A HERITAGE STATEMENT Relating to BAWTRY HALL BAWTRY NR DONCASTER DN10 6 JH (OS GRID REFERENCE SK6506692876) Client MR J. COOPER

A HERITAGE STATEMENT

Relating to

BAWTRY HALL

BAWTRY

NR DONCASTER

DN10 6 JH

(OS GRID REFERENCE SK6506692876)

Client

MR J. COOPER

Prepared by

DAVID HORNSBY B.Sc., FRICS, BCAS

(RICS ACCREDITED BUILDING CONSERVATION SURVEYOR)

David Hornsby Chartered Surveyors & Historic Building Conservation Surveyors

39 Fore Hill Avenue Doncaster, DN4 7EU

01302 371723 & 07939200779

CONTENTS

1) INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 2) BAWTRY HALL AS IT EXISTS TODAY 3) THE PERIOD UP TO 1939 4) WORLD WAR II 5) THE COLD WAR 6) LIFE AFTER THE RAF 7) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAWTRY HALL & ASSOCIATED HERITAGE VALUES 8) FACTORS AFFECTING THE SIGNIFICANCE & SETTING OF BAWTRY HALL 9) THE IMPACT OF CURRENT PROPOSALS ON THE HERITAGE ASSET 10) CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1.1 This Heritage Statement has been prepared having regard to Paragraph No 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states;

“In determining applications, local authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage asset 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 proposals affecting heritage assets”

1.2 The task of preparing this heritage statement has not been an easy process and this reflects to a certain extent;

1) The complexity to the development of the property in the 18th and 19th centuries together with early 20th century alterations.

2) From the period of 1939 to 1986 the Hall was owned by the Government and throughout most of that period was an operational base for the RAF (RAF Bawtry Hall) and as such, was a place which was controlled within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act 1911 et seq.

3) Access to information relating to the military occupation, despite innovations with the Freedom to Information legislation, is somewhat limited and the public available information, relating to the buildings is fragmented amongst different Governmental & Agency organizations

4) A degree of uncertainty appears to exist with regard to the role which RAF Bawtry Hall played in the Cold War and also with regard to the Second World War there is a degree of confusion as to the significance of Command Building the remaining surviving RAF constructed buildings in the operation of the station as the Headquarters of No1 Group Bomber Command from 1941.

5) Archived information is fragmented and whilst visits have been made to the National Archives in Kew, Doncaster MBC and Sheffield City Archives further information may well be located in other scattered locations. However based upon the considerable research undertaken so far, it is possible to provide some detail relating to the historic development of the property up to 1939 when it was last used as a private house and then thereafter during the period of occupation by the RAF until the 1980’s.

1.3 In terms of good conservation practice having regard to guidance and policy documents such as English Heritage’s Conservation Principles the importance of understanding the significance of places is vital. In order to ascertain the significance of Bawtry Hall I have looked at the development of the property up to 1939 as a 3

private Estate, the period of military occupation(including early army use, RAF war time use and post war) and post military use after 1986. In terms of the RAF occupation it is important to make a distinction between the war time operation between 1941 and 1945 and the post war operations which continued until the property was sold by the property services agency in 1986 after being declared surplus to military requirements.

1.4 Post military use has created the need to make necessary changes and new challenges face the heritage asset. Essentially this is the prime reason which has given rise to the current application so that the asset can exist in beneficial use for the next stage of its life. Beneficial use, is of course vital, in order to maintain the fabric of the heritage asset so that the heritage values associated with the property from whatever period, can continue to be enjoyed by current and future generations. Within this statement I look at a number of heritage values which may be historic, architectural or even sensory/spiritual.

1.5 It is probably a fair observation to make that following the property being made surplus to military requirements little or no consideration was given to the impact that future residential development, particularly in the grounds of the Hall, would have on the heritage values associated with the Hall itself. Indeed, the political considerations at the time of disposal of redundant military property were directed towards the sale of land and property assets, in order to obtain a capital receipt ( in circumstances which didn’t always maximize the level of receipt to the public purse) rather than preserving, enhancing/refurbishing the heritage values associated with heritage assets. Whilst latterly in the further disposal of the grounds of the Hall for residential development, a development brief was prepared by the local planning authority in response to a rather detrimental proposed residential development within the grounds of the Hall, there was no consideration given towards directing some of the development value realized from the eventually approved housing development schemes, towards specific repairs and refurbishment of the Hall necessary to overcome adverse factors associated with setting. Within this analysis of the development of the Hall it can clearly be seen that the RAF development, particularly the Command Block, has caused significant harm to the pre 1939 part of the Hall and it is therefore disappointing that some of the proceeds from sale were not used to deal with these issues. The local planning authority had a difficult task with regard to the Central Government policy regarding the disposal of public assets and at the time there was no obligation for applicants to provide Heritage Statements. In the circumstances appertaining at the time the development brief was about the best that could be hoped for but essentially the development did cause substantial harm to the significance and setting of Bawtry Hall having regard to the research and study undertaken to prepare this statement.

1.6 It is unlikely that any significant research or reports relating to previous applications within the grounds have been undertaken which combine the various periods of the life of Hall covering the 18th century through to the current day. Regarding the RAF period extensive research has been undertaken to look at the workings of the chain of command which existed in Bomber Command particularly in relation to Group Headquarters of which Bawtry Hall was the headquarters of No 1 Group. Unfortunately the records which are publically available in the National Archives in Kew are mainly limited to operational logs which were prepared as returns to Group HQ for the Post War period. Nevertheless, these records have proved invaluable in terms of helping to understand how the RAF Station operated in post war years as the Group Headquarters serving a number of operational bomber stations. Some information (although limited) exists in the National Archives about service accommodation building projects undertaken in the 1950’s within the grounds of the Hall. Information relating to more technical buildings and operations are not available within the records which have been released to Kew. As a specialist in the survey of historic country houses, throughout the UK, I have encountered a large number of properties which were requisitioned in the War for military use and then returned to civilian use. Some interpretation is available from analysis of historic plans in relation to historic building analysis. In the case of Bawtry Hall there is rather unique cine film footage (https://archive.org/details/NIGHT-BOMBERS) provided by Air Commodore H.I. Cozens, CB,AFC, RAF: who was Station Commander, at the time, for RAF Hemswell (located between Gainsborough and Lincoln), one of the bomber stations within No 1 Group .Henry Cozens was also attached to No1 Group HQ at Bawtry Hall as Senior Air Staff Officer ( SASO) .The film was originally prepared to show to newly posted aircrew the extent of operation planning into mounting a raid. The film shows the preparations undertaken for a night bombing raid on Berlin and importantly the film shows footage of Bawtry Hall clearly illustrating and describing the role of Group HQ in the raid. The footage is particularly helpful in that it shows parts of the accommodation of Bawtry Hall clearly recognisable today. Probably the most important feature from the film is the footage of the Operation Room which was what I have described in the report as being the billiard room in the pre War use of the building. I provide strong evidence within my building analysis of the Hall to indicate that the billiard room was added in 1905. This would therefore provide strong evidence to indicate that the remaining RAF building incorporating the Command Block was constructed post 1945 even though the large display board in the room currently on display, relates to the Order of Battle for 3 March 1943. Examination of the ordnance Survey plans in the late 1940’s would tend to support the evidence from the film that the current Command Block is post war and probably dates back to the 1950’s.

1.7 In terms of the Cold War activity at Bawtry Hall regard has to be given to a number of background factors in order to interpret the fragmented information that exits. Such interpretation also reflects on the operational requirements on the buildings at RAF Bawtry Hall in this period. Relevant background matters include

1) The nuclear deterrent was transferred from the RAF to the Royal Navy in 1968 with the Polaris submarine missile system. This had an impact on the number of RAF stations in active use and RAF Hemswell was one of numerous Bomber Command Stations which were effectively put into mothball mode, or reduced use, prior to later disposal in the 1980’s. A number of other bomber stations such as RAF Driffield and RAF Leconfield in the East Riding transferred from RAF use to Army use with the RAF accommodation more modern and comfortable than older constructed army barracks. Within No 1 Group Bomber Command, examination of the fragmented operational logs indicate that service personnel numbers located at Group HQ declined in the late 1960’s and logs for the 1970’s show further considerable reductions in number of service personnel located at Bawtry Hall.

2) Post war the UK operated within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) with its headquarters located in Naples and thus unlike World War 2 the chain of command was more complicated with the RAF being a link in a wider multinational chain of command.

3) Up until the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 the RAF along with the United States operated a number of stations in Western Germany and therefore operational tactics were somewhat different from the Second World War. Operational logs for Bawtry Hall and the stations under its command revealed a large number of NATO operations and exercises taking place in and over mainland Europe. Similarly during the late 1970’s I’m personally aware of Nato exercises involving land forces taking place in mainland Europe simulating a number of situations involving nuclear and conventional attacks on NATO Countries and this involved combined forces. Such exercises are detailed in the operational logs collated by RAF Bawtry Hall together with escort duties where Russian planes were detected in NATO airspace. Therefore the level of decision making, planning and preparation of these operations actually undertaken at Group level of bomber Command or Strike Force HQ (as it later became known as) was very limited. Again this is reflected in the operational logs for Bawtry Hall and in particular having regard to the annual personnel numbers returns made by the Air Officer Commanding (AOC). Bomber Command was eventually reorganized into Strike Force reflecting changing circumstances in operating the Cold war within the multinational setting and also likely to reflect

changes in military technology. Relating this to RAF Bawtry Hall, the military significance of the station appears to have been steadily diminishing from 1968 through to the early 1980’s when the station was surplus to the requirements of the RAF.

