DOCSLIB.ORG

EXMIQ052 National Trust Matter 17

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EXMIQ052 National Trust Matter 17 EXAMINATION OF THE HARROGATE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN DPD INSPECTOR’S MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION Response by National Trust Respondent ID – 1156292 Comments reference PD1156 and PD 1164 Matter 17 - Heritage and Place-making Policy HP2 – Heritage Assets (a) Is it sound to say that proposals “will be permitted” where they meet the criteria in this policy? We consider that stating proposals ‘will be permitted’ at the outset of the criteria is potentially misleading, when policy HP2 also requires the NPPF tests of harm to be considered. It is also potentially misleading particularly where the WHS is concerned under criteria c) as it does not reflect the complexity surrounding assessment that is required for impacts on the significance of the WHS. Whilst HP2c supports proposals which will conserve and where appropriate enhance elements of OUV; it does not fully reflect the protection that is required where NPPF expects substantial harm to significance ‘must be wholly exceptional’. This is not reflected currently in HP2 in the paragraph relating to harm. National Trust considers the criteria based policy might be more effective if the words were amended to state ‘development will be expected to….’ (b) Is it clear how criterion A relates to the other criteria? Would it more effective if this were an overarching criterion applicable to all development proposals affecting a heritage asset? Yes, we agree it would be more effective to ensure that proposals should accord with overarching criteria a) as it is a general requirement which applies across to all heritage assets. (c) Should the policy be more explicit about how non–designated heritages can/will be identified? No comment 1 National Trust 07 December 2018 (d) To be effective does the policy need to give the full name of the Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site to be effective? Is it clear what is meant by its “visual setting”? We feel that the key issue is to ensure that all the references to the World Heritage Site in the Local Plan are consistent – this is not the case presently. Although the site is more correctly referred to on the World Heritage List as ‘Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey World Heritage Site’ we appreciate that this is a long-winded term to use throughout the plan and is not the name that the local community and visitors use when talking about the site. In terms of our World Heritage Site Management Plan (2015-2021) we refer to the site as Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site. It is important that whatever name is used to refer to the site it should include the two elements of ‘Fountains Abbey’ and ‘Studley Royal’ that are the reasons for the site’s inscription and it’s Outstanding Universal Value. In the use of the words ‘visual setting’, we find there is a significant degree of complexity around the assessment of proposals which might impact on the OUV of the WHS that are not captured currently by HP2c). This is one reason why we have suggested a bespoke policy would be justified to give effective protection to this asset of the highest significance. Our publication draft comments highlight our concerns with the second sentence of HP2c specifically, regarding the use of ‘Georgian Pleasure Grounds’ and also reference to tall buildings when we consider there should also reference a presumption against tall structures within the WHS its Buffer Zone and its setting. It is important to also have clarity for guidance on the WHS as particularly when it comes to the WHS and its Buffer Zone as we find in practice it can often be confusing. What is meant by each of those elements should be clearly set out in the supporting text. Whilst we welcome the fact that the Council is seeking to identify that there is a need to protect the visual aspects of setting that are important to the OUV of the WHS; as the setting of a heritage asset is more than simply visual [being the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced] we consider the use of the words “visual setting” may not be effective. We believe the Council have used the word visual setting as this relates largely to the terminology used when the Buffer zone was defined. To provide a little of the history for the Inspector, when the Buffer Zone was defined in 2012 the 2 National Trust 07 December 2018 work undertaken was based on the identifying the immediate visual envelope to the WHS. The extract from the proposal document for the Buffer Zone in 2011 states; The buffer zone covers the immediate setting of the World Heritage Site and the key vista from the main deer park avenue east to Ripon Cathedral and beyond to Blois Hall Farm. The proposed buffer zone aims to: (i) Protect the visual setting of the monastic precinct and the Aislabies’ designed landscape at Studley Royal. (ii) Respect the integrity of the Aislabies’ designed landscape including the visual setting (contrasting with the agrarian setting) where this was visible from within the bounds of the designed landscape. (iii) Protect the views and vistas which were key to the Aislabies’ design. This document is publically available on the National Trust website and the terminology ‘visual setting’ largely comes from this document. At the time we did recognise there are wider aspects to the visual setting of the property which could not be captured by the Buffer Zone boundary [Buffer Zone proposal Doc Appendix 1]. The submission document set out; In general, the visual envelope is very tightly