A View Management Framework for Hatfield House

Home , Leeds Castle

march 2015 Hertfordshire, England

GCE_view management_v5.indd 1 18/03/2015 17:16 2

GCE_view management_v5.indd 2 18/03/2015 17:16 CONTENTS

1 Introduct ion 2

2 Purpose of This Report and Context 3

3 Hatfield House and Gardens: Historical Background 5

4 s tatutory Basis and Current View Management Practice 15

5 Examples of Other View Management Frameworks 18 A Oxford View Cones 18 B Cambridge Tall Buildings Guidelines 20 C London View Management Framework 2010 22

6 s trategy and Methodology 26

7 Proposed Key Views and Policies 28

8 s ummary and Conclusion 30

GCE_view management_v5.indd 3 18/03/2015 17:16 4

GCE_view management_v5.indd 4 18/03/2015 17:16 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report forms the representation on behalf of Gascoyne Cecil Estates (the Estate) as part of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Planning Consultation Process. The Estate are seeking the formal support of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (WHBC) and English Heritage for the formation of a policy in the new Local Plan that seeks to protect the setting of the nationally important Hatfield House and Park and Gardens. That policy will signpost the creation of a View Management Framework to be adopted as a Supplementary planning Document.

1.2 This representation has been prompted by the recent Inquiry into the construction of a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility in close proximity of Hatfield House and its estate. It is felt that the decision making process was substantially impaired by a lack of cohesive guidance regarding the assessment of harm on the setting of Heritage Assets, particularly in regard to the setting of this Grade I Listed heritage asset and the prospect of further development heralded by a new Local Plan.

1.3 This report will set out the need and justification of such a framework. The suggested methodology proposed for establishing proposed views and management policies are also laid out to assist discussion.

1.4 The adoption of a View Management Plan for Hatfield House would enable the Council to fulfil its statutory duty to protect the setting of the Grade I Listed Building in an effective and coherent manner.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 5 18/03/2015 17:16 2. Purpose of this Report and Context

2.1 The necessity to consider a formal assessments were undertaken in order to framework has been prompted by the assess the impact of the proposal’s visibility recent Inquiry into the construction on the wider Hatfield Ensemble. English of a Recycling and Energy Recovery heritage noted that “This is not a question Facility in proximity of Hatfield House of subjective design preference, but what the and Gardens. It is felt that the decision impact is on the appreciation of the heritage making process was substantially impaired value of the asset”(p124). by a lack of cohesive guidance regarding the assessment of harm on the setting of 2.4 The Secretary of State’s decision, ruled Heritage Assets, particularly in regard that the development would result in to the setting of Hatfield House and the significant harm to a number of heritage prospect of further development heralded by assets “themselves recognised as being of a new Local Plan’. exceptional significance, although the harm would be to the setting of the assets, and 2.2 An application for an Incinerator at in no case vitiate altogether or very much New Barnfield for the construction and reduce the significance of the assets”. operation of a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility (app ref 6/2570-11) was 2.5 The scoping exercises undertaken in refused on the 7th of July 2014 by the support of the Inquiry used well-established Secretary of State on the grounds that methodologies in respect of view assessment. the proposed development would cause However, this exercise was derived from the substantial harm to the openness of the objects within the views, as supposed to the Green Belt in addition to the harm by significance of the wider views themselves, reason of inappropriateness. views back to the house, or any future cumulative impacts. The analysis must be 2.3 During the Inquiry process, Gascoyne Cecil based on an agreed wider understanding Estates expressed concern that the there around the design and setting of the House were major weaknesses in the applicant’s and grounds and its key views, assessment of impact of the proposal on the Hatfield Heritage Ensemble and 2.6 The proceedings highlighted an absence their LVIA’s exclusion of assessment of clear guidance regarding (i) a baseline from the park itself. A series of view assessment of the wider landscape, visual

GCE_view management_v5.indd 6 18/03/2015 17:16 and heritage setting of Hatfield House and Gardens; (ii) the locations of the outward 2.8 The Report is structured as follows: and inward looking view corridors which contributed to the setting of the historic • Section 3 gives an overview of Hatfield assets, and (iii) the extent to which each of House and Gardens and their historical those views contributed to the house and development; demonstrating the House’s garden’s setting. Consequently, a substantial critical role within its historical and national amount of resources and time was spent context; disputing this baseline against which the proposal should be assessed. • Section 4 gives an analysis of the current strategic view assessment methodology 2.7 This report put the case for the development used within the planning process, of a Local Plan policy and associated demonstrating that current practice is Supplementary Planning Document, for the both ad-hoc and insufficient to protect the first time defining the extent of significant setting of Hatfield House and Grounds. views in and out of the Park and provide greater certainty and clarity for those seeking • Section 5 gives examples of specific view to bring forward development in the local management frameworks put into place by area.This document will form the basis of the local authorities in London, Cambridge a discussion on how a view management and Oxford. framework can emerge in consultation with key stakeholders. • Section 6 draws on the previous example to propose a View Management Framework for Hatfield, laying out the methodology for putting together such a framework.

