!"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

( 1 -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

Heritage Appraisal CONTENTS

John Davies Primary School Introduction 3 Huthwaite Site location and existing land use 3

Nottinghamshire Methodology 4

By Approach and data collection 4 Limitations 4 Assessment Criteria 4 Clare Herring, BA; MA Cantab Individual significance & importance 5

& Group significance 5 Setting 6

Archaeological potential 7 Simon Johnson, BA; PG. Dip; FRSA; FSA Scot; IHBC; MIFA

Archaeological & historic background 7

Prehistoric 7 Prepared on behalf of Roman 7

Saxon/medieval 7 Bowmer & Kirkland Post-medieval/Industrial 8

Cartographic evidence 9

Built heritage and character 12 Overview 12

The Site 13

General arrangement 12 Construction overview 12 The Barn 12 The Main Bloc 14

The School Interior 19

Assessment 26 Buried remains 26 Standing remains 26

Setting issues 28

Summary and recommendations 28

References& Sources Consulted 28

2 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

GDEQCST.EGCD(( 5)5 3<'%& ( D)-+5! -*1#-G*G! )%! NP[I! 5$*! C2'1*! %'.*! -*H2*15+! 5$*! 5#C#8-'C$/! #H! 5$*! ()22'8*! '%G! )5+! +4--#4%G)%8+O!! !)@7'4#C#D%4E(+,-# 345$6')5*!)+!G*-)(*G!H-#.!`2G!T%82)+$!aZ !.*'%)%8!$)22!+C4-!'%G! ^ !.*'%)%8!12*'-)%8:!5$4+!]'! J$)+!G#14.*%5!$'+!?**%!C-*C'-*G!#%!5$*!?*$'2H!#H! !5#!)%H#-.!1#%+)G*-'5)#%!#H!'%/! 12*'-)%8!#%!'!$)22!+C4-_B !!! $*-)5'8*! ).C2)1'5)#%+! #H! C-#C#+*G! G*.#2)5)#%! #H! 5$*! *R)+5)%8! "#$%! &'()*+! ,-).'-/! 01$##2! ?4)2G)%8+! ! 345$6')5*! +5'%G+! #%! 5$*! 1#.C2*R:! 2#6*-! 2/)%8! 1#'2! .*'+4-*+! 6$)1$! -4%! H-#.! 5$*! 0#45$! b#-S+$)-*!5$ '%G!5$*)-!-*C2'1*.*%5!6)5$!%*6!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8+!5$'5!6)22!C-#()G*!H'1)2)5)*+!?*55*-!+4)5*G!5#!.#G*-%!N *G41'5)#%'2!%**G+B ! ?#-G*-!+#45$6'-G+!5$-#48$!%#-5$!*'+5!&*-?/+$)-*!'%G!6*+5!7#55)%8$'.+$)-*B!<5!5$*!+5'-5!#H!5$*!NX ! ! 1*%54-/!5$*!C#C42'5)#%!6'+!#%2/!+#.*!PQQ!?45!6)5$!5$*!#C*%)%8!#H!341S%'22!9#22)*-/!5$*!C#C42'5)#%! F5!$'+!?**%!C-#G41*G!6)5$!-*8'-G!5#!14--*%5!?*+5!C-'15)1*!'%G!)+!?'+*G!#%!*.C)-)1!+)5*!#?+*-('5)#%+! $'G!c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

2 1 Planning Application 4/V/2015/0159 3 ( 3 !!TS6'22!NXWQ=!A*22)%8!@!9#2*!ZQQQ -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( ((((((((((((((((73TE!>ZVVP (((/9#$:(305; Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

METHODOLOGY The report includes coloured plates and panoramas from photographs taken during the walkover This assessment has been researched and written by Clare Herring and Simon Johnson in accordance survey. Most photographs were taken from public vantage points such as the highway or local with common practice and the appropriate national guideline Standard and Guidance for footpaths whilst some are from private land and taken with the land-owners permission. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessments.4 This report presents a summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site followed The approach taken has been developed in response to the direction of government planning policy by an as-existing baseline description of the site and its immediate environs before an assessment of and the resultant evolution in current best archaeological practice that takes account of such changes significance and impact is discussed. in both policy and guidance produced by professional bodies and English Heritage. The historical and archaeological background is not intended to be exhaustive: it is a summary derived primarily from secondary sources written to give the baseline conditions and assessment a historical context and chronology proportionate to the significance of individual assets and the Approach and data collection potential impact posed by developed sensu NPPF para. 128.

This document comprises a desk-based collection and analysis of published and archival material together with a site visit and walk-over survey of the proposed development area and its Limitations surroundings.

This document includes discussion of the significance of individual heritage assets and other aspects A detailed documentary and cartographic search was undertaken in detail for c. 1km radius of the of the built and buried heritage of the area in and around the hamlet. Much of this area is in private site, with data from further afield included where considered relevant to the site. Local, regional and ownership and not readily accessible or, in the case of buried remains, has not been subject to any national archives and collections were examined for relevant historical information, both published systematic investigation or full publication. Whilst it is therefore not possible to fully establish the and un-published, from the following sources: significance of individual heritage assets, it is possible to establish this in purely visual terms to model

the potential impact of the proposed development. • National Monuments Record (NMR)

Historic Environment Record (NHER) • Enquiries were made to the heritage team of County Council in order to consult with

• Nottinghamshire Record Office them regarding their preferred detailed assessment expectations and to be made aware of any • Library relevant information not currently within the public domain. The buried archaeological potential of • Sutton in Ashfield Library the site and possible future evaluation was discussed with the Archaeology section but no response • www. magic.gov.uk was received from the Conservation section. • www.heritage-gateway.org.uk • www.genuki.org.uk At the time of researching the report, the Nottinghamshire Record Office was closed and records were • [email protected] only accessible by pre-ordering with long lead-times. At the time of writing, Mayfield still have not • http://www.archiuk.com received copies of the Enclosure Map and thus this assessment has not been able to consider it. This is not, however, considered a major constraint since such maps rarely show any structures that may have left buried remains and the existing site buildings post-date its survey. The walkover-survey was undertaken on 3 March 2015. The purpose was to check for visual references to recorded information and to identify any previously un-recorded heritage features that were visible. Account was taken of the nature of the present ground conditions to determine suitable Assessment Criteria field survey techniques should further evaluation be deemed necessary. Account was also taken of the immediate context of the site, the wider locality and any additional individual heritage assets to The baseline descriptions are considered in the light of the following assessment criteria to establish, inform analysis and assessment of setting issues. firstly, any resultant heritage significance and the extent of that significance. Secondly, the importance of significance is considered to assess if it justifies designated or non-designated heritage asset status. 4 Institute For Archaeologists 1994 rev 2011 4 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