drawn with three significant exceptions. The first of these is the narrow, but critical, vista line from the main deer park avenue east to Ripon Cathedral and then beyond to Blois Hall Farm, crossing the city of Ripon. This is included within the proposed buffer zone. The second and third exceptions arise from the wide-sweep external vistas, obtained from the eastern side of the park, especially Gillet Hill, over the Vale of York to the North York Moors beyond, and from the summit of How Hill stretching to Selby and beyond. These views were key to the Aislabie design, but extend over areas too large to be contained within a buffer zone boundary. Their significance will be recognised elsewhere in the planning system. UNESCO guidelines on the management of WHS seek the protection of the “setting” of each site and suggest designation of the Buffer Zone. That around Studley Royal was approved by UNESCO in 2012, primarily embracing outlying 3 National Trust 07 December 2018 parts of the designed landscape not recognised in 1986, when the site was inscribed. The 2012 ICOMOS report to UNESCO for the WHS reported that ‘The proposed buffer zone has been designed to contribute to the maintenance of the outstanding universal value of the site by including outlying parts of the designed landscape and precinct (and their visual settings) where these had not been included in the World Heritage Site boundary; by protecting the visual setting of the property, and by protecting key vistas from within the property to focii beyond it’. The boundary extent runs south along the River Skell, Ripon Rowel Walk along the east side of the Skell Valley, and Whitcliffe Lane to How Hill Road, enclosing the visual envelope from within the Park ‘except for the expansive view from the summit of Gillet Hill’. The boundary then encompasses How Hill, which is the focus of the vista to the south along the canal within the Park, Harrogate Borough Council’s planning decisions, based on their saved policies, have embraced the Buffer Zone as a material consideration alongside the designated WHS and the visual settings as described in the submission document and ICOMOS report (Contained at Appendix 2) The Harrogate Management SPD [2014] contains ‘general principles for development that would affect the World Heritage Site, including development in its Buffer Zone’. Here there is reference to the visual setting as well as explanation of the Buffer Zone. The principles contained in page 5 of this document have been included in part in HP2 c) where there is reference to the tall buildings. In our opinion it would be more effective to include the principles in a specific policy for the WHS in the Local Plan. Notwithstanding the evidence regarding the visual setting of the WHS and its Buffer Zone, what is fair to state however, is that in explicit terms the extent of the visual setting of the WHS beyond the boundary of the buffer zone has not been defined in further detail. Effectively what this means is the Buffer Zone around the WHS is not the totality of the visual setting and it is actually impossible to disentangle it from the WHS, as what it represents is a subset of the setting of the WHS. Work is planned by National Trust for the review of the World Heritage Site Management Plan to look at the wider setting of the WHS. 4 National Trust 07 December 2018 A key objective and high priority for the current WHS Management Plan is “ensuring the protection of the World Heritage Site, buffer zone and wider setting through the planning system”. (Objective e) Clearly, there may be proposals that come forward beyond the boundary of the buffer zone that could impact on setting and this might not be solely related to visual aspects. It is important, we believe, for the plan to be clear and recognise that time has moved on and to acknowledge that particularly so in relation to an understanding of what constitutes setting.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • World Heritage 32 COM
    World Heritage 32 COM Distribution Limited WHC-08/32.COM/8B.Add Paris, 25 June 2008 Original: English/French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Thirty second Session Quebec City, Canada 2 – 10 July 2008 Item 8B of the Provisional Agenda: Nominations to the World Heritage List Nominations to the World Heritage List SUMMARY This Addendum presents the Draft Decisions concerning 5 nominations of properties deferred or referred back by previous sessions of the World Heritage Committee, 21 minor modifications to the boundaries and 29 revisions of Statements of Significance or Statements of Outstanding Universal Value of already inscribed properties and 1 change of criteria to be examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 32nd session in 2008. Decision required: The Committee is requested to examine the Draft Decisions presented in this Addendum and take its Decisions in accordance with paragraphs 153, 155, 163 and 164 of the Operational Guidelines. I. Changes to criteria of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List The World Heritage Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006) approved 17 changes of criteria numbering for Natural and Mixed properties inscribed for geological values before 1994 (Document WHC- 06/30.COM/8D). For only two properties (see table below), in the group of properties that was inscribed under natural criteria (ii) before 1994, was no change in criteria numbering requested at that time, as the State Party asked for further time to consult the stakeholders concerned. Following consultations with the stakeholders and IUCN, it was agreed that the criteria should be as shown in the table here below.
