Heritage Statement Beeston Hall, Beeston Park, Rev A 10/09/18 CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 4.0 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE APPENDICES 1.1 Purpose of the Report 4.1 Assessing Significance A Listing Descriptions 1.2 Scope of the Study 4.2 Summary Statement of Significance B National Planning Policy Framework 1.3 Existing Information and Gaps in Knowledge 4.3 Assessment of the Heritage Value C Heritage Explorer Ref 1.4 Authorship D Beyond Green Vision E Future Beeston Application Area

2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE SITE 5.0 LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE 2.1 Site Location 5.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2.2 Site Description 5.2 Local Planning Policy 2.3 Setting and Context 5.3 Heritage Guide 2.4 Heritage Assets

3.0 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT 6.0 HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Early History of the Site 6.1 Overview 3.2 Beeston Hall: 20th & 21st Century 6.2 Proposed Alterations 6.3 Conclusions

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report This report has been based on what little evidence is 1.4 Authorship available, in addition to site visits and a review of the This report has been prepared as a Historic Building various listing references available. This report has been prepared by Brown & Co, a firm Statement to support the proposed New Housing to of property and land professionals, which includes a the North and West of Park Farm and adjacent to Chartered Architectural Practice. The key Beeston St Andrew Hall. The report aims to provide a 1.2 Scope of the Report contributors are: thorough understanding of the history of the site and the buildings which surround the development site. The scope of the report is confined to the buildings, Fraser Hall BA(Hons), BArch, PgDip ARB RIBA The proposed site does not have any buildings on it, immediate curtilage and the land which surrounds Ian Knowles Bsc(Hons) however there are some existing 19th century the proposed development site. See page 4 for a site brickwork garden walls. Neither the site nor the plan indicating the scope of the report. structures are listed separately or as part of a curtilage listing. The report makes brief reference to the overall history of the site and Beeston St Andrew, but will The proposed development site sits between Beeston primarily focus on the existing walled garden area, St Andrew Hall and Park Farm. The site is not located proposed site and the buildings which are within a Conservation Area, but sits within the context immediately adjacent to the proposed development. of Beeston Park, Beeston St Andrew, which is recorded as a Historic Parkland on the Norfolk County Council Inventory of Parks. The Park has not been 1.3 Existing information and Gaps in included in HBMC Register of Historic Parks and Knowledge Gardens. A desk-based assessment was carried out in The Hall and Farm buildings are not listed, however, preparation of this report, Norfolk Historic the curved brickwork walls to the south of the Hall Environment Record (NHER) as well as searching are Grade II listed (Entry ref. 1050935). Listed relevant online databases. This search has provided buildings are of special architectural and historic some information on the site but sections of its interest which make up ’s historic history are unrecorded. The Heritage Context section environment. They are protected under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for the report has been compiled from desk-based and alterations or demolitions to them require Listed research. Building Consent from the local planning authority before they can proceed. 2. UNDERSTANDING THE SITE

2.1 Site Location

The site is located to the north-east of Beeston St Andrew Hall and to the north and west of Park Farm. A residential access road bisects the proposed site and both pieces of land are surrounded by mature trees and hedgerows. The buildings are not within a Conservation Area, nor are they adjacent to one.

2.2 Site Description The proposed site is separated into two sections of land, either side of a residential access road, running north-south. Both sections of land are rectangular in shape with the piece to the east being larger.

Contained within the larger section of land exists two sections of historic walls and an enclosed walled garden, which enclose one large space and one smaller space (to the south). These sit to the north- west corner of the site. This site is bounded by mature hedgerows and large sections of mature trees on the south and west boundaries.

To the south east, where the existing access is made, sit a range of traditional red brick barns which are currently used commercially however they have permission for conversion into residential units. Slightly to the north of the barns, sits Park Farm House.

1. Estate House—Circa 1920 2. Beeston St Andrew Hall - 1897 3. Pool House – Post 4. Stable Building 5. Bungalow 6. Park Farm House 7. Park Farm Barns 8. Estate Houses—Semi-detached Circa 1920 9. Estate Houses—1893

2.2.1 Beeston St Andrew Hall

The Norfolk Heritage Explorer provides the following summary:

“A building is marked on Faden’s map of 1797 as New Hall, but the present building is in fact a replacement building of 1897, New Hall having been demolished in 1846. The existing building is of red brick and three storeys high. It is however set between two curving walls that partly date from the 17th century, which were part of a building that predated the demolished New Hall.” A full description can be found under Appendix C.