Thirdly, the potential impact of the proposals are considered in the light of the overall significance of any affected heritage assets; the potential for buried heritage remains and the overall implications for Local: Heritage Assets listed on the Historic Environment Record (HER), or identified the Edgmond Conservation Area. through assessment or other sources, which are of limited significance owing to low archaeological potential or low architectural, artistic or historic interest in The following criteria have been developed to assess the significance of identified heritage assets in the regional context; but having value in a local context. May include some accordance with the NPPF at section 12. They have been derived from a variety of sources including unlisted buildings and unregistered historic parks and gardens of minor published criteria on the selection of buildings for statutory protection.5 significance, most locally listed buildings.

Negligible: Includes areas in which investigative techniques have produced negative or Individual Significance & Importance minimal evidence of antiquity; or where large-scale destruction of significance has taken place; buildings, parks and gardens of little archaeological or historic The individual significance of a building or other heritage asset is primarily an informed professional significance. By definition, elements of negligible importance will not be judgement. A balanced view is taken on the overall merit based on any archaeological, architectural, classified as heritage assets. artistic or historic interest either inherent or owing to its setting and/or its contribution to the setting of other heritage assets. Where buildings or monuments are considered to be of national importance, by definition they are Having established which, if any, elements have significance, a view is then taken as to the extent of considered suitable for consideration by the Secretary of State for statutory protection and para. 136 that significance. For example, the significance of a early twentieth century public house may only of the NPPF requires that they are treated within the planning process as if they were designated extend to its fine faience façade; its interior having no significance owing to extensive refurbishment. heritage assets. Once the extent of significance has been established, the importance of that significance is then considered on the basis of local, regional or national importance. Presently, there is no universally agreed method of measuring the relative importance of significance. For the purposes of this report, Group significance the following criteria will be used:6 Group value is often used as a basis for listing structures which, although not of individual merit, are National: All designated heritage assets of the ‘highest significance’ i.e. scheduled considered important in terms of their overall significance; a commonly cited example being the monuments; protected wreck sites; registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed terraced row where individual properties might be mundane but in their entirety exhibit a fine buildings; grade I and II* registered parks and gardens and World Heritage Sites. example of architectural design and harmony. Non-designated Heritage assets listed in the Historic Environment Record (HER) or identified through assessment or other sources, which are significant in the Such examples are both straightforward and perhaps obvious. Of more difficulty is the assessment of national context owing to demonstrable archaeological , architectural, artistic or buildings or fixtures where much of their original context has been lost or where they are themselves historic interest. an incomplete group, or where they form a developmental stage.

Regional: Designated heritage assets of less than the highest significance to include grade For example, tiled fire surrounds of the 1930s-50s are considered by many to be ugly and are II listed buildings; grade II registered parks and gardens and Conservation Areas. frequently removed from buildings of all periods. Where one has been placed in a seventeenth Non-designated heritage assets listed in the Historic Environment Record (HER) century farm house it may be viewed as intrusive to a room which otherwise retains its period or identified through assessment or other sources, which are of a reasonably features, scale and general arrangement: but what if the house overall includes an example of every well-defined extent, nature, date, and comprise significant examples in the major shift in fireplace development from the late 1600s to 1955? The ugly tiled fire surround regional context. Will include some locally listed buildings and unregistered suddenly accrues a slightly different significance and the decision to remove it may require more parks and gardens where there is demonstrable significance to the regional thought. historical context. The contribution that individual buildings make to a whole can similarly be graded:

5 English Heritage. 2011 6 Based on the methodology in Pugh-Smith & Samuels 1996, revised in accordance with the NPPF 5 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

Whilst this decision perhaps confused two distinct terms, context and setting, it does nonetheless High: makes a major contribution to the visual amenity of a group of buildings or provide the basis for establishing what should be constituted as setting for a listed building and setting of a designated heritage asset, or else is significant in the historic appears to accord with the direction now forming Government policy and also enshrined in English environment on the grounds of historic plan development or changes of use Heritage guidance on setting.8 linked to major shifts in technology or commerce. Such structures should be retained within development proposals. Similarly, despite efforts to extend the concept of setting even further by extrapolation of the NPPF definition of setting being “the surroundings in which [the asset] is experienced” to include Moderate: makes a significant contribution primarily on visual amenity grounds but is not considerations such as noise, vibration, odours and dust 9; The NPPF explicitly states that it does not considered integral to historic plan development or reflect nationally significant change the statutory basis and the courts have unequivocally determined that setting is primarily a developments. May include good examples of local or regionally distinct visual concept.10 construction methods or materials. Consideration should be given to retaining structures, but their loss can be mitigated by recording More simply, setting is solely a visual entity except where there are good reasons to include other considerations such as, for example, noise in relation to a place of worship or odour with respect to a Low: makes little contribution or is intrusive. Also includes buildings where their registered park and garden. historical context is largely lost or where they have been altered to such an extent that the importance of their significance is diminished. Some buildings Thus, the general direction favoured by government is to ensure that the significance of heritage may require mitigation recording but generally to a lower level than moderate assets are considered on the basis of what factors actually contribute to their significance. This is to graded examples. ensure that proposals are not summarily dismissed on the basis of simple changes to historic fabric or their surroundings; but to ensure that proposals for redevelopment only fail where, on balance, any adverse negative impact on the principal factors contributing to significance cannot be adequately mitigated or compensated for. Simple close physical presence is not sufficient to establish group value. For buildings to constitute group value they must contribute to the special interest of a designated heritage asset in a meaningful In considering the setting of a heritage asset and which elements of the setting contribute to its way appreciable by the reasonable person. significance, the following grading system is used:

