Land at Shendish Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire

NB. Levels quoted in metres Ordnance Newlyn Datum. The value -9999.00 indicates that no survey information is available

Manhole Reference Manhole Cover Level Manhole Invert Level 59XX n/a n/a 59XV n/a n/a 59XW n/a n/a 59XS n/a n/a 891A 111.65 n/a 891C 111.26 n/a 891B 110.69 n/a 5802 124.48 120.74 5803 125.42 123 59ZR n/a n/a 59ZQ n/a n/a 59ZP n/a n/a 5902 123.5 121.59 5901 122.34 119.32 6701 127.86 126.26 5701 128.67 125.55 5801 127.1 123.75 5805 n/a n/a 5804 124.37 n/a 781B 114.9 n/a 781A 114.75 n/a 791A 113.41 n/a 791B 112.41 n/a 59YY n/a n/a 59YX n/a n/a 59YW n/a n/a 59YT n/a n/a 59YS n/a n/a 59YR n/a n/a 5904 119.4 117.82 59XQ n/a n/a 59XR n/a n/a 5903 117.9 115.98 671A n/a n/a 6702 129.62 127.18 6703 129.79 127.63

The position of the apparatus shown on this plan is given without obligation and warranty, and the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Service pipes are not shown but their presence should be anticipated. No liability of any kind whatsoever is accepted by Thames Water for any error or omission. The actual position of mains and services must be verified and established on site before any works are undertaken.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Property Searches, PO Box 3189, Slough SL1 4W, DX 151280 Slough 13 Page 25 of 30 T 0845 070 9148 E [email protected] I www.thameswater-propertysearches.co.uk

Asset LocationMP.25 Search Sewer Map - ALS/ALS Standard/2018_3905606= TL0604NW 1 6

to 3 2

F 22 The Paper Mill F 5 % FB

2901

Garage .

=. 80.1m

E C A 1 L P to S 1 R 2 E G Foot Bridge N r IO 1 a T 4 n A t d T o U S 2 5 n T io R o n iv w e in C r a G g 2 n 1 L 6 a a P t o l d a o n to e t 2 g h 1 m 3 a 7 n 1 C 9 Harriet Ho 3 use o 8 t u o rt to 3 3 3 4 5 9 to Hotel 6 1 5 4

4 to 2 El Sub Sta Foot 5 to 1 0 Bridge t 0 3 o 4 2 6 Frances House 1 to 3 6 9 2

to 7 3

L O N D O N A !381A p R s O le A y D 381B Bond Court S e ! D ta f 1 to 49 tio n Foot Bridge

C % o C o 3 n 3 s 7 to t, 1 E D & Wa rd Cavendish Court B d y

6 d 1 n to % 1 U

81.0m !4702

! Golf Course Garage

2 2 5 1 MP 23 1 6 ! 5 A ! p s le y 4701 ! G ra n ! g e ! ! ! S he nd ! ish E 2 dg ! 1 28 ! 26

The width of the displayed area is 500m and the centre of the map is located at OS coordinates 506250,204750 The position of the apparatus shown on this plan is given without obligation and warranty, and the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Service pipes are not shown but their presence should be anticipated. No liability of any kind whatsoever is accepted by Thames Water for any error or omission. The actual position of mains and services must be verified and established on site before any works are undertaken.

Based on the Ordnance Survey Map with the Sanction of the controller of H.M. Stationery Office, License no. 100019345 Crown Copyright Reserved.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Property Searches, PO Box 3189, Slough SL1 4W, DX 151280 Slough 13 Page 26 of 30 T 0845 070 9148 E [email protected] I www.thameswater-propertysearches.co.uk

NB. Levels quoted in metres Ordnance Newlyn Datum. The value -9999.00 indicates that no survey information is available

Manhole Reference Manhole Cover Level Manhole Invert Level 4701 81.26 78.68 47ZT n/a n/a 47ZS n/a n/a 47ZR n/a n/a 47ZQ n/a n/a 47ZP n/a n/a 4702 81.36 78.97 47ZV n/a n/a 47ZW n/a n/a 46ZW n/a n/a 46ZX n/a n/a 46ZY n/a n/a 2902 81.05 78.21 2901 80.6 78.25 381B n/a n/a 381A n/a n/a

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Property Searches, PO Box 3189, Slough SL1 4W, DX 151280 Slough 13 Page 27 of 30 T 0845 070 9148 E [email protected] I www.thameswater-propertysearches.co.uk

ALS Sewer Map Key

Public Sewer Types (Operated & Maintained by Thames Water) Sewer Fittings Other Symbols A feature in a sewer that does not affect the flow in the pipe. Example: a vent Symbols used on maps which do not fall under other general categories is a fitting as the function of a vent is to release excess gas. Foul: A sewer designed to convey waste water from domestic and Public/Private Pumping Station industrial sources to a treatment works. / Air Valve Change of characteristic indicator (C.O.C.I.) Surface Water: A sewer designed to convey surface water (e.g. rain Dam Chase water from roofs, yards and car parks) to rivers or watercourses. Invert Level Fitting Summit M Combined: A sewer designed to convey both waste water and surface Meter water from domestic and industrial sources to a treatment works. Areas Vent Column Lines denoting areas of underground surveys, etc. Trunk Surface Water Trunk Foul Operational Controls Agreement A feature in a sewer that changes or diverts the flow in the sewer. Example: A hydrobrake limits the flow passing downstream. Operational Site Storm Relief Trunk Combined Control Valve Chamber PPVent Pipe Bio-solids (Sludge) Drop Pipe Tunnel Ancillary

Proposed Thames Surface Proposed Thames Water Weir Conduit Bridge Water Sewer Foul Sewer

Gallery Foul Rising Main End Items Other Sewer Types (Not Operated or Maintained by Thames Water) End symbols appear at the start or end of a sewer pipe. Examples: an Undefined End at the start of a sewer indicates that Thames Water has no Foul Sewer Surface Water Sewer Surface Water Rising Combined Rising Main knowledge of the position of the sewer upstream of that symbol, Outfall on a Main surface water sewer indicates that the pipe discharges into a stream or river. Combined Sewer Gulley Proposed Thames Water Sludge Rising Main Outfall Rising Main W Culverted Watercourse Proposed

Vacuum Undefined End Abandoned Sewer Inlet

Notes: 1) All levels associated with the plans are to Ordnance Datum Newlyn. 6) The text appearing alongside a sewer line indicates the internal diameter of the pipe in milimetres. Text next to a manhole indicates the manhole 2) All measurements on the plans are metric. reference number and should not be taken as a measurement. If you are 3) Arrows (on gravity fed sewers) or flecks (on rising mains) indicate direction of unsure about any text or symbology present on the plan, please contact a flow. member of Property Insight on 0845 070 9148. 4) Most private pipes are not shown on our plans, as in the past, this information has not been recorded. 5) ‘na’ or ‘0’ on a manhole level indicates that data is unavailable.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Property Searches, PO Box 3189, Slough SL1 4W, DX 151280 Slough 13 Page 28 of 30 T 0845 070 9148 E [email protected] I www.thameswater-propertysearches.co.uk

Mr Jaison Jeyacumar Unit 3 Grovelands Business Centre Boundary Way Hemel Hempstead Herfordshire HP2 7TE DS6057127

28 January 2019

Pre-planning enquiry: Confirmation of sufficient capacity

Dear Mr Jeyacumar,

Thank you for providing information on your development:

Land at Shendish Manor, London Rd, Hemel Hemstead, Hertfordshire, HP3 0AA

Existing: 28ha of Greenfield land including 2800m2 of commercial area and 1No. dwelling.

Proposed: Development of 500 new properties with foul water discharging by gravity into new 225mm connection into foul water manhole 7201 located in Rucklers Lane. Surface water is not to be discharged into the Thames Water Sewer.

We have completed the assessment of the foul water flows based on the information submitted in your application with the purpose of assessing sewerage capacity within the existing Thames Water sewer network.

Foul Water

If your proposals progress in line with the details you’ve provided, we’re pleased to confirm that there will be sufficient sewerage capacity in the adjacent foul water sewer network to serve your development.

This confirmation is valid for 12 months or for the life of any planning approval that this information is used to support, to a maximum of three years.

You’ll need to keep us informed of any changes to your design – for example, an increase in the number or density of homes. Such changes could mean there is no longer sufficient capacity.

Thames Water Utilities Limited – Registered Office: Clearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading RG1 8DB

Company number 02366661. VAT registration no GB 537-4569-15 Surface Water

The proposed surface water will not be discharging into the Thames Water sewer.

What happens next? Please make sure you submit your connection application, giving us at least 21 days’ notice of the date you wish to make your new connection.

If you’ve any further questions, please contact me on 0203 577 9811.

Yours sincerely

Siva Rajaratnam - Adoptions Engineer

Thames Water

Appendix F

Proposed Manor Estate Adoptable Drainage

Land at Shendish Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire

Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

Report prepared for: W Lamb Ltd

CA Project: 661195

CA Report: 18532

November 2018

Land at Shendish Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire

Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

CA Project: 661195

CA Report: 18532

prepared by Frances Bradbury, Assistant Heritage Consultant

date November 2018

checked by Hannah Shaw, Heritage Consultant

date November 2018

approved by Nathan Blick, Senior Heritage Consultant

signed

date November 2018

issue 1

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Exeter Building 11 Unit 8 – The IO Centre Stanley House Unit 53 Kemble Enterprise Park Fingle Drive Walworth Road Basepoint Business Centre Cirencester Stonebridge Andover Yeoford Way Gloucestershire Milton Keynes Hampshire Marsh Barton Trading Estate GL7 6BQ Buckinghamshire SP10 5LH Exeter MK13 0AT EX2 8LB

t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 564660 t. 01264 347630 t. 01392 826185 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected]

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5

2. METHODOLOGY ...... 8

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 14

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE & POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...... 29

5. THE SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS ...... 34

6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 52

7. REFERENCES ...... 53

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site Location Plan Fig. 2 Previous archaeological investigations Fig. 3 Previous archaeological investigation undertaken to the north-west of the Site (red line) Fig. 4 Prehistoric and Roman heritage assets Fig. 5 Medieval, post-medieval and modern heritage assets Fig. 6 Parish of Kings Langley Tithe Map, 1835 Fig. 7 Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1898 Fig. 8 Plan of the Shendish estate, 1908 Fig. 9 Shendish estate plan, 1931 Fig. 10 Extract of DSM LiDAR data at 50cm Fig. 11 Setting of heritage assets (LiDAR DSM model) Fig. 12 Extract from Kemp's 'How to Lay out a Small Garden', 1858 Fig. 13 Williamson's plan of Shendish gardens (2015)

PHOTOS

Photo 1. Facing north-east within the Site looking towards ‘Wheeler’s Dell’ woodland Photo 2. “Tithe” barn introduced to the Site between 1991-1999 Photo 3. Facing south within the Site, one of the earthworks (illustrated by red arrow) Photo 4. Shendish House taken from the east Photo 5. Facing east towards the direction of the Site from ‘Home pasture’ Photo 6. View facing east along the historic approach Photo 7. Facing south-west towards the House from within the northern part of the Site Photo 8. Facing north-west towards the House from within the Site Photo 9. 'Home pasture' facing south

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

SUMMARY

In September 2018 Cotswold Archaeology were commissioned by Boyer Planning on behalf of W Lamb Ltd to undertake a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment in relation to Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. The proposed development comprises the construction of up to 500 dwellings.

No buried archaeological remains have been recorded within the Site, but there is some potential for the presence of buried archaeological remains to occur. The Site lies within an area of archaeological potential, to the west of an Archaeological Alert Area. Specifically, there is some potential for the presence of Iron Age and Roman remains within the Site, as a previous investigation c. 200m to the west of the Site identified late Iron Age and early Roman deposits. These remains were thought to be associated with seasonal agricultural activity on the periphery of the main settlement located c. 550m to the north-west of the Site. The projected alignment of a Roman road also runs through the centre of the Site but there is not archaeological evidence to support this. Whilst these features raise the potential for the presence of currently unrecorded archaeological remains, there is no specific potential for significant remains to occur within the Site.