2.2.2 Beeston St Andrew Hall Walls

The walls to the south of the Hall are listed Grade II, under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest. The walls are curved 18th century red brick garden walls with stone copings. There are a series of blind semi-circular arches forming an arcade with piers, capped with stone urns at either end. The Listing Description can be found in Appendix B.

2.2.3 Beeston Park The Norfolk Heritage Explorer provides the following summary:

“An estate map of 1722 shows Beeston Park as a geometric landscape around an E-plan hall. The main feature was a long, north-northwest to south- southeast, avenue. The geometric landscape survived until the early 19th century but by 1824 had been redesigned in a 'picturesque' manner with winding paths, clumps and irregular tree belts. The long avenue from the geometric landscape was retained to the north and can still be traced in the present day landscape.”

A full description can be found under Appendix C. East of the Hall, looking west. Looking north towards Beeston Hall.

Beeston Lane

2.2.4 Park Farm Barns The barns represent a good example of a traditional range of brick built agricultural buildings. They should be read in conjunction with Park Farm House, as together these form a typical grouping of farmhouse and ancillary buildings. The barns currently benefit from an approval for their conversation from commercial to residential use.

2.2.5 Park Farm House A traditionally built red brick farm house which runs east-west, with a range of smaller outbuildings to the west. The farmhouse faces due south and overlooks a courtyard style arrangement of gardens and an Looking towards Park Farm House through the farmyard Park Farm House and farmyard existing pond.

Approaching Park Farm Park Farm House Park Farm House

2.3 Setting & Context 2.3.1 Setting The development site is situated to the north-east of Norwich (approx. 4 miles from the inner ring road). The sites immediate setting is of enclosed paddock, set within a wider parkland and farm land landscape. There are a number of houses which are dotted around the wider area.

The proposals are approx. 40m from an adjacent bungalow (fig.1), 20m from a stable block (fig.2) and Fig 2. Stable block 60m from a pool house (fig.3). These three building are considered to sit within the immediate curtilage of Beeston St Andrew Hall. Beyond this, the site wraps round Park Farm and the associated barns to Fig 1. Bungalow the south (fig.4). The associated plans reference the varying elements which are considered to make up the curtilage and setting of the Hall, along with it association with the site.

The wider land which surrounds the Hall, House and Barns, forms the remnants of the Country Park landscape referenced previously, however the majority of this has been converted to agricultural land or has permission for housing development. The parkland has been bisected by the NDR.

Fig 4. Barns to the south

To the north-west corner of the proposed site, sits a large fully enclosed walled garden with arched pedestrian gate access from the East and West, with a larger gated access to the West. In the south-west corner of the walls there is a small brick built potting shed, raised up with a stepped approach. Internally, some evidence of timber shelving is evident and the original brickwork floor remains in situ. Further to the south, sits an overgrown brickwork structure, which appears to be a lower version of the larger walled garden. Access into the centre of this structure was unfortunately not possible and so it is not possible to report on it further.

2.3.2 Views Views into and out of the proposed site are limited. The associated site plan indicates Looking towards Park Farm from Beeston Road where these exist generally, from a wide context and specifically into and out of the site. The general enclosed nature of the site makes it challenging to suggest where visual impact on the landscape and heritage elements might occur.

2.4 Heritage Assets 2.4.1 Designation The site itself is not listed, however it is adjacent to a listed asset. The site sits within an area determined as Beeston Park. The proposed site does not reflect the parkland or farming context, in which they sit. The nearby listed asset is marked on the asset plan.

(Enclose plan of general development over time)

3. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

3.1 History of Beeston Hall

The sites earliest mapped record of a habitation on was subsequently demolished, some of the the site is of the 1722 estates map (NR0 BR extensions may have been retained but it appears 276/1/523) which shows an E shaped building with that the main hall was entirely rebuilt. ancillary buildings and separate farm building to the East. It is commented within the 2010 report that the The existing hall was designed by architect Edward hall is assumed to have been demolished sometime Boardman and built in 1897 for Henry Staniforth, its during the 18th and 19th century and rebuilt in a has been commented that it did not attracted a lot of slightly new location, this could be a result of attention from historians especially as it has not been inaccuracies within the mapping as the 1824 map listed. The only elements on the site being listed are does bear similarities to the 1722 illustration. the two curved walls of 18th century origin (are noted to have possible 17th century origin which has not The 1824 map shows a C shaped building with a been confirmed). number of extensions and 4 sets of curved lines which are assumed to be the listed walls. This hall