• The final section identifies a series of view cones, suggested objectives and policy intentions which should be considered as part of the proposed View Management Framework, acknowledging that views are subject to rigorous consultation with the local community and key stakeholders.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 7 18/03/2015 17:16 3. Hatfield House and Gardens: Historical Background

3.1 Hatfield House is a 17th Century country house by the King for his children – most notably the future set within the historic Hatfield Estate along with Queen Elizabeth I, who as a young monarch learned nine other properties, it forms part of the heritage of her succession to the throne following her elder consortium Treasure Houses of England: sister’s death in 1558. • Beaulieu • Blenheim Palace 3.5 The Cecil family acquired Hatfield in the early 17th • Burghley House century. This followed a request from King James I • Castle Howard to swap the estate for Theobalds Park on the basis • Chatsworth that it was grander, closer to London and, crucially, • Harewood House provided better hunting opportunities. • Hatfield House • Holkham Hall 3.6 The main part of the House was commissioned in • Leeds Castle 1611 by Robert Cecil, the 1st Earl of Salisbury, with the architecture and construction overseen by Robert 3.2 The House and Grounds are of significant local Lyminge. Three quarters of the Bishop’s Palace (by and national heritage significance – having strongly then considered to be reasonably out-dated) was influenced the development of the town of Hatfield demolished, and the surviving wings retained for in addition to acting as the backdrop for numerous stabling and ancillary uses. Originally built with the events which, over the past five centuries, have intention of entertaining the King and Queen, the served to define British history. In particular, the site layout of the house resembled an E in homage to the was an important stage during the era of Elizabeth I, former Elizabeth I. . who both learned of her succession to the throne and signed the death warrant for her cousin Mary Queen of Scots.

3.3 Although the majority of the House was constructed in the 17th century, parts of the site date back to the fifteenth century, when the Royal Palace of Hatfield (now the Bishop’s Old Palace) was constructed by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, John Cardinal Morton. The Old Palace is one of the earliest substantial brick buildings in England.

3.4 Hatfield was subsequently seized by the Crown following Henry VIII’s famous disagreement with the Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury, Catholic Church. The Palace was used as a residence painted by John de Critz the Elder about 1606-1608

GCE_view management_v5.indd 8 18/03/2015 17:16

The South Front of Hatfield House. Print by T. Sadler, 1700

3.7 The House, which adjoins the Old Palace, is seen as a fine example of Jacobean architecture both inside and out, with the elaborate 17th century Grand Staircase one of the finest of its kind of existence.

3.8 The Historic Gardens which surround the House and Palace comprise 42 acres of early 17th century landscaping initially designed by John Tradescant the Elder, a renowned gardener and naturalist who travelled extensively with the purpose of collecting plants from abroad. The Gardens comprise a collection of elegant parterres, topiary, box beds, a 19th century maze and the recently commissioned Sundial Garden.

3.9 The Grounds were utilised by the British Army during the First World War for the testing of tanks and artillery, landscaped to resemble a “no- Figure of John Tranescant the Elder Carved on oak newel at the mans land” in continental Europe. top of Hatfield’s Grand Staircase

GCE_view management_v5.indd 9 18/03/2015 17:16 Print of Hatfield House from the S. East by Batts, 1783

3.10 Today the setting is a centrepiece to a vibrant Welwyn Garden City. The southern and south country estate, playing host to a variety of eastern aspects of the house are enclosed by operations and a number of cultural and arts higher land reserved as a wooded deer park. events. These include plays, musical concerts and exhibitions of outdoor sculpture. 3.13 As with all south country houses, the design and layout of the estate made full use of the contours by: Hatfield House and its Setting • Creating a theatrical series of views in entering the park 3.11 The enclosed topographical plan provides a contour plan of the setting of the house and the • Providing surprise, variety and concealment to context for views both inward and outward. the garden spaces Higher land is shown in the darker tone.

• Locating view markers and focal features 3.12 Hatfield House lies on a spur of land overlooking the river Lee corridor, making use of the south • Creating locations for views back to the house. facing valley side now partly the location of

GCE_view management_v5.indd 10 18/03/2015 17:16 Surrounding Topography - basemap courtesy of SLR

3.12 A Grade I Listed Building, Hatfield House 15th-18th Centuries arguably comprises the key historical backbone

to the town of Hatfield. Although the house and 3.13 This early phase deals with the construction of surrounding grounds are a symbol of historical the original Bishop’s Palace and the emergence of continuity and identity within Hatfield, this is Hatfield House. During this pre-industrial period, not to say Hatfield House has remained static. the immediate parkland and the surrounding Hatfield House has moved through three distinct agrarian landscape is shaped by the estate with no historical periods in terms of its relationship to significant external changes or pressures. the landscape around it:

GCE_view management_v5.indd 11 18/03/2015 17:16 15th Century - The Construction of the Bishop’s Palace

3.14 In the 1480s Archbishop of Canterbury, John Cardinal Morton constructs what is one of the earliest substantial brick buildings in England on high ground overlooking Fore Street, at that time the route of the Great North Road. The Royal Palace of Hatfield (now the Bishop’s Old Palace) was the first recorded planned intervention on the present day grounds of Hatfield House.

3.15 Constructed of four ranges around a central courtyard three of the four ranges are demolished to make way for the planning of Hatfield House in the early Plan of the Old Gardens, around 1608 17th Century. The remainder of the Palace is converted in to a stable block in an ostentatious act.

