MATTER 7 Selection of Sites Allocated for Development: Site Mx2-39 (Parlington) Main Issue 1 Susan Kellerman/Yorkshire Gardens T
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MATTER 7 Selection of sites allocated for development: Site Mx2-39 (Parlington) Main Issue 1 Susan Kellerman/Yorkshire Gardens Trust This objection to the proposed development at Parlington (site Mx2-39) is based on 7 months of research conducted into the history of the site, and is supported by the Yorkshire Gardens Trust (YGT) and the (national) Gardens Trust. The letter submitted by the YGT is attached as Appendix 1. 1.Introduction 1.1 The proposal to include the Parlington estate (as now owned by M&G) in the Leeds Site Allocation Plan is unsound. Such development poses a threat of substantial harm to the historic environment, and would be a wholly inappropriate use of a heritage asset of considerable significance, contrary to the NPPF and the Leeds Core Strategy. 1.2 It is for its historical interest, as seat of the Gascoigne family, and for the absence of statutory protection, that I submitted an application in December 2016 to have the designed landscape added to the Historic England National Heritage List (Register of Historic Parks and Gardens). As the designed landscape is surprisingly under-researched, and little has been published on this particular aspect of the estate, I and colleagues from the Yorkshire Gardens Trust have spent the last 7 months looking at the Gascoigne family papers and other related primary and secondary source material. Much of this has been sent on to HE. At the time of writing (August 2017), a draft report by the HE listing officer has been completed. In addition to my application, HE has now made (July 2017) the decision to assess a further 7 built structures for listing (Light Arch and Dark Arch, Stallion pens, Ice house in the Wilderness, Home Farm, Wakefield Lodge, Barwick Lodge, Ass Bridge Lodge). 1.3 The significance of the Parlington estate resides in a number of aspects. The historical interest of Parlington derives, in particular, from the rich and unusual history of the Gascoigne family in the C18 and C19. Its evidential value resides in the wealth of archive material available, which has been little studied, compared with other similar historic sites, and is still yielding more and more of interest (reaching beyond the sphere of garden history). Its aesthetic value can be seen in a number of individual architectural features, and in the integrity of the designed landscape as a whole. Its communal value is inherent in its history and associations, which give it a sense of place, i.e. a strong identity and character that is deeply felt by local inhabitants and visitors. And its use as a green open space, appreciated by local people, is evident for all to see. All of these aspects of significance will be expanded upon below. 1.4 A heritage asset is irreplaceable. The historical integrity of this estate should be seen as a whole, not just as a handful of scattered, unrelated individual features. This historic value is not something which can survive the large-scale development as proposed, or piecemeal development, where ‘sections’ of woodland are felled, or ‘some’ fields are covered by houses or cut across by access roads which ignore ancient tracks and field boundaries. Nor can the context and setting of an 1 architectural or natural feature be intruded upon and compromised, and views and vistas interrupted, without leading to substantial harm and, potentially, loss of significance. 2. Historical value 2.1 Parlington estate became the seat of the Gascoignes, a family of Catholic gentry, in 1720, after they left nearby Barnbow. It remained their home until the early 1900s, when the family moved to nearby Lotherton Hall (Park&Garden, Grade II). The house at Parlington was almost completely demolished in 1952, leaving only the surviving west wing. It is the C18 history of the Gascoigne family which is somewhat unusual, and which influences the story of the designed landscape. 2.2 The family had been staunch Catholics and remained so during the time of Sir Edward, 6th bt (1695–1750). Like all Catholic gentry, the sons were educated in France, and many of the daughters became nuns. Recusancy brought persecution and disadvantage, including accusations of treason (cf the infamous but failed ‘popish’ Barnbow Plot, 1680, instigated by colliers at the Gascoigne mines), suspicions concerning Jacobite sympathies, financial burdens in the form of fines and double taxation, and exclusion from the benefits of holding public office. The family’s income was derived from agriculture and mineral extraction, both coal and stone. During the years 1718–1743, Sir Edward developed the earlier house and created a garden typical of the period, with formal walks, a Wilderness, canal, bowling green, mount, grotto, fish pond and kitchen garden. However, suddenly, in 1743 he and his family, including 3 young daughters and son of 3 months, moved to Cambrai, northern France. The reason for this move has not been discovered, but fears arising from association with known or suspected Jacobite sympathisers (kinsmen and friends) might have prompted the move. Sir Edward died in France 7 years later. 