Tithe OS Map Circa 1840 (Historic-Maps Norfolk) 1946 Aerial (Historic-Maps Norfolk) First Edition OS Map 1879—1886 (Historic-Maps Norfolk) 3.2 History of the Landscape

circular section of Beeston Lane. These appear to The 1722 estates map illustrates the original layout the Hall and its immediate grounds. The walled have been built in the 1890’s, based on the date of Beeston park, laid out on a slightly offset north garden appears to have fallen into disrepair at some bricks found on the cottages to the east and 1920’s south axis with ’kitchen garden’ spaces to the west, point after 1946 and before 1988. It is at this time based on the arts and crafts style of the houses to it is noted within the 2010 report that the definition that the swimming pool and pool house appears to the west. These houses were certainly present in of domestic and formal garden spaces was more the north of the Hall. the 1940’s. fluid during this period. To the west is the area for our proposal, with the ‘Dairy house’ and a single Development around Park Farm is limited, however, barn, with assumed dairy grazing surrounding it. The there are the additions of ‘Estate Houses’ to the . land to the south named “The Paddock” is noted in east and west end of the semi- the 2010 report as being a potential deer enclosure.

The 2010 report remarks that the map was probably completed soon after the parkland was laid out, with elements of the design being rare before 1700 .

The landscape broadly survived the following 90 years till 1805 when it seems to have begun to be transformed into formal parkland and clearly described as park land on the 1824 estate map. By 1842 the land to the east of Beeston Hall had begun to be used as a kitchen garden with a walled garden, and the field directly north of ’Dairy House’ farm has been planted as an orchard.

The more modern history of the site reflects the move away from the country house and parkland landscape through to what can be seen today. Park Farm, the barns and the definition of the wider site and context remain, however it is clear how Beeston Hall today agricultural land use has encroached in on 4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following section will provide an assessment of the significance of the site. Value Definition The basis for the assessment will be guidance provided by English Heritage in High An aspect of value that strongly contributes to the significance of a Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance, with significance (heritage value) place. These aspects may be important at a national or even inter- being established under four main categories: Evidential Value; Historical Value; national level. They will have high cultural value and will form an Aesthetic & Architectural Value, and; Communal & Social Value. essential piece of the history and meaning of the place. In material

terms, they will greatly contribute towards the heritage values. Given the undeveloped nature of the site, it is important to consider the Conservation will be a priority, and alterations would require a de- development of the site against the setting of the heritage assets found locally, fined and compelling need and general consensus and/or demon- along with the heritage value of the non-listed elements, so that a full picture of stration that significance will be considerably enhanced, reinforced the landscape can be presented and then what impact the development might or revealed as a result. have on this. Medium An aspect of value that will have some cultural importance and will 4.1 Assessing Significance make a modest contribution to the significance of a place. Efforts should be made to protect and enhance these aspects, though a The definition of significance can be considered the sum of the cultural, social greater degree of flexibility is possible than with aspects of high and / or natural heritage values that make a place important. This importance value. should be considered against the current situation but also projected forwards Low An aspect of value that will make a slight (yet noteworthy) contribu- for future generations. Understanding the level of significance of a place is vital tion to the significance of a place. In material terms it will still add to inform change, so that it happens where appropriate and in a way that is something to the heritage values, although this contribution may sensitively managed. This ensures that any significance is maintained and where have been compromised by loss or uniformed interventions. A possible it is further revealed, reinforced and enhanced. greater capacity for enhancement exists than for items of medium or high value, although a low designation does not necessarily This assessment of significance has been based on a site visit, limited digital mean that the feature is expendable and any materials change is research and desk-based research. likely to require consent from the local authority.