3.16 Following acquisition by the Cecil family in 1603, Hatfield House was constructed by Robert Cecil, the 1st Earl of Salisbury. Originally built with the intention of entertaining the King and Queen, the layout of the house resembled an homage to the former Elizabeth I.

3.17 The grounds of Hatfield House were defined by the proximity of the Great North Road along the western boundary. Hatfield, Millwards, Popes & Upper Woodside in 1805 The principal approaches to Hatfield House were laid out in response to the proximity of this important line of communication

GCE_view management_v5.indd 12 18/03/2015 17:16 within the landscape. Although lying on the 19th Century to Pre-war periphery of the estate, rather than face

Old Hatfield, the Great North Road and 3.20 This phase is characterised by new pressures the agrarian landscape immediately beyond, and changes emerging in the landscape as a Hatfield House was arranged on a north/ consequence of industrialisation, but with south axis with the principal facade facing Hatfield House positively shaping these events: Duke’s Ride in common with other great the arrival of train, the development of Hatfield landscaped gardens of the time This route Aerodrome with return flights to Paris and the took the traveller of the Great North Road foundation of Welwyn Garden City. and stage-managed and theatrical approach

to the House through its designed landscape. 19th Century - The Railway and Great Northern Road Re-alignment 3.18 The historic Gardens designed by Salomon

de Caus and John Tradescant the Elder are 3.21 The history of the railway, Old Hatfield and laid out at this time and comprises numerous Hatfield House has been intrinsically linked exotic plants within parterres, a maze, and for over 150 years. The Great Northern walkways lined with mature trees. Railway was originally intended to take a straighter, more direct route which would 3.19 Although the original plans for the original have run through Hatfield Park. The Marquess landscape layout have since disappeared, of Salisbury objected to this proposal and the the gardens a quote from a French visitor in railway therefore adopted its present alignment 1663 serves to paint a picture of what the – creating the first curve outside of London grounds may have looked like. Monsieur

de Sobiere remarks “ Hatfield is a very fine 3.22 The rector of Hatfield, Rev F.J Faithfull, gave castle – it stands very advantageously from evidence on 10th May 1845, in favour of which you have a prospect of nothing but the proposed railway to the parliamentary woods and meadows, hills and dales, which committee, saying that ‘the scarcity of coal had are very agreeable objects that present an unfavourable effect upon the inhabitants’ themselves to us at all sorts of distances”. morals. It drove them from their desolate The Frenchman goes on to describes the homes to seek comfort in public houses and visitor’s visual journey through a green plot other places of questionable resort’ with fountains and grand avenues, with

views of the great Water Parterre, and the 3.23 When the Great Northern railway finally meadows beyond. opened its main line from London to the north in August 1850, Hatfield, situated 17 34 miles

GCE_view management_v5.indd 13 18/03/2015 17:16 Marquess of Salisbury, whose image still graces the main gates opposite the station had a private train to take him to and from London and added his own private waiting room.

3.26 This rich history resulted in some peculiar features, some of which endure to this day. The staggered platforms are a legacy from when Queen Victoria and other dignitaries were frequent visitors to Hatfield House. In order to accommodate the Queen in appropriate style and privacy, the platforms at Hatfield were built staggered - being built in such a way ensures they do not conventionally face each other across the

tracks. This arrangement ensured there was no Map dated 1786 showing house, park and surrounding fields chance of another service train stopping directly opposite and thus within view of the Royal train.

along the line, was the fifth station from London 3.27 The original station survived until 1972 when it and quickly became an important junction. was replaced with a new station. Hatfield served passengers for the former branch lines to St Albans, Luton & Dunstable and 3.28 Around the same time of the Station opening, Hertford. the Estate constructed a new “Great North Road” at a cost of circa £8,000. The old route 3.24 Hatfield station was constructed so as to be was subsequently stopped up under an Act of convenient for Hatfield House, with the station Parliament, and Fore Street assumed its present buildings, main gates to the Park and viaduct all appearance. designed as a set piece. The Station opened in 1850 and soon became a busy junction. The Duke’s Ride, 20th Century – Welwyn Garden City and the the principal approach from the south became Salisbury Line secondary as the northern entrance assumed the status of the principal entrance. 3.29 The Marquess of Salisbury openly supported early phases of Welwyn Garden City, selling land at 3.25 The original Hatfield station included a agricultural values to ensure that the Garden City refreshment and tearoom, royal waiting room, Company was not overburdened with commercial goods yard, engine shed and turntable. The 3rd land prices.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 14 18/03/2015 17:16 3.30 Further phases were also built on former estate land, some of it formerly known as Ascots Farm. Certain other tranches of land were gifted by the Estate for “community use” including land proved for the QE2 Hospital. Much of this land was covenanted to prevent inappropriate redevelopment in future years and to underpin what is known as the Salisbury Line. This “line” was a notional southern boundary to Welwyn Garden City, with estate land ownership serving as a buffer to prevent coalescence between Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield. The Salisbury Line is extremely successful in landscape terms as Welwyn Garden City is nestled within a wooded landscape and is well screened in views from Hatfield House.