The Site lies c. 300m to the east of the Grade II Listed Shendish House and an associated locally registered park and garden. This assessment has sought to consider the potential effects of the proposed development on the significance of these assets. It is considered that the proposed development will not alter the setting of Shendish House, or harm its significance. It will alter the setting of the locally registered park and garden, to a limited degree, through the loss of part of its wider parkland setting. This is likely to result in a limited degree of harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.

This Heritage Desk-Based Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with paragraph 189 of the NNPF (2018), and on the basis of current information it is considered that there are no overriding constraints to the proposed development.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

1. INTRODUCTION

In September 2018 Cotswold Archaeology was commissioned by Boyer Planning on behalf of W Lamb Ltd to undertake a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment in respect of c. 95ha of land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’). The north of the Site is presently in use as a golf course as part of the grounds of Shendish Manor Hotel, and the south is in agricultural use. The Site is located west of the A4251, east of the A41, c. 2km south of the town of Hemel Hempstead (NGR: 505966, 204471; Fig. 1).

The proposed development will comprise the construction of up to 500 dwellings.

Objectives and professional standards Cotswold Archaeology is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). This report has been prepared in accordance with the ‘Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment’ published by the CIfA (2014).

The composition and development of the historic environment within the Site and wider landscape are discussed. A determination of the significance of any heritage assets located within the Site, and any heritage assets beyond the Site boundary that may potentially be affected by the development proposals, is presented. Any potential development effects upon the significance of these heritage assets (both adverse and/or beneficial) are then described.

This approach is consistent with the CIfA’s ‘Standard and guidance for heritage desk-based assessment’, which provides that, insofar as they relate to the determination of planning applications, heritage desk-based assessments should:

‘…enable reasoned proposals and decisions to be made [as to] whether to mitigate, offset or accept without further intervention [any identified heritage] impact’ (CIfA 2014, 4).

The ‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Decision- Taking in the Historic Environment’ (Historic England 2015), further clarifies that a desk-based assessment should:

‘…determine, as far as is reasonably possible from existing records, the nature, extent and significance of the historic environment within a specified area, and the

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

impact of the proposed development on the significance of the historic environment, or will identify the need for further evaluation’ (Historic England 2015, 3).

Statute, policy and guidance context This assessment has been undertaken within the key statute, policy and guidance context presented within the table overleaf (Table 1.1). The applicable provisions contained within these statute, policy and guidance documents are referred to, and discussed, as relevant, throughout the text. Fuller detail is provided in Appendix 1.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Statute Description

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act Act of Parliament providing for the maintenance of a schedule of archaeological remains of the highest (1979) significance, affording them statutory protection.

Act of Parliament placing a duty upon the Local Planning Authority (or, as the case may be, the Secretary of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation State) to afford due consideration to the preservation of Listed buildings and their settings (under Section 66(1)), Areas) Act (1990) and Conservation Areas (under Section 72(2)), in determining planning applications.

One of four Acts of Parliament providing for the protection and management of the historic environment, National Heritage Act 1983 (amended 2002) including the establishment of the Historic Monuments & Buildings Commission, now Historic England.

Guidance for assessing heritage significance, with reference to contributing heritage values, in particular: Conservation Principles (Historic England 2008) evidential (archaeological), historical (illustrative and associative), aesthetic, and communal.

Provides the English government’s national planning policies and describes how these are expected to be National Planning Policy Framework (2018) applied within the planning system. Heritage is subject of Chapter 16 (page 54).

Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 2 (GPA2): Provides useful information on assessing the significance of heritage assets, using appropriate expertise, Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the historic environment records, recording and furthering understanding, neglect and unauthorised works, Historic Environment (Historic England, 2015) marketing and design and distinctiveness. Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 (GPA3): Provides guidance on managing change within the settings of heritage assets, including archaeological remains The Setting of Heritage Assets, Second Edition and historic buildings, sites, areas, and landscapes. (Historic England, 2017) Comprises the local development plan (local plan), as required to be compiled, published and maintained by the local authority, consistent with the requirements of the NPPF (2018). Intended to be the primary planning policy Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) document against which planning proposals within that local authority jurisdiction are assessed. Where the development plan is found to be inadequate, primacy reverts to the NPPF (2018).

Table 1.1 Key statute, policy and guidance

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

2. METHODOLOGY

Data collection, analysis and presentation This assessment has been informed by a proportionate level of information sufficient to understand the archaeological potential of the Site, the significance of identified heritage assets, and any potential development effects. This approach is in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF (2018) and the guidance issued by CIfA (2014). The data has been collected from a wide variety of sources, summarised in the table overleaf (Table 2.1).

Prior to obtaining data from these sources, an initial analysis was undertaken in order to identify a relevant and proportionate study area. On this basis a 1km study area was considered sufficient to capture the relevant HER data, and provide the necessary context for understanding archaeological potential and heritage significance in respect of the Site. All of the spatial data held by the HER – the primary historic data repository – for the land within the study area, was requested. The records were analysed and further refined in order to narrow the research focus onto those of relevance to the present assessment. Not all HER records are therefore referred to, discussed or illustrated further within the body of this report, only those that are relevant.

A site visit was also undertaken as part of this assessment on the 8th October 2018. The primary objectives of the site visit were to assess the historic landscape context of the Site, including its association with any known or potential heritage assets, and to identify any evidence for previous truncation of the on-site stratigraphy. The site visit also allowed for the identification of any previously unknown heritage assets within the Site, and assessment of their nature, condition, significance and potential susceptibility to impact. The wider landscape was examined, as relevant, from accessible public rights of way.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Source Data

National Heritage List (NHL) Current information relating to designated heritage assets, and heritage assets considered to be ‘at risk’.

Hertfordshire Historic Environment Record Heritage sites and events records, Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) data, and other spatial data (HER) supplied in digital format (shapefiles) and hardcopy.

Historic England Archives (EHA) Additional sites and events records, supplied in digital and hardcopy formats.

Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies Historic mapping, historic documentation, and relevant published and grey literature.

Historic England’s Aerial Photograph Vertical and oblique aerial photography ranging in date from the 1940s to present accessed at the Historic Research Unit England Archives in Swindon.

DSM LiDAR imagery at a resolution of 50cm and point cloud data, available from the Environment Agency Environment Agency (EA) website website.

Old-Maps, National Library of Scotland & Historic (Ordnance Survey and Tithe) mapping in digital format. other cartographic websites

British Geological Survey (BGS) website UK geological mapping (bedrock & superficial deposits) & borehole data.

Cranfield University’s LandIS Soil Portal UK soil mapping.

Shendish Heritage Constraints Report Report written in 2011 by CA to address a previous application on the same Site.

Table 2.1 Key data sources

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Assessment of heritage significance The significance of known and potential heritage assets within the Site, and any beyond the Site which may be affected by the proposed development, has been assessed and described, in accordance with paragraph 189 of the NPPF (2018), the guidance issued by CIfA (2014) and ‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2’ (Historic England, 2015). Determination of significance has been undertaken according to the industry-standard guidance on assessing heritage value provided within ‘Conservation Principles’ (English Heritage, 2008). This approach considers heritage significance to derive from a combination of discrete heritage values, principal amongst which are: i) evidential (archaeological) value, ii) historic (illustrative and associative) value, iii) aesthetic value, iv) communal value, amongst others. Further detail of this approach, including the detailed definition of those aforementioned values, as set out, and advocated, by Historic England, is provided in Appendix 1 of this report.

Assessment of potential development effects (benefit and harm) The present report sets out, in detail, the ways in which identified susceptible heritage assets might be affected by the proposals, as well as the anticipated extent of any such effects. Both physical effects, i.e. resulting from the direct truncation of archaeological remains, and non-physical effects, i.e. resulting from changes to the setting of heritage assets, have been assessed. In regards to non-physical effects or ‘settings assessment’, the five-step assessment methodology advocated by Historic England, and set out in the Second Edition of GPA3 (Historic England, 2017), has been adhered to (presented in greater detail in Appendix 1).

Identified effects upon designated heritage assets have been defined within broad ‘level of effect’ categories (Table 2.2 below). These are consistent with key national heritage policy and guidance terminology, particularly that of the NPPF (2018). This has been done in order to improve the intelligibility of the assessment results for purposes of quick reference and ready comprehension. These broad determinations of level of effect should be viewed within the context of the qualifying discussions of significance and impact presented in this report.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Level of effect Description Applicable statute & policy

Enhancing or better revealing the significance of a heritage asset is a The proposals would better enhance or reveal the heritage desirable development outcome in respect of heritage. It is consistent Heritage benefit significance of the designated heritage asset. with key policy and guidance, including the NPPF (2018) paragraphs 185 and 200. Preserving a Listed building and its setting is consistent with s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990). Preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation The proposals would preserve the significance of the No harm Area is consistent with Section 72 of the Act. designated heritage asset. Sustaining the significance of a heritage asset is consistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF, and should be at the core of any material local planning policies in respect of heritage. The proposals would be anticipated to result in a restricted level In determining an application, this level of harm should be weighed Less than of harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, against the public benefits of the proposals, as per paragraph 196 of the substantial harm such that the asset’s contributing heritage values would be NPPF (2018). (lower end) largely preserved. Proposals involving change to a Listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, or change to the character or appearance of Conservation Areas, must also be considered within the context of Sections 7, 66(1) and 72(2) of the 1990 Act. The provisions of the Act do not apply to the setting of Less than The proposals would lead to a notable level of harm to the Conservation Areas. substantial harm significance of the designated heritage asset. A reduced, but (upper end) appreciable, degree of its heritage significance would remain. Proposals with the potential to physically affect a Scheduled Monument (including the ground beneath that monument) will be subject to the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979); these provisions do not apply to proposals involving changes to the setting of Scheduled Monuments. Paragraphs 193–195 of the NPPF (2018) would apply. Sections 7, 66(1) The proposals would very much reduce the designated heritage Substantial harm and 72(2) of the Planning Act (1990), and the Ancient Monuments and asset’s significance or vitiate that significance altogether. Archaeological Areas Act (1979), may also apply.

Table 2.2 Summary of level of effect categories (benefit and harm) referred to in this report in relation to designated heritage assets, and the applicable statute and policy.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

It should be noted that the overall effect of development proposals upon the designated heritage asset are judged, bearing in mind both any specific harms or benefits (an approach consistent with the Court of Appeal judgement Palmer v. Herefordshire Council & ANR Neutral Citation Number [2016] EWCA Civ 1061).

In relation to non-designated heritage assets, the key applicable policy is paragraph 197 of the NPPF (2018), which states that:

‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset [our emphasis]’.

Thus with regard to non-designated heritage assets, this report seeks to identify the significance of the heritage asset(s) which may be affected, and the scale of any harm or loss to that significance.