Where appropriate reference has been made to the different types of values Neutral An aspect that has no discernible value that neither add to nor identified in Historic England’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. detracts from the significance of the place. Informed change is The relative contribution of the heritage values to the significance of the site are likely to be acceptable. graded as either high, medium, low, neutral or detrimental. Detrimental An aspect of the place that detracts from its values and therefore its significance. In material terms, removal of these aspects should be strongly encouraged following the necessary consultation and consent procedures. These may be elements that have been add- ed more recently that have been carried out in a piecemeal way, which detracts from the integrity and completeness of the historic environment and are damaging to the fabric or wider significance. 4.2 Summary Statement of Significance

The historical significance of the site in this instance Despite the proposed site being within the wider is in reference to the context in which the site sits. It curtilage of the Hall and Park Farm and having a role is clear that there are buildings in the vicinity which to play in the operation of the Hall originally, it does are of heritage value and so the development of the not now have the same role. The intended function site needs to address these. There is also the of the walled garden and the garden beds to the designated listed asset, in the form of the walls to the south have since ceased and it is clear that this land front of the Hall, to take into consideration. The has been left. The same can be said for the land to existence of the Hall and Park Farm form part of the the north of Park Farm, which would have once been character of the site and the wider landscape. used as a paddock and is in a similar condition. Consideration of this landscape character will be important. The site is within an historic parkland There is local and historical value in the retention of landscape however the parkland is not included the walled garden and associated potting shed as within the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. these can be directly referenced back to the heritage This suggests that despite its significance in of the site. Returning to the former use would be combination with the Hall locally, it does not impractical and the development of the wider site represent the regional or national quality deemed without its retention, would result in the considerable necessary to be on the register. loss of historic fabric.

4.3 Assessment of the Heritage Value The presumption is that the site was unoccupied prior to the siting of the Hall, Farm and Parkland. On 4.3.1 Evidential Value. balance the site has a low evidential value.

Historic plans and maps of the park are the main source of evidence for the development of the site 4.3.2 Historic and Illustrative Value and have been reviewed via the Historic Maps of Norfolk online resource and the maps held by the The site sits within an historic parkland setting, Norfolk Archives. It is clear that development has however, this is not considered to have significant been limited and sporadic, with there being three enough value to be included on the Register of main phases of development (1722 the original Hall, Historic Parks. The original layout of the parkland Farm etc., 1897 the replacement Hall and the early has been eroded over time and both the agricultural 20th Century housing). use of the land and the felling of trees for timber has significantly encroached on this. The proposed site is The remaining features from these original phases of not directly read in conjunction with the parkland development are in the form of the walled garden setting due to its heavily screened boundaries and elements. These are of traditional design, with high position behind Park Farm. In fact, the Hall and the sided walls, arched gate ways and large doors for parkland have a much stronger relationship, as would horse and cart access. The features present on the have been intended from the outset. walls reflect those of the Hall. Little alteration to the walls has occurred over time other than snow fall The site has historical value, with its associated use damage as reported in the 1990 reports and despite as a walled garden for the Hall, and in association some dilapidations, they appear to be majority in with Park Farm and the Parkland. However none of their 19th century condition. the built assets to which the site directly relates to is specifically listed. They do represent buildings of Given the clear history of the site, as parkland, there heritage value. is little potential for archaeological remains being 1999 Aerial photo graph of site clearly shows the found which tie to the more recent history. The The walled garden section represents the only land still used for cultivation but due to its size it is cartographic map evidence suggests that there have element which has direct historical value in its own unlikely to be described as agricultural land but as a been limited buildings on or adjacent to the site right. This is not a rare feature and these features domestic kitchen garden for the use of Beston Hall. previously and that these are likely to be can be found in association with many country This also highlights structures within the area and representative of the farming element of Park Farm. houses throughout the UK. Overall, the site is within the walled garden deemed to have low illustrative value. 4.3.3 Aesthetic Value

Generally speaking, walled gardens can be The quality of the pasture land remains low. The land challenging structures, as the high wall levels often is not actively farmed and it appears that there has result in structural issues with the brickwork. In this been periodic use of the fields for residential amenity instance, the brickwork seems to be in good use, but they have not been absorbed into the formal condition, with some remedial works required to the residential curtilage for the Hall or Park Farm. piers, arches and potting shed. The existing gates and doors are damaged, probably beyond repair and The screening of the entire site results in a visually so replacements of these would need to be isolated site, with only limited avenues of view into sympathetic. The walls have been designed and built and out of the site available. Park Farm House has to reflect the detailing seen on the Hall and so there limited windows facing over the land to the north and are a number of decorative features, such as curved those that do exist appear to be at ground floor. It is brickwork capping's and well formed brickwork clear that the farm house did not have a critical arches to the openings. The walls have been built relationship with this land. It is therefore deemed from quality bricks and they would have represented that the site has a medium aesthetic value, due to a significant expense when originally constructed. the quality of the walled garden. Despite these features, the walls do not represent anything exceptional or contain anything which would not be found or expected elsewhere in the country, in the same circumstance. The walls are not a unique example of this typology.