Grade A: of primary significance in establishing the setting of a designated heritage asset or Setting non-designated heritage asset of equivalent interest. Any potential impacts require careful consideration to ensure that the special interest of the heritage Setting has long been both a complex and contentious issue with regard to listed buildings and asset is not adversely affected. Where proposals are considered as adverse, this scheduled ancient monuments. PPS 5 extended the concept of setting to all heritage assets and this would be seen as either substantial harm and would need to be considered in was retained with the publication of the NPPF. Setting is not synonymous with curtilage, or indeed accordance with NPPF para. 132-133 or as less than substantial harm in current surroundings: for ‘relevant’ surroundings to contribute to the significance of the setting of a accordance with the NPPF at para 134 depending on the magnitude of impact. heritage asset they must have value for the asset itself. Proposals require clear justification in terms of public benefit and the more important the asset, the greater the benefit needed to justify proposals. Though not confirmed by the Courts, a distinction has been made at appeal between historic landscape setting and now existing landscape setting, with the result that it is the existing landscape setting which needs to be considered in determining planning issues.7 It was held by the inspector Grade B: of secondary significance, still considered to make an important contribution to the that the existing landscape setting of a cultural heritage feature need only be protected so much as the setting of a designated heritage asset or non-designated heritage asset of historic landscape setting could still be understood. equivalent interest, but less sensitive than Grade A. Adverse impacts would be

8 The Setting of Heritage Assets, October 2011 9 ibid; English Heritage 2010 7 Appeal ref: APP/Q1153/A/06/2017162 10 R. (on the application of K. Miller) v. North Yorkshire County Council [2009] EWHC 2172 (Admin). 6 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

considered as less than substantial harm and be considered in accordance with the ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL BACKGROUND NPPF at para 134.

Prehistoric (8000,000-10,000-5,500,4000-2341 BC) Grade C: of primary importance in establishing the setting of a non-designated heritage

asset. The scale of harm and significance of the asset must be weighed in reaching There is no archaeological evidence of activity or settlement for the prehistoric period either within a balanced judgement, but carries no greater weight than other material the proposed redevelopment site or in the wider environs, other than a single findspot of a considerations sensu NPPF para 135 Palaeolithic hand axe. It was found in the southwest of Huthwaite some 700m south west of the

school site. 11

Grade D: minor/marginal impact: not considered to be significant to the setting of a

heritage asset as it is not important in articulating its special interest: essentially, (43AD-409AD) no harm Roman

The Roman invasion of the region from AD 50 onwards left a series of military installations in the Grade E: views, spaces or structures which detract from the special interest of the heritage form of forts. The closest example is a fort in the centre of Chesterfield. The closest Roman road ran 12 asset or are considered intrusive. Such areas may be viewed as suitable for from Little Chester to Chesterfield. Both of these significant sites/features lie some distance from enhancement Huthwaite.

The earthwork known as ‘Strawberry Hill’ and described as a hillfort, has been dated to the Iron Age Archaeological potential and Roman periods. It is located c 800m south west of the school buildings. A ditch and bank identified at the same location are undated.13 Assessment of archaeological potential is purely one of professional opinion based on a combination of knowledge and experience. Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean an absence of remains. By considering all the available data, a view on potential can be taken together with the likelihood for Saxon/Medieval (c410AD-1066-1539AD) surviving remains. The county of Nottinghamshire was part of the large area together with , Leicestershire Potential is a judgement on possibility based on local evidence or regional trends in archaeological and Lincolnshire created in the late 9th century or early 10th century when the Danes were firmly in distribution. For example, a site may have a high potential for prehistoric flints in the absence of site- control of the . specific data when other fields in a parish have produced flint scatters during field walking. There is no mention of Huthwaite in any surviving Anglo-Saxon charters, nor is there any record of The potential for original fireplaces in a seventeenth century farmhouse might be considered high; any early Saxon burials in the village or in the wider environs.14 but the likelihood for survival might be low if the building has been continuously lived in since changes in fashion and fortune can have major impacts on original detailing of historic properties. The place name is not recorded in the Domesday Book for Derbyshire which gives a record of the late Saxon landscape at that time.15 The place name elements which make up Huthwaite fit in with the Assessment is made on the basis of high, moderate, and low for both potential and likelihood. topography of the place and mean clearing on a hill spur. It is possible that there was a very small homestead there by the time of the Scandinavian expansion and dominance between c 860 and 950AD. However, from later historic and cartographic evidence it would seem that there was no significant settlement until considerably later.

11 NHERL7344; Figure 2 No 1 12 ARCHI 13 NHER M2472 L2471;; Figure 2 Nos 2,4 & 5 14 Sawyer 1968; Meaney 1964 15 Morris 1977 7 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

The only medieval find from the parish is a 13th century seal matrix found in a garden in north-west The Ordnance Survey map of 1973 shows two buildings marked simply ‘School’ , a small building to Huthwaite but given the lack of any further findspots or medieval features it is likely that this has the rear with a ‘Playing Field’ and ‘Tennis Courts’ all located to the rear of Barker Street and adjacent been re deposited from another site. 16 to an unnamed road and Hilltop Farm. Footpaths that had run along the southwest and southeast apex of the field have been partly built over, altered, and linked to the main school building. (Figure 13). These paths are but two of a large number of paths and trackways in this area north of Huthwaite.22 (1540-1900 Post Medieval/Industrial Throughout the remainder of the 1970’s, the School buildings remain unnamed but by the 1987 Chapman’s map of Nottinghamshire in 1774 marks ‘coal pits’ to the north, west and south of Ordnance Survey edition, the buildings are finally marked the ‘John Davies School’. The form of the ‘ Huthwaite’ and there are numerous records of shafts, bell pits and mining remains in the buildings, together with ‘tennis Courts’ and ‘Playing Field’, remain the same over the years (Figure 14 immediate area.17 & 15) As noted, the closest mine to the proposed development site is Huthwaite mine itself to the south west.18 The coal mining industry was the most significant factor in the growth of Huthwaite, but by the end of the 1st decade of the 20th century the main industry in the village had become the manufacture of hosiery products. The 1879 Ordnance Survey edition shows ‘Hosiery Works’ in the SMR No. NGR The Site Period Date centre of the village.19 It is recorded that in 1844 ‘Hucknall Hustwayte’ had 290 frames.20 Fig.3 No L7344 4630 Findspot of a Palaeolithic hand axe Palaeolithic -7000-8001 Brick works are also depicted on the 1879 map and a reservoir is depicted on a map of 1930. Fig.3 No 1 5970 Brickworks were commonly found associated with collieries within the coalfields turning the arisings M2472 4609 Earthwork known as Strawberry Iron Age- -700-409 Fig.3 No 2 5982 Bank Hillfort Roman from coal mining that would otherwise be a waste into a viable commercial product. The bricks L2424 4629 Findspot of a seal matrix found in Medieval 1200-1299 21 generally being stamped with the colliery name. Fig. 3 No 3 5972 garden L2628 4599 Ditch at Strawberry Bank Undated The 1879 OS map also marks a ‘School (Boys and Girls)’. There is documentary evidence that in 1867 Fig. 3 No 4 5990 a National School was erected on a site, given by the Dowager Countess of Carnarvon, in the south L2471 4610 Earthwork at Strawberry Bank Undated west of Huthwaite. The Dowager also contributed £450 to build this school. Fig.3 No 5 5970 L2468 4640 Map depiction of reservoir Modern 1780-1916 Fig. 3 No 6 5960 L2470 4710 Map depiction of brickworks Modern 1780-1917 By 1917 different ‘School’ buildings are marked on ‘New Street’ to the north of the Market Square . Fig.3 No 7 5960 They are unnamed and it is not until the 1960 Ordnance Survey edition that the buildings are named L2469 4740 Map depiction of hosiery factory Modern the ‘John Davies County Primary School’ (Figure 11). Fig.3 No 8 5930 L2475 4710 Map depiction of windmill Modern Throughout these decades the proposed development site to the north of the historic core of Fig.3 No 9 5920 L7536 4731 Map depiction of trackway Post 1547-1918 Huthwaite remained a large undeveloped field. It is not until sometime between the end of the 1960’s Fig.3 No 10 6043 Medieval- and the start of the 1970’s that buildings appear on the site. Modern L9506 4712 Undated oval cropmark, Skegby Undated Fig.3 No 11 6040 M2445 4595 Huthwaite coal mine Modern 1780-1917 Fig.3 No 12 5925