Limitations of the assessment This assessment is primarily a desk-based study and has utilised secondary information derived from a variety of sources, only some of which have been directly examined for the purpose of this assessment. The assumption is made this data, as well as the information derived from other secondary sources, is reasonably accurate. The records held by the Hertfordshire HER are not a record of all surviving heritage assets, but rather, a record of the discovery of a wide range of archaeological and historical components of the historic environment. Thus, the information held is not complete and does not preclude the subsequent discovery of elements of the historic environment that are currently unknown.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

N 2 FIGURE NO. 500m 01908 564660 cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 01285 771022 @ 01392 826185 www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 661195 30/01/2019 1:12,500 01264 347630 Andover Cirencester Exeter Milton Keynes w e enquiries 1:12,500 Site boundary Study area archaeological Previous investigation PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE@A3 0 EE DJB NB Cotswold Archaeology A © Crown copyright and database rights 0100031673 copyright 2018 Ordnance Survey © Crown Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire Previous Archaeological Investigations PROJECT TITLE FIGURE TITLE DRAWN BY DRAWN CHECKED BY APPROVED BY

508000

507000 K K J J

506000 A F B B E C C G L L H H M M I I D D

505000 206000 205000 204000 203000

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Landscape context The Site is located to the south of the village of Apsley, on the southern outskirts of the town of Hemel Hempstead. It comprises an L-shaped area of land, which to the north is presently in use as a golf course and to the south and west is in use for residential and agricultural purposes. The Site is situated on a slope which lies between c. 115-100 aOD in the valley of the Chiltern Hills. It overlooks the London & North Western railway and the River Gade (now largely canalised as the Grand Union Canal) to the north-east.

The British Geological Survey (BGS) records the Site as lying in an area of transitional geology. To the north the bedrock geology comprises Holywell Nodular Chalk Formation and New Pit Chalk Formation, a sedimentary bedrock formed between 100.5 and 89.8 million years ago during the Cretaceous period. Bedrock deposits of Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation and Seaford Chalk Formation, formed between 93.9 and 83.6 million years ago during the Cretaceous period, are also recorded to the south (British Geological Survey, accessed October 2018). The BGS records no drift geology but an episode of evaluation trenching undertaken directly to the north of the Site recorded a silty clay loam topsoil overlying a silty clay subsoil.

Previous Archaeological Investigations There have been no recorded previous archaeological works carried out within the Site, but several programmes of work have been undertaken within the wider study area.

In 2004, in an area bounding the Site to the north an archaeological evaluation was undertaken which recorded sparse evidence for prehistoric and/or late Iron Age to Early Roman activity (Fig. 2, G; Fig. 3). The archaeological evidence was mainly found in a concentrated area c. 400m from the Site. The six closest trenches to the north-east of the Site recorded no archaeological features or finds but within a trench c. 60m to the north-west a pit was recorded which contained a single sherd of Iron Age pottery. Undated activity was recorded in a further three trenches c. 70m to the north of the Site (William et al, 2005).

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Trenc Trench containing Iron Age pottery

Fig. 3 Previous archaeological investigation undertaken to the north-west of the Site (red line)

Due to the presence of archaeological activity a further three areas were selected for open area excavation, which was undertaken in 2006 (Fig. 2, H). Although the excavation recorded multi-phase activity dating from the Bronze Age to modern period, the main phase of activity dated to the middle Iron Age and included a number of settlement features which were located around c. 550m to the west of the Site (Grassam, 2007).

Between 1991-1992, a number of archaeological works were undertaken in preparation for the construction of the A41 Kings Langley bypass, which is situated c. 650m to the west of the Site. Following evaluation trenching along the proposed route, two excavations were undertaken within the study area. An excavation at Apsley, c. 600m to the west of the Site recorded Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age occupation (Fig. 2, D) and at Rucklers Lane, c. 900m to the west of the Site further Neolithic occupation was found during an excavation including a possible cursus ditch (Fig. 2, M). This area, which lies c. 150m to the west of the Site, was designated as an Archaeological Alert Area by Dacorum Borough Council due to the presence of prehistoric activity and settlement.

Elsewhere within the study area there have been a further nine recorded archaeological investigations, a combination of geophysical survey, watching briefs, evaluation trenches and excavation. An evaluation revealed a series of prehistoric

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

features including a possible hearth or cremation (Fig. 2, E); two evaluations recorded post-medieval built remains (Fig. 2, L & A); two investigations recorded features exclusively dated to the modern period (Fig. 2, F & B) and a further four recorded no archaeological remains (Fig. 2, C, I, J, K).

Designated Heritage Assets Within the Site there are no designated heritage assets. However, the Site is located within the former grounds of the Shendish Estate of which the 19th century Grade II Listed Shendish House lies c. 500m to the west (Fig. 11, 17). To the west of the House, c. 600m from the Site lies the Grade II Listed Aspley Manor Farm, a 19th century farmhouse (Fig. 11, 19). To the east of the Site lies the Grade II* Listed Snatchup End Cottages (Fig. 11, 20), a late 19th century row of cottages. Within the wider study area there are a further 14 Listed Buildings, all Listed Grade II (see Figure 11).

There are no Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens or Historic Battlefields recorded within the Site or the study area. The closest Scheduled Monuments are located c. 1.3km to the south of the Site. The earthwork remains of both a Dominican Priory founded AD 1306, recorded as ‘Dominican Priory (site of) (excluding inhabited parts)’ and a 13th century Royal Palace recorded as ‘Royal Palace (site of)’. There is also the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of ‘Hemel Water Gardens’ situated 1.6km to the north of the Site.

Although not statutorily designated, Shendish Manor and its immediate gardens have been identified by Dacorum Borough Council, on specialist advice from the Hertfordshire Gardens Trust, of having both historic and landscape value. As such, they have been designated as a locally registered park or garden of historic interest (Dacorum Borough Council, 2017).

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

N 4 FIGURE NO. 500m 01908 564660 cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 01285 771022 @ 01392 826185 www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 661195 30/01/2019 1:12,500 01264 347630 Andover Cirencester Exeter Milton Keynes w e enquiries 1:12,500 Site boundary Study area Heritage assets Paleolithic Mesolithic Neolithic Age Bronze Iron Age Prehistoric Roman Roman roads Archaeological alert areas Findspot PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE@A3 0 EE DJB NB Cotswold Archaeology © Crown copyright and database rights 0100031673 copyright 2018 Ordnance Survey © Crown Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire Prehistoric and Roman heritage assets PROJECT TITLE FIGURE TITLE DRAWN BY DRAWN CHECKED BY APPROVED BY

508000 16a Margary’s Margary’s 163c 9 Viatores

507000 1 5 10

506000 2 11 163a Viatores 8 8 7 3 4 6

505000 206000 205000 204000 203000

Prehistoric The Site is located c. 200m south-west of the Grand Union Canal, the canalised River Gade which during the prehistoric period is likely to have been a favoured area for activity. As such, there is a large amount of archaeological evidence for the prehistoric period within the study area, recorded in the form of archaeological investigations and findspots. The earliest evidence of activity recorded within the study area comprises two Palaeolithic hand axes recorded as a find spot on the tow path of the canal, found in 1868 (Fig. 4, 1).

A number of known prehistoric settlement sites are recorded in close proximity to the Site. An Archaeological Alert Area c. 150m to the west of the Site has been designated by Dacorum Borough Council due to the presence of prehistoric activity and settlement (Fig. 4, 2). Within this Alert Area between 1991-1992, evaluation trenches and two subsequent excavations were undertaken in advance of the construction of the A41 Kings Langley bypass, both of which recorded significant multi-phase prehistoric activity (Last, 2001; Fig 2, D & M).

One of these excavations, located c. 900m to the west of the Site at Rucklers Lane, identified archaeological activity in two main phases (Fig 4, 3). The first phase included two large parallel, segmented ditches, spaced c. 9m apart, extending for a distance of c. 80m (Last, 2001). The fills contained finds indicating a Neolithic date and it was interpreted as a possible ‘cursus’ monument. A number of other features were identified of this date between the two ditches including a wood-lined pit. A broad second phase of activity which comprised smaller features including possible rectangular structures of slot and post construction was dated to between the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age.

A further investigation as part of the A41 works was undertaken at Apsley, c. 600m to the west of the Site (Fig. 4, 4). The main period of activity was dated to the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and a palisaded ditch which ran for c. 50m and an area of pits was identified. Last (2007), noted that the size and irregular nature of the features dating to this period meant they were unlikely to represent formal buildings but rather they were marking out an enclosure. Another large ditch was identified that was postulated to represent a continuation of the possible Neolithic ‘cursus’ ditch identified at the Rucklers Lane excavation.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Approximately 350m to the south of the Site lies a second Archaeological Alert Area, designated due to the presence of circular enclosures visible as cropmarks. The cropmarks are thought to be three probable Bronze Age barrows in a row (Fig. 4, 5). However, as these possible features have not been investigated further their date cannot securely be determined.

In 2004 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken to the north-west of the Site (Fig. 2, G). Identified archaeological features comprised linear ditches and gullies, discrete pits and tree hollows, concentrated on the crest of the hill which, due to a lack of datable finds, were only roughly dated to the prehistoric/and or Late Iron Age to early Roman period (William et al, 2005). The gullies respected the contours of the hill and were either parallel or perpendicular to them, they were tentatively interpreted as possible remains of enclosure boundaries and/or drainage features. The majority of the archaeological evidence was found in a concentrated area c. 400m from the Site (Fig. 4, 6).

Although multi-phase activity dating from the Bronze Age to modern period was identified, the main phase of activity dated to the middle Iron Age and included a number of settlement features which were located c. 550m to the west of the Site (Grassam, 2007; Fig. 4, 6). A second area, c. 400m to the west of the Site recorded a pit and gully dated to the middle Iron Age and several undated features. The gully was similar to those found during the 2004 evaluation and followed the natural slope of the land. In the third area of excavation, located c. 200m to the west of the Site, only sparse late Iron Age activity was recorded. This included three pits and a posthole. Although there was less activity in the second two areas (Fig. 4, 7), this indicates that there was low-level activity across the area to the north-west of the Site during the late Iron Age. The evidence may represent further settlement activity, perhaps only in use seasonally associated with agricultural activity on the periphery of the main settlement (Grassam, 2007).

Further prehistoric activity within the study area was recorded in an evaluation c. 600m to the west of the Site (Fig. 4, 8). A series of features which were suggested to be prehistoric were identified, most notably these included a possible hearth or cremation. The features were recorded atop a hill and contained fire-cracked flints and charcoal. In addition, a single posthole and a series of pits also containing fire- cracked flints and charcoal were found.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Roman There appears to be a continuation of the late Iron Age activity seen in close proximity to the Site during the Roman period. A small yet significant number of Roman features were identified in an area c. 550m from the Site, the remains of two ovens and a possible associated refuse pit were recorded (Fig. 4, 6). In another pit in the same area, a complete Belgic bowl dated to the early to mid 1st century AD was found which contained three coins dating to AD 69-96. In the closest area to the Site, c. 200m to the west a second complete Belgic vessel was identified. They may represent the transition between the late Iron Age and very early Romano- British period (Grassam, 2007; Fig. 4. 7).

The conjectural route of three Roman roads has been recorded within the study area (Fig. 4, 9). One of which, Viatores 163a, is projected to run through the Site east-west, broadly following the historic entrance route into Shendish House. It is reported to run from Nash Mills, c. 500m to the east of the Site, to Flaunden located c. 5km to the south-west. At the Nash Mills end it has been suggested it meets two other Roman roads. A second, Viatores 169c is reported to run north-south between Nash Mills and Edgware, c. 20km to the south-east of the Site . The third, Margary’s 16a, runs north-south but forks to the east at Nash Mills where it meets 163a and 169c. It is reported to run between Alchester and St Albans (the Roman town of Verulamium; Margary, 1955). However, all three roads are conjectural and have not been substantiated by archaeological evidence.