WWII to present day:

The pressures for change in the landscape increase and with it, the ability of Hatfield House to manage or shape these changes. First, with the war effort and the

development of the de Havilland factory, eventually Welwyn Garden City: The benefits of both Town and Country becoming the modern day business park. Second, the compulsory purchase of land west of the railway line to create Hatfield New Town is arguably the most decisive change in the landscape in 500 years. expansion continued through the war with more

The De Havilland Factory Expansion estate land sold to support the war effort. Flying commenced in 1930, but the clubhouse buildings

3.31 De Havilland expanded strongly at Hatfield and adjacent recreational facilities, fuel pumps and from the 1930s having relocated the majority sheds were not completed until 1933. of their operations from Stag Lane, Edgeware. The growth of De Havilland led to expansion 3.32 In 1934 significant works were undertaken at the of Hatfield itself with substantial housing built site and a large factory and imposing Art Deco to the North and North East of the airfield.This administration buildings were constructed together

GCE_view management_v5.indd 15 18/03/2015 17:16 with a flying school building which also housed administration building were located on the Manor flying control. Later, an experimental block was Road site, on the opposite side of the main runway added to the north of the factory. Production to the aircraft factories (close to one corner of the of aircraft, moved from Stag Lane and during proposed HAT 1 site). this time principally consisted of a range of small biplanes such as the Moth family, DH.84 3.36 The de Havilland Aircraft Company was acquired by Dragon, DH.86 Express and DH.89 Dragon Hawker Siddeley in 1960 and the de Havilland name Rapide. ceased to be used in 1963. Hatfield once again changed ownership when Hawker Siddeley was merged with 3.33 During the Second World War, de Havilland was the British Aircraft Corporation and Scottish Aviation most noted for its Mosquito fighter bomber. under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act to The Hatfield site itself was camouflaged but form British Aerospace in 1978. This resulted in the was bombed on 3 October 1940 by a Junkers 146 programme going ahead which saved many jobs at Ju 88. Four bombs hit the ‘94 shop’ building, Hatfield and secured the site as a centre of design and killing 21, injuring 70 and disrupting work on the production of commercial aircraft for the next decade. Mosquito. 3.37 The 146 first flew in 1981 and production of some 3.34 A hard runway was laid in 1947. Expansion of components, final assembly and flight testing of the the facilities was called for by rapid development first two series of the aircraft was based at Hatfield of military and civil jet aircraft such as the during the early and mid 1980s. In 1987, a new final Vampire and Comet. The factory was enlarged assembly hall was built for 146 production. Further and a new flight test hangar and control development resulted in the demolition of the original tower was constructed. Additionally, a large 1930s flying club buildings to make way for the Bishop design block was constructed alongside the Square office block development. This was named administration buildings. in honour of Comet designer R.E. Bishop and was constructed in 1991. 3.35 De Havilland had been developing and manufacturing propellers and piston engines 3.38 In 1992, due to severe financial problems, British in addition to airframes. Post-war, the engine Aerospace announced the cessation of aircraft company continued developing jet engines, production at Hatfield from 1993. By this point, with testing taking place at Manor Road and work on the Manor Road site, which had become production at nearby Leavesden. The propeller part of BAE Dynamics had wound down and this site company moved into developing rockets, guided was cleared first. Friday, 8 April 1994, was Hatfield’s missiles and Britain’s ballistic missile, the Blue last day as an airfield. The airfield closed but was Streak. Production facilities, test facilities, later used as a film set for Saving Private Ryan and wind tunnels, water tanks, hangars and an the television series Band of Brothers.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 16 18/03/2015 17:16 de Havilland Comet: Rolled off the production lines at Hatfield in 1952

3.39 De Havilland were absorbed firstly into Hawker commission. The Estate had little say in how it Siddeley Aviation and subsequently British Aircraft was master planned and the immediate visual Corporation / British Aerospace. The site was scaled impacts of the New Town had a greater impact down and finally closed circa 1990 having latterly upon both Hatfield House and Old Town (as been used for construction of the Bae 146 jet. it was now known) than perhaps any other intervention in the previous 500 years. New Hatfield

3.40 New Hatfield was designated by the government Hatfield Business Park as a New Town. Much of the land upon which it was built was obtained under compulsory 3.41 A substantial driver of the expansion of Hatfield purchase provision by the New Towns to the West from the 1990s onwards has been

GCE_view management_v5.indd 17 18/03/2015 17:16 New Hatfield Masterplan: Hatfield House is conspicuous by its absence

GCE_view management_v5.indd 18 18/03/2015 17:16 Hatfield Business Park

the building out of the Business Park, a response the Estate has been fundamental to the construction to the closure of the British Aerospace factory. of the historical identity of the town of Hatfield and the surrounding area of Welwyn Hatfield. 3.42 The Business Park is characterised by large, single volume buildings with light coloured, 3.44 Crucially, the 20th Century is characterised by largely unbroken expanses of cladding which now a disconnect between Hatfield House and its dominates the middle ground when viewed from original setting. This disconnect was evident Hatfield Park. It is doubtful that the impact of this during the recent Inquiry where no accepted development on views to and from Hatfield Park historical baseline existed in understanding the were meaningfully assessed. relationship between the setting of the Park and its surroundings. Working towards a view Summary management framework will enable decision makers to seek to reconnect Hatfield House