16 NHER; L2424; Figure 2 No 3 17 NHER ; Figure 4 Table 1 Relevant Nottinghamshire SMR/HER sites in relation to the proposed redevelopment 18 NHER M2445; Figure 2 No 12 site (see Figure 2 below) 19 NHER M2469; Figure 6; Figure. 2 No 8 20 Felkin 1967 21 Figures 6 and 9; Fig. 2 nos 7 and 6 22 Figure 9; Figure. 3 No 10 8 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

( ! J$*-*! '-*! %#! 01$*G42*G! <%1)*%5! >#%4.*%5+! L0<>+M! )%! 5$*! )..*G)'5*! ()1)%)5/! #H! 5$*! "#$%! &'()*+! `%!5$*!NXI[!`0!.'C!5$*!?4)2G)%8+!'%G!5*%%)+!1#4-5+!6$)1$!-*2'5*!5#!5$*!C-*+*%5!+1$##2!$'(*!'CC*'-*G!! 01$##2!+)5*:!%#-!'%/!-*8)+5*-*G!,'-S+!@!A'-G*%+B!J$*-*!)+!#%*!3)+5#-)1!,'-S!'%G!5$*-*!'-*!5$-**!K)+5*G! )%!5$*!1#-%*-!#H!'!C-*()#4+2/!4%G*(*2#C*G!!H)*2G:!'G\'1*%5!5#!3)225#C!D'-.!LD)84-*!N[MB!!J$*!?4)2G)%8+! ;4)2G)%8+!)%!345$6')5*O!5$*!f$)5*!3'-5!,4?2)1!3#4+*=!NW!>')%!05-**5!'%G!345$6')5*!f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`0!*G)5)#%!#H!NYIX!+$#6+!5$*!()22'8*!$'+!G*(*2#C*G!5#!5$*!%#-5$!#H!5$*!341S%'22!J4-%C)S*!-#'G! ( '%G!6*+5!#H!'%!4%%'.*G!-#'G!6$)1$!2'5*-!?*1#.*+!]>')%!05-**5_!LD)84-*!P^YM!!J$)+!)+!5$*!H)-+5!5).*!'! ( +1$##2!)+!.'-S*G!)%!345$6')5*B!!J$)+!H)5+!)%!6)5$!5$*!H'15!5$'5!5$*!'8*-!9#4%5*++!#H!9'-%'-(#%!8'(*!Z[ '!+)5*:!'%G!nVPQ:!'!+)8%)H)1'%5!'.#4%5:!5#!?4)2G!!'!7'5)#%'2!01$##2!)%!345$6')5*!)%!NYWIB !!`%!5$*!.'C! ( ( )5!)+!+).C2/!.'-S*G!]01$##2_!L;#/+!'%G!A)-2+M!#CC#+)5*!]92'/!>)22_!!LD)84-*!WMB!J$*!9#4%5*++:!5#8*5$*-!ZV 6)5$!5$*!&4S*!#H!,#-52'%G:!2#-G!#H!5$*!.'%#-:!6*-*!5$*!56#!.'\#-!2'%G$#2G*-+!'5!5$*!5).*B ! ( ! ( 3#6*(*-:!5$)+!+1$##2!G#*+!%#5!'CC*'-!5#!?*!5$*!C-*14-+#-!#H!5$*!"#$%!&'()*+!,-).'-/!01$##2!6$)1$! 5$ ( +5'-5*G! )5+! 2)H*! #%! 7*6! 05-**5! +#.*! 5).*! ?*56**%! 5$*! *%G! #H! 5$*! NX ! 1*%54-/! '%G! NXNIB! F5! )+! H)-+5! ( .'-S*G!#%!5$*!NXNI!`-G%'%1*!04-(*/!.'C!'+!56#!2'-8*!?4)2G)%8+:!#%*!.'-S*G!]F%H'%5!01$##2_!'%G!#%*! +).C2/!]01$##2_!#%!7*6!05-**5!LD)84-*!YMB! ( ! ( J$*!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8+!'%G!8-#4%G+!-*.')%*G!5$*!+'.*!5$-#48$!5$*!%*R5!H#4-!G*1'G*+!4%5)2!NXWQ!6$*%! (