Further Roman activity is recorded in a series of findspots to the south of the Site. Between 1955-1995 a coin hoard was unearthed, c. 100m to the south in a residential garden (Fig. 4, 10). They were dated as 3rd century Roman silver radiates of the emperor Postumus. A possible inhumation was also noted during construction works in the 1940s, c. 350m to the south-west (Fig. 4, 11). It was dated to the Roman period due to occupation material of the same date being located in the immediate vicinity . These are both indicative of Roman activity within the area to the south of the Site.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

N 5 FIGURE NO. 500m 01908 564660 cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 01285 771022 @ 01392 826185 www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 661195 30/01/2019 1:12,500 01264 347630 Andover Cirencester Exeter Milton Keynes w e enquiries 1:12,500 Site boundary Study area Heritage assets Medieval Post-medieval Modern Findspot PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE@A3 0 EE DJB NB Cotswold Archaeology © Crown copyright and database rights 0100031673 copyright 2018 Ordnance Survey © Crown Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire Medieval, post-medieval and modern heritage assets PROJECT TITLE FIGURE TITLE DRAWN BY DRAWN CHECKED BY APPROVED BY

508000 16 14 15

18 Grand Union Canal

507000 12 13

506000 19 17

505000 206000 205000 204000 203000

Early medieval and medieval There are no recorded assets of early medieval date within the study area. The Site is located within an area which belonged to the Manor of Shendish, which is recorded in the Domesday survey of 1086. It was held by a lord ‘Ralph’ but the tenant in chief was Robert, Count of Mortain in Langley. Robert had received the lands of ‘Langelei’, the capital manor to which the manor of Shendish was subordinate, from William I but his son William of Mortain forfeited his land, including the Langley estate, following a failed rebellion in 1104 (Page, 1908).

From 1215, Ralph Chenduit (who was possibly a descendant of the Ralph mentioned in the Domesday book) held the manor and this is likely where the place name of Shendish derives from. The Manor remained in the Chenduit family until 1364, when it passed to the Parker family and hence its alternative name of ‘Parkers Place’. They held the manor until the 1560s, when it passed to the Cheyneys (Williamson, 2015)

It is known that two mills were situated in the area from at least a 100 years prior to the Domesday Survey (Apsley paper Trail, n.d. A & B). The two Mills were recorded in 1291 as ‘le Asshmull’ (Apsleymill) and ‘Naysshemyle’ (Nashmill) (Page, 1908). These mills used the River Gade as their power source in order to mill flour and make hand-made paper (Hannelly, 2017). Today, the known positions of the 18th century Nash Mill and Apsley Mill are located between c. 150-250m to the north- east of the Site (Fig. 5, 12 & 13).

Although the manor of Shendish is known to have been in existence since the Domesday book and thus there is known medieval activity within the vicinity of the Site, there is a paucity of evidence and recorded finds relating to this activity within the study area. The only recorded findspot is a copper alloy ring located c. 600m to the south-east of the Site however this has been tentatively dated to both the medieval and post-medieval period (Fig. 5, 14). During the medieval periods the Site was located to the west of the river where Apsley and Nash Mills lay and located c. 500 m to the east of the current manor, most likely within an undeveloped landscape of agricultural fields in the parish of Kings Langley.

Post-medieval and modern As discussed in paragraph 3.25, historically the area was known for milling. Industrial production in the valley increased further with the construction of the

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Grand Union Canal in the 1798, which linked London with the Midland canal system (Fig. 5, 15; Williamson, 2015). It enabled larger machinery to be transported and production could be completed by machine, not hand (Hannelly, 2017). By the early 19th century the valley had become a key transport corridor in western Hertfordshire and in 1837, the London & North Western Railway opened (Fig. 5, 16). It bounds the Site to the east and runs parallel with the canal and the London Road ‘A4521’.

Historic development of the Site The earliest cartographic source consulted as part of this assessment to depict the Site was the Parish of Kings Langley Tithe Map of 1835 (Fig. 6). The apportionment illustrates that the land within the Site was now owned and occupied by three different owners, with the majority of the plots in use for arable cultivation, as it most likely was in the medieval period.

Fig. 6 Parish of Kings Langley Tithe Map, 1835

The lane central to the Site numbered as plot 123, which runs broadly south-west towards ‘Shenditch Farm’ was named ‘Shenditch Field’ (see Fig. 6). It can be inferred it was in use as a lane or entranceway into the farm. ‘Shenditch Field’ and three plots to the south (127 ‘Part of Lower Fore Lane Croft’, 137 ‘Stockings’ and 138 ‘Dell Field’) were owned by John Parton and were occupied by Henry Wells. The three southern plots were in use for arable cultivation. The remaining plot in the

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

south of the Site, 136 ‘Field side of railway’, was owned by George Holloway, occupied by William Holloway and also in use for arable cultivation.

To the north of ‘Shenditch Field’ there were a further seven plots. The apportionment indicates that John Dickinson was the owner and occupier of six of these, five of which were in use for arable cultivation and one (plot 101 ‘Part of Home Meadow’) was used as a meadow. Dickinson’s other five plots include: plot 101 ‘Upper Field’, plot 119 ‘Adjoining Footpath Field’, plots 120 and 121 both known as ‘Hither Middle Field’ and plot 122 ‘Side of Shendish Lane’. Although it is not clear when the land was enclosed, the layout of the all the fields within the Site are typical of the enclosure period, given their linear boundaries and geometric form. A small patch of woodland is also visible on the western boundary of the Site, numbered as plot 99a and known as ‘Wheeler’s Dell’ it was owned and occupied by John Parton. This is still visible today within the Site (Photo 1).

Photo 1. Facing south-east within the Site looking towards ‘Wheeler’s Dell’ woodland

‘Shenditch Farm’ located c. 500m to the west of the Site is also visible on the Tithe map. It can be seen as a large farmyard with three ranges of farm buildings arranged around a yard to the east of a house. This manor house/farm, which is believed to date to the late medieval period, was demolished in the mid-19th

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

century to make way for the current house and landscaped grounds of Shendish House.

An archaeological evaluation in 2015 recorded features that may have been associated with ‘Shenditch Farm’. During the excavation no structural remains were recorded but localised layers of demolition material, predominately fragments of ‘clunch’ and roof tile and at least three ditches were recorded. The demolition material was consistent with the type of material expected from the demolition of a farm building and dated to the 18th to 19th centuries (Coileáin, 2015).

The manor changed hands frequently from the 17th to the early 19th century. However, in 1853 the Shendish Estate came in to the possession of the paper manufacturer Charles Longman. Between 1854-1856, he built Shendish House, a manor house and Apsley Manor Farmhouse on the site of the former ‘Shenditch Farm’. They are both Grade II Listed and lie c. 130m to the west of the Site (Fig. 11, 17 & 19). The grounds of the manor house were landscaped by the renowned 19th- century garden designer Edward Kemp and included a walled garden and octagonal summerhouse (Williamson, 2015)(Fig. 5, 17). Although the parkland is not statutorily designated or Registered by Historic England, Shendish Manor is recorded on the ‘Hertfordshire Gardens Trust Local List’ (Cotswold Archaeology, 2011). Both Shendish House and Apsley Manor Farmhouse are discussed further in Section 5.

Charles Longman was the partner of John Dickinson (previously discussed in paragraph 3.30) who was also a paper manufacturer. Dickinson purchased Nash Mill (Fig. 5, 12) in the early 19th century and converted it from flour to paper manufacturing. He constructed his own manor house and surrounding parkland named Abbots Hill, which lies c. 800m to the east of the Site (Fig. 5, 18).

Although milling and paper manufacture had occurred on a small scale in the valley for centuries, the area became more industrialised as a result of the actions of Longman and Dickinson. The First Edition Ordnance Survey map, dated to 1878 (not reproduced) illustrates growing urbanisation in the valley with clusters of buildings now surrounding Apsley Mill to the north of the Site and Nash Mills to the east.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

The First Edition Ordnance also indicates a loss of some of the field boundaries within the Site. This is particularly evident in the southern part of the Site which is now just part of mostly one large field. A large number of trees are now visible within the Site and there is a small woodland situated on the entranceway towards Shendish named ‘Do Little Plantation’. This is likely a result of Kemp’s landscaping of the parkland.

The Second Ordnance Survey map, dated to 1898 (Fig. 7), depicts Snatchup End Cottages c. 50m to the east of the Site, which are today Grade II* Listed (Fig. 11, 20). They were constructed in 1898, to the south of Shendish House beyond the railway line, as homes for the workers on the estate. They were designed by Sir Edward Luytens and later provided accommodation for John Dickinson’s staff (Kings Langley Local History & Museum Society, 2009).

Fig. 7 Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1898

The 1908 estate plan (Fig. 8) illustrated that there was little change within the Site between 1898 and 1908. The HER denotes the extent of the parkland and this is illustrated on Figure 5 (17). However, the area on Figure 8 highlighted in orange records a wider area of parkland which fully encompasses the Site. In Kemp’s book ‘How to Lay out a Garden’ (1858) only the gardens closer to Shendish House are illustrated so it is not clear to what extent he landscaped the wider parkland.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Fig. 8 Plan of the Shendish estate, 1908

Fig. 9 Shendish estate plan, 1931

In 1931, following the death of Thomas Norton Longman the estate was broken up and offered for sale (Williamson, 2015). The 1925 Ordnance Survey map which was edited in 1931 for the sale map (see Fig. 9), which shows the use of every section of the estate. The sale particulars illustrate that the area in the south of the Site, demarked as 17 was in use for ‘accommodation grass field’, the central part of the

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Site (11) was still part of ‘Shendish Gardens and Parkland’ and the northern part (12) was part of ‘The Home Farm, Shendish’. Therefore, all three sections were likely in use as agricultural land.

Following the sale of Shendish House in 1931 it was used as a preparatory school between 1932-1936 and as such the Site was probably in use as the schools associated grounds. By 1936, John Dickinson’s company had purchased the House and it was developed as a sports and social club for its employees (Williamson, 2015). Aerial photographs indicate that the land within the Site seems to comprise farmland and remnant parkland from the 1940s through to the 1980s. Aerial photography also indicates that in the southern section of the Site, bounding it to the west, two houses were built between 1955-61. The golf course which today comprises the northern part of the Site was established by 1991, as was the A41 which lies c. 600m to the west. In 1994, Shendish House was again sold. Since then it has operated as a hotel and conference centre. Using a combination of satellite imagery and aerial photography, what appears to look like a historic tithe barn (Photo 2) was also constructed (or reconstructed) in the period between 1991- 1999, within the Site.

Photo 2. “Tithe” barn introduced to the Site between 1991-1999

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE & POTENTIAL EFFECTS

The significance of known and potential archaeological remains within the Site This assessment has identified that no designated archaeological remains are located within the Site; no designated archaeological remains will therefore be adversely physically affected by development within the Site. Known and potential non-designated archaeological remains identified within the Site comprise:

• potential prehistoric remains • potential Roman road and associated roadside Roman remains • medieval/post-medieval field boundaries • potential designed landscape features

The significance of these assets is discussed further below:

Potential prehistoric remains Within the study area significant prehistoric archaeology has been recorded in the form of a possible Neolithic cursus, Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age structures, a palisaded ditch, pit clusters and middle Iron Age settlement, all to the west of the Site. However, undertaken directly to the north-west of the Site an evaluation in 2004 recorded only sparse evidence of archaeological activity which mainly comprised linear ditches and gullies, discrete pits and tree hollows. Approximately 60m to the north-west a pit was recorded which contained one sherd of Iron Age pottery. A subsequent excavation suggested that there was late Iron Age activity c. 200m to the west of the Site but it was likely seasonal, associated with agricultural activity on the periphery of the main settlement and was dated on the whole to the middle Iron Age (Grassam, 2007).

The activity recorded c. 60m to the north-east of the Site in 2004 was found to be sparse, and less intensive in comparison to the more distant settlement, located c. 500m to the east. As such, it is unlikely that Iron Age remains found during the 2004 and 2006 investigations continue into the Site. Although the potential for remains to occur is low, if found, features that are likely to be present are pits and gullies associated with agricultural activity. Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England (Medlycott, 2011) specifically acknowledges that any evidence for the transition from middle to late Iron Age material in Hertfordshire would be of crucial importance. Therefore, if middle and late Iron Age material were

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

located within the Site, it would have the potential to contribute further to an understanding of this regional research theme.