More modern timber framed and metal framed glass houses have had a detrimental effect on the overall quality of the walled garden and so their removal would have a significant improvement on the aesthetic of the area.

4 Statement of Significance

4.3.4 Communal Value

The site has been in occupation in one form or another since 1722. This occupation has been fairly limited to those living and working on and around the Hall and Farm. It is difficult to say what the value of the site has been beyond those who have lived and worked there. The impact of the site communally will have been limited to a relatively small number, despite the length of occupation of the site.

The site and Hall have never been publicly open and even today there are signs up confirming that the land is private and that access is not allowed. The enjoyment of the parkland and Hall has been for a privileged few and not for the many. The importance of the landscape which was created historically, has already been commented on and its reduction in scale and impact will have had a negative effect on the perception of quality from the wider community. The site is not readily visible from transport routes, nor is it connected to a specific settlement, making it more like a self-contained element as opposed to one which has been integral to the character of the area. Due to this it is deemed as having a low communal significance.

5. LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE

5.1 National Planning Policy 5.2 Local Planning Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Joint Core Strategy and Development Management (published March 2012) is the overarching planning Policies (2011) policy document for England and provides guidance The Joint Core Strategy outlines the objectives for about how to implement the legislation which covers development in and sets out where new the historic environment, the Planning (Listed housing and other development should be focused. Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Within The Council are in the process of adopting a new Section 12 of the NPPF – Conservation and Local Plan which will replace the Core Strategy and enhancing the historic environment – are the suite of documents that make up the current adopted Government’s Policies for the protection of heritage. Local Plan.

The policies advise a holistic approach to planning There is a presumption for development on the and development, where all significant elements that proposed site as it has been included within the make up the historic environment are termed boundary of a previously approved Outline heritage assets. These consist of designated assets, Application, for housing to the south of Beeston St such as Listed Buildings or conservation areas, non- Andrew Hall. designated assets, such as locally Listed Buildings, or those features which are of heritage value. The policies within the document emphasise the need for assessing the significance of heritage assets and their setting in order to fully understand the historic environment and inform suitable design proposals for change to significant buildings.

A full list of the relevant sections of the NPPF is included in Appendix B.

5.3 Heritage Guidance be restored decisively outweigh the values of listed building, conservation area or scheduled those that would be lost; ancient monument can affect the significance of the b. the work is justified by compelling evidence of heritage asset itself. the evolution of the place, and is executed in Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance (2008). accordance with that evidence; Seeing the Heritage in the View (2011) c. the form in which the place currently exists is This looks specifically at the significance of a group not the result of an historically-significant of heritage assets from long range and short This document, published by Historic England, sets event; distance views. It sets out a methodology for out the principles for the management of the historic d. the work proposed respects previous forms of assessment and for exploring the impact of change environment and also the process for assessing the the place; within an important view.” significance of a site. e. the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance differentiates between works that are repairs, 138. New work or alteration to a significant place restoration and new works or alterations. The should normally be acceptable if: following paragraphs indicate the level of justification a. there is sufficient information required for the different types of work. comprehensively to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place; “117 Repair necessary to sustain the heritage values b. the proposal would not materially harm the of a significant place is normally desirable if: values of the place, which, where appropriate, a. there is sufficient information would be reinforced or further revealed; comprehensively to understand the impacts of c. the proposals aspire to a quality of design and the proposals on the significance of the place; execution which may be valued now and in the and future; b. the long term consequences of the proposals d. the long-term consequences of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated to be can, from experience, be demonstrated to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in the future; prejudice alternative solutions in the future. and c. the proposals are designed to avoid or minimise harm, if actions necessary to sustain Good Practice Advice 3 – The setting of Heritage particular heritage values tend to conflict. Assets (2015) This document, which supersedes The Setting of 126 Restoration to a significant place should Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2011), provides normally be acceptable if: guidance on how changes within the setting of a a. the heritage values of the elements that would 6. HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Overview 6.2 Proposed Alterations