)5! )+! %'.*G! 5$*! ]"#$%! &'()*+! 9#4%5/! ,-).'-/! 01$##2_B!!J$*! 1$)2G-*%! +5)22! $'G! 5#! 6'2S!ZP 5$-#48$! 5$*! ( ?4)2G)%8!6$)1$!H-#%5*G!7*6!05-**5!5#!8*5!5#!5$*!2'-8*-!?4)2G)%8!5#!)5+!-*'-!LD)84-*!NNMB !F5!+**.+!5$'5! ( )5!5##S!)5+!%'.*!H-#.!"#$%!&'()*+!6$#!6'+!'!2#1'2!1#4%1)22#-:!'%G!6$#:!!?*56**%!NX[Ne[Z:!6'+!1$')-! ( #H!5$*!0455#%!o-?'%!&)+5-)15!9#4%1)2B!3#6*(*-:!5$*-*!)+!%#!*RC2'%'5)#%!'+!5#!6$/!5$*!+1$##2!5##S!$)+! ZW ( %'.*B ! R$'H#"(3,( 23 Bellaire 1873 ( 24 ibid 25 Nottingham Local Studies Librarian 3'4/H*)77H ( &)+5-)?45)#%!#H!E*2*('%5!<-1$'*#2#8)1'2!0)5*+!)%!E*2'5)#%!5#!J$*!0)5*! 26 ( 9 -./(01203456(7#55)%8$'.!K#1'2!054G)*+=!f$)5*!NY[Z(((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( R$'H#"(J,( ( ( 0'R5#%_+!>'C!#H!7#55)%8$'.+$)-*!NW[I! (

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( R$'H#"(;,( R$'H#"(M,( ( ( 9$'C.'%_+!>'C!#H!5$*!9#4%5/!#H!7#55)%8$'.+$)-*!NIIV! TR5-'15!H#-.!5$*!T%12#+4-*!<6'-G!>'C!#H!0455#%!)%!<+$H)*2G:!0$**5!N:!NYQNB!

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( R$'H#"(1,( ( R$'H#"(6,( ( ( R$'H#"(O,( ( +5 NYIX `0!ZPm!N !*G)5)#%!! NYXX `0!ZPm!Z%G!*G)5)#%!! NXNI `0!ZPm!! ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( R$'H#"(P,( ( R$'H#"(50,( ( R$'H#"(55,( ( +5 ( NX[Q `0!Wm!! NX[Y `0!ZPm!! 11 NXWQ `0!Wm!N !*G)5)#%!! -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( R$'H#"(53,( ( R$'H#"(5J,( ( ( R$'H#"(5;,( NXWI `0!Wm!! NXI[ `0!NONQ:!QQQ!! YI `0!NONQ: QQQ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ( =TGUE(!FQGE/VF(@(.!/Q/.EFQ( ( ( ( C(*-()*7%

( ! ( J$*! "#$%! &'()*+! 01$##2! 2)*+! #%! 5$*! %#-5$*-%! H-)%8*! #H! 345$6')5*B! F5! )+! *HH*15)(*2/! ?#4%G*G! ?/! ( '8-)14254-'2!2'%G!5#!5$*!%#-5$!'%G!6*+5:!'25$#48$!5$*-*!)+!+.'22!+1'2*!G*(*2#C.*%5!'5!+#.*!G)+5'%1*! ( H#-.!5$*!+1$##2!?#4%G'-/B! ! ( J#! 5$*! +#45$:! 5$*! +1$##2! ?#4%G'-/! )+! 1#%5)%8*%5! 6)5$! 5$*! -*'-! ?#4%G'-)*+! #H! C-#C*-5)*+! H-#%5)%8! ( ;'-S*-!05-**5B!J$*+*!.')%2/!1#.C-)+*!'%!TG6'-G)'%!5*--'1*G!-#6!'5!5$*!+#45$*'+5!*%G!#H!5$*!+5-**5! ( 6)5$!2'5*-!LNXZQ^[Q+M!+*.)^G*5'1$*G! $#4+*+! '5! 5$*! 5#C! L%#-5$6*+5M! #H! 5$*! +5-**5B! ;*56**%! 5$*! 56#! ( C-*G#.)%'%5!$#4+)%8!5/C*+!)+!+#.*!.#G*-%!+)%82*!+5#-*/!)%H)22!G*(*2#C.*%5B! ( ! ( J$*!5*--'1*G!$#4+*+!'-*!5/C)1'2!#H!9#'2!.*'+4-*+!TG6'-G)'%!5*--'1*G!$#4+*+B!J$*/!6*-*!1#%+5-415*G! R$'H#"(5M,( )%!-*G!?-)1S!6)5$!'+$2'-!+5#%*!G-*++)%8+!'%G!6*2+$!+2'5*!-##H+!6)5$!(*-5)1'2!+2)G)%8!+'+$!6)%G#6+B!<22! $'(*! ?**%! .#G*-%)+*G! 6)5$! 5$*! %*'-! 4?)c4)5#4+! 4,p9! G#4?2*! 82'q*G! 6)%G#6+B! 0*(*-'2! $'(*! ?**%! ( NXX[!`0!NO!NQ:!QQQ! 12 -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( ((((((((((((((((-*%G*-*G!#-!C')%5*G!'%G!5$*!.'\#-)5/!$'(*!?**%!-*1#(*-*G!)%!1#%1-*5*!)%5*-2#1S)%8!5)2*+B!(((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

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c4'-*!)%!C2'%!'%G!'CC-#R).'5*2/!IQr!)+!G#6%!5#!C2'/)%8!H)*2G!8'-G*%!#-!)+!C2'%5*G! 6)5$!5-**+B!`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