Potential Roman road and associated roadside remains The projected alignment of a Roman Road (Viatores 163a) is recorded as running through the Site and Roman remains were located in the area c. 550m north-west of the Site. These included the remains of two ovens, a possible associated refuse pit and a complete Belgic bowl dating to the 1st Century AD. Within c. 200m to the west a further complete Belgic vessel was identified. Grassam (2007), noted that these finds in addition to the late Iron Age ones may represent a transitional stage between the two periods.

Although both these factors raise the potential for Roman archaeological remains to occur within the Site, the route of the Roman road is only conjectural as it has not been confirmed by excavation and only a small amount of Roman finds were identified in the previous excavations.

The significance of Iron Age/Roman transitional sites is illustrated in the Research Framework (Medlycott, 2011). If identified within the Site they have the potential to contribute to an understanding of a number of regional research questions including: ‘does the evidence suggest a seamless transition or a change in use of land or farmstead…, or a continued occupation of the site but a change in building- types or agricultural practices? At what date(s) are the extensive field systems and enclosures… established, and how do these relate to earlier systems and settlements?’ ‘How far is there assimilation of late Iron Age culture into Roman or does acculturation occur?’ ‘To what extent do indigenous building styles persist? Is there continued use of field systems (with modest adaptation) as late as the early 2nd century?’.

Medieval/post-medieval field boundaries During the walkover survey and through examining DSM LiDAR data at 50m resolution (Fig. 10), a number of linear earthworks were identified within the Site (Photo 3). In the southern part of the Site these are all found to correspond with known field boundaries illustrated on the Tithe map of 1835 (Fig. 6). Within the northern part of the Site there is one linear anomaly which does not correspond with known field boundaries (illustrated on Figure 10 with a red arrow). However, it can be seen to correspond with a line of trees seen on the 1898 Ordnance Survey map.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Therefore, it may be a result of landscaping undertaken by Kemp in the 1850s or it may be an earlier field boundary that was utilised by Kemp as part of his landscape design. The significance of these potential archaeological features is derived from the visible contribution they make to understanding of the historic landscape. Therefore, these above ground remains can be considered as of limited significance.

Photo 3. Facing south within the Site, one of the earthworks (illustrated by red arrow)

Potential designed landscape features As discussed above in paragraph 4.8, Kemp may have undertaken some form of landscaping within the parkland during the 1850’s and created designed landscape features. However, within his book ‘How to Lay out a Garden’ he only mentions reducing and raising undertaken in the ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ and ‘Home pasture’ (see Fig. 11 for the extent of these areas) and does not specifically note it within the wider parkland. Therefore, it is not altogether clear if this was undertaken to a great extent within the Houses’ wider landscape. If the wider parkland did include these designed landscape features they are no longer visible today. The significance of these potential archaeological features is derived from the visible contribution they make to the understanding of the historic landscape. Therefore, if any below grounds remains of these features are identified they would only be considered as of limited significance.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Previous impacts From the mid-19th century to the late 20th century, the northern part of the Site was in use as parkland, it is unclear whether it was also used as agricultural land at this time. As discussed in paragraphs 4.8 & 4.9 the parkland may have been altered by Kemp who may have sought to alter the local landscape and topography. However, within his book ‘How to Lay out a Garden’ he only mentions reducing and raising undertaken in the ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ and ‘Home pasture’ and does not specifically note it within the wider parkland. Therefore, it is not altogether clear if this was undertaken to a great extent within the Houses’ wider landscape.

Since at least 1991, the northern part of the Site has been in use as a golf course (see Fig. 10). Although it appeared to accommodate much of the parkland features, including tree belts, copses and plantations, it may have resulted in some form of levelling or landscaping. Through the site walkover and through examining LiDAR data a number of earthworks can be seen which relate to sand bunkers.

Both of these functions may have resulted in either reduction or raising up of the ground. If the ground was reduced this may have led to the disturbance, truncation or removal of any archaeological remains. Alternatively, if the ground was built up this may have led to the preservation of remains in situ.

Potential development effects No significant known archaeological remains have been identified within the Site, but there is considered potential for currently unrecorded archaeological remains to survive buried within the Site.

Any truncation (physical development effects) upon those less significant non- designated archaeological remains identified within the Site would primarily result from groundworks associated with construction. Such groundworks might include:

• pre-construction impacts associated with demolition and ground investigation works; • ground reduction; • construction ground works, including building and road foundation trench excavations and the excavation of service trenches; • excavation of new site drainage channels (including soakaways); and • landscaping and planting.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

5. THE SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS

This section considers potential non-physical effects upon the significance of susceptible heritage assets within the Site environs. Non-physical effects are those that derive from changes to the setting of heritage assets as a result of new development. All heritage assets included within the settings assessment are summarised in the gazetteer in Appendix 2. Those assets identified as potentially susceptible to non-physical impact, and thus subject to more detailed assessment, are discussed in greater detail within the remainder of this section.

Step 1: Identification of heritage assets potentially affected Step 1 of the Second Edition of Historic England’s 2017 ‘Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3’ (GPA3) is to ‘identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected’ (see Appendix 1). GPA3 notes that Step 1 should identify the heritage assets which are likely to be affected as a result of any change to their experience, as a result of the development proposal (GPA3, page 9).

The heritage assets summarised in Table 5.1 below are those that have been identified, as part of Step 1, as potentially susceptible to impact as a result of changes to their setting. These assets have been identified using a combination of GIS analysis and field examination, which has considered, amongst other factors, the surrounding topographic and environmental conditions, built form, vegetation cover, and lines of sight, within the context of the assets’ heritage significance.

Heritage Asset Description Setting

The immediate setting of the house and summerhouse are Shendish was built between 1854- formed by their surrounding 56 for Charles Longman. It was gardens. As it occupies an designed by the architect John elevated position within the Griffith in a broadly Elizabethan valley the wider setting of the Shendish House and style but added to several times house is formed of the parklands attached Walled during the late 19th and early 20th and open fields descending to Garden and centuries. The grounds were the east, including the golf Octagonal designed by the landscape course and agricultural land. The Summerhouse gardener Edward Kemp with setting of the House also (Grade II Listed) features such as an attached comprises the working elements Walled Garden and Octagonal of the estate including the Listed Summerhouse (which are both Building of Apsley Manor Farm. included as part of the Listing). The setting of the Walled Garden comprises its own enclosed environment.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Heritage Asset Description Setting

The setting of the gardens Shendish House Gardens were include the manor house of designed by the pre-eminent Shendish which lies to the landscape gardener Edward northern side of the ‘Enclosed Kemp. The Locally Registered pleasure grounds’. The wider Park comprise of two parts – an setting of the gardens is formed ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ Shendish Manor of the parklands and open fields immediately surrounding (Locally Registered descending to the east, including Shendish House and the Park or Garden of the golf course and agricultural designed landscape surrounding it Historic Interest) land. The setting also includes known as ‘Home pasture’. They surrounding industrial features were named and described in such as the London & North- Kemp’s 1858 book ‘How to Lay western Railway line, which out a Garden’ and included large formed part of the park’s areas of lawn with small clumps of boundary, and the nearby Nash shrubs, trees and flower beds. and Apsley Mills. Constructed in un-coursed knapped flint with grey brick dressing the farmhouse dates to The setting of the farmhouse is Apsley Manor around 1853. It was formed of its domestic curtilage Farmhouse (Grade II commissioned by Charles as well as its adjacent Listed) Longman as a replacement of the agricultural buildings to the rear. former ‘Shenditch Farm’ which he had demolished. A terrace of cottages built in 1898 The main façade of the cottages adjacent to Shendish House as faces east towards the busy homes for the workers on the London Road ‘A4251’ however estate. They were designed by Sir they are slightly set back from Snatchup End Edward Luytens and later the road and feature two large Cottages (Grade II* provided accommodation for John hedges blocking views of the Listed) Dickinson & Company’s staff. The lower storeys from the road. The cottages are two and three western façades face onto a storeys, with red brick to the large well established tree line, ground floors and hung tiles to the screening views to the railway upper floors, with hipped tile roofs. line behind. The Church of St Mary was The church is set within its constructed c. 1871 in Gothic associated churchyard in a Revival style with designs by elevated position above London Joseph Clarke. It was built to Road ‘A4251’. As such, the service the needs of industrial eastern façade is clearly visible workers in the local paper mills. It from the road and it is Church of St Mary is faced in flint with Ancaster considered an important local (Grade II Listed) stone dressing, has a brown clay- landmark on the road out of tiled roof and a shingled spire. It Hemel Hempstead. In contrast, contains a number of original its western boundary is defined fittings including a variegated by the large well-established tree brown marble font, a stone pulpit line screening views to the with the inscription ‘Take heed railway line behind. how ye hear’ and original organ.

Table 5.1 Heritage Assets identified as part of Step 1

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

The Site visit, and study area walkover, identified that there would be no non- physical impact upon the significance of Apsley Manor Farm, Snatchup End Cottages and the Church of St Mary, as a result of the proposed development. The setting of the Church of St Mary and Snatchup End Cottages comprises the busy London Road and the surrounding modern built form and the setting of Apsley Manor Farmhouse comprises its own domestic curtilage. Their setting would not be altered, as would the assets’ key contributing values and views. Views of the surrounding landscape (including the Site) from Snatchup End Cottage and Church of St Mary are screened by a large well-established tree line and intervening railway line to the west. Apsley Manor Farmhouse is located some distance away from the Site, and views are blocked by other built form. As such, the proposals will not result in any non-physical harm to the significance of these assets, and they have not been assessed in any further detail.

All heritage assets assessed as part of Step 1, but which were not progressed to Steps 2 – 4, are included in the gazetteer in Appendix 2 of this report.

Steps 2 – 4: Assessment of setting and potential effects of the development This section presents the results of Steps 2 to 4 of the settings assessment, which have been undertaken in regards to those potentially susceptible heritage assets identified in Table 5.1. Step 2 assesses the degree to which setting contributes to the significance of the heritage assets, or how it allows their significance to be appreciated. Step 3 then considers how, if at all, and to what extent any anticipated changes to the setting of those assets, as a result of development within the Site, might affect their significance or the ability to appreciate it. Finally, Step 4 considers if/how any identified heritage enhancements might be maximised and if/how any identified harm to heritage significance might be minimised. As the Grade II Listed Shendish House and the locally registered Shendish Manor Park are physically linked there is some overlap within the discussion of the assets.

Grade II Listed Shendish House and Attached Walled Garden and Octagonal Summerhouse Significance (‘Special historic and architectural interest’) Shendish House is a manor house which lies c. 500m to the west of the Site (Photo 4)(Fig. 11, 17). The significance of Shendish House derives from its historical and aesthetic value. A large L-Shaped Jacobean-style house constructed of grey brick with Bath stone dressings and chimneys it has steep slate roofs and two storeys. It

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

has had various alterations and extensions in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. These later additions include a new garden room wing in 1871, a stone porch and adjoining lobby added in 1902 and in 1920 a new garden porch (Hannelly, 2017). These alterations have almost exclusively been undertaken on the northern end of the house. There are also a number of ancillary buildings built during the 19th and 20th century to support the estate, including a coach house which possibly once included a chapel at its northern gable end.

The attached Walled Garden and original Octagonal Summerhouse lie to the west of the house (see Figure 11). The summerhouse features a mosaic floor and although noted as roofless in the Listing description, today has a pyramid style roof. The wall of the walled garden is constructed of grey bricks in Flemish bond, the same as those used to construct the house and has a large ironwork gate, an addition of 1898 (English Heritage, 1986).

Photo 4. Shendish House taken from the east

The House has some historical value deriving from its association with the Longmans, a notable local publishing family. Charles Longman bought the estate in 1853 and had the current manor built, including the Walled Gardens and Summer House, between 1854-56 (Hannelly, 2017). Also, the original architect, John Griffith,

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

was known for his work on the Kensal Green Cemetery and his Greek revival style buildings.