1.8 The level of research undertaken to prepare this Statement of Significance has been extensive particularly in relation to the military use. Fortunately there are many specialist reference books relating to the operation and architecture of military bases and airfields as well as active internet sites. Also English Heritage (now Historic England), since circa 2000 has undertaken much research into military sites. A full list of references which have been used in order to prepare this document is given in appendix no 1.

2 BAWTRY HALL AS IT EXISTS TODAY

2.1 Bawtry Hall is a” Designated Heritage Asset” being a Grade 2* listed building. The property was first listed in January 1988 when it reverted back to private ownership after being sold in June 1987.

2.2 The listing description of the property is as follows:

Large house unoccupied at time of resurvey (1987). 1785 for Pemberton Milnes; addition of c1905 for H. E. Peate; later C20 additions (not of special interest). Red brick in Flemish bond, slate roof. 2 storeys and attic; 1:5:1-bay entrance front with 3:2:3-bay garden front on left return; wing to rear-right (extended c1905) incorporates a water tower. Entrance front: recessed centre with panelled double door and 4-pane overlight in a tetrastyle Tuscan porch with pilasters and pedimented entablature. Other bays have plinth and sill band to sashes with glazing bars beneath rubbed- brick flat arches; end bay on right has three, tall, unequally-hung 15-pane sashes of later date. 1st floor: band and sill band with balustraded aprons to sashes as ground floor; the central window set in a round-arched recess rising from the porch. Modillioned cornice beneath cement-rendered and coped parapet; central 3-bay pediment rises from fluted blocks. Hipped roof with 3 brick ridge stacks and dentilled brick end stack on right. Left return: central margin-glazed French window flanked by pilasters and side-lights with glazing bars set beneath a tetrastyle, concrete portico with pediment and glazed roof. Other details as front, the outer bays being canted 2-storey projections; ground-floor sashes have metal glazing bars. Set back on left of garden front, and obscured by the later C20 additions, is the rear wing extended c1905; it has 2 gables with dentilled wooden cornices and mansard roof; to its rear is the water tower with raised brickwork quoins and keyed oeil-de-beouf beneath cornice and parapet. Interior: entrance hall has Ionic-columned screen with archivolted doorway through to stair-hall on left; other corniced doorcases; side-wall fireplace with Neo-classical, cast-iron fireback in marble surround with coloured insets and urns and stags on frieze; husk-garland ceiling decoration. Adjacent dining room: fielded-panel dado; 6-panel doors in enriched, pedimented doorcases; iron fire basket in eared architrave with oak-leaf frieze and cornice, architraved overmantel with pediment (painting removed);

panelled ceiling with acanthus centre feature and husk garlands framed by bold bay-leaf-enriched ribs. Stairhall: cantilevered stone staircase with ramped and wreathed handrail to wave-form iron balustrade; ceiling frieze with vases and anthemion motifs, garlanded ceiling decoration. Ground-floor room on left of garden front: excellent fireplace with twin, fluted columns and entablature decorated with trophies and marble frieze inlaid with Wedgewood panels, grey and white marble inner surround to brass fire basket; rest of room has fielded-panel dado and fret-pattern dado rail beneath wall panels; enriched ribs to ceiling panels with delicate design of husk- garlands; Ionic-columned screen at one end leads to later room decorated in some style. Entrance hall off garden front has corniced doorcase with tilted-vase decoration. Ground-floor room on right of garden front has columned fireplace and Vitruvian-scrolled frieze. lst-floor room on left of garden front: wooden fireplace with garlands and panel with cherubs. Room on right has fireplace with florets and fret design around architrave. Adjacent room on entrance front has iron fire basket in Neo-classical surround. Bawtry Hall, Doncaster Museums and Arts Service Publication, No 52. Bawtry WEA, 'New Light on Old Bawtry', South Yorkshire Historian, Supplement 3, 1978 p2.

Listing NGR: SK6506492873

2.3 The main part of the house thought to be constructed in 1785 by William Lindley is essentially 2 ranges forming an “L” shape footprint with the main elevation facing the double gates which are located opposite the T junction with the A638 High Street/ South Parade with its junction with the A631 Gainsborough Road. These elevations are seen in figures 1 & 2 which can be found below.

2.4 To the left of the main south elevation is a single storey extension to the Drawing Room and this was added as an extension to the main house circa early 19th century. Immediately behind this room is a former billiard room which was added in 1905. Evidence from the film footage Night Bomber indicates that this room was the operations room of No 1 Group Bomber Command in the winter of 1943- 4.

2.5 Further to the left of the added conservatory is a two storey building which was constructed circa 1950’s to accommodate the RAF Command Room with first floor accommodation above. The Command Block is essentially a reinforced concrete structure with brick constructed south facing and end elevation walls. A further

single storey addition was added circa 1960’s in front of the Command room and this detail can be seen in Figure No 14

2.6 The main service wing to the hall is to the north of the Command Block with the wing having an east- west axis. This service wing was extended further towards the west possibly in the first part of the 19th century to include a school room and day and night nurseries at first floor level above ground floor service accommodation. However the layout of this accommodation appears to have been altered after 1905 when the last private residential owner of the property acquired. The south facing elevation incorporates 2 gables with second floor accommodation and the remainder of the south facing roof elevation has a gambrel style which is likely to have been a later addition or modification to increase the amount of service accommodation after Maj. Peake acquired in 1905.

2.7 There is a further range extending from the north east side of the house and this provides the side of an outer courtyard with a north facing limb having been used previously as stables, boxes, coal house and dairy. The north facing elevation of the main east west service wing forms the southern limb of the outer courtyard with further outbuildings in a western limb. The north facing elevation of the main service wing was adapted to include a water tower and this appears to have been added by Maj. Peake. Figures 7 -8, 39 -41 show copies of floor layouts for the Hall prepared circa 1905 for Maj. Peake gives some indication of some of the alterations which were undertaken at that time but also the plans include some proposals which appear not to have been implemented. Nevertheless the plans are a useful point of reference.

2.8 To the west of the northern courtyard are the remains of early 20th century stables and coach houses which have been extended and modified by the RAF together with a former RAF hut which has been substantially refurbished by the previous owners of the property and any significance attached to RAF architecture or specification has been lost in this refurbishment.

2.9 These details of the property described in this section can be seen in the figures and commentary which appear below. The figures and commentary are intended to be more than a description of the buildings that are present on site and some indication of the historic development of the Hall. However more detailed analysis of specific periods in the life of the property are provided in sections 3 -6 of this report.

Figure 1

This is the main front entrance to the property facing east with access directly onto South Parade High St /Gainsborough Road junctions through the double gates

The right hand projection has undergone a degree of alteration with 3 larger windows added at ground level. 2 side windows have been blocked (on the side elevation to the right out of shot of the photograph) presumably to accommodate the larger additional windows. Prior to Major Peake acquiring the property the right hand side room according to the description on the 1904 auction details was the billiard room which is perhaps an odd location for such a room, as these were usually located more discreetly away from the main entrance. To the left of the main entrance was the library and the left hand side ground floor room was the dining room prior to Peake’s ownership. In a lease dated 1879 the dining room, the entrance hall, the billiard room and the side projection now forming the side entrance to the right hand side rear (but was in 1879 described as a study) was referred to as the New Hall whereas the Old Hall was described as the service wing.

This is the south facing elevation overlooking the formal garden and with the east facing range at right angles to the right of the photograph. The main house is therefore “L” shaped in footprint and whilst this type of layout was not unusual the property is mainly single pile, or one room deep. This is perhaps more unusual for a property of this type but could suggest that the construction was an extension or remodeling to an earlier structure. A conservatory was added at a later date (possibly mid 19th century) attached to the left of the south facing range.

The rooms on this side of the property are of a larger proportion to the east facing range but the bays are clearly provided to obtain the benefit of the sunlight.

Figure 3

This shows the 1854 layout of the property and whilst the plan is somewhat blurred it does show the basic outline of the north range and the service wing in the middle. It also shows that the conservatory attached to the drawing room on the south elevation to the left is only one room deep

Figure 4

This is the plan which accompanied the auction sale details when the property was marketed in 1904 eventually sold to Major Peake after the auction process. It is probably the case that the tower was added later and by Peake

Just below the top limb in the left hand side corner are external stairs leading to male service bedrooms above the stables. On the right hand side of the limb were the maids’ bedrooms and thus it was important to physically separate male and female servants sleeping accommodation This detail can be seen on the more detailed layout plan.

Figure 5

This is a further plan attached to the 1904 Auction details indicating the pleasure grounds and formal garden to the rear and fish pond further south.

By the late 1920’s field parcel no 255 had gained a cricket pitch and pavilion as indicated on drawings in the DMBC Archive Department prepared by J Simmons & Sons Civil Engineers and Architects showing a plan of the area around the house for water supply pipes. The cricket pitch appears from various drawings in the National Archives to have been retained as sports pitches by the RAF during their occupation of the Hall.

Figure 6

This plan is circa 1902 showing the outline of the hall and the service wing together with the northern limb beyond the open yard area. There was no access onto South Parade and thus main access was either from the north or south lodges. The main access would have been from the South Lodge. The belt of trees on the east boundary still exists today to provide good levels of screening from public view.