% J$*!;'-% ! % J$*!?'-%!)+!'!G*5'1$*G!-*15'%842'-!?4)2G)%8!%#-5$!#H!5$*!.')%!1#.C2*R!'%G!'G\'1*%5!5#!5$*!+1$##2!$'22! % '%G!1$'%8)%8!-##.+B!! % ! % EK"(=&#+(*()*E@%/'#F4)7#&)3# F5! $'+! -*G! ?-)1S! 6'22+! 1#%+5-415*G! )%! D2*.)+$! ?#%G! 6$)1$! 6'+! '%! 4%4+4'2! 1$#)1*! H#-! '! 45)2)5'-)'%! % ?4)2G)%8:!+)%1*!D2*.)+$!?#%G!$)+5#-)1'22/!6'+!-*+*-(*G!H#-!H)%*!H'1*!6#-SB! ^f*+5!T2*('5)#%!+$#6)%8!2#6*-!D2*.)+$!?#%G!?-)1S!6'22!6)5$!12'GG)%8!'?#(*! % ^7#-5$6*+5!'+C*15!H-#.!C2'/8-#4%G! % `-)8)%'22/!'!+)%82*!#C*%!+C'1*:!)5!14--*%52/!$#4+*+!'%!)%+)G*!C2'/)%8!1#4-5!6)5$!+)G*!')+2*+!4+*G!H#-! ^&*5')2!#H!5-)'%842'5*G!-##H!5-4++!+$#6)%8!'%82*!?*'G!1#..#%!.*.?*-+!?#25*G! % +5#-'8*B! 5#!H)51$!C2'5*+! ! % ^&*5')2!#H!+5'%1$)#%e5-4++!)%5*-H'1*!6)5$!+)G*!?-'1)%8! J$*! 4CC*-! *%G! *2*('5)#%+! '%G! -##H! '-*! 12'G! )%! 1#--48'5*G! 8'2('%)+*G! +$**5)%8! +4CC#-5*G! #%! 5-)'%842'5*G!-##H!5-4++*+!1#%+5-415*G!H-#.!'%82*!?*'G!'%G!H)51$( !C2'5*+B! 13 -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

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c4)1S2/!-*C2'1)%8!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8+!G'.'8*G!?/!+4?+)G*%1*B!J$*!+/+5*.!6'+! $8?62# % 4+*G!%#5!#%2/!H#-!*G41'5)#%'2!?4)2G)%8+!?45!'2+#!H#-!-')26'/!?4)2G)%8+:!#HH)1*+!'%G!$#4+)%8B!

% % % % % % % % % % Y:&%"(;,(( % % E##H!\#)+5!)%!E##.!V! % ! % % % % %

% % % % % %

% % Y:&%"<(M2O,(( % % &*5')2+! #H! 5$*! +5')-! '--'%8*.*%5:! 1#.C-)+)%8! '! .'%4H'154-*G! % R$'H#"(51,(( % +5**2!#C*%!6*22!+5')-!6)5$!.'$#8'%/!+5*C+B! % 0)5*!,2'%!L7J0M! % ! % % ! J$*! $'%G! -')2! )+! +5**2! ?'-! 6)5$! '! 5#C! % 1'.?*-! 1#(*-*G! )%! C2'+5)1! +4CC#-5*G! #%! % % +).C2*! +c4'-*! +*15)#%! +5**2! +C)%G2*+! )%! % % +5')-! ZP:! )%! .'$#8'%/! #%! +5')-! VY! L+**! % D)84-*!NWMB! ! ( 15 -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

% Y:&%"<(P25J,(( F4)7#('F&# % 92'GG)%8!5/C*+!a E'%G#.!;*'G!H)?-*!1*.*%5=!f$)5*!0C'-!G'+$*G!1*.*%5=!3*6%!05#%*!H)?-*!1*.*%5=!0$)C2'C!f*'5$*-!;#'-G)%8!'%G!$'%8)%8!5)2*+B! % % ! % % % ,-)$1)<'2%()*7+% %

Y:&%"(5;,((

J$*!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8!1#.C2*R!H-#.!5$*!C-#C#+*G!+)5*!H#-!5$*!%*6!+1$##2!2##S)%8!%#-5$! 16 (! -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

% % % % % % % %

Y:&%"(5M,((

J$*!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8!1#.C2*R:!+#45$*'+5!'+C*15B!! % ! %

Y:&%"(51,((

J$*!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8!1#.C2*R:!+#45$*'+5!'+C*15:!12#+*-!()*6!+$#6)%8!.')%!*%5-'%1*B!J$*!5$-**^+5#-*/!5*'1$)%8!?2#1S!)+!#%!5$*!-)8$5!#H!H-'.*B!J$*!5'22*-!*2*.*%5!)%!5$*!1*%5-*!#H!5$*!C2'5*!)+!5$*!!!!

!( !!!!!!!!!!!!!!3'22:!+5'8*!'%G!8/.%'+)4.! 17 -./(01! 203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Y:&%"(56,(( % J$*!%#-5$*'+5!C2'/8-#4%G!%#-5$!#H!5$*!C-#C#+*G!%*6!+1$##2!?4)2G)%8!+)5*B!J$*!;'-%!)+!\4+5!()+)?2*!#%!5$*!*R5-*.*!-)8$5!#H!5$*!H-'.*B! % % % % % % % % % % % %

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

E#*%01#""2%B$6*-)"-% % % % % J$*!+1$##2!$'+!?**%!*R5*%+)(*2/!.#G*-%)+*G!)%+)G*!)%124G)%8!1$'%8*+!5#!5$*!-##.!C2'%!#H!5$*!5$-**^ % +5#-*/!?2#1!'%G!1$'%8*+!)%!5$*!H4%15)#%!#H!+*(*-'2!-##.+B!! % ! % J$*!S)51$*%!$'+!?**%!1#.C2*5*2/!-*C2'1*G!6)5$!.#G*-%!1'5*-)%8!*c4)C.*%5!'%G!'22!5#)2*5+!4C8-'G*G! % 5#!.#G*-%!+5'%G'-G+B!J$*!#%2/!H2##-!+4-H'1*!5$'5!'CC*'-+!5#!?*!#-)8)%'2!)+!5$*!.'C2*!H2##-!)%!5$*!A/.B! % ! J$*-*!'-*!(*-/!H*6!)%5*-%'2!H*'54-*+!#-!H)R54-*+!5$'5!'-*!#-)8)%'2!5#!5$*!1#.C2*R!'+!?4)25!#5$*-!5$'%!5$*! % +5')-!1'+*+!L,2'5*+!NX!@!ZQMB!! % ! % `5$*-! C#++)?2*! C-).'-/! H)R54-*+! )%124G*! +#.*! #H! 5$*! )%5*-%'2! G##-+! L,2'5*! ZNM=! 1'+5! )-#%! 1*%5-'2! % % $*'5)%8!L,2'5*!ZZM!'%G!'!H#-.*-!2'4%G-/!1$45*!)%!-##.!7#!NP!L,2'5*!Z[MB! % % % % % % % % % Y:&%"<(5P(@(30( ('F&K# #4%05&# % % J$*!+5')-+!a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eritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