Physical surrounds – ‘what matters and why’ The significance of Shendish House is principally embodied in its fabric. However, the setting of the building, especially the immediate designed gardens, also make a contribution to its overall significance. The relationship between the House, the Walled Garden and the Octagonal Summerhouse represent an essential part of the setting of the Listed Building, as they are located in close proximity to one another within the ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’. These grounds provide a formal designed setting for the House, across which it was intended to be appreciated (see ‘experience’ below). As such, the formal areas of planting, maintained lawns, and pathways form an important part of the physical surrounds of the House.

The wider parkland and agricultural land beyond, in which the Site is situated, form a distant part of the physical surrounds of the House. The historic character of these areas has been eroded – they now comprise part of a golf course and area of modern agricultural land – and they only make a limited contribution to the significance of the House. The wider parkland and agricultural land are discussed in detail below.

Shendish House occupies a plateau on an elevated position on the crest of a hill, situated on the west side of the valley of the River Gade. The railway line and Nash Mill lie across the valley, to the east of the house. Although they are not visible from the property it is likely that Shendish House was intentionally built to face them, as the main façade faces eastwards towards the railway line. They form an important part of the setting of Shendish House as they demonstrate the industrial connection the House has with the local landscape. Due to Charles Longman’s connection with the local paper manufacturing industry, these elements were central to the source of Longman’s wealth.

Historic cartographic sources (see Figs. 7 and 8) indicate that the railway line formed an important boundary through the valley. This was an intentional feature of the designed landscape, whereby the urbanised and industrial valley floor sat to the east of the railway, whilst the rural, agricultural parkland, in which Shendish House was situated, was located to the west. While Shendish House overlooked this industrial area, it did not sit within it, creating a clear distinction between the two,

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

and the single access point across the railway line further emphasised this boundary. However, over time this boundary feature has been eroded through modern residential development on the west side of the valley. The northern and southern areas bounding the historic area of the estate are now modern residential development.

As illustrated on Fig. 11, the estate surrounding the House can be divided into two areas. While the gardens form the immediate setting to the south, to the north lies the ‘working’ side of the estate. This area has been the focus of the majority of the subsequent development, historically and more recently. It is formed of the Grade II Listed Apsley Manor Farmhouse and surrounding modern buildings. As well as forming a physical part of the setting of Shendish House, there is also a historic connection between Shendish House and Apsley Manor Farmhouse. The Tithe map of 1835 (Fig. 6) illustrates that ‘Shenditch Farm’ a manor house/farm, believed to date to the late medieval period, occupied the area of the current Shendish House. As this was demolished in the mid-19th century to make way for the new house, Apsley Manor Farm was built as a replacement, but it was located away from the more public area of the House. The significance of this historic connection lies in the fact that Shendish has remained a working agricultural estate since at least the early 19th century.

When Thomas Norton Longman died in 1930 the estate was split up and sold. The House, and in turn the surrounding landscape, since then has been used for various commercial and institutional uses and since 1994 has been used as a hotel and conference centre. Externally the manor has remained intact and retained the majority of its character, despite various extensions and alterations to the northern side of the estate. However there has been a loss of some of the designed features within the landscape which has had a negative impact on its significance.

Experience – ‘what matters and why’ The House is best and most commonly experienced within its immediate environs, especially from the ‘Pleasure Grounds’ and ‘Home Pasture’ (see Fig. 11). It is most visible, and its architectural form can be best appreciated, at the western end of the historic avenue that extends across the wider parkland (Photo 4). The avenue is confined by trees along most of its course, and it is only as the avenue extends across the Home Pastures that the House becomes visible. It is likely this was an intentional ‘reveal’, orchestrated by Kemp in his original design.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

The House sits atop a hillside overlooking a valley, which slopes down eastwards towards the Site. Despite the topography of the land, the enclosed nature of ‘Home pasture’ means views out from the House beyond the ‘Home Pasture’ are restricted (Photo 5). Historically, views out of it would have been possible as Kemp’s book (1858) notes that he composed a series of openings ‘through which the best views of the country are obtained from the house’. However, due to the current maturity of the vegetation, none of the openings or views which Kemp intended are now visible. The mature tree line surrounding the area of ‘Home Pasture’ creates a private secluded feel (Photo 9) within the immediate environs of the House which would not necessarily have been the original intention. The historic tree planting is illustrated on Fig. 11 and is divided between the area outside the redline and within it. The historic planting outside the redline boundary is illustrated as per the 6 inch OS map of 1883 and the historic planting within the redline boundary is illustrated as per information provided by a recent arboricultural survey and provides whether the planting was likely prior to or part of the landscaping undertaken by Kemp (Hankinson Duckett Associates, 2018).

As a result of this density of tree cover, views towards the House from the wider landscape are equally as screened. The House does not form a visually dominant feature in the landscape as it is not identifiable through the tree line. If approaching along the historic avenue (Photo 6), which is the main route of movement towards the house, it only comes into view within ‘Home Pasture’ (see Figure 11). While Kemp intentionally tried to create views out of the house through the gardens to the surrounding countryside, in contrast he intended for views towards it to be limited. A path was diverted around the edge of ‘Home pasture’ and sunk below ground level using a ‘ha-ha’ ‘so that person’s using the footpath are not observed from the house’ (Fig. 13; Kemp, 1858). It should be noted, that this assessment was undertaken during a time when there was a fair amount of leaf coverage. As there are a large amount of deciduous trees surrounding ‘Home Pasture’, in the winter months, there will be less leaf coverage and the property may be slightly more visible.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Photo 5. Facing east towards the direction of the Site from ‘Home pasture’

Photo 6. View facing east along the historic approach

As discussed above the main route to the House is along the historic approach (see Fig. 11). This has been a feature of the estate since the time of ‘Shenditch Farm’

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

and is illustrated on the Tithe map of 1835 (Fig. 6). However, the change of use from a residential house to its current function as a hotel with an associated golf course has meant the way in which the House is experienced has changed. Historically, the entranceway would have been a quiet and secluded avenue but due to its current function this is frequented by cars, changing the way in which the asset is experienced.

Potential development effects The proposals comprise the construction of up to 500 dwellings. The nearest part of which will lie c. 450m to the south-east of Shendish House. The setting of Shendish House comprises the designed gardens immediately surrounding it and the wider parkland and agricultural land beyond. The proposed development will alter a part of the setting – part of its wider historic parkland – but this will not alter the important elements of the physical surrounds or experience of the House. The approach towards the House along the avenue will be retained, and the important points of appreciation of the House will remain completely unaltered. The relationship between the House and its surrounding designed landscape will also remain unchanged.

From within the Site the House, ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ and ‘Home pasture’ are not visible. The northern part of the Site (Photo 7) sits near the base of the slope of the valley and there are also dispersed but well-established trees in the area between the House and the Site. As such, the topography and vegetation mean that views of the House and gardens are not possible. The southern part of the Site (Photo 8) is very similarly vegetated although the land rises up to the north- west. There are also a row of well-established trees on the westernmost field boundary which prevent views towards the House or gardens.

The wider landscape, which includes the Site, although not formally designated or mentioned in the Listing designation does still remain a part of the setting of the House (as part of its historic estate). However, is not visible from within it due to the enclosed nature of what Kemp called ‘Home pasture’ and the local topography.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Photo 7. Facing south-west towards the House from within the northern part of the Site

Photo 8. Facing south-west towards the House from within the Site

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Also, it should be noted there has been much change to the function of the northern part of the Site post-1930. It was most probably used as a school grounds, part of a sports and social club, and as a golf course since at least 1991. The southern part is more likely to have had the sustained function as agricultural land. There is considered to be no impact on the attached Walled Garden and Octagonal Summerhouse, or the relationship between these buildings which are specifically mentioned within the Listing designation, because they are located c. 500m west of the Site and are not visible due to intervening built form. Overall, the proposed development will not harm the significance of Shendish House Grade II Listed Building.

Shendish Manor Locally Registered Park or Garden of Historic Interest Significance – ‘Special historic and architectural interest’ The gardens and parkland surrounding Shendish House are a key feature of the estate and their significance derives from their historical and aesthetic value. The surrounding landscape of the estate, which includes both the gardens and wider parkland, were elaborately designed by the pre-eminent landscape gardener Edward Kemp for the Longman family in the 1850s. Kemp, in his early career worked at Chatsworth House in Derbyshire (Williamson, 2015).

Plans were drawn up between 1854-55 and in his 1858 book ‘How to Lay out a Garden’ Kemp described the gardens and the main approach to the House (Fig. 12). The gardens comprised three distinct parts – an ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ immediately surrounding Shendish House, the designed landscape surrounding it known as ‘Home pasture’, and the wider informally designed parkland (the latter is not part of the Locally Registered Park). Historic plans of the gardens (Fig. 12) show there was a clear delineation between the three elements.

The ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ cover 1.75ha and were largely laid out to lawn, it had flowerbeds cut into it and was planted with a series of firs, pines and deciduous trees in a range of heights. The Summerhouse is located to the west of this area and there are two walled gardens to the north. The surrounding ‘Home Pasture’, an area of 5.4ha, was also laid out to grass with trees, but this area appears more open with only a scattering of small clumps of shrubs and trees (Photo 9). Both of these areas included a degree of landscaping, either through raising or reducing the land within them. Within the wider parkland, pre-existing areas of planting were

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

incorporated, including ‘Wheeler’s Dell’ within the Site, but it also included further additional tree planting much of which has survived to this day (see Fig.11).

Fig. 12 Extract from Kemp’s ‘How to Lay out a Small Garden’, 1858

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Photo 9. ‘Home pasture’ facing south

The significance of the gardens also derives from their historical value as they have an industrial connection within the locality. Both the House and gardens were built for an important local industrial figure Charles Longman (Williamson, 2015). The gardens surrounding the House were designated by Dacorum Borough Council due to their local heritage and group value. Together with the nearby Nash Mills and Abbotts Hill they form an ‘important industrial-influenced landscape of the 19th century’ (Dacorum Borough Council, 2017). The extent of the locally Registered Garden is illustrated on Fig. 11.

Physical Surrounds – ‘what matters and why’ The setting of the locally registered gardens includes the wider parkland to the north-east and agricultural land to the east and south-east. The extent of this wider parkland is indicated by the 1883 Ordnance Survey map (and depicted on Fig. 11). Whilst the way in which Shendish House is orientated, means it faces east towards the valley and the associated industrial landscape, the gardens are orientated predominantly on a southerly aspect towards the surrounding agricultural landscape. Despite this, the gardens lie on a small eastward facing slope which descends more

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

steeply into the wider parkland towards the valley as if, similarly to the House, it gives prominence to the valley and its industrial setting.

From the locally registered garden, the railway line is hidden from view due to the topography of the land as it lies at the bottom of the valley and within a cutting. However, the prominence of the railway line in relation to the parkland is apparent, being incorporated into the north-eastern part of the parkland. A small amount of parkland is visible on the 1883 First Edition OS map (not illustrated) between the railway line and London Road. This demonstrates that the railway and its position in relation to the wider parklands is an important part of the setting of the House. As discussed in paragraphs 5.13, historic cartographic sources (see Figs. 7 and 8) indicate that the railway line defined a boundary through the valley between the urbanised and industrial landscape to the east and the rural agricultural and parkland to the west, in which the House and gardens are situated. However, over time this boundary has been eroded through modern residential development on the west side of the valley. The northern and southern areas bounding the historic area of the estate now comprise modern residential development.