As demonstrated in Section 5, the significance of the The alterations to the site are proposed to be The proposed alterations to the wider garden site are: site is largely associated with the Parkland in which it sustainable, efficient and effective in their use of the a. The development of 3 new properties. sits and its association with the various heritage proposed sites land. The retention and reimagining of b. Central landscaping areas which mirror the assets in proximity. The retention of the landscape the garden wall and the management of the impact form of Park Farm, with access around the character is not necessarily the issue at hand, on the surrounding landscape and heritage assets. edge and picking up on an ancient Oak as the however the suitability of the development in its centre point. setting is. Retention of the historic fabric and its The proposed alterations to the garden wall are: c. Contextual design which reads in conjunction place within the history of the wider context of the a. The removal of all of the modern additions to with the brickwork farmhouse and the barns Parkland and Hall is important. The lack of significant the garden, in the form of timber and metal which are adjacent. listed asset locally and the status of the Parkland, all structures. translate to the minimal significance that the b. The repair of the brickwork walls, capping and The proposed additions to the northern paddock area proposed development will have on the wider sites piers. are: heritage. However, the retention of the existing c. The repair of the original potting shed a. The development of 2 new properties. structure on the site is important in communicating brickwork, roof tiles and timbers. b. Positioned to the northern boundary so to limit the history of its development. d. The repair and sensitive restoration of the visual impact on Park Farm House. joinery elements (gates and doors) into the c. Contemporary design is suggested, in the form As outlined, the site forms a pair of open pasture walled garden. of Pavilion style properties, which have been fields, with the addition of an historic walled garden. e. The sensitive and contextual insertion of a seen within the wider grounds of Country The walled gardens isolation from the Hall, and its property within the walls, so to give the walls houses historically. generic construction and detailing make it an and garden a new and extend life. important asset to protect. However, it does not f. Retention and renovation of the secondary reflect a highly significant feature outside of its walled garden structure and retention with the immediate locality. main walled garden, for ancillary use in association with the new property.

6 Heritage Recommendations

6.3 Conclusions

The character of the walled garden and the wider Parkland have all deteriorated over time and this is reflected in the limited listings of the building fabric, the status of the Parkland and the previous approvals for new housing in much of the land to the south of the Hall. The aim of the proposals is to provide a sympathetic approach to a site which benefits from the presumption of development via previous approvals. The retention of the Heritage Asset most affected by the development is central to the proposals and forms the focus for the rest of the development. What is important within the process of change is to ensure that any built fabric is appropriately retained and included within the proposals. Equally, the new additions to the site are reflective of the history, materials and uses which have passed before them.

7 References

The Norfolk Heritage Explorer, http:// Historic England, Seeing the Heritage in the View www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk (2011), https://content.historicengland.org.uk/

images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of- Historic England's Conservation Principles, heritage-assets/heag180-gpa3-setting-heritage- Policies and Guidance, https:// assets.pdf/ historicengland.org.uk/advice/constructive- conservation/conservation-principles Norfolk Historic Environment Record Information The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 1722 Estates map NRO BR 276/1/523 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ 1824 Estates map national-planning-policy-framework--2 Beeston Park, Beeston St Andrews A Report on Joint Core Strategy and Development Historic Landscape, Tom Williamson, UEA Aug Management Policy’s (2011), https:// 2010 www.broadland.gov.uk/downloads/ Beeston Park, Beeston St Andrews Report on download/159/current_local_plan_- Estate circa 1990 author unknown _joint_core_strategy

Historic England’s Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance (2008), https:// historicengland.org.uk/images-books/ publications/conservation-principles-sustainable -management-historic-environment/

Historic England, Good Practice Advice 3 (2015), https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/ publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Listing Descriptions Appendix B: National Planning Policy Framework Appendix C: Norfolk Heritage Explorer Ref Appendix A: Location Plan