3.43 The visual and historical significance of Hatfield and its Park to its original landscape and assist in House and Gardens to the town of Hatfield and proactively managing future development in this beyond, cannot be understated.The development of sensitive landscape.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 19 18/03/2015 17:16 4 Statutory Basis and Current View Management Practice

Statutory Basis for View Protection inward views from a designated historical asset is therefore a statutory one in the development

4.1 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and planning process. Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:

“ In considering whether to grant planning permission Current View Management Practice for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case 4.5 There is no national formally designated method may be, the Secretary of State shall have special for implementing this statutory view protection regard to the desirability of preserving the building or and management within development planning and its setting or any features of special architectural or control. However, in practice, these issues are historic interest which it possesses.” mainly considered within the following distinct but related frameworks: 4.2 For designated historical assets, English Heritage a. Heritage Impact has published guidance relating to the assessment b. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of setting within the planning process. “The Setting of Heritage Assets (2012)” outlines English Heritage’s understanding of setting as Heritage Impact embracing “all of the surroundings from which the

heritage asset can be experienced or that can be 4.6 Paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy experienced from or within the asset”. Framework (NPPF) requires that development leading to substantial harm or total loss of significance to a 4.3 In particular, the guidance acknowledges that the designated heritage asset should be refused by the Local setting of any heritage asset is likely to include Planning Authority unless it can be demonstrated that “a variety of views of, across, or including that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve asset, and views of the surroundings from or substantial public benefits that outweigh harm or loss. through the asset”. The guidance states that views

from within such assets, for example from an 4.7 Conservation Areas are identified as part of historic house through its surrounding designated the broader Local Planning Policy process, with landscape to the countryside beyond, may be accompanying Conservation Area Appraisals contributors to the significance of that asset. produced by way of both justification of said identification, and also to provide a framework for 4.4 Based on this interpretation, the duty of local assessing the impact of any proposals that may come councils to have regard to both outward and forward in the future.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 20 18/03/2015 17:16 4.8 The establishment of key views both within 4.11 The LVIA will include an initial baseline and looking out of the designated area will assessment to be established by the consultants, therefore be identified within the Conservation which seeks to identify those landscape elements, Area Appraisals, which are generally adopted and characteristics that are valued and the people as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The by whom they are valued. designation and associated appraisals are usually drawn up with the assistance of English 4.12 The concept of landscape sensitivity to Heritage, and will also undergo a process of accommodate development is also part of the public consultation as is standard in policy LVIA, and this varies with the type of proposal formation. this is part of the assessment process as supposed to the initial baseline study. 4.9 The impact any planning application for development within or adjacent to the 4.13 View management is a fundamental part of this Conservation Area will therefore be assessed assessment process, as is the requirement to against these identified views within the broader consider historic landscape character.4.15 requirement to preserve and/or enhance Policy led approach to view management outwith the area. As the views are specific to the Conservation Areas is rare. However, the following Conservation Area, they are primarily short sections will outline the approaches used by the range and focus on a limited geographic area. cities of Oxford, London and Cambridge to protect their skylines within the planning policy framework.

Landscape and Visual Impact 4.14 English Heritage published guidance in June 2012 entitled seeing History in the View, advocates a Assessment coherent approach to understanding impact on historic views. Its methodology will be key in 4.10 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) framing the next stage of the process. is process that is undertaken, for proposals deemed to have a potential significant adverse 4.15 This document proposes a comprehensive impact on the surrounding landscape. It approach to Heritage View Management as advised may also be required as part of an initial site by English Heritage within their document. The assessment process as part of the proposed recommended approach draws inspiration from local plan. The guidelines for these assessments the adopted View Management Frameworks are laid out by the Institute of Environmental adopted in several other English Local Authorities, Management and Assessment’s Guidelines for which are discussed in the following section. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2013.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 21 18/03/2015 17:16 5. Examples of Other View Management Frameworks

5.1 View Management Frameworks have been adopted specifically the Carfax Height Policy which limits the by several local authorities on a City wide basis with absolute height of buildings within a central circle drawn the objective of establishing geometrically defined around the Carfax tower. This limits new building views and subsequent management policies. These heights to 18.2m or an equivalent AOD level, whichever Frameworks, although geographically broader in is the lowest. Minor elements of interest are allowed to scope than the proposed Hatfield House framework, push above this and a restriction on the length of roof nonetheless offer a series of options as to the potential forms is designed to limit the impact of liner buildings. structure and approach of the Hatfield framework. The following section gives an overview of the three 5.5 In some instances, the policies are too rigid and on the documents adopted in the cities of London, Oxford one hand, stifle creativity, and on the other, encourage and Cambridge. poor judgements outside the defined viewing corridors based on assumed landscape capacity. A. Oxford View Cones Contents and Methodology

Purpose and Background 5.6 Oxford City Council recently underwent of consultation