20 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

21 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

22 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

;G"(*%% % J$*!H#-.*-!2'4%G-/!$'51$! % % % % % % % % % %

( 23 -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; !"#$%&'"()%&%"*"+%,( !"#$%&'()*+%,-).'-/%01#""23%456#7')6*% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % ;G"(*%% % % J$*!c4)*5!-##.!$'+!?**%!1-*'5*G!?/!+4?G)()G)%8!'! % +.'22!+c4'-*!-##.!H-#.!5$*!*'+5!1#-%*-!#H!E##.!7#!PZ! % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

( 24 -./(01203456((((3+7(7#&8%( ( (((((((((((((((( (((/9#$:(305; Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

25 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

ASSESSMENT Standing remains

Buried remains The County Council has identified the existing school buildings as a non-designated heritage asset thus providing some protection in terms of planning policy. There are no known remains from within the application area or within its proximity and the site appears to have been undeveloped until the present school complex was constructed. It is therefore necessary to consider the significance of the building and to consider how important that significance is in order to establish if the buildings should be retained; conserved by record; or Archaeological evidence for the prehistoric, Roman, Saxon and medieval periods is entirely absent can be demolished freely. from the village. The closest recorded site of any consequence is ‘Strawberry Bank Hill fort’ which has been dated to the Iron Age and Roman period. It is some 800m south west of the school buildings and As noted above, CLASP buildings were designed in post-war Britain at a time when resources were a bank and ditch identified in the same area are undated. still stretched as the demand for building materials outstripped availability. They are therefore an important class of building in terms of the development of post-war architecture (with particular There is an implication from place-name evidence that the settlement may have originated in the mid regard to the ultimate pre-eminence of steel-framed construction) and as a reflection of the ninth to mid tenth century but this is not proven. continuing challenges to society posed by post-war austerity.

Overall, the archaeological potential of the site must be considered low; but it is not known if this The use of substantial ferrous members to strengthen factory structures dates back to the eighteenth apparent dearth of early remains is a true reflection of the archaeological record or the result of little century, with the fire-proofing experimentation of Josiah Strutt based on cast iron columns, investigation having been carried out in the area. composite beams and terracotta being a noted example.

Certainly wider afield, geophysical surveys have proved the presence of remains in areas that have The lessons learnt from the engineered design of these early buildings and other engineering feats traditionally been considered archaeologically void in Nottinghamshire. However, in this case it is such as iron bridges dominated the constructional form of taller buildings throughout the later considered that it is not viable to undertake such a survey owing to the existing site constraints. nineteenth century; with a gradual shift towards the end of the century of steel replacing cast and wrought iron. However, there was still a reliance on masonry as the principal load- bearer in The proposed site for the replacement school building lies between disturbed ground in proximity to structures. Although reinforced concrete and steel-framed buildings were being experimented with to the existing buildings, tree plantations and is bounded to the northeast by a 2m steel fence. All on the continent and North America, a combination of factors led to a lag in maximizing the structural magnetic features including steel fences affect magnetometery (which would be the most suitable potential of these new materials. In time, the steel frame and reinforced concrete methods would geophysical survey technique in this case). It is therefore considered that the available ground eventually dominate the construction of large buildings following the Second World War. suitable for survey is too small to enable an effective result. Experimentation was restricted. Firstly, the Building Act of 1894 and subsequent amendments in The ground conditions are suitable for field evaluation by trial excavation but this would be a 1905 and 1909 contained load values and detailing which in some cases stifled innovation and in needlessly expensive exercise on such a small site. others added huge cost owing to the over specification in the regulations. These factors led to a continuation of load-bearing masonry rather than the development of envelopes carried on the actual On balance, it is considered that the resultant archaeological potential of the site can be managed frame until the General Powers Act of 1923 enabled district surveyors to give waivers more freely in during development by the imposition of a standard archaeological watching brief secured by specific circumstances condition. This would ensure that any archaeological remains disturbed by development could be conserved by record in not only a cost-effective manner, but also without any delay to the project Secondly, was the lack of availability in Great Britain and resulting high cost of broad-flange beams. programme. These were only rolled on the continent or North America until the 1950s when the first mill using the ‘Grey process’ was built in Britain by Dorman Long at Lackenby steelworks. This resulted in either costly imports or the strengthening of smaller flanged beams by riveting plates. Either approach 27 increased the cost of utilising steel within new constructions.

27 Yeomans 1997 26 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

Charting the early development of steel framed buildings in Britain is difficult: many possible early Thus, in construction history it can be seen that the CLASP method has significance as a response to examples have been lost without record and of those which may still stand, their underlying particular challenges and constraints posed by post-war Britain. However, it also has significance in structural spine is not always evident. However, early use of limited structural steel work is known terms of its contribution to other construction forms. from the work of Alfred Waterhouse as early as 1869 at Owens College, Oxford. Waterhouse used steel for many of his important buildings up to at least 1892 and was also responsible for the first Arguably, the pièce de résistance was the University of York constructed in 1962 by the prominent extensive use of structural steelwork in his design for the National Liberal Club in 1879. London practice of Robert Mathew Johnson-Marshall. By choosing the CLSAP system that had previously only been used for schools, the project set the standard for rapid pre-fabricated However, it is the design of J.F. Doyle and Norman Shaw of the Royal Insurance Building, Liverpool, construction. which has the distinction of being the earliest provable complete steel framed building in Britain. Built 1895-6, it has seven floors and two basements. The frame is clearly evident within the building The practice was later commissioned to construct the University of Sterling which similarly had to be and the original drawings show that the framing is complete. 28 constructed within a finite time-frame. There, the practice modified the approach retaining the speed and efficiency of CLSAP but within a bespoke design that has been compared to the work of important The use of steel-frame construction for industrial buildings utilizing non-load bearing outer continental modernist architects such as Jorgan Bo, Wilhelm Wohlert and Aldo van Eyk; thus linking envelopes is seen as early as 1904 in Manchester. These early buildings often had exposed frames the utilitarian and functional CLASP form to high architectural design.31 leading to difficulties with corrosion and failure during fire. Successive improvements in detailing included the provision of protective paints or cement washes against corrosion and casing stanchions It can be seen that the CLASP system developed by Aslin has significance in the development of and main girders for fire protection..29 modern architectural form and construction and this is the reason why the existing John Davies School has been identified as a non-designated heritage asset. The most common forms of fire protection were casing with either brick masonry or concretes, but other methods included wood wool slab, gypsum block and plaster board, depending on the degree of It is thus necessary to consider the importance of the existing school buildings to establish if they resistance required. All these methods tended to employ some degree of reinforcement to prevent the have sufficient heritage interest to warrant retention or if they can be lost as proposed. less dense material close to the flanges spalling away when subjected to the heat of fire.30 In recognition of the significance of CLASP buildings in later twentieth century architecture, some The use of steel framing gained momentum during the 1930s when the principles of the modern examples have been listed. The closest example to the site is the Intake Farm School, . movement began to be widely applied, with a dominance on the horizontal rather than vertical treatment of the elevation by widespread use of string courses and colour variation in the spandrels This building is listed at Grade II and was designated as it was the first school constructed by the between windows or continuous glazing: ideal detailing for the steel framed building. CLASP method.32 As the first example of its kind, it therefore has an elevated significance above the norm and yet it has the lowest possible grade of designation, reflecting that later twentieth century With the outbreak of war in 1939 major building projects other than for the Ministry of War and war- buildings must be exceptional to justify designation at a higher grade. related purposes was effectively curtailed. Steel and concrete construction was effectively split into mass-pour concrete structures such as pill boxes or light fabricated buildings such as Nissen and It combines pre-cast concrete, timber cladding and hanging tiles similar to John Davies school, but Romney huts. unlike the site, it still retains original cladding and window fenestration.