    [Show full text]
  • Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal
    Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal World Heritage Site Management Plan Progress Report July 2019 Welcome Our World Heritage Site Along with our focus on delivering Management Plan is now in conservation projects in the World Heritage its fourth year and this progress Site we’ve been developing a set of draft attributes of the Outstanding Universal report celebrates the work Value of the World Heritage Site to help of the National Trust and our manage and protect the site. We are also partners over the last year. delighted to see progress on the Ripon Neighbourhood Plan and Harrogate District In September 2018 we had the great Local Plan, both of which include policies news that our first round bid to the to protect the World Heritage Site and National Lottery Heritage Fund for the its setting. Skell Valley Project had been successful. We worked closely with Nidderdale Area Infrastructure continues to be a major of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) challenge. Our car parks, ticket offices, and communities living and working along toilets and café areas have been struggling the river to develop a range of projects to to cope with the growing number of visitors. manage flood risk, improve water quality Following the refurbishment of the visitor and habitats for wildlife and restore centre this year our big focus for 2019/20 neglected historic buildings and landscapes. is the Studley Lake entrance. The project will also extend links between Ripon and the communities upstream to We couldn’t deliver any of this without improve access and explore the stories the support of our partners, local which have shaped the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal
    Admission prices Open all year, a visit can last Current prices are as follows. Fountains Abbey from a few hours to a full 1-13 in group Standard rate applies day... 14+ in group £15.20 adult, £7.60 child & Studley Royal Prices are reviewed annually and may have Explore the dramatic Fountains Abbey, the changed by the date of your visit. most complete ruins of a Cistercian abbey Group Visits in Britain. Group rates are only available when the group organiser checks in and pays at the admission Enjoy a great day out together Wander around the eighteenth century point for the whole group on arrival. at this World Heritage Site water garden with its elegant ornamental lakes, tumbling cascades and temples. Spend a full day exploring Discover Fountains Mill, one of the finest moments in history sitting side surviving examples of a monastic water mill by side at this World Heritage in Britain. Site Enjoy the sight of over 300 wild deer Making a booking in the medieval park at Studley Royal. All group visits need to be pre-booked to Admire the Elizabethan-style facade of receive group rates. Fountains Hall, with paths to the orchard and hidden herb garden. Please contact (during office hours): Annette Tulip, Bookings & Functions Coordinator Visit St Mary’s Church, an outstanding Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal example of Victorian gothic architecture Ripon HG4 3DY m hn ?l n t m hl c q s h‘ ‘ k ß o ? ß ? v k n designed by William Burges. ‘ h q c k c m ? g n d l q ? h d s‘ hm f n d?ß?o‘sqhl United Nations Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey Cultural Organization inscribed on the World Learn more about the estate with a 01765 643197 Heritage List in 1986 Photography © National Trust Images.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre / Icomos Advisory Mission to Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites 27-30 October 20
    REPORT ON THE JOINT WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE / ICOMOS ADVISORY MISSION TO STONEHENGE, AVEBURY AND ASSOCIATED SITES Stonehenge October 2015 copyright UNESCO 27-30 OCTOBER 2015 Chris Barker, Civil Engineer, ICOMOS Nathan Schlanger, Archaeologist, ICOMOS Marie-Noël Tournoux, Project Officer Europe and North America Unit, World Heritage Centre Stonehenge October 2015 copyright UNESCO 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………….…… 4 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………..… 5 2 MISSION REPORT ……………………………………………………………………….. 7 3 MISSION CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………………. 24 4 MISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………...…...... 24 5 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………... 28 6 ANNEXES…………....……………………………………………………………………... 