of rows of trees alongside the main coach road (‘Grotto Screed’ and ‘Birch Holt’ being the best remaining examples).
    [Show full text]