As noted above, the 1950s witnessed investment in wide-flange beam technology that would The John Davies school is a late flourish of the CLASP method and has been extensively altered from eventually lead to the modern steel-framed construction form now almost ubiquitous for buildings of its original as-built arrangement. The majority of the cladding has been replaced, its plan changed by any mass. The CLASP system operated in tandem with these developments. extension and internal layout and all its windows have been replaced with modern aluminium double-glazed units. On this basis, the architectural significance of John Davies existing school Initially, CLASP provided a cost-effective response to an urgent building need making use of small buildings is considered low; its resultant significance being considered largely historic as an example gauge steel that was certainly more easily available than larger section. It also reflects an era of a of the CLASP system. scale of cooperation now largely lacking between local authorities.

28 www.corusconstruction.com 29 op. cit 31 Fair 2014 30 Greenhalgh 1947 32 Saint 1987 27 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

The historic significance of the school buildings do not justify retention in the absence of a high It is considered that the archaeological potential of the site can be best managed by maintaining an architectural interest and it can be preserved by record. archaeological watching brief on sensitive groundwork during construction.

The photographic survey reproduced above is considered sufficient to provide an archival record of Similarly, it is considered that the intactness of the existing school buildings is not sufficient for the general arrangement of the school but it could be improved by increasing the knowledge base retention by a recording brief might be considered during demolition to record structural details regarding construction method. currently obscured by cladding and internal boarding.

This information is best achieved by a recording brief during demolition and can be secured by These works can be secured by a standard negative condition requiring a scheme of works condition. implemented in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed with the local planning authority.

Setting issues REFERENCES & SOURCES CONSULTED The site does not fall within the setting of any designated or non-designated heritage asset and thus the redevelopment proposals cannot affect the setting of any asset located outside of the site. BASSETT, S.,1989. The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. University of Leicester Press. BELLAIRE, c., 1873 A History of Sutton in Ashfield, Fulwood and Hucknall under Huthwaite. The County Council has identified the existing school buildings as a non-designated heritage asset and BERESFORD, M., 1998 edition. The Lost Villages of . Alan Sutton & Sutton publishing thus it has a priori a setting of its own. BURNHAM, B.C., & WACHER J., 1990 The Small Towns of Roman Britain.

However, the proposed development of the construction of a replacement school will only go ahead if CAMERON, K., 1996. English Place Names. London: Batsford. approval for demolition of the existing school is granted. As such, there is no need to assess impact on CAMPBELL, BMS. 1995. A Commercialising Economy: England 1086-1300 measuring the setting since if the school is demolished there will be no setting. commercialisation of seigneurial agriculture c. 1300 ENGLISH HERITAGE. 2011a. Seeing History in the View ENGLISH HERITAGE. 2011b. The Setting of Heritage Assets EKWALL, E. 1991. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names. 4th ed. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS Fair, A. 2014. Pathfoot Building, University of Sterling

FELKIN, W., 1967 A History of the Machine Wrought Hosiery & Lace Manufacturers Burt, Franklin, This appraisal has not identified any heritage constraints to preclude development. New York

GELLING, M. and COLE, A., 2000. The Landscape of Place-Names The site does not fall within the setting of any heritage asset other than the existing school buildings. Greenhalgh, R. c. 1947. Modern Building Construction. Vol III The existing school buildings are considered to have a moderate historic interest as a late flourishing HILL, D., 1981. An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England. of the CLASP system of fabrication but have a low architectural interest owing to a comprehensive KELLY’s Directory 1922 internal rearrangement and external repairs including substantial replacement of cladding and full MARGARY, I.D., 1955. Roman Roads in Britain Vol. 1 replacement of window and main door fenestration. MEANEY, A.,L., 1964. A Gazetteer of early Anglo Saxon Burial Sites. There is no evidence of any archaeological remains within the proposed development site, but the MORRIS, J., 1977 Domesday Book of Nottinghamshire. Phillimore existing knowledge base is too small to definitively rule them out. NEWMAN & PEVSNER 2006. Buildings of England, Nottinghamshire

PAGE , W., (ed) The Victoria History of the County of Nottinghamshire Vols. I & II The existing site constraints are considered such that a geophysical survey pre-determination is not Redpath Brown & Co Ltd. 1928. Handbook of Structural Steelwork viable. WILLIAMS, A & MARTIN, GH. 1992. Domesday Book. A complete Translation 28 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

WILSON, D.M.(ed) The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. RACKHAM, O., 1986. The History of the Countryside. RCHM Roman Britain Ordnance Survey Map and Guide. 1991 Saint, A. 1987. Towards a Social Architecture. The role of school building in post-war England SAWYER, P.H. 1968. Anglo-Saxon Charters: an annotated list and bibliography. WHITE’s Directory 1832 WILSON, D., M., 1986 edition The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England.

Yeomans, D. 1997. Construction Since 1900: Materials [no name]. [no date]. Huthwaite Village Pack and Notes in Broxton Wapentake. N 902 Nottingham Local Studies

29 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014 Heritage Statement: John Davies Primary School, Huthwaite

30 MCA 06-02/17 2nd draft April 2014