29 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The joint World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS mission thanks the State Party for the arrangements for the Advisory Mission and the preparation of all the necessary relevant materials, together with the good will in its advancement. Particular thanks are due to DCMS and Historic England and more specifically to Keith Nichol and Hannah Jones from DCMS and Henry Owen-John and Phil McMahon from Historic England, our main focal points. The mission would like to acknowledge and to commend the investment and professionalism of our hosts in addition to logistics and hospitality. The assistance gladly provided by Historic England, English Heritage Trust, the National Trust, and their representatives, be it at organizational level or on the ground, including notably Chris Smith, Historic England, and Heather Sebire, Properties Curator West English Heritage Trust, Kate Davies, Stonehenge General Manager, English Heritage Trust, Beth Thomas & Sarah Simmonds, World Heritage site Coordinator, Nicola Snashall, National Trust WHS archaeologist for Stonehenge & Avebury, Cassandra Genn, Senior project and Stakeholder Manager, Ian Wilson, Assistant Director of Operations, Ingrid Samuel, Historic Environment Director, Janet Tomlin, National Trust, as well as the Wiltshire Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Phillips 2012 Adaptive
    RADAR Research Archive and Digital Asset Repository Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Note if anything has been removed from thesis. Removed p79, Fig 11, p134 - Fig 27, p308 - Appendix 12, p309-331 (published papers) When referring to this work, the full bibliographic details must be given as follows: Phillips,H (2013)The adaptive capacity of the management of cultural heritage sites to climate change. PhD thesis. Oxford Brookes University. WWW.BROOKES.AC.UK/GO/RADAR The Adaptive Capacity of the Management of Cultural Heritage Sites to Climate Change Helen Francine Phillips Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Oxford Brookes University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted: 6th June 2013 i ABSTRACT Despite the growing body of research on the concept of adaptive capacity, there is an absence of research which investigates adaptive capacity in the field of cultural heritage management. Climatic changes have potentially serious implications for the historic environment, which is itself a non-renewable resource. Cultural heritage sites can be particularly sensitive to severe weather events and to changes in climate, both due to direct impacts on built structures, archaeology and designed landscapes, but also due to changes in visitor behaviour and the potentially adverse implications of adaptive measures on heritage significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Fountains Abbey
    Fountains Abbey From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountains_Abbey (19.05.2008) Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey* UNESCO World Heritage Site View of Fountains Abbey looking from east to south. Fountains Abbey in North Yorkshire, England, is a ruined Cistercian monastery, founded in 1132. Fountains Abbey is one of the largest and best preserved Cistercian houses in England. It is a Grade I listed building and owned by the National Trust. Along with the adjacent Studley Royal Water Garden, it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. History Fountains Abbey was founded in 1132 following a dispute and riot at St. Mary's Abbey in York. Following the riot, thirteen monks were exiled and after unsuccessfully attempting to return to the early 6th century Rule of St Benedict, were taken into the protection of Thurstan, Archbishop of York. He provided them with a site in the valley of the River Skell. The enclosed valley had all the required materials for the creation of a monastery, providing shelter from the weather, stone and timber for building, and a running supply of water.[1]. The monks applied to join the Cistercian order in AD1132. The abbey operated until 1539, when Henry VIII ordered the Dissolution of the Monasteries. The Abbey buildings and over 500 acres (2 km²) of land were then sold by the Crown, on October 1, 1540 [1], to Sir Richard Gresham, the London merchant, father of the founder of the Royal Exchange, Sir Thomas Gresham.[2] Architecture Interior looking down the Nave Construction of the Abbey began in 1132, with rock quarried locally, although the original monastery buildings received considerable additions and alterations in the later period of the order, causing deviations from the strict Cistercian type.