5.2 Established in 1962, the ten Oxford View Cones are to review the View Cones in association with the one of the first examples of view protection within Oxford Preservation Trust. As part of this consultation, a legislative context. The Cones, identified in the a methodology for assessing the View Cones was put Oxford Views Study, are then referred to in the forward in order to verify their validity and retain an relevant development plan with the current Core element of legitimacy. The methodology proposed was Policy CS18 stating that “views of the skyline of the as follows: historic centre will be protected”. a. Considering the viewers: establishing the link

5.3 The original study simply acted as a way of between the historical value and the views identification of the relevant views and the justification contribution of communities, including the communal of their designation. The way in which these identity of the city. designations are treated is subsequently addressed in the Local Development Plan. b. Considering the viewing place: assessing how the viewing place gains significance from being the place

Application from which the view is seen;

5.4 The Cones are used as a basis for Planning Policy, c. Considering the landscape in the view: Identifying and have remained relatively unchanged since their the different landscape elements (such as designation in the 1960s. However, they are supported topography, green character features, focal features, by other policies that interact with the view cones, infrastructure) and how they interact.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 22 18/03/2015 17:16 Figure 0 1 - Oxford View Cones in Local Plan 2001-2016 with the Carfax circle

GCE_view management_v5.indd 23 18/03/2015 17:16 5.7 The intent is to ensure that local, tactical views are a. The definition of “tall buildings” within Cambridge; appreciated, but this is in danger of breaking down the clarity that defined views afford and allowing b. Setting out the baseline situation in relation incremental approaches and tactical response, as to the landscape and townscape character of seen at the Incinerator Inquiry. Cambridge;

B. Cambridge Tall Buildings c. A review of best practice and reference to other skyline strategies appropriate to Guidelines Cambridge context

Purpose and Background d. Provision of assessment criteria to articulate the above Policy 3/13(f) and to explain the 5.8 Unlike the Oxford View Cones which act terminology; as a reference point for subsequent Policy Designations, the Cambridge Skyline Guidance e. Provision of the basis for positive engagement was produced in order to guide the application of members, stakeholders and members of the of a particular planning policy following a public to achieve support for the guidance; series of controversial applications. Policy 3/13(f) of the 2006 Local Plan states that “ f. Provision of guidance to form a material new buildings which are significantly taller than consideration in the determining of planning their neighbours and/or rooftop plant or other applications; features on existing buildings, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that they g. To feed into the Local Plan Review and to will not detract from key vistas, the skyline inform new policy. and views within, over and from outside of the City. Application

5.9 Cambridge View Cones had previously been 5.11 The application of the guidance would be triggered identified as part of the Local Plan in 1996, should the proposed development constitute a Tall however these were subsequently removed Building - defined in the document as six storeys from the 2006 Local Plan. or more. However, the document also states that buildings between 4 and 6 storeys may also be 5.10 The specific objectives of the Cambridge applicable should their height significantly exceed Skyline Guidance are defined as: that of their neighbours.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 24 18/03/2015 17:16 Contents and Methodology k. Scale, massing and architectural quality- a clear massing strategy will need to be 5.12 The guidance states that short range, or local prepared, demonstrating the design rationale views, should be assessed on a case by case basis. for the building and how it responds to the surrounding context and skyline. 5.13 Subsequent to this baseline appraisal, the guidance puts forward a series of assessment criteria within l. Amenity and microclimate – Tall buildings which Policy 3/13 may be applied. The criteria are should assess daylight/ sunlight, overlooking, laid out in a non-hierarchical manner as follows: wind, heat islands or glare.

h. Location, setting and context - The m. Public realm – Sufficient public realm relationship of the proposal to the proportionate to the building should surrounding context, which should be set out be provided, and the application should in townscape, landscape and urban design demonstrate how this public realm will relate appraisal. A visual assessment/ appraisal to the streetscape below. with supporting illustrations will be required involving the following views in addition to 5.14 The guidance is therefore primarily a views towards any significant landmarks: consolidation of pre-existing planning policies. The document does note that the previously adopted i. Vista – a specific viewpoint towards a View Cones, while removed from the Local Plan, proposed building or structure should be considered when applicable to other ii. Panorama – a specific viewpoint looking policies relating to Heritage Impact. toward a wider area of numerous buildings iii. View corridor – numerous views from 5.15 The Cambridge approach, is arguably the least various viewpoints looking at a proposed building rigid of the three documents. It seeks a degree of or structure set amongst other buildings or flexibility, stating that it does not wish to follow structures a zoning approach as seen in the View Cones and fits with the approach taken at the Incinerator i. The specific views will require to be agreed in Inquiry where views were determined only once advance with the local council as part of the the nature and location of the proposal was pre-application process. understood.

j. Historical impact -: any tall building proposals which have the potential to impact on heritage assets such as listed Buildings, will be required to quantify their effects.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 25 18/03/2015 17:16 C. London View Management 5.19 Local authorities are required to inform Framework 2010 the Mayor and other relevant authorities of applications which will have an impact on a Protected Vista. Purpose and Background