Figure 7

This plan is thought to have been drawn for Major Peake after his purchase of the property in 1905 and possible shows proposed alterations which were planned The left hand side limb of the range has a racquet court which was never constructed. Alterations have been made to the internal layout of the service accommodation and the external entrance arch to the kitchen yard has been moved to the northern limb where it is present today. It is likely that amendments were made to this plan as a boiler yard, stables and coach house were later constructed by Peake to the left of the proposed racquet courts in a L shape and the outline of this building can be seen on a later plan prepared by J Simmons and Sons with the structure certainly modified by the RAF for their use.

Internally alterations to the main service accommodation have taken place as this is different from the sales particulars for the 1904 auction. It looks as though the business room together with the strong room has been created out of service accommodation. The Butlers bedroom in the auction details was described as being adjacent to the butler’s pantry but in this layout the bedroom has been moved to the west end of the corridor.

The scullery to the north of the kitchen is no longer present and has been demolished. On this drawing the water tower has been added.

Figure 8

This are layout drawings prepared for Maj. Peake around 1905 the main house ground floor with just a single depth conservatory. The shape of the house is “ L” shaped and the service wing from Figure No 7 can be seen to the north. This Figure showing the layout is just an extension of the previous Figure as it was taken from the same drawing. The whole accommodation is virtually a single pile deep (i.e. one room deep) Alterations have taken place to the east facing range and the green lines represent where rolled steel joists have been provided. The library seen here was originally the dining room and the morning room according to the auction particulars was the library. The room marked as dining room was originally the billiard room according to the auction details. The layout is unusual with the stairs forming what appears to have been an outshot and the inner hall and outer hall arrangement appears to be somewhat contrived. In a lease dated 1879 the whole of the accommodation shown on this plan from the library through to the dining room and side entrance beyond, is referred to as the “New Hall” whereas the service accommodation is referred to as the “Old Hall” This provides the clearest indication to suggest that the 1785 construction may have involved some remodeling of an earlier building. In the entrance hall there is some prospect that alterations have already been made to open out the area with internal walls having been removed. The presence of rolled steel joists indicated by the green lines on the drawing suggests that the layout has been changed.

Figure 9

This shows the layout in 1929 just 10 years prior to the property being requisitioned by the military although the survey details are likely to have been collated some years earlier. The conservatory now has a rear addition which according to a plan prepared by J Simmons and Son, located in the Doncaster MBC Archives was constructed as a billiard room which appears to be connected to the inner hall.

The racquet court proposal has been abandoned and the stables and coach house have been erected to the left of the left hand side limb of the kitchen yard area. The south facing part of the stables included an open boiler yard according to the drawing by Simmons and Son and thus in later years this building has been heavily modified

In front of the south facing wall of the main service wing is the garden room to the left together with what appears to be a screening hedge which can be seen in greater detail in the historic aerial photograph included in Fig 10 below.

Figure 10

This photograph was taken circa 1925 and shows the conservatory now with the billiard room added to the rear. The billiard room was used as the operations room by the RAF from 1941 -45. The main service wing was extended to the left possibly in the mid 19th century at which time the two gabled fronts in this elevation was provided to give limited 2nd floor accommodation in just the gabled fronted projections. It is likely that the roof spaces on either side of the gable projections in the front elevation of the service wing were converted by Peake in order to provide additional service accommodation following reorganization of the first floor accommodation. The gambrel roof was therefore more than likely part of Peake’s modifications to the property which also are likely to have included the water tower.

The stables and coach house built sometime after 1905 can be seen to the left of the west limb of the northern service area.

The photograph gives some indication where the Command Block was constructed in post war years and the impact that it has had on the setting of the Hall.

From the point of view of camouflage of the portable war constructed buildings in the grounds, the Hall and parkland provided excellent cover from the Luftwaffe.

Figure 11

This shows the 1948 layout of the RAF station post war and the important point to note is that there is no Command Block to the left of the conservatory at this time. Group HQ buildings during the war, were in the main country houses such as Bawtry Hall and generally few alterations were undertaken to the fabric of the main houses but it was common for numerous huts of various standard and types, depending on purpose /function to be erected and scattered around the grounds. These huts would have been quickly erected in the war, usually prefabricated, but where main walls were of brick, external brick piers would have been added for strength. The RAF operation is likely to have included Hall Farm buildings and the large buildings fronting Tickhill Road. One of the functions undertaken at Group headquarters was the maintenance of motorised transport and it is probable that the large building fronting Tickhill Road would have been ideally suited for this purpose. The siting of the huts within the grounds would have benefitted from tree coverage to give some protection against being spotted by enemy reconnaissance and opportunist bombing. Tree cover was noted to be an important consideration in the location of Bomber command HQ in High Wycombe and thus the grounds of country houses were ideal for the location of dispersed huts of Group HQ sites. The garden room attached to the south elevation of the service wing is still present and this illustrates the minimum amount of disturbance and alteration by the RAF to the main historic house which is in keeping with military occupation of many country houses in the Second World War

Figure 12

This shows the RAF base in 1962 with the Command Block now constructed although the front addition to the south elevation is not present at this time. Many of the dispersed huts which were seen scattered around the grounds in the 1948 layout have largely been replaced with permanent substantial structures. The large odd shaped building between the Tennis Courts and the wording Menagerie Wood were the main service buildings of the station housing canteen, shops medical services etc whilst technical and other operational buildings are still scattered around the grounds. Interestingly the tennis courts are those which were present in Peake’s ownership and the cricket ground in Peake’s ownership was roughly in the same position as the sports ground seen here. Sport and recreation was considered important and during the early stages of RAF Bircotes, when the threat of invasion was at its height, files at the National Archives indicate that considerable effort was made to secure additional land for football pitches outside the operational boundaries of the station. At Bawtry Hall, Group had these facilities onsite and clearly these were enhanced and were very much in use during the RAF ownership.

Group HQ in 1961 according to returns completed by Group and returned to Bomber Command HQ, had a compliment of approximately 50 Officers, 152 Airmen and 115 civilian staff. In essence the Hall and its grounds provided self contained accommodation for what was a reasonably sized village

The long building just to the south of the central building block is living accommodation. The aerial farm was located to the north of the lettering referring to Menagerie Wood. A distinctive estate road pattern had been created by the RAF in post war operation of the station. Sadly this has been lost to the various residential developments which took place after 1988.

Figure 13

The film footage in Night Fighters and reference to the 1948 layout plan clearly shows that the Command Block and associated accommodation were constructed post 1948. The RAF post war designers have attempted to make some interpretation of the design of the Command Room and the later building in order to compliment the parapet of the main house and capping and banding on the conservatory. The complimentary attention to detail extends to the stone plinth at the foot of the extension wall to match that of the main house and the conservatory. This level of detail would not have been undertaken in war time construction as there was a need to build functional buildings, with no frills, as quickly as possible. No attention would have been given to the appearance of the building and the need to blend in with adjoining buildings. The paired sash windows at first floor was a typical feature of military architecture providing further flexibility to sub divide the accommodation again, if necessary, with minimum cost. Internal inspections of the first floor rooms in this block demonstrate the flexibility to change room sizes, if and when required

The down pipe described in Figure No 11 can be seen in the corner between the conservatory and the Command Block.

Figure 14

This is the rain hopper and down pipe with Peake’s initials and 1905 inscripted. The “9” and “5” can be seen to the right and “1” and” 0” is to the left and make up the date 1905. It is a safe assumption to assume that the billiard room which was later to become the operations Room for No 1 Group Bomber Command in 1941 was added in 1905 at the start of Peake’s ownership. The Billiard room is clearly marked on a plan held in the DMBC Archives

Figure 15

Although the Command Block is a substantial building comprising of reinforced concrete roof beams, the construction is not of a type that would have withstood a nuclear attack. Such nuclear command bunkers tended to be below ground level and the floor level of the command room is less than 1 metre below the external ground level. The end walls of the block are constructed in normal cavity brick construction and there is no evidence that bomb proof doors existed. It is therefore important to understand that the Command Room /block would have been totally ineffective in the event of either a nuclear or conventional bomb attack on the base. It is therefore important to acknowledge that this post war construction is unlikely to have played a vital role in Cold War strategy other than the administrative role which the Station had with regard to No1 Group Bomber Command after the war and thereafter as part of Strike Force. An important point to note is that RAF operations at Bawtry Hall had been scaled down considerably after 1968, long before the Cold War came to an end in 1989. This is verified by the annual returns of personnel at the base in August 1980. At that time there was Company of only 4 Officers 95 Airmen and civilian staff of 40 full time and 19 part time. Indeed the property was sold in 1986 which was well before the end of the Cold War. Clearly the functions carried out by the RAF were in decline and thus much of the accommodation, including the Command Block are likely to have been under-utilised after 1968.

Figure 16

The Command Block is not too dissimilar to Command Block which were constructed on operational bomber stations after 1941. The smaller building to the left is the boiler house and A/C plant with the intention that the block could work independently of other parts of the Station. However, there are fundamental differences with Command Blocks which were built on operational bomber stations. The most noticeable difference is the thickness of the end walls being standard 11” cavity construction and no blast proof doors. The very left part of the double storey part is a stairs area built in conventional 11” cavity wall construction but also the end wall of the command room dividing it from this communicating area is also of similar construction specification. The command room area is arranged in 7 bays which are separated by reinforced concrete roof beams which are likely to be supported by reinforced concrete piers in the side walls. The 7 windows at first floor level (excluding the 2 windows above the conservatory being in the communicating corridor) form the 7 bays of the command room /block.