    [Show full text]
  • EXMIQ052 National Trust Appendix 1
    Proposal for a Buffer Zone for the World Heritage Site of Studley Royal Park including the ruins of Fountains Abbey Submission to the World Heritage Centre February 2012 Studley Royal, including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey, Buffer Zone submission Dec 2011 1 PROPOSAL FOR A BUFFER ZONE FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF STUDLEY ROYAL PARK INCLUDING THE RUINS OF FOUNTAINS ABBEY - SUBMISSION TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE FEBRUARY 2012 Prepared by the National Trust and English Heritage December 2011 Introduction Although the area within the boundary of the World Heritage Site is unlikely to be subject to development proposals which adversely impact upon its outstanding universal value (due to the fact that it is wholly managed by the National Trust), outside the designated World Heritage Site there are a number of developments which could, potentially, threaten its outstanding universal value. For example large scale or poorly sited renewable energy schemes, large-scale agricultural developments, and inappropriately sited buildings could harm its setting or key views into and out of the designated area. Since 2001 there has been a proposal in the Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site Management Plan to establish a buffer zone for Studley Royal Park including the ruins of Fountains Abbey World Heritage Site. The requirement for a buffer zone was again raised in the Periodic Monitoring Report 2006. The Periodic Monitoring Report stated that the boundaries of the site were inadequate and there was a need to define a formal buffer zone. It stated ‘Although the World Heritage Site boundary covers the core area of the designed landscape, some significant features lie outside.
    [Show full text]
  • C16 Doc-16-Unesco
    UNESCO The World Heritage THE AMERICAS ANTIGUA and BARBUDA 1983 Los Glaciares ARGENTINA 1978 Iguazu National Park ARGENTINA and BRAZIL Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis BELIZE 1990 Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System City of Potosi BOLIVIA 1976 Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos Historic City of Sucre Historic Town of Ouro Preto Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda Historic Centre of Salvador de Bahia Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Congonhas BRAZIL 1977 Iguacu National Park Brasilia Serra de Capivara National Park Historic Centre of Sao Luis L’ Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park Nahanni National Park Dinosaur Provincial Park Anthony Island Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex CANADA 1976 Wood Buffalo National Park Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks Quebec (Historic area) Gros Morne National Lunenburg Old Town Tatshenshini-Alsek, Kluane, Wrangell- St. Elias CANADA and UNITED STATES OF and Glacier Bay Parks AMERICA Waterton Glacier International Peace Park CHILE 1980 Rapa Nui National Park Carthagena Los Katios National Park COLOMBIA 1983 Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox National Archaeological Park of Tierradentro San Agustin Archaeological Park COSTA RICA 1977 Cocos Island National Park COSTA RICA and PANAMA Talamanca-La Amistad Old Havana CUBA 1981 Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba DOMINICA 1985 Morne Trois Pitons National Park DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1985 Colonial City of Santo Domingo Galapagos Islands ECUADOR 1975 City of Quito Sangay National
    [Show full text]
  • Section II: Summary of the Periodic Report on the State of Conservation
    State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II integrated into the scheme and is a building of UNITED KINGDOM importance in its own right as an outstanding example of High Victorian architecture by one of its Studley Royal Park including the leading exponents. Ruins of Fountains Abbey Garden landscape, water gardens, abbey ruins, Jacobean mansion and Victorian church are all of exceptional merit and together justify the inclusion Brief description of Studley Royal in the World Heritage List. A striking landscape was created around the ruins UNESCO Criteria: i, ii, iv, v and vi. of the Cistercian Fountains Abbey and Fountains Hall Castle, in Yorkshire. The 18th-century As provided in ICOMOS evaluation landscaping, gardens and canal, the 19th-century plantations and vistas, and the neo-Gothic castle of The Fountains site owes its originality and striking Studley Royal Park, make this an outstanding site. beauty to the fact that a humanised landscape of exceptional value was constituted around the largest medieval ruins of the United Kingdom. In the 1. Introduction definition of this cultural property it is essential that the small Fountains Hall Castle, the landscaping, Year(s) of Inscription 1986 the gardens and canal created by John Aislabie in Agency responsible for site management the 18th century, the plantations and vistas of the 19th century and finally Studley Royal Church, as • Mailing Address(es) an additional element of the site, all be expressly Fountains Abbey Estate Office included. HG4 3DY Ripon North Yorkshire Committee Decision United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] Bureau (1986): The Bureau recommended website: www.fountainsabbey.org.uk inscription of this property on condition that the British authorities redraft the proposal in such a way as to include expressly in the definition of this 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Ref: CL/WHC/14/02 27 November 2002 To