5.20 The guidance comprises: Visual Management 5.16 The London View Management Framework is for All Designated Views; Visual Management potentially one of the most comprehensive skyline Guidance for the Landscape of London protection policies ever composed. Implemented Panoramas; Linear Views; River Prospects; or by the Greater London Authority (GLA) in Townscape Views; 27 individual Management Plans 2010, it is subsequently interpreted within for each of the Designated Views. the Local Development Frameworks of each individual London Local Authority and related a. Panoramic Views provide views of central Supplementary Planning Documents. London and its suburbs from elevated public open spaces; 5.17 In accordance with Policies 7.11 and 7.12 of the London Plan, the Framework seeks to b. Linear Views are defined by virtue of a gap designate, protect and manage 27 views and between existing elements of the built or some of its major landmarks, requiring that new natural environment; development make a “positive contribution” to the characteristics and Composition of the c. River Prospect Views refer to the views of the Designated Panoramic, Linear, Townscape and London Skyline along the River Thames; and River Prospect Views. The resulting views are composed of both Core Landmark Viewing d. Townscape Views focus on specific Corridors and Wider Setting Consultation Areas. architectural/ set pieces of historical significance. Application and Assessment

5.21 Each individual view takes up around 2 x A4 5.18 Views towards the Strategically Important pages with a description of the view including Landmarks of St Paul’s Cathedral, Palace of any relevant landmarks, and subsequent Visual Westminster and the Tower of London are Management Guidance. offered further protection – and any proposed development that exceeds the determined height 5.22 Any proposals which will have an impact on a will be subject to specific Visual Management and Designated View will be required to undertake Referral Guidelines. the following assessment within their Design and Access Statement by way of justification:

GCE_view management_v5.indd 26 18/03/2015 17:16 Panorama from Assessment Point 3A1 Kenwood: the viewing gazebo – in front of the orientation boards

Annotated map of Protected Vista from Assessment Point 3A.1 to St Paul’s Cathedral

a. Scoping exercise 5.24 In summary, the general structure of the SPD is as follows – b. Description of designated view a. Policy Background and Conformity; c. Description of the proposal and its impact on the view with accompanying Accurate Visual b. Assessment Process and Consultation when Representations required to accompany the assessing planning applications; application. c. View Management Policies for the four types Contents and Methodology of views (panoramic, linear, river prospect and townscape); 5.23 Unlike the Cambridge Skyline Study which applies general guidelines for all relevant developments, d. Individual View Management for each of the 27 the LVMF offers detailed view management views, containing: policies for each individual view. i. Approx 1 A4 page describing the designated view, and ii. Approx A4 page of view management policies

GCE_view management_v5.indd 27 18/03/2015 17:16 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-‐1 -‐ LMVF Components of A Designated

View, GLA 2010 Figure 0 2 - LMVF Components of A Designated View

5.25 This example is the most relevant to Hatfield House and Park as it deals with views to and from a specific point and often of a specific feature within the view, recognising that there less sensitive peripheral or framing components to the view.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 28 18/03/2015 17:16 6. Strategy and Methodology

6.1 Hatfield House and Gardens have played, and Community Consultation and Stakeholder continue to play a critical role within its surrounding Engagement landscape. It is proposed, that a Supplementary Planning Document be developed through a 6.5 Given the View Management Framework’s potential combination of technical input from landscape to influence development outwith the ownership specialists, and input from members of the local boundaries of the House, it is imperative that the community and statutory consultees, including English document is developed in consultation with the wider Heritage. community of Hatfield.

6.2 The approach would reflect the London View 6.6 Consultation with key stakeholders and relevant Management Framework when ascertaining the statutory bodies shall be undertaken throughout the extent of a viewing cone or corridor. On both development of the View Management Framework. outward and inward views, a landscape view corridor This consultation process will aim to ascertain which and historical landscape character area will be views are of value to the setting of Hatfield House and designated from the specified assessment point, with Gardens, as well as assessing their contribution to the an additional wider consultation area (see figure xx as wider area. an example of how this is applied).

6.7 Although the consultation strategy is yet to be finalised, it is envisaged that this will contain a combination of Technical Input and Establishment of formal and informal engagement involving a public Zones of Theoretical Visibility exhibition and formal meetings with stakeholders.

6.3 Identification of Key Views will be done in the first 6.8 In addition to working closely with Welwyn Hatfield instance with the technical input of a landscape Borough Council, the following statutory consultees expert, who will establish the Zone of Theoretical shall be formally consulted as part of the process: Visibility and landscape character around Hatfield a. English Heritage House for each historical period. b. Garden History Society

6.4 This ZTV will form the basis of a series of views to 6.9 Hatfield has an extensive network of third sector and and from the site – both from buildings, and the wider community groups (many of whom possess strong grounds. The views will be mapped and digitised to existing connections with the Estate), and the Estate allow for the establishment of View Cones –areas will seek to engage these actors within the consultation where development would be considered as having process in addition to the wider public. These a potential impact on the setting of the House and consultations will form the basis of guidance to be Parkland Gardens. included in the Supplementary Planning Document.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 29 18/03/2015 17:16 7. Proposed Key Views and Policies