Fig. 13 Williamson’s plan of Shendish gardens (2015)

Williamson (2015) has previously discussed how the integrity of the landscape and gardens was affected during the house’s post-residential phase. Change of owners and uses has meant the original design of the gardens has been slowly eroded as they became less appreciated, well-maintained and subject to change. This has

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

resulted in erosion of the character and setting of the gardens. Today, as illustrated in Photo 9, ‘Home pasture’ is now used as part of the golf course and the original thin scattering of trees has been removed. In addition, Fig. 13 illustrates that there are now modern hotel buildings to the rear (north) of the gardens and a car park and bowling green within them.

The extended setting of the gardens is considered to be the parkland to the north- east and open agricultural fields to the east, which include the Site. Since at least 1991 a golf course has occupied the northern part of the Site but the southern part has stayed in arable use. This has probably been the sustained function of this part of the Site since at least the medieval period.

Experience – ‘what matters and why’ The experience of the gardens is carefully orchestrated, facilitating views of the House and other designed landscape features. The ‘Enclosed pleasure grounds’ which comprise the innermost part of the gardens would have been the most commonly experienced element (Fig. 11). It would be best experienced from within its own environs, in the area central to it, to the west of the House. This is because views of the House, Walled gardens and Octagonal summerhouse are all possible from this vantage point. A boundary between this area and ‘Home pasture’ is thought to have historically comprised an iron fence (Williamson, 2015) however this has been lost and today the boundary between the two areas is more permeable. Views towards the ‘Enclosed pleasure gardens’ are also possible from the historic approach but similarly to the house they are only possible when you are in close range of the gardens.

‘Home pasture’ would have been an area less frequented than the ‘enclosed pleasure gardens’ and would have been designed as an extension of green space visible in the middle distance from the House. While there are paths to the western side of this area, the eastern side would have been an area of lawn with dispersed tree planting and would have only have been accessed if someone was informally wandering the grounds. Today, this part of the gardens is now in use as part of the golf course and some of the dispersed trees have been removed in the east, thus their original design and function has been altered.

Home Pasture is typically and best appreciated internally, from within the plot of land, particularly at its western extent which is bound by dense vegetation.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

Historically the west side would have included sporadic areas of planting and historic woodland which was landscaped into the ‘Dell gardens/rockery’ (see Fig. 11). This meant there would have been views into and out of this area. However, the vegetation has become denser and expanded out of the area towards the north- east means that the views and appreciation of it are restricted internally. The boundary surrounding ‘Home Pasture’ to the east, south and west is well defined by a mature tree line, meaning that views out and into it are restricted and it has a sense of seclusion. Kemp discussed how his design of the gardens was intended to be private, to this effect he diverted a path around the edge of ‘Home pasture’ and sunk it below the ground level using a ‘ha-ha’, ‘so that person’s using the footpath are not observed from the house’ (Fig. 13; Kemp, 1858).

The topography of the land and the mature tree line means there is very little inter- visibility between the locally registered garden and the surrounding wider parkland. Whilst the wider parkland is not assigned the same status as the locally registered park, it can still be considered to be part of the experience of both the ‘enclosed pleasure gardens’ and ‘Home pasture’, as it is passed through on the approach along the historic driveway.

Since c. 1991 the area to the north of the tree lined avenue has been in use as a golf course. While this has changed the historic function of what was wider parkland, it can be to some degree still experienced as it features pathways and woodland/tree clumps (such as ‘Wheeler’s Dell’) which were present on historic cartographic sources (see Figs. 6 & 7).

Potential development effects The proposed development comprises the construction of a residential development, the nearest part of which will lie c. 300m south-east of the locally registered garden. The important parts of its setting comprise its own designed landscape, as well the wider informal parkland and agricultural land that forms part of its associated historic estate.

The development will sit within the southern part of the wider parkland and will be viewed when passing through the historic approach towards the locally registered garden. This will alter a small part of the setting of the wider parkland, restricted to changes to the partially screened views from the historic approach towards Shendish Manor.

Land at Shendish, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, Heritage Desk-Based Assessment © Cotswold Archaeology

The proposed development will occupy the most discrete and physically distant location possible within the wider parkland setting of the locally registered garden. The northern part of the Site (Photo 7) sits near the base of the slope of the valley and there are also dispersed but well-established trees in the area between the locally registered garden and the Site. As such the topography and vegetation mean that views of the gardens are not possible from within the Site. The southern part of the Site (Photo 8) is very similarly vegetated although the land rises up to the north-west. There are also a row of well-established trees on the westernmost field boundary which prevent views towards the gardens.

The changes to the setting of the locally registered park are likely to result in a limited degree of harm to its significance. As identified in the NPPF (2018), this would equate to the lower end of less than substantial harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset. It is considered that the effect on the locally registered park can be mitigated, in part, by the following measures:

• Retention of the tree clumps situated with the wider parkland area • Strengthening the tree belt that borders the historic avenue associated with Shendish Manor.

The Dacorum Borough Local plan adopted in 2004 was revised post adoption of the Core Strategy (2013) and as such the policy 114 ‘Historic Parks and Gardens’ has been removed and superseded by Policy CS25 ‘Landscape Character’ and CS27 ‘Quality of the Historic Environment’. The measures suggested above, as per policy CS25 ‘Landscape Character’ of the Core Strategy, would ensure that through the development the aspects of the prevailing landscape quality, character and condition would be conserved. They also consider the significance of the integrity, setting and distinctiveness of the locally registered park, as per policy CS27 ‘Quality of the Historic Environment’, and will ensure that it will be protected, conserved and positively enhanced.

6. CONCLUSIONS

This assessment has evaluated the potential for buried archaeological remains to occur within the Site and the extent to which the proposed development will impact on these remains. It has also considered the potential development effects upon nearby heritage assets through changes to their setting, including the Grade II Listed Shendish House.

No buried archaeological remains have previously been recorded within the Site, but there is some potential for the presence of unrecorded buried remains to occur. Specifically, there is the potential for Iron Age and Roman remains within the Site, with previous investigation to the north identifying late Iron Age and early Roman remains. These remains were thought to be associated with seasonal agricultural activity on the periphery of the main settlement which was found to be located c. 550m to the north-east of the Site. The projected alignment of a Roman road also runs through the centre of the Site, but there is no archaeological evidence to support this. Whilst these features raise the potential for the presence of currently unrecorded archaeological remains, there is no specific potential for significant archaeological remains to occur within the Site.

This assessment has also considered the potential non-physical effects upon the significance of susceptible heritage assets within the Site environs. The proposed development will not alter any of the important parts of the setting of the Grade II Listed Shendish House that contribute to the asset’s significance. In relation to the locally registered park and garden at Shendish Manor, there will be a small amount of harm as a result of a minor change to its wider parkland setting. This harm can be mitigated by a retention of historic tree clumps within the Site and through strengthening the tree belt within the Site that defines the historic approach towards the gardens and House.

On the basis of current information, this assessment has identified no overriding heritage constraints that would preclude development within the Site. However, it is recommended that consultation is undertaken with the archaeological advisor to the Local Planning Authority regarding the potential archaeological resource within the Site, in order to identify an appropriate scope of further works to be undertaken prior to development.

7. REFERENCES

Apsley Paper Trail, n.d.A ‘Nash Mill’. Accessed on the 17th October 2018 .

Apsley Paper Trail, n.d.B ‘Apsley Mill’. Accessed on the 17th October 2018 < https://www.thepapertrail.org.uk/apsley-mill>.

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment.

Coileáin, C, Ó. 2015. Shendish Manor Hotel, Hemel Hempstead: Archaeological Evaluation. Cotswold Archaeology.

Cotswold Archaeology. 2011. Shendish Manor Estate – Heritage Assets: preliminary assessment, key issue. Technical note.

Dacorum Borough Council. 2014. ‘Look after the environment application part 1’. Accessed on 17th October 2018 .

Dacorum Borough Council, 2017. Site Allocations. 2006-2031 Written Statement. Accessed 26th October 2018 .

Doyle, K. & Ginns, A. 2006. Shendish Manor, Kings Langley, Hertfordshire. Archaeological Monitoring & Recording. Hertford: Archaeological Solutions Ltd.

English Heritage, 2008. Conservation Principles.

English Heritage, 1986. ‘Shendish House and attached Walled Garden and Octagonal Summerhouse’. Accessed 18th October 2018 .

Grassam, A. 2007. Land at Manor Estate, Apsley, Hertfordshire. Research Archive Report. Hertford: Archaeological Solutions.

Hannelly, K. 2017. Heritage Statement: Land at Shendish Manor, Apsley HP3 0AA.

Hankinson Duckett Associates, 2018. Land at Shendish Manor Arboricultural Walkover Survey.

Historic England, 2015. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment.

Historic England, 2017. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Second Edition).

Kemp, E. 1858. How to Lay out a Garden. London: Bradbury & Evans.

Kings Langley History & Museum Society. 2009. ‘Whatever became of Snatchup/s End?’. Accessed on 17th October 2018 < http://www.kingslangley.org.uk/Snatchups%20End.html>.

Last, J. 2001. A41 Berkhamsted and Kings Langley Bypasses (summarised from the draft revised updated project design). Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust.

Margary, I. D. 1955. Roman Roads in Britain. London: John Baker Publishers Ltd.

Medlycott, M., 2011. Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for

the East of England

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Published July 2018.

Page, W. 1908. ’Parishes: King’s Langley’, in A History of the County of Hertford: Volume 2, pp. 234-245.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990). Act of UK Parliament.

Wainright, G. 1993. Archaeology Review: 1992-1993. London: English Heritage.

Williams, J, O’Brien, L & Eddisford, D. 2005. Manor Estate, Apsley, Hertfordshire. An Archaeological Evaluation. Hertford: Archaeological Solutions Ltd.

Williamson, T. 2012. ‘Gardens and industry: The landscape of the Gade Valley in the nineteenth century’, ed. Spring, D. Hertfordshire Gardens History Volume 2: Gardens Pleasant, Groves Delicious. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.

Williamson, T. 2015. Shendish Manor: a report on the history, significance and condition of the historic landscape.

Cartographic sources 1835 Parish of Kings Langley Tithe Map

1898 Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map 1908 Plan of the Shendish estate 1931 Shendish Estate plan

Aerial photographs Aug 1991 OS/91174A Aug 1991 OS/91174A

APPENDIX 1: HERITAGE STATUTE POLICY & GUIDANCE

Heritage Statute: Listed Buildings Listed Buildings are buildings of ‘special architectural or historic interest’ and are subject to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’). Under Section 7 of the Act ‘no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a Listed Building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised.’ Such works are authorised under Listed Building Consent.

Under Section 66 of the Act ‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any feature of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’.

Note on the extent of a Listed Building Under Section 1(5) of the Act, a structure may be deemed part of a Listed Building if it is:

(a) fixed to the building, or (b) within the curtilage of the building, which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948 The inclusion of a structure deemed to be within the ‘curtilage’ of a building thus means that it is subject to the same statutory controls as the principal Listed Building. Inclusion within this duty is not, however, an automatic indicator of ‘heritage significance’ both as defined within the NPPF (2018) and within Conservation Principles (see Section 2 above). In such cases, the establishment of the significance of the structure needs to be assessed both in its own right and in the contribution it makes to the significance and character of the principal Listed Building. The practical effect of the inclusion in the listing of ancillary structures is limited by the requirement that Listed Building Consent is only needed for works to the ‘Listed Building’ (to include the building in the list and all the ancillary items) where they affect the special character of the Listed Building as a whole.

Guidance is provided by Historic England on ‘Listed Buildings and Curtilage: A Historic England Advice Note’ (Historic England 2016).

National heritage policy: the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’)

Heritage assets and heritage significance Heritage assets comprise ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’ (NPPF (2018), Annex 2).

The NPPF (2018), Annex 2, states that the significance of a heritage asset may be archaeological, architectural, artistic, or historic. Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ (2008) looks at significance as a series of ‘values’ which include ‘evidential’, ‘historical’, ‘aesthetic’ and ‘communal’ (see below).