2.3 And so from 1743 the garden went to sleep, although the productive activities of the estate continued to be managed efficiently for the following 20 years, until 1762, when Sir Edward’s second son, Thomas, unexpectedly inherited after the death of his older brother. Sir Thomas (8th bt, 1745– 1810), born in Cambrai, had received his (surprisingly enlightened) education in France and Turin, and came to England for the first time in 1763, still a minor. For the next 16 years, Sir Thomas spent much of his time travelling the continent, mixing with the aristocracy of France and Italy. These 40 years abroad were undoubtedly largely responsible for his independent and rather unconventional attitudes when he finally settled in Yorkshire in 1779 and took on responsibility for his estate, which had been successfully managed until then by his steward, agent, and head gardener. 2.4 Sir Thomas abjured his faith in 1780, which allowed him to take an active role in society and politics. He continued to employ and support Catholics, providing a RC chapel in Aberford, which still stands (St Wilfrid’s Priory). He married in 1784, and a son was born. He served as a Whig MP, was a close ally of the Marquis of Rockingham, and opposed the ‘King’s war’ in America. He commissioned plans for the house (mostly unrealised) and estate buildings from leading architects of the day (John Carr, Thomas Atkinson, Thomas Leverton, William Lindley). He had an active interest in, and reputation for, agricultural improvement, and was elected Honorary Member of the Board of Agriculture in 1794. 2 2.5 Sir Thomas established a stud at Parlington of international renown, which continued to flourish under Richard Oliver Gascoigne, after Sir Thomas’s death. The stud produced some of the finest bloodstock of the period: four St Leger winners were trained there, commemorated by the silver Race Cup (1797) held at Lotherton Hall. Evidence can still be seen of horse breeding in the Parlington landscape. Three paddocks bordering Parlington Lane, south of the Avenue, survive, with watering provision from the culverted Crow Beck still visible. These paddocks are marked on the 1773 map of the estate (they probably date from much earlier), and a map of 1802 shows pencilled-in individual stables. The gothic Round House on the Avenue (William Lindley, 1803, Grade II), variously described as ‘cattle shed’ and ‘deer shed’, was more likely intended as an eyecatcher-cum-vantage point on the Avenue from where the Gascoigne mares and foals could be viewed grazing in the paddocks below. The 4 stallion pens to the NE of Home Farm were built by 1813, after Sir Thomas’s death in 1810. Although the pens, with their magnificent 2.5 m curved stone walls and elaborate gate piers survive, the individual stallion ‘houses’ in each have been lost (probably since WWII). An architectural drawing in the estate papers, dated 1809, showing a classical, pedimented building, has been identified as a stallion ‘house’. This costly accommodation for horses demonstrates the value the Gascoignes attached to their horse racing and breeding activities. So far, no other similar stallion pens of this kind have been identified, and so they are a rare survival. Their context and setting would be totally compromised in the development proposals. 2.6 Sir Thomas’s only son died in 1809, and he himself died the following year. Parlington passed to Richard Oliver Gascoigne, husband of Thomas’s step-daughter Mary, who extended the house, continued to develop the estate and mineral extraction, and ran the stud to great advantage. On his death in 1843, his two daughters, Isabella and Elizabeth inherited, who introduced further changes to the house and garden as fashion in the Victorian period dictated. 3. Evidential value 3.1 There is a wealth of material relating to Parlington in the Gascoigne papers at West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds (WYL115). Although a recent book on Sir Thomas Gascoigne has examined the management of this estate in some detail, there has been little research and very few publications focusing on the designed landscape per se, from a garden history perspective, and there is undoubtedly much more to be discovered. For example, the personal accounts and diaries of Sir Edward Gascoigne between 1718 and 1737 are a rich source of information about the creation of a formal garden in the fashion of the time, methods of tree propagation, tree and hedge planting, local and London nurserymen, crops, construction of walls, etc. Daily notes recording the acquisition of deer from friends and neighbours, and the details of deer as they fawn, together with accounts of work on paling in ‘the Park’, date the origins of the deer park (which survived till WWII) to 1734–37.