7.1 Although the finalisation of key views is not Proposed Policy: yet complete, and will be subject to input from View management framework local and statutory stakeholders, the following critical views have been identified for possible for Hatfield House inclusion within the SPD. These examples are The Council will, in collaboration with strategic laid out in the table below, along with a series partners, prepare a Supplementary Planning of proposed typical objectives that the SPD Document that establishes a View Management could seek to implement in future planning Framework for Hatfield House that will define decisions. historically significant vistas and viewing cones and an approach for assessing and managing proposed change 7.2 Development proposals which fall within within those views. The proposed Framework will: defined View Cones would be required to demonstrate how they comply with the agreed • Scope and define significant views in terms of key policy objective, which could include, for a vistas, landscape panoramas and linear views example, maintaining the views of the green backcloth, or maintaining a sense of enclosure • Enhance the understanding of these views by discouraging any incursions above the tree in terms of their capacity for change and line. vulnerabilities

7.3 The critical views put forward have been • Prevent undue damage to the view either selected due to their perceived significance by blocking, or unacceptably imposing on, a to the setting of Hatfield House and landmark or by creating an intrusive element in Gardens. These may change as a result of the the view’s foreground or middle ground consultation process and the Estate can fully establish views of importance not only to the • Clarify appropriate development height House, but also the wider community as a thresholds and consider the impact of cumulative whole. development

7.4 The following policy is recommended for • Protect backgrounds that give a context to views inclusion within the draft Local Plan and is and landmarks. designed to frame a technical SPD to be prepared alongside the Local Plan:

GCE_view management_v5.indd 30 18/03/2015 17:16 Hatfield House: Key Views

From Buildings

1 View South along the South Avenue to and from Hatfield House

Provisional Objective No incursion above ridge line to maintain sense of parkland set within a rural backdrop Sense of arrival and vista of house when seen from the ridge

2 View North from Hatfield House along the North Avenue

Provisional Objective No incursion within the vista to maintain rural backdrop of the historic parkland No incursion in the vista to maintain the sense of arrival

3 View View North East towards Hertford

Provisional Objective Maintain the rural backdrop of the historic Parkland

4 View View west of St Etheldreda tower and landscape beyond from the House

Provisional Objective De-clutter and reduce harm to backdrop of view to the tower and prevent further incursions within view of green backcloth above Hatfield

5 View View from turret in the Palace

Provisional Objective Maintain view of green backcloth

GCE_view management_v5.indd 31 18/03/2015 17:16 The Grounds

6 View From the high ground on the eastern side of the park towards Hatfield House

Provisional Objective No incursion within background to maintain the setting of Hatfield House as a focal feature within the parkland

7 View Sequential views west along the South Avenue

Provisional Objective Maintain views of green backcloth and reduce and manage discordant townscape elements in mid-distance

8 View Airstrip

Provisional Objective No incursion within vistas (east and west)

9 View Walled Kitchen Garden

Provisional Objective No impact on landscape and parkland character or land use

10 View Vineyard

Provisional Objective Maintain sense of enclosure, no visual incursions above the treeline

GCE_view management_v5.indd 32 18/03/2015 17:16 The Grounds

View Down the Duke’s Ride in both northerly and southerly directions. This ride formed the historic approach to the house from the Great North Road.

Provisional Objective Retain sequence of designed spaces and sequence of events, no visual intrusion

View To and from the Pepperpot Lodges and Morrowes Lodge in the east, comprising the former route of the Great North Road

Provisional Objective Retain sequence of designed spaces and sequence of events, no visual intrusion

13 View From Keepers’ Lodge in the Home Park in a southerly direction across the open parkland

Provisional Objective Maintain the designed land uses and views14

14 View Formal Gardens around Hatfield House

Provisional Objective Maintain integrity of designed arrival and sequence of spaces and arrival

GCE_view management_v5.indd 33 18/03/2015 17:16 8. summary and conclusion 8. Summary and Conclusion

8.1 Gascoyne Cecil Estate is currently seeking 8.4 The View Management Framework will be to formal endorsement from Welwyn be developed in consultation with statutory Hatfield Borough Council for the preparation stakeholders and the wider community, will offer of a View Management Framework, proposed as a degree of certainty for future development Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local proposals, which take place within these defined Plan. locations. By proactively managing the setting of this recognised historic asset, the Estate and the The current practices for view management are Council will ensure that the heritage of Hatfield is ad-hoc and inconsistently applied, relying on safeguarded, reconnecting between the past and interpretations of broader heritage appraisals and present, as well as the future. specific landscape and visual impact assessments. The 2014 New Barnfield Incinerator Inquiry 8.5 A draft Policy is proposed for inclusion within the demonstrated that there was a need for an agreed Local Plan which will establish the need for the definition of established views of significance development of a SPD on the subject. which were fundamental to the setting of Hatfield House and Gardens.

8.2 It is not possible to discuss the development of the town of Hatfield without acknowledging the influence of Hatfield House and Gardens – the House and gardens symbolises the essence and cornerstone of Hatfield’s heritage over 500 years.

8.3 The proposed view management framework will establish a series of view cones and character areas to and from House and Gardens, in addition to policies for each view cone against which proposed development must be assessed. This approach is similar to that applied within the London View Management Framework (LVMF) and seeing History in the view.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 34 18/03/2015 17:16 GCE_view management_v5.indd 35 18/03/2015 17:16 Further Advice and Information Further advice can be obtained by contacting the Building & Development Department at Hatfield Park Estate.

GCE_view management_v5.indd 36 18/03/2015 17:16