Designated heritage assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas (designated under the relevant legislation; NPPF (2018), Annex 2).

The setting of heritage assets The ‘setting’ of a heritage asset comprises ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’ (NPPF (2018), Annex 2). Thus it is important to note that ‘setting’ is not a heritage asset: it may contribute to the value of a heritage asset.

Guidance on assessing the effects of change upon the setting and significance of heritage assets is provided in ‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets’, which has been utilised for the present assessment (see below).

Levels of information to support planning applications Paragraph 189 of the NPPF (2018) identifies that ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.’

Designated heritage assets Paragraph 184 of the NPPF (2018) explains that heritage assets ‘are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance’.

Paragraph 193 notes that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance’.

Paragraph 194 goes on to note that ‘substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building…should be exceptional and substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance (notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites) ‘should be wholly exceptional’.

Paragraph 196 clarifies that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.’

Development Plan The Dacorum Borough Local Plan (adopted 21 April 2004) adheres to the guidance given by the NPPF. Policy 118 ‘Important Archaeological Remains’ states;

Planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect scheduled ancient monuments or other nationally important sites and monuments, or their settings. English Heritage will be consulted on all planning applications affecting Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

On archaeological sites or monuments of more local importance and their settings, physical preservation in situ will be the preferred option and applications may be refused. The County

Archaeological Group will be consulted on all planning applications affecting areas of archaeological significance and archaeological potential.

Where advice indicates that a proposed development will affect remains of archaeological significance or areas of archaeological potential, developers will be expected to provide the results of an archaeological evaluation as part of their planning application.

Where the Council considers that physical preservation of archaeological remains in situ is not merited, planning permission will be subject to satisfactory provision being made for excavation and recording. Conditions and/or agreements will be used to secure the following work, depending on the nature of the site:

(a) an adequate archaeological excavation of the site prior to the commencement of the works; and/or

(b) the observation of archaeological experts of the site works as they progress; and/or

(d) the provision of facilities, including access over an agreed period of time; and/or

(e) such other measures as may be necessary to protect the archaeological integrity of the site. Where appropriate the Council will encourage the enhancement of archaeological remains and their settings.

The Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (adopted 25 September 2013) replaced part of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (adopted 21 April 2004). This document also adheres to the guidance given by the NPPF. Policy CS27 ‘Quality of the Historic Environment’ states;

All development will favour the conservation of heritage assets. The integrity, setting and distinctiveness of designated and undesignated heritage assets will be protected, conserved and if appropriate enhanced. Development will positively conserve and enhance the appearance and character of conservation areas. Negative features and problems identified in conservation area appraisals will be ameliorated or removed. Features of known or potential archaeological interest will be surveyed, recorded and wherever possible retained.

Policy CS25 ‘Landscape Character’ also states;

Landscape Character All development will help conserve and enhance Dacorum’s natural and historic landscape. Proposals will be assessed for their impact on landscape features to ensure that they conserve or improve the prevailing landscape quality, character and condition and take full account of the Dacorum Landscape Character Assessment, Historic Landscape Characterisation and advice contained within the Hertfordshire Historic Environment Record.

Good Practice Advice 1-3 Historic England has issued three Good Practice Advice notes (‘GPA1–3’) which support the NPPF. The GPAs note that they do not constitute a statement of Government policy, nor do they seek to prescribe a single methodology: their purpose is to assist local authorities, planners, heritage consultants, and other stakeholders in the implementation of policy set out in the NPPF (2018). This report has been produced in the context of this advice,

particularly ‘GPA2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment’ and ‘GPA3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets’.

GPA2 - Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment GPA2 sets out the requirement for assessing ‘heritage significance’ as part of the application process. Paragraph 8 notes that ‘understanding the nature of the significance is important to understanding the need for and best means of conservation.’ This includes assessing the extent and level of significance, including the contribution made by its ‘setting’ (see GPA3 below). Page 3 notes that ‘a desk-based assessment will determine, as far as is reasonably possible from existing records, the nature, extent and significance of the historic environment within a specified area, and the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the historic environment, or will identify the need for further evaluation to do so’.

GPA3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets The NPPF (Annex 2: Glossary) defines the setting of a heritage asset as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’. Step 1 of the settings assessment requires heritage assets which may be affected by development to be identified. Historic England notes that for the purposes of Step 1 this process will comprise heritage assets ‘where that experience is capable of being affected by a proposed development (in any way)…’.

Step 2 of the settings process ‘assess[es] the degree to which these settings and views make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated’, with regard to its physical surrounds; relationship with its surroundings and patterns of use; experiential effects such as noises or smells; and the way views allow the significance of the asset to be appreciated. Step 3 requires ‘assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset(s)’ – specifically to ‘assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on the significance or on the ability to appreciate it’, with regard to the location and siting of the development, its form and appearance, its permanence, and wider effects.

Step 4 of GPA3 provides commentary on ‘ways to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm’. Paragraph 37 notes that ‘Maximum advantage can be secured if any effects on the significance of a heritage asset arising from development liable to affect its setting are considered from the project’s inception.’ Paragraph 39 notes that ‘good design may reduce or remove the harm, or provide enhancement’.

Heritage significance Discussion of heritage significance within this assessment report makes reference to several key documents. With regard to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas it primarily discusses ‘architectural and historic interest’, which comprises the special interest for which they are designated.

The NPPF provides a definition of ‘significance’ for heritage policy (Annex 2). This states that heritage significance comprises ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic’. This also clarifies that for World Heritage Sites ‘the cultural value described within each site’s Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its significance’.

Regarding ‘levels’ of significance the NPPF (2018) provides a distinction between: designated heritage assets of the highest significance; designated heritage assets not of the highest significance; and non-designated heritage assets.

Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ (2008) expresses ‘heritage significance’ as comprising a combination of one or more of: evidential value, historical value, aesthetic value, and communal value.

Effects upon heritage assets

Heritage benefit The NPPF clarifies that change in the setting of heritage assets may lead to heritage benefit. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF (2018) notes that ‘Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably’.

GPA3 notes that ‘good design may reduce or remove the harm, or provide enhancement’ (Paragraph 14). Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ states that ‘Change to a significant place is inevitable, if only as a result of the passage of time, but can be neutral or beneficial in its effects on heritage values. It is only harmful if (and to the extent that) significance is reduced’ (Paragraph 84).

Specific heritage benefits may be presented through activities such as repair or restoration, as set out in Conservation Principles.

Heritage harm to designated heritage assets The NPPF (2018) does not define what constitutes ‘substantial harm’. The High Court of Justice does provide a definition of this level of harm, as set out by Mr Justice Jay in Bedford Borough Council v SoS for CLG and Nuon UK Ltd. Paragraph 25 clarifies that, with regard to ‘substantial harm’: ‘Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced’.

Effects upon non-designated heritage assets Paragraph 197 of the NPPF (2018) guides that ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.

APPENDIX 2: RECORDED HERITAGE ASSETS

HER, AMIE Ref. No. or NHLE Description Period Ref.

1 359349 Find spots of two Palaeolithic hand axes Prehistoric

An Archaeological Alert Area was designated due 2 - to the presence of prehistoric activity and Prehistoric settlement MHT11471 Excavation recorded a possible Neolithic cursus MHT 9958 3 monument, in addition to Late Bronze Age and Prehistoric 1342057 Early Iron Age activity 1109751 An excavation revealed evidence of Late Bronze 4 MHT9959 Prehistoric Age and Early Iron Age occupation MHT2365 MHT2366 Area of cropmarks possibly dated to the Bronze 5 Prehistoric MHT2367 Age period 359350

6 MHT16589 Excavation recorded a Middle Iron Age settlement Prehistoric

Late Iron Age activity recorded during an 7 MHT16589 Prehistoric excavation Excavation recorded a hearth or cremation and 8 MHT16581 Prehistoric other features 1030213 Series of possible Roman roads (Viatores 163a 9 1329566 Roman and 169c and Margary’s 16a) 1052258

10 MHT12987 Roman coin hoard Roman

11 MHT987 Possible Romano-British inhumation Roman

Medieval watermill converted to a paper mill in the Medieval/post- 12 MHT5762 19th century – Nash Mill medieval/modern Post- 13 MHT5760 18th century mill building - Apsley Paper Mill medieval/modern Medieval/post- 14 MHT25713 Findspot of a copper alloy ring medieval

15 MHT241 Grand Union Canal Post-medieval

16 - London & North Western Railway Modern

19th century Grade II Listed country house with MHT11699 17 grounds on the site of a former medieval manor Modern MHT804 and post-medieval house – Shendish House 19th century house, park and gardens – Abbots 18 MHT15000 Post-medieval Hill

19 1100420 Grade II Listed Aspley Manor Farm Post-medieval

HER, AMIE Ref. No. or NHLE Description Period Ref.

20 1078070 Grade II* Listed Cottages – Snatchup End Post-medieval

21 1067764 Grade II Listed Church of St Mary Post-medieval

LAND AT SHENDISH MANOR

ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Prepared for W Lamb Ltd

Hankinson Duckett Associates

HDA ref: 905.2

November 2018

hankinson duckett associates t 01491 838175 f 01491 838997 e [email protected] w www.hda-enviro.co.uk The Stables, Howbery Park, Benson Lane, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA Hankinson Duckett Associates Limited Registered in England & Wales 3462810 Registered Office: The Stables, Howbery Park, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BA

CONTENTS Page

1 Introduction 1

2 Methodology 1

3 Desk study 3

4 Phase 1 habitat survey 13

5 Protected and notable species 20

6 Nature conservation evaluation 22

7 Additional data requirements 24

8 Recommendations 26

9 Conclusion 35

10 References 35

HDA Document Control and Quality Assurance Record

APPENDICES

A Desk study results

B Phase 1 habitat survey plan and target notes

C Evaluation criteria

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report describes an Ecological Appraisal of approximately 95ha of land to the south of Hemel Hempstead hereinafter referred to as ‘the site’. The site centre is located by National Grid Reference TL 060 044. The study was commissioned by W Lamb Ltd in September 2018.

1.2 The site is located to the south of Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire and comprises two broadly defined areas separated by a track leading from London Road. The northern area of the site is dominated by an existing golf course dominated by amenity grassland with scrub, woodland and scattered trees, bordered by woodland and treelines. The southern area of the site is dominated by a series of rough grassland fields with scattered trees and scrub and areas of broadleaved woodland. Buildings and hardstanding are scattered within the site.

1.3 The site is bordered to the north and south by residential development; to the east by a railway line beyond which is an industrial estate and residential area; and to the west by the A41 dual carriageway beyond which is arable fields and woodland. In the centre of the site, but not included within the site boundary, is the Shendish Manor Hotel with associated landscape planting and car parking.

1.4 A 31.23ha area in the east of the site is being promoted for inclusion within the local plan for the provision of residential development. The location and boundary of the site and the proposed allocation area are shown in Appendices A and B.

1.5 The aims of the study are: i. To assess the likely nature conservation importance of habitats within the site; ii. To assess the likely presence of protected species and Habitats and Species of Principal Importance identified under Section 41 of the 2006 NERC Act; iii. To identify any potential constraints to development due to the above; iv. To identify requirements for any additional ecological surveys in support of a planning application; and v. To identify measures to avoid and mitigate potential effects of development on identified features of ecological interest.

2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Desk Study 2.1.1 Existing ecological and nature conservation data relevant to the site was collated from various sources including the ‘Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside’ (MAGIC) online database (http://magic.defra.gov.uk) and Hertfordshire Environmental Records Centre (HERC). All relevant protected species records were obtained for an

Land at Shendish Ecology/Ecological Appraisal/Rev A/905.2/HS/November 2018 1