Appendix B: National Planning Policy Framework

61. Although visual appearance and the Authorities should require an applicant to destructiveness. architecture of individual buildings are very describe the significance of any heritage assets 133. Where a proposed development will lead to important factors, securing high quality and affected, including any contribution made by substantial harm to total loss of significance of a inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic their setting. The level of detail should be designated heritage asset, Local Planning considerations. Therefore, Planning Policies and proportionate to the assets’ importance and no Authorities should refuse consent, unless it can decisions should address the connections more than is sufficient to understand the be demonstrated that the substantial harm or between people and places and the integration potential impact of the proposal on their loss is necessary to achieve substantial public of new development into the natural, built and significance… Where a site on which benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of historic environment. development is proposed includes or has the the following apply: potential to include heritage assets with 64. Permission should be refused for archaeological interest, Local Planning • The nature of the heritage asset prevents all development of poor design that fails to take the Authorities should require developers to summit reasonable uses of the site; and opportunities available for improving the an appropriate desk-based assessment and, character and quality of an area and the way it • No viable use of the heritage asset itself can where necessary, a field evaluation. functions. be found in the medium term through 131. In determining Planning Applications, Local appropriate marketing that will enable its 65. Local Planning Authorities should not refuse Planning Authorities should take account of: conservation; and Planning Permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of 1. the desirability of sustaining and enhancing • Conservation by grant-funding or some form sustainability because of concerns about the significance of heritage assets and putting of charitable or public ownership is incompatibility with an existing townscape, if them to viable uses consistent with their demonstrably not possible; and those concerns have been mitigated by good conservation; • The harm or loss is outweighed by the design (unless the concern relates to a 2. the positive contribution that conservation of benefit of bringing the site back into use. designate heritage asset and the impact would heritage assets can make to sustainable 134. Where a development proposal will lead to cause material harm to the asset or its setting communities including their economic vitality; less than substantial harm to the significance of which is not outweighed by the proposal’s and; a designated heritage asset, this harm should economic, social and environmental benefits). 3. the desirability of new development making be weighed against the public benefits of the 128. In determining Applications, Local Planning a positive contribution to local character and proposal, including securing its optimum viable Appendix C: Norfolk Heritage Explorer Ref

NHER Number: 8174 This is presumably because, according to the NCC present day landscape. Type of record: Building Inventory of Parks, the house is a replica dating Name: Beeston St Andrew Hall from 1897. The New Hall shown by (S1), which had Grid reference: TG 256 140 replaced a 17th century building, was demolished Map Sheet: TG21SE

Summary in 1846. The garden walls however are partly 17th Parish: Beeston St Andrew, Broadland, Norfolk A building is marked on Faden's map of 1797 as century. E.Rose 16 March 1994. , Broadland, Norfolk New Hall, but the present building is in fact a Monument Types: GREAT HOUSE (Post Medieval - replacement building of 1897, New Hall having 1540 AD to 1900 AD) Full description been demolished in 1846. The existing building is Historic Parkland on NCC Inventory of Parks (S1), of red brick and three storeys high. It is however set Sources and further reading: Publication: Faden, W but not included in HBMC Register of Historic Parks between two curving walls that partly date from the and Barringer, J.C.1989 . Faden’s Map of Norfolk in and Gardens. 17th century, which were part of a building that 1797. Park in existence before 1794 with an avenue to predated the demolished New Hall. the north. Doubled in size to north in 1842. Related records: Beeston Park, Beeston St Andrew Reduction in planting by 1908. Area between belts Location (Monument) now mostly ploughed. Grid Reference: TG 25619 13886 Map Sheet: TG21SE Associated Finds - none Lodge and gates on public road across park. Parish: Beeston St Andrew, Broadland, Norfolk Protected Status: Listed Building Impressive garden walls 17th and 18th century. 19th century shrubbery and walled kitched garden. Full description Possibly dry fishponds to south-east. July 1977. Visited. NHER Number: 30495 E. Ro s e ( NLA), 16 March 1994. Red brick: marked as New Hall on (S1), though it Type of record: Monument looks later than this - but not enough to postulate a Name: Beeston Park, Beeston St Andrew August 2010. Historic Landscape Report. rebuilding. 3 storeys: no regular bays (5 windows on Produced in conjunction with proposals for Norwich 2nd floor, 7 on first). Baroque pediment with Summary Northern Distributor Road. volutes on central door. Set between two curving An estate map of 1722 shows Beeston Park as a wing-walls of blank arches. Apparently empty but in geometric landscape around an E-plan hall. The 1722 estate map shows a geometric designed good condition. main feature was a long north-northwest to south- landscape, still broadly apparent in the early 19th Visited E. Rose (NAU) 20 July 1977. southeast avenue. The geometric landscape century. By an estate map of 1824 the park had survived until the early 19th century but by 1824 been de-formalised although the long north-north- 1983 Relisting inspectorate did not consider the had been redesigned in a 'picturesque' manner with west/south-south-east avenue can still be traced in Hall worthy of listing but listed the garden wall winding paths, clumps and irregular tree belts. The the present - day landscape. i n s t e a d . E R o s e . long avenue from the geometric landscape was See (S2) for full details. retained to the north and can still be traced in the A. Yardy (HES), 26 October 2010. Appendix D: Beyond Green Vision

Appendix E: Future Beeston Application Area