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture 7, place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP Tel. : + 33 (0) 1.45.68.15.71 Fax : + 33 (0) 1.45.68.55.70 Ref: CL/WHC/14/02 27 November 2002 To: Permanent Delegations, Observer Missions and National Commissions of States Parties to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in Europe and North America Madam/Sir, Subject: Periodic Reporting on the application of the World Heritage Convention and on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties in Europe and North America I have the honor to draw your attention to Article 29 of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention which requests that “The States Parties to this Convention shall, in the reports which they submit to the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (…), give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other action which they have taken for the application of this Convention, together with details of the experience acquired in this field”. The twenty-ninth General Conference of UNESCO in 1997, requested the World Heritage Committee to define the periodicity, form, nature and extent of the periodic reporting on the application of the World Heritage Convention and on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and to examine and respond to these reports. The World Heritage Committee, at its twenty-second session in December 1998, decided to invite States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to submit the periodic reports every six years in accordance with the Format for periodic reports as adopted by the Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Across Boundaries International Overview Christopher Young Head of World Heritage and International Policy, English Heritage
    EUROPEAN AND WORLD PERSPECTIVES Heritage across Boundaries International overview Christopher Young Head of World Heritage and International Policy, English Heritage The historic environment straddles political boundaries and its future depends on close international cooperation. Neither humanity nor environment exist in Secondly, we can exchange best practice. isolation. Even an island such as Great Britain Others, faced with similar problems, have dealt The Roman fort of has been heavily influenced by the rest of with them differently. Often we can learn from Saalburg (Germany), Europe since the beginning of human settle- their experience how to manage our own reconstructed by Kaiser ment here. Numerous distinctive features of heritage better. This is, of course, a two-way Wilhelm II, a centre of our landscape are common to much of Europe. process, as in the Italian adaptation of the investigation of the Examples include hillforts, Roman frontiers, model of our World Heritage Site frontiers of the Roman Gothic cathedrals, urban morphology, Management Plans. Empire for over a monastic precincts, industrialisation, modern Thirdly, the learning process can be carried century, now a part, fortifications and many, many others. forward by joint projects between different with Hadrian’s Wall, of Similarly many of the factors now affecting countries, often funded through European the Frontiers of the the rich evidence of our past are also common Union (EU) programmes. Such projects have Roman Empire World to much of Europe. The importance of the several possible outcomes, such as improved Heritage Site. historic environment, the need to improve and widen access to it and to manage it in a sustainable way, and its potential for supporting sustainable growth and modern communities are all widely recognised across Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence House Studley Roger, Ripon, North Yorkshire
    Lawrence House Studley Roger, Ripon, North Yorkshire Lawrence House From the kitchen, a door leads to the beautifully kept formal gardens which are visible through all Studley Roger, Ripon, of the kitchen windows. North Yorkshire HG4 3AY A fine staircase leads to the first floor where a master bedroom suite benefits from a separate One of the prettiest village dressing room and bathroom. There are 4 houses in North Yorkshire, further double bedrooms on the first floor as well as 3 bathrooms. on the edge of Studley Park The house is an excellent example of a Ripon 2 miles, Harrogate 14 miles, Thirsk generous family house in a unique setting at the 14 miles, Leeds Bradford airport 26 miles, edge of the village and has the additional benefit Leeds 30 miles of being within a stone’s throw of Studley Royal. Hall | Study (with Fibre Broadband to the Location property) | Dining room | Sitting room Lawrence House is situated on the edge of Drawing room | Kitchen | Utility the popular and historic conservation village Laundry | Pantry | Cellars of Studley Roger. The village lies adjacent Master bedroom suite with dressing room/ to the world heritage site of Studley Royal bedroom | 4 Further bedrooms | 3 Further andFountains Abbey. The park is owned by bathrooms | Immaculate formal gardens the National Trust and open to the public and Large walled garden with summer house includes some of the most stunning walks in Outbuildings | Stores the area. The village is sought after as a result of its unspoilt nature and the high number of In all about 1.49 acres older houses which front onto the main street.
    [Show full text]