War- time constructed Command blocks located on operational bomber stations, there would have been no windows in the upper part or indeed on the end elevation.

It therefore appears that the Command Block was constructed with the intention of not having to face conventional bombing attacks but at the same time was well short of being able to withstand a nuclear attack and it is perhaps this deficiency which resulted in the steady demise of RAF Bawtry Hall long before the end of the Cold War. It is a matter of conjecture as to why the Command Block was constructed to a limited specification unable to withstand a nuclear attack. The reasons are likely to be financial constraints technical problems with ground conditions or simply in operational terms, the building and its operation would have been deemed to have been expendable in the event of a nuclear attack. This would suggest that there would have been other buildings of more strategic significance in the chain of command

Figure 17

This shows the end part of the block in greater detail. Access to the command room was down a short flight of stairs through the double glazed doors but the lower level of the floor area of the command room would not have been sufficient to survive a nuclear attack

Figure 18

This shows the rear of the main house with the stairs located in the outshot with the 3 windows in Venetian style. The hopper to the left of the stairs again bears Peake’s initials and dated 1905. It is likely that Peake made amendments to the parapet in 1905 and also rearranging the room referred to as the flower room in the layout plans circa 1905 since this has been extended slightly hence the sloping roof going down to an almost flat roof in the extended part. Based on the 1905 layout, it is likely that the Flower room would have had glass side walls or panels and possible a glass roof.

The billiard room roof and roof light can be seen to the right with the flat roof area with water standing is an extension which the RAF has made thereby almost enclosing the courtyard at this point.

The RAF is unlikely to have made vast changes to the main house accommodation certainly in the war years. The walkway above the billiard room was added after the war. Where the toilets are located above the billiard room footage from night bombers indicate that there was a fireplace below and hence there would have been a chimney in front of the Venetian stairs window.

Figure 19

This shows the roof of the billiard room in greater detail and the weather boarded walkway with toilets to the left projection providing a connection between the main house and the command Room. The roof of the command building is flat and to the right of the photograph. The walkway was added post war at the same time as the command Block or slightly afterwards. Although the communicating corridor has lasted for a number of years its construction is temporary in nature and provides poor visual appearance from this angle, blocking out the view of the venetian stairs window which were originally intended to be an attractive feature of the main house and reflecting a degree of status to the house.

The raised roof-light of the billiard room can be seen in figure no 10 showing the aerial photograph of circa 1925 and illustrates how the RAF during the war undertook little alteration to the main house.

Figure 20

The brick walls of the billiard room ( to the left with the white peeling paint) are consistent with 1905 construction, whereas the Command Block is constructed in stretcher bonding. Again the end wall of the command block with the window is only standard 11” cavity construction. However the lower walls of the command room are constructed of reinforced concrete with a brick outer wall whilst the upper floor accommodation only has standard cavity wall construction. The command Room would therefore have reinforced concrete protection in all but the side walls. This may well have been part of the design of the building since in other RAF buildings on other sites I have seen buildings with various sizes and thickness of walls ( internal and external) to assist withstanding conventional bombing attack

This photograph gives some idea of the scale of the Command Block against the earlier parts of the house.

Figure 21

The stairs outshot for the main house (seen here to the right behind the white weather boarded construction) has a different type of brick to other parts of the rear of the property. I strongly suspect that when the house was reputed to have been constructed in 1785 it may well have incorporated part of an earlier construction although if this was the case there is no obvious physical indication other than in the style of the layout. The extended part to the right of the sloping roof above the former flower room is an addition taking part of the flower room to provide a WC at first floor level.

Figure 22

The parapet wall of the billiard room has been left intact with the command building constructed right up against the structure. This parapet can be seen in figure no 10 together with the roof light over the billiard room.

Figure 23

This shows the former flower room in greater detail and it is likely that glass panels would have existed in the wall where the sloping roof meets with the extended flat part

The window detail in the corner at first floor level in the stairs (secondary) area indicates that alteration has taken place possibly by Peake. It is likely that the gambrel type style roof was an amendment when the left hand side (west part) of the service range was amended as it is unlikely that the second floor accommodation extended to the gambrel roof areas and was originally confined to the 2 gables in this elevation. However, where the stairs window is located there is suggestion that this area may have been an infill area in which case the original wing may have been detached from the main house. The stairs window is out of place because it has rows of 4 glazing panels whereas the other windows have 3 rows. The floors in the landing are at odd heights relative to the main house and the roof line to provide the 2nd floor accommodation has effectively been raised with the gambrel style roof. The window detail in the gabled fronted part to the left gives every indication of the second floor being an extension possibly in the mid 19th century when the wing was extended to the west. The bricks above the window openings (voussoirs) are different for each floor level 2nd top floor being much deeper than the ground floor. The first floor windows have been altered but the size of windows is unusual and the openings relate to an earlier detail which appears to have been altered either by Peake or possibly earlier.

Figure 24

This is taken from standing on the flat roof of the AC and power plant to the Command Block shown in photograph no 20. The gap between the command building and the service wing to the left is very narrow

The lower part of the wall of the service wing has been stained with camouflage paint and this is very common for RAF wartime premises in order to confuse enemy aircraft. Most certainly this would again indicate that the Command block was not constructed in World War 2

The bay window serves the room which was previously the school room and would have had a good view and aspect overlooking the garden area before the command block was constructed. The canted bay would have been provided by Peake . The layout plan thought to have been prepared for Peake indicated rolled steel joists above the bay window supporting the brickwork above the opening but also there is rolled steel joists above the ceiling from front to rear suggesting that the layout of the rooms have been altered at some time to create larger rooms knocking through previous internal walls.

Figure 25

There is a window blocked up in the centre at ground floor level and this is where the butler’s bedroom was previously located with the window being blocked in order to provide Peake with the strong room. There is evidence of past historic movement above the left hand side first floor window which gives an impression of neglect along this elevation wall. In addition the narrow gap between the RAF flat roof extension and the main elevation of the service wing is in stark contrast to the visual aspect which previously existed seen in the aerial shot seen in Figure No 10 taken in circa 1925 looking out over neat manicured formal gardens and parkland beyond.

The size of the first floor windows does suggest that these related to an earlier structure which had been modified

Prior to Peak’s ownership the bedrooms with the first floor windows, seen here, were occupied as maid’s bedrooms since in the agreement dated 1903 for Baines, the last tenant of the property, before it was sold to Peake, he had contracted to provide a water closet in the lady’s maid bedroom immediately above the butler’s bedroom. It would appear that Peake’s plans involved making these 3 first floor bedrooms as additional visitor’s bedrooms with the bedrooms above being created as visiting maids bedrooms. Effectively by taking service accommodation for visitors bedrooms, Peake was increasing the number of bedrooms of the house and this illustrates the sporting / entertaining nature of the estate where house guests and entertaining were important features of the house.

Figure 26

The brickwork to the left is an extension which took place possibly before 1854. The connection between the service range and the RAF addition is a flimsy connection with temporary materials which again detracts from this inner courtyard area. In order to gain access from the service wing to the Command Block via the connecting area, the former butler’s pantry has been truncated, yet the former fireplace of the pantry can be seen in the created corridor link. This again detracts from the main house.

The voussoirs above the top window to the right are much deeper than on the first and ground floors and this would suggest that when the gables were added to provide 2nd floor accommodation these windows were made a greater feature than the ground floor windows which again is unusual but probably reflects a different period of construction than the lower windows. The 1st floor window details are likely to have been changed by Peake.

Figure 27

The flat roof of the command building has a relatively high parapet wall

Attempts have been made in the past to whitewash the upper side wall of the Command Block in order to improve the outlook from the windows of the former service block and generally, as can be seen, this has been largely unsuccessful. Again this adds to the poor overall appearance of the narrow yard and the aspect from the windows of the wing facing.

Figure 28

This shows the side wall of the command block and the peeling masonry paint is perhaps even less appealing than the stark brick in its natural colour.

Maintenance of the upper windows in the service wing is difficult because of poor access (because of the type of roof construction combined with the limited gap between the service range and the command block). The deterioration of the external woodwork has added to the neglected appearance of this courtyard

Figure 29

This gives some indication of the extent of the parapet wall above the drains hopper and perhaps there is some scope to reduce the height of the parapet wall in order to improve the outlook from the windows in the service wing and whilst this may offer some improvement the effect is likely to be limited

Figure 30

This is the view from the upstairs windows of the hall and the courtyard is unattractive in comparison to the setting indicated on the 1925 aerial photograph seen in figure No10.

The RAF connection building is adding to the rather poor setting and appearance of this area of the building which can be observed from the main part of the original house.

The blocked up window of the former butler’s bedroom can be seen at ground level.

Figure 31

The difference in brickwork is most apparent and would indicate the west part of this service wing is a later extension to the original service wing. The conclusions to be drawn from the plans are that the extension existed prior to 1854. The window detail in the gambrel roof shows a later period and I would strongly suggest that these windows were added by Peake and this roof style compliments the roof structure further to the right (out of shot) above the business room of the old layout behind the main Hall range.

Figure 32

This crest can be seen in the previous photograph in the left hand side gable projection in the front elevation of the service wing which can be seen above the command building. The school room, and day and night nurseries in this part of the building were described in the 1904 sale particulars for the auction and thus predates Peake’s ownership and as indicated in the previous photograph existed prior to 1854

It may be possible to undertake further research regarding the coat of arms to reveal more about the likely date of construction of this extension to the main service range. The crest may have belonged to the Crewe Family but also it was very common for tenants to make large scale alterations to properties and thus the erection of the extension by one of the tenants should not be entirely ruled out.

Figure 33

The roof light above the billiard room is a survivor of the pre RAF days (see Figure No 10) and indeed this would have been a useful feature in the use of the former billiard room by the RAF as the Operations room throughout the Second World War. This is clearly show in the cine film footage Night fighters.

Figure 34

This is the rather poor environment that exists between the former Command Block and the service wing. Dampness exists on the wall of the service wing but the provision of the cement skirt is likely to exacerbate the problem. Note the green algae on what is a south facing wall and this gives some indication of the problems associated with maintaining this part of the structure given the difficult conditions with the Command Block being constructed so close

The building in the background of the gap is a former RAF hut which has been extensively refurbished by the previous owners. The arched window to the right is likely to have been added by Peake in his scheme of reorganisation

The second window in at ground level from the end of the range was where the butler’s bedroom had been relocated by Peake with the end ground floor window into what was the footman’s bedroom. The end window was probably added much later addition because there was a garden room on the end of the range with steps up from the garden and was clearly intended to be used by family or guests and thus there would not have been a window into the front elevation

Figure 35

This is around the corner of the end of the service wing as seen in the previous photograph with the RAF hut to the left. Again the environment of this area is very poor and the former RAF hut has a negative impact on the house.

Figure 36

The raised concrete area is causing a damp issue to the end of the service range and the eroded brickwork is entirely as a result of the concrete area increasing the level of dampness retained in the fabric of the wall

Figure 37

This is the area between the old air conditioning and power plant of the Command Block seen on the left and the former RAF hut to the right. The gap between these buildings is even narrower than seen in the earlier photographs between the command building and the former service wing. The refurbished RAF hut is likely to have less significance than the Command Block and some improvement to the overall setting could be achieved by the removal of the former hut in time.

Figure 38

The door leads to other former RAF buildings and generally these are in rather poor condition detracting from the appearance of the service wing to the hall

This is the west elevation of the service wing and the voussoir above the blocked up window which previously served the footmen’s bedroom are similar to those on the second floor in the gabled parts of the south elevation and this would strongly indicate that the gable in Figure No 29 was provided at the same time as extension to the wing. The window that is blocked up provided light into the footmen’s bedroom because there would have been no window in the south elevation where the garden room was locat

Figure 39

This layout is circa 1905 showing the first floor accommodation of the main hall and main service wing. The tower clearly is present at this time

Figure 40

This is again the first floor including the northern range, central service wing and the main part of the house from the layouts provided circa 1905. Note the division walls in the north service limb separating male and female service quarters

Figure 41

This shows the second floor accommodation of the service wing, 3rd and 4th levels of the tower together with basements. The second floor accommodation according to the auction details in 1904 indicated fewer rooms than currently present and I’m of the view Peak remodeled the roof to provide additional bedroom accommodation with a south facing frontage. The auction details of 1904 refers to only 3 servant’s bedrooms on the second floor and this points to Peake converting the roof space to additional accommodation and providing the gambrel roof

3 THE PERIOD UP TO 1939

3.1 In a lease dated 1879 there is reference to repairing responsibilities relating to the ‘’New Hall and to the ‘Old Hall’. The latter appears to relate to the service wing, but unlike modern lease terms, the wording is not too precise and a degree of interpretation is required. The building as it developed up to 1939 suggests that the building evolved rather than it was constructed from a single design plan by Lindley as is perhaps suggested in other historic detail relating to the house including the listing description

3.2 The house layout and the alignment of the accommodation with the east west axis for the service wing is unusual and the following points should be taken into account in any historic building analysis;

a) Whilst the main house may well date back to 1785 and indeed the general external appearance of the two main ranges forming the L shape footprint would suggest this, there is some possibility that the house may have been constructed taking into account an earlier structure and further research could be undertaken to establish this although the findings of any further research should not cause any concern regarding the outcome of the current application. There nevertheless needs to be some recognition of future opportunities which may present opportunities to reveal more about the historic development of the house shed more light on this possibility

b) The two main ranges combined have very limited depth; little more than a single room depth albeit reasonably large rooms, this has been a limiting factor in the historic development of the house. Also I suspect that the current layout was restricted because of other constraints at the time of Pemberton’s build in 1785

c) The main service wing has been extended and the extension incorporates a school room, day and night nurseries above further service accommodation facing south with the windows overlooking the formal gardens and pleasure grounds. This is most unusual even though the main service wing is set back from the front south facing range forming the main accommodation in the L shape. Again this would suggest that there were possibly constraints in the manner how the Hall could be developed .

52 d) In terms of ownership of the Hall, after the original owner Pemberton had died in 1795, it passed to his daughter who became through marriage, the 4th Viscountess of Galway and the Hall was used as a second home (Serlby Hall was the principal house) until the death of her husband when she reverted back to live at Bawtry Hall until her death in 1835. After this date, the property appears to have transferred through marriage several times before vesting in the estate of the Earl of Crewe who sold the property and also a considerable part of the commercial buildings in Bawtry, including the Crown hotel. Major George Peake purchased the Hall which according to the auction details(1904) was described as a” Charming Residential & Sporting property amounting to 651 acres 3 rods and 29 perches”. The sale included, “2 lodge entrances, the mansion, extensive range of domestic offices, the stables, beautifully timbered pleasure grounds of park like character and laid out with good lawns, extensive sequestered walks, large fish pond of over 4 acres with boat house.” Also with the sale was Hall Farm and outbuildings which were let to a Mr. J Cameron plus other farms and tenanted land. e) Within the 1904 sale details the reference to “Sporting and Residential property” is particularly revealing and is indicative of a secondary house/estate which had the primary function of being a sporting estate. This is reinforced by the fact that Hall Farm was let, rather than being farmed in hand. Clearly hunting, shooting and fishing would be the main preoccupation with the grounds being attractive to visiting ladies but also the house would be in use for Doncaster, or possibly even, York races. Research particularly relating to records held at Sheffield Archives shows in the latter part of the 19th century the Hall was let to a variety of tenants but what is not known is whether the tenants used the Hall as their main house or it was a second House used for its sporting estate. I suspect that the tenancies over the years were a mixture of both. It was fashionable for people living and working in London to have a Country estate whereby they could entertain their guests very differently from in London and Estates such as Bawtry Hall were ideal for this purpose particularly if there was limited interest in minor members of the family occupying. The owning families would be open minded as to whether the farming element of the estate was let with the house or simply just the rights to shoot, hunt and fish on the land were granted with the farming element on the land retained by the estate owner. However it was usually just the rights to shoot hunt and fish which were granted with the tenancy or lease of the house and this would be the most cost effective way of letting the house often fully furnished and the tenant being responsible for paying game keepers to maintain the shoot. f) In undertaking historic analysis of any country house or estate it is important to understand the economic background particularly in the second part of the 19th century since this was a defining period and explains some of the issues which faced

53 most if not all country estates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Consistently up to circa 1875 Farming enjoyed unprecedented growth with crop yields increasing and prices relatively high. Against this backcloth, landowners of secondary estates had the best of all worlds, if they retained the farming land but let out the shooting rights , in particular, with the house. This all changed circa 1875 when the corn crop had failed in the UK for 4 successive years bringing about an abrupt end to what had been previously described as the “Golden Years” of agriculture, particularly in the eastern region of the country (including what is now South Yorkshire / North Nottinghamshire) which was suited to arable farming and growing primarily corn. Unfortunately those years of failure coincided with technological advances in corn and frozen meat transportation from the New World and methods of farming in the Uk never recovered to previous levels because of falling prices from the imported products. Throughout the latter years of the 19th century and well into the early part of the 20th century farms were failing in large numbers. Farmers were unable to sell their produce and therefore were unable to pay rent and thus the deep economic slump hit freehold farmers, tenant farmers and investor owners including the large country house estates alike. The large farms became unsustainable and with this came the end in the way of life of the large estate owners and the luxury of second houses or secondary sporting estates were no longer possible. Estates and farming had to be reorganized either on the basis of larger farming operations whereby economy of scale from the operation could be realized, or much smaller operating units created which could be farmed with lower overheads, usually with less labour costs. As part of this reorganization many estates were divided and sold and there was some demand for good quality estates which had been reorganized into more profitable units but generally demand was from very hardened individuals, or from professional city based investors. The period covering the late years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century were very clearly turbulent years in the farming world and a very good account of this can be found in “ Farming in Lincolnshire 1850-1945 Studies in the History of Lincolnshire” by Dr Jonathon Brown and whilst this relates specifically to Lincolnshire, my research throughout the Country in relation to the survey of historic country houses / estates and farms would suggest that the experiences in Lincolnshire at that time were equally true in any predominantly arable farming area east of a line drawn from the Tyne in the north to the Solent in the south. Some of the larger estate owners had to sell outlying estates in order that the proceeds could be used in order to bring stability to the main estate lands and properties and this is likely to be the case concerning the sale of the Bawtry Hall Estate. The 1904 auction catalogue indicated that in addition to the sale of the Estate, the Crewe family was selling their interest in many of the commercial and residential properties in and around Bawtry. This situation was being repeated throughout the Eastern region of the country with estates being sold off. In the case of Bawtry Hall there are records in the Sheffield archives to show that

the Hall had been the subject of a number of leases towards the end of the 19th century. The lack of interest generally for new tenants and possibly a need for the Crewe Family to consolidate their main estates are likely to be the reason for the sale of the Hall and other interests in Bawtry g) An interesting feature about Major Peake is that he bought the Bawtry Hall Estate in 1905 after it had initially failed to sell at auction and this probably is indicative of the hard times facing such estates and farming generally. It is understood that Peake lived in the Hall and therefore rather than being an investor he probably took the land in hand and farmed it himself or possibly reorganized the holdings into more profitable units. He also acquired at this time the Austerfield Estate which comprised of over 1,500 acres of land. Most certainly the estate would have had to change from being just a sporting estate, which at the time would have been regarded as an extravagant luxury. It can be seen that alterations were made to the buildings after 1904 to include additions such as the billiard room and the erection of new stables and coach house. The Hall’s main attraction was its sporting rights and this is something that Peake is likely to have expanded. Service bedrooms at first floor level in the service wing appear after 1905 to have been converted into additional guest accommodation and service bedrooms at second floor were designated for use by visiting maids. Larger service accommodation would be required to accommodate guests at shooting parties and entertaining. h) Peake is known to have owned the Austerfield Estate and it is likely that for a period of time he may have been able to run this combined considerable agricultural holding in a profitable manner taking the opportunity to benefit from radical reorganization after 1904 which would have been necessary in order to survive the turbulent times in agriculture. The First World War brought about a sudden turn for the better for farming as the war brought the need for efficient methods of farming to feed the country and also the fighting troops in Europe. However, in the 1920’s and 1930’s the industry was faced with a return to a deep slump. It was a period when many farmers went to the wall. It is understood from looking at records in the Doncaster & Sheffield Archives Departments that Peake managed to sell in 1925 the Austerfield Estate which amounted to over 1,500 acres of farm land. The circumstances of the sale are not known, but again against a backcloth of dire economic performance of the agricultural sector, one can only speculate that the sale was to a certain extent forced, but Peake who would have been in his mid 60’s at that time. Whether this gave the ability for Peake to maintain the Bawtry Estate for a longer period is again a matter of speculation because Peake appeared to be a very wealthy individual. i) Many estates and country Houses by 1939 had limped along whilst other sectors of the economy, up until the period of rearmament in anticipation of World War 2, had

experienced a period of relative prosperity on the back of a consumer demand based bubble. For those estates that were able to benefit from land sales for the booming housing developments of the 1930’s this brought in much needy injection of funds to maintain the historic fabric. Unfortunately for those houses which were not able to benefit in this way, by the end of the war in 1945 they had crumbled to such an extent that they had become vacant , derelict and were demolished. After the war it is incredible, but true, local authorities served demolition orders on what would be regarded today as heritage assets so that materials could be salvaged and used on other properties. This gradual deterioration in the condition of many country houses goes back to the problems referred to in 1875 and the decline continued well after the end of the Second World War for many country houses.

j) Whilst clearly for the purposes of this statement, the condition of Bawtry Hall in the late 1930’s is not known, the fabric of the property and Peake, for that matter, would not have been immune to the problems facing agriculture and farming generally resulting in less income returns to be available to spend on upgrading the estate, farming methods and the house. In other words estates such as Bawtry Hall were increasingly becoming less sustainable. Other factors such as social issues contributed to the decline of some houses as it became increasingly difficult to retain service staff with competition and better wages being offered from manufacturing in the nearby industrial towns such as Doncaster and also Gainsborough which had large heavy engineering and manufacturing industries. On this basis it is highly unlikely that the landed estate belonging to Bawtry Hall would have been able to provide the income necessary to maintain the Hall as it existed in 1939 without the intervention of the Military ownership. It would only have been a matter of time before further major reorganization of the estate and Hall would have been necessary in the absence of World War 2 and the timely intervention of the military use.

3.3 The ownership of the Hall by Major Peake is an interesting period for the property. The likelihood is that the Hall would have been in a relatively poor condition when L J Baines, the last of a succession of tenants quit early in the 20th century. Major Peake carried out a number of improvements after purchase. There are various accounts of the extent of work that was carried out by Peake ranging from constructing the entire main service wing, constructing the extended part only to undertaking a remodeling of the wing. Hopefully with section 2 of this report with regard to the commentary under the various figures I have been able to indicate with a degree of certainty that it was the refurbishment and remodelling of the service wing that was undertaken by Peake rather than the construction of the wing or the extension. It is my strong belief that the accommodation in the gambrel roof

had been created by Peake’s scheme to supplement the gabled fronted parts of the south elevation which already had limited second floor service bedroom accommodation. Peake was also responsible for the construction of the billiard room attached to the conservatory and it is this room which became the Operations Room for No 1 Group Bomber Command in World War 2 after 1941.

3.4 Peake is an interesting person in his own right and some mention about him is worthy of interest to understand his influence on Bawtry Hall during the first part of the 20th century. In 1919-20 he was a Honorary Member of the Institute of Mining Engineers and in the 1923 Colliery Year Book and coal Trades Directory his entry was; “G. Herbert Peake, Maj. (Born 1859), Son of the late Henry Peake of Westholme. Born 1859. Educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, B.A. and L.L.B., 1884 called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn, 1887: JP for Nottinghamshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire and major, retired, Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry, Mayor of East Retford, 1904 and 1905. Chairman and Managing Director of the Strafford Collieries Co Ltd, Barnsley. Chairman and Managing Director of the Airedale Colleries Ltd., Castleford, also a Director of the Yorkshire Electric Power Co., and the Lincoln Wagon Co. served for 18 months with the Yeomanry during the War (1914-18) and then became Chairman of the Yorkshire Pitwood Association , formed for the purpose of supplying timber to the Collieries of Yorkshire during the war (1914-18). Also interested in farming and the drainage of land”

3.5 It should therefore be seen that Peake is likely to have been an extremely wealthy person with the capability to undertake wide ranging alterations and improvements to the Hall and to the estate. The refurbishment of the service wing was undertaken to provide at first floor level additional visitor bedroom accommodation replacing maid’s accommodation. Additional service accommodation was created in the second floor by converting roof space areas with the gambrel roof structure to supplement the limited second floor accommodation that already existed in the gabled fronted part of the service wing. Peake was concerned in providing additional bedroom accommodation for guests and their travelling staff. Therefore the estate was very much intended to keep the sporting links and entertaining shooting and fishing house guests would have been an important part of life in the Hall prior to the First World War. In the archives in Sheffield there is a letter from Peake to Lady Elwes thanking her for her hospitality at a shoot in Roxby (North Lincolnshire) part of the Elwes’ Elsham Estate. Peake was therefore within an elite circle of wealthy landowners in the Country who offered reciprocal hospitality particularly in relation to Country pursuits of shooting, hunting and fishing. In such circles there

would be a desire to provide a high quality sporting event and to accommodate guests in a good standard of accommodation for the duration of the stay.

3.6 It is important to have regard to the description of the property in the 1904 auction details together with information held in the leases. Taking these points into account I’m of the view that Peake undertook the following works to the Hall after purchase.

1) Building the billiard room at the rear of the conservatory and convert the former billiard room into the current dining room. This is likely to have involved blanking off side windows and providing triple windows in the east elevation. Internal wall panels of the dining room are likely to have been altered and ceiling strengthened with rolled steel joists. This is likely to have involved providing the ceiling decorations. It is extremely likely that the entrance hall was modified/ enlarged with some internal walls removed and roll steeled joists provided to support the first floor load bearing walls above. 2) Convert the former study to a side access. 3) Provide a business room in what is currently the administrative office for the Hall. 4) Convert the former butlers bedroom into a strong room, involving blanking off the window 5) Relocate the butlers bedroom to the end of the corridor 6) Provide strengthening with rolled steel joists to Servants hall and housekeeper’s room and this would suggest that internal division supporting masonry walls were demolished in changes to the internal layout. 7) At first floor level convert 3 maids bedrooms for additional visitors bedrooms. According to the layout plan which is likely to have been prepared for Peake the 2 main bedrooms on the south facing range were allocated to visitors whilst own bedrooms are located to the north facing east. Obviously visitors with high status would be accommodated in the more luxurious rooms with views over the garden and this again illustrates the importance of Bawtry Hall as a sporting estate particularly within the circles that Peake moved with my earlier references to the Elwes’ of Lincolnshire. 8) Rolled steel joists were provided in the centre of the night and day nurseries indicating that layouts have been altered with some internal walls removed to accommodate larger rooms 9) Windows at first floor level in the service wing were replaced in south elevation and alterations included the provision of the 2 canted bay windows in the school room and day nursery. 10) I’m of the view that originally before Peake’s ownership the 2nd floor accommodation only extended to the 2 gables in the south elevation of the service

wing and Peake created the gambrel roof structure in order to provide additional accommodation by converting the roof space. 11) Whilst creating additional maids accommodation above the newly upgraded first floor guest accommodation it is likely that the stairs serving the upper floor was added above the secondary first floor stairs. These alterations are likely to include the provision of the stairs /landing window above the business rooms. 12) Additional/ replacement windows were added to the previously extended part of the wing at first floor level 13) Externally in the rear north outbuildings the archway was added in the centre of the north facing limb 14) Replacement stables and coach yard was added to the west side of the northern outbuildings. This is likely to have been undertaken at an early stage as this detail is not shown on the detailed drawings showing the layout of the hall but appear later on an undated drawing by Simmons & son showing the billiard Hall and water pipe connections around the main buildings. 15) Internal decorations and internal wall and ceiling panels are likely to have been substantially upgraded in the house 16) Gardens are likely to have been improved and creation of a cricket pitch as indicated in the drawing prepared by J Simmonds & Son. Walks drives and access onto south parade are likely to have been created after acquisition together with improvements to services such as water supply pipes. 17) Fish pond and shooting is likely to have been improved in order to entertain guests and to obtain reciprocal invitations.

3.7 The country House that Maj. Peake developed was a labour intensive operation and reflected a late Victorian /Edwardian way for life which was all but gone after the First World War. Whilst it is likely that Maj Peake perhaps had the resources to reinvest in more modern farming methods and would no doubt be able to continue with the upkeep of the Hall even though in the 1930’s income from the farming operations was reduced following the sale of the Austerfield Estate, there would be problems engaging staff to work in service. Added to this Maj. Peake would have been 80 in 1939 and would not have the enthusiasm to carry out further reorganisations of the Estate. Therefore in the latter years before 1939 there would have been a decline in the fabric of the house and also possibly in the quality of the sporting rights. On this basis I would suggest that the Government’s intervention was timely at a time when many similar houses and estates were crumbling as a result of lack of finances and the ability to engage household staff. Also there was a lack of suitable purchasers, ignoring the uncertainties of the impending war, since agriculture and ownership of country houses was very much in decline.

4 WORLD WAR II

4.1 The British Country house became a prime target for occupation by the military and unlike the First World War, where houses were requisitioned for mainly medical and rehabilitation homes, given the large number of casualties of that conflict, at the start of the Second World War many country houses were acquired with the intention of being used for a specific operational purpose. Against the backcloth described in the previous section, the use by the military actually saved houses from destruction through continued neglect which was evident throughout the 1930’s.

4.2 The circumstances by which Bawtry Hall was requisitioned in 1939 is not known. It is possible that Peake may have been attempting to sell prior to the start of hostilities, given his age and the decline of this type of lifestyle. The property was no doubt identified as having potential for military use and importantly was available. Indeed, nearby RAF Lindholme and RAF Finningley were airfields that were constructed in what is called the expansion period of the mid to late 1930’s when new airfields were being constructed in anticipation of war. Usually these airfields had satellite stations so that if enemy bombing was to take out an airfield, operations could be quickly diverted to the satellite airfield. RAF Bircotes became operational in 1941 as a satellite airfield for RAF Finningley and it is likely that some of the land which formed the airfield was once part of the Bawtry Hall Estate. Initially the Hall and the grounds were occupied by the army with the West Kent Regiment being stationed there.

4.3 Following reorganisation of Bomber Command, No 1 Group Bomber Command was eventually posted to Bawtry Hall in 1941. By this time RAF Bircotes was operational and also served as the communication flight for Number 1 Group although the two stations were separate entities. With the Bawtry Hall Estate having been acquired for the satellite airfield it had the benefit of having a country house which made an ideal HQ for Group and this probably figured to some extent in choosing Bawtry Hall when the Group HQ was being transferred from Hucknall to be more centrally located near to the bomber stations in No 1 Group which tended to be mainly in Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. Group HQ sites were favoured in the grounds of country Houses and for example , St Vincents House near Grantham became the HQ for No5 Group, Heslington Hall near York for No 4 Group. In “Bases of Bomber Command then and Now” by Roger A Freeman there is an account on page 14 as to how the HQ site for Bomber Command in High Wycombe was chosen for its remoteness, wooded site and the slopes of the Chilterns making it difficult for the enemy to spot from the air. The purchase of the land at High Wycombe was finally agreed in 1940, but because the land was compulsory acquired, a start on

construction was made in November 1938 and the building was ready for completion before the start of the war.

4.4 It is understood from research of the local authority archives that the acquisition of Bawtry Hall was not finalized until circa 1941 and thus a compulsory purchase order would have been used by the Ministry to obtain possession of the estate. Like Bomber Command HQ in Wycombe, the location of Bawtry Hall would have afforded some protection from enemy bombers spotting it from the air. Rather than being remote it was on the edge of the built up area with outlying huts easily being mistaken from the air as part of the urban area and again the trees provided some shielding and cover. Camouflage paint was also applied to the south facing wall of the service range.

4.5 A feature of Group HQ buildings of Bomber Command where they utilized a country house and grounds, is that not much alteration was undertaken to the Country House with most of the operations undertaken from a number of huts and buildings located dispersed within the grounds. For example with regard to St Vincent’s House near Grantham where the famous Dam Busters raid was planned and the attack monitored, all of the main operation buildings including the operations room were located in the grounds. The house after the war had been converted into offices but is now a private house and there is no physical indication on the building fabric that it had once been the operations centre for No 5 Group Bomber Command. Similarly at Heslington Hall which is now the administrative block of The University of York there is no indication left by the RAF of its past use.

4.6 Strictly speaking in relation to Bawtry Hall, there is minimal physical evidence remaining relating to the wartime use particularly in relation to the historic house. Had the RAF operations at Bawtry Hall ceased at the end of the war, the property would have been returned more or less to its pre 1939 state and condition with all the temporary and dispersed buildings within the grounds demolished, as was the case with St.’ Vincent’s House near Grantham.

4.7 The cinefilm made by Henry Cozens provides a valuable insight as to how Bawtry Hall was used by the RAF with footage of the Operations Room , commanding officer’s office, conference room and teleprinter room, within the pre 1939 layout core of the Hall itself. The film also indicates the chain of command within bomber command from HQ down to individual stations together with the role undertaken by Group in planning and coordinating the raid in its operation. The cinefilm was transformed into a video (Night Bombers) with commentary added in 1981 but is unique in so far as it contains actual colour footage of the operations although some of this had been staged managed for the purpose of the film which was intended for training purposes of new recruits posted to the bomber stations of No 1 Group bomber Command. It is recommended as part of this heritage statement that the free down

load is viewd with the film lasting approximately 59 minutes. The link is https://archive.org/details/NIGHT-BOMBERS

4.8 Since there is little or no physical evidence remaining on the fabric of this part of the property in section 7) of this report I suggest that any significance attached to the property by the use of Bomber Command between 1941 – 45 any significance is by association only.

4.9 Similarly the main rooms in the Hall itself were used as offices associated with bomber command as seen in Night Bombers ,but any significance is likely to be as a result of association only in much the same way where by a property has significance because of a famous past owner/occupier. There have been no substantial lasting physical alterations to the original Hall from the war years to indicate the role of the RAF there in the period 1941 -45.

4.10 To the north west of the grounds bordering Tickhill Road there was a range of range of walled gardens including a mushroom house , vinery and peach house serving the pre 1939 Country House. Whilst these areas were unlikely to have been maintained by the RAF in their pre 1939 state there would have been minimal disruption and interruption to the land and layout as viewed from the air by enemy aircraft as this would help to disguise the fact that the Country House and grounds were used as Group HQ by Bomber Command. Indeed, in the post war RAF estate that developed this part of the site was not substantially developed and it is likely that at the time the RAF ceased operations at Bawtry Hall some discernible link could be made to the pre 1939 house , gardens and grounds. Sadly because of the manner in which the grounds were sold, this link has been lost forever and whilst it would have been unreasonable for the layout of the walled gardens to have remained it would have been possible for the residential development to have been undertaken in a manner which acknowledged the historic use of the land.

5 THE COLD WAR

5.1 One of the surprising aspects about Henry Cozen’s cinefilm footage and the later commentary added was the level of technology which went into the dropping of the bombs to ensure that they reached the target. Group HQ was seen in the film to have an important role in this regard whilst the raid was in progress. The film briefly touches on other aspects of technology which assisted Bomber Command such as RCM (Radio Counter Measures). Also Group had to ensure that on the larger raids with bombers assembling in the air from several bomber stations that they didn’t collide in mid air on route to the target. It is perhaps more remarkable that the Group function was undertaken at Bawtry Hall and presumably the other Group HQ sites such as St Vincent’s House from cramped operation rooms and the makeshift huts dispersed within the grounds. However that appears to typify the war effort generally and how the use of the buildings was undertaken with the minimum of alteration.

5.2 The Cold War was a completely different situation with the use of more technologically advanced jet bombers and more sophisticated equipment to assist air crew. It is inconceivable with the hike in technology that the cramped conditions for operation rooms and accommodation for airman which were used in 1941-45, would be suitable for the post 1945 world and the Cold War situation. Added to this, the RAF until 1968 was responsible for maintaining and delivering the nuclear deterrent. Little wonder according to the operation logs(held in the National Archives) Bawtry Hall which retained the status of Group HQ, a major building programme was undertaken in the 1950’s to provide accommodation which was more suitable for the requirements of the post 1945 Royal Air force. The scale of building operations can be seen by comparing the map of 1948 with that of 1962 although this only gives some indication of the intensity of the site since it is impossible to understand the scale and importance of for example the “Aerial Farm” located at Bawtry Hall. In 1962 at the height of the CND ( Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) protest the “Aerial Farm” was considered, according to records inspected at the National Archives in Kew, to be important enough to take special measures to safeguard the Farm in the event of the station being entered by CND protestors. It is difficult in a report of this nature to impress upon the reader the significance of this period at a time, just months away from what was described as the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile crisis, when the USA (including NATO of which UK were and are members) and the USSR were at probably their closest to firing nuclear missiles at one another. Also at this time in Germany the Berlin Wall had been

erected effectively sealing the Russian part of the City from the other parts controlled by the western world.

5.3 Having inspected those records at Kew, which have been released for public inspection, I have to say that there is very little information available about the building programme that took place. There is a file relating to the construction of airman’s mess facilities and accommodation block but there is no information released as to the construction of operational and technical buildings. Whether these files exist or the content is considered to be classified, I cannot say. The records available at Kew are at best described as being “selective”.

5.4 By inspecting the limited number of Operational Logs of No 1 Group Bomber Command at Kew, it is clear that Group was involved in planning exercises for aeroplanes from other stations both for Nato and internal purposes and monitoring the results of those exercises. Records were kept of flying hours undertaken by each Bomber Station and there was limited information on the logs about flying incidents and Boards of Inquiry following malfunctions of equipment and human error. Group was also an administrative centre providing support for training courses held at Bawtry Hall and at the various stations within the Group. There was also a large motorised transport unit at Bawtry Hall with Group monitoring the use and allocation of motor vehicles within the associated bomber stations within its command. Additionally Group was responsible for the medical welfare of service men and information was collated at Group regarding sick cases and in extreme cases death of service personnel within the wider group.

5.5 The logs are only monthly summaries of what was happening in the Group and no doubt this was passed onto Group HQ. I have to say that reading between the lines of the summary logs there was an indication of significant technical work and personnel at Group HQ involved in “communications” for want of a better expression. I have already mentioned the importance of the “Aerial Farm” in relation to CND protests but an interesting article alluding to the importance of this work can be found on the web site http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history/articles- of-interest/cold-war posted by Derek Frost a retired GPO/BT engineer who spent most of his working life attached to Bomber Command/Strike force based at RAF Bawtry Hall, RAF Lindholme and RAF Finningley . The post outlines the working of what was called the “Bomber Box” or Telescramble which was the means by which the “V” bomber stations throughout the Country received the command to scramble and to come to actions station. The system appears to have been based on 2 ring circuits, one coming from Group or strike HQ in High Wycombe and the other coming from RAF Bawtry Hall. The idea was that each “V” bomber station had two links into the system i.e. one for the circuit starting at HQ in High .Wycombe and one

for Bawtry Hall. In English Heritage guidance document “The Cold War What to preserve and Why” acknowledgement was given to the need to undertake considerable research on topics such as military communication facilities and intelligence gathering sites. Unfortunately the systems maintained at Bawtry hall have long since gone with no visible signs of the work undertaken.

5.7 The importance of RAF Bawtry Hall in the Cold War is seen to have diminished after the Royal Navy took on the responsibilities of maintaining and delivering the nuclear deterrent in 1968 with the Polaris submarines being the preferred option. This can be seen by reference to the operation logs held in the National Archives in Kew showing the decline in the number of service personnel posted at RAF Bawtry Hall in the 1970’s being only a fraction of the numbers during the height of the Cold War in 1961 when the RAF had the responsibility of providing the nuclear deterrent.

5.8 It would appear that long before the RAF finally lowered its ensign at Bawtry Hall , the activities undertaken were scaled down considerably even before the end of the Cold War. This is probably due to changes in technology and warfare, whereby the facilities and technology provided initially at RAF Bawtry Hall had become obsolete and outdated. This is perhaps reinforced by the technology which was widely seen in the First Gulf War whereby the precision of the bombing was down to a fine art with aircrew being able to identify which door or opening of a target building the missile was to enter and the pinpoint precision of the task was then available on television coverage of the war. More recently the attacks by the RAF using pilotless drones on members of the Islamism State terrorists were reported as being controlled and executed from equipment housed in a hanger building in Conningsby, Lincolnshire

5.9 Ironically the last main operation undertaken at the Command Room at Bawtry Hall was in relation to coordinating the attack of Vulcan Bombers on Port Stanley Airfield in the Falkland War in 1982 which was more of a conventional attack. However by this time the operational buildings at RAF Bawtry Hall constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s were likely to have been underutilised by virtue of being obsolete having been overtaken by advancing technology in a changing world. The Falklands operation was more of a logistics operation with refueling necessary mid air on the route to and from the target. Also the operation was dangerous because of the proximity of the Argentine main land where theoretically the aging Vulcan bombers were within target of the Argentinean main land strike force.

5.10 A noticeable feature about the Operational logs held in Kew was the monthly weather reports covering in detail the whole of No1 Group. The RAF Meteorological Service was based at Bawtry Hall and this was probably one of the last units to leave

the station. In Wikipedia it is reported that in 1983, in the Miners strike Bawtry Hall accommodated up to 17,000 police officers drafted in to the area from around the country. Obviously in order to accommodate this large influx of personnel the main RAF contingent would have left some time before and suggests that the facility had been mothballed to some extent and then reopened for the police operation associated with the miners’ strike . On this basis it is likely that by the end of the 1970’s there would have been a substantial running down of the base.

5.11 It was very clear from inspecting the operational logs at Kew relating to the post war RAF station that in developing, the Station estate roads were constructed around a central core of service buildings, mess buildings, shops etc and domestic buildings. Unfortunately none of the characteristics of the military estate layout of RAF Bawtry Hall have been retained in subsequent development schemes as they have been lost to the various speculative housing schemes which have taken place since 1988.This reflects the pressures which were imposed by central government to realize capital receipts from the sale of surplus operational sites almost to the exclusion of other considerations.

6 LIFE AFTER THE RAF

6.1 During the 1980’s particularly in the Thatcher Administration there was considerable pressure on both central and local Government departments to realize capital receipts from the disposal of surplus and under-utilised publically owned land and property assets. In terms of the disposal of former military establishments there was a well oiled practice in operation whereby the former Property Services Agency was charged with the sale of such assets on behalf of the Government. As an experienced valuer, working in the public sector at that time, I can confirm that all other considerations such as environmental and heritage protection considerations were considered to be relatively unimportant and certainly secondary, to the main priority of obtaining capital receipts on the sale of such assets.

6.2 It is unlikely having regard to the political pressures prevailing at that time, that any detailed assessments or studies would have been undertaken other than perhaps preliminary discussions between the Property Services Agency and the Local Planning Authority with regard to broad potential uses that may have been available following the disposal of the land and property asset. The then Government’s priority was to realize a capital receipt within a given period of time and any risk associated with the after uses, be it an increase in value, or a risk of the market not reflecting an increase as a result of obtaining more detailed planning consents, was part of the accepted development risk which was taken on by the private sector in taking on the property ownership. Consequently, under this policy large numbers of buildings and structures were demolished and with them valuable heritage interests were destroyed. It is unlikely that even minimal recording exercises were undertaken to increase the level of knowledge about the heritage value of the Cold War operations and Installation. This is in stark contrast to current policy regarding the disposal of military property whereby there is an obligation on the government departments to undertake assessments with regard to maintaining the heritage interests which former military installations and property may reveal. Much of the current policy implemented in the 1990’s and 2000’s stems from the recognition that the disposal of many military sites, particularly in the Thatcher period, resulted in the loss of substantial heritage assets, information and interests. In response to the loss of significant numbers of military heritage assets, without even the opportunity of adequately recording the heritage details of the structures, English Heritage has since produced Guidance documents such as “Twentieth- Century Military Sites current approaches to their recording and conservation” (2003). Also a significant amount of work has gone into identifying and assessment of Cold War buildings and installations in order to refine the development of further

conservation policy covering a whole range of topics associated with this period of history.

6.3 Bawtry Hall including the former grounds, was acquired by the Welbeck Estate Group in 1987 and their main area of specialty was in the refurbishment and resale of married quarter’s houses on surplus military sites which had been acquired following sites being declared surplus to requirements. Welbeck had no particular expertise in refurbishing none residential accommodation and therefore, (after taking out the residential housing estate) the remainder of the site, including the Hall and the immediate grounds of the Hall, were offered for resale with Action Partners acquiring in 1988. Sometime within this process the Hall was designated as a Grade 2* listed building on 11 January 1988

6.4 It is not certain whether the more permanent structures constructed in the 1950’s replacing the hurriedly provided war time hut accommodation within the grounds of the Hall, had been demolished by Welbeck Group or by action partners. The only remaining permanent structures from the RAF occupation of the site related to the Command Block and the flat roof extension to the former billiard room together with alterations undertaken to the former coach house constructed post 1904. It is important to look back at the 1962 and later Ordnance survey maps to understand that within the remodeled post 1945 RAF Bawtry Hall site, there was an operational Station layout with its own estate roads and buildings for technical /operational use and domestic, ancillary and service buildings together with communication equipment and plant forming a group of structures which collectively were important to the operational function of the station. It is unlikely that any recording of these structures, as a group of buildings, would have been undertaken by the Property Services Agency prior to disposal and even more unlikely that this would have been undertaken by Welbeck Estates or Action Partners. As indicated in section 5 of the report, an important part of the operations undertaken by Group HQ at Bawtry Hall was in respect of the communication and warning systems. Unfortunately early demolition work of buildings associated with this work is likely to have occurred in order to facilitate the development of the residential site known as Green Park undertaken by Wilcon Homes circa 1990. Therefore the opportunity to make assessments in the case of Bawtry Hall in respect of the significance of the communication systems has been lost.

6.4 Action Partners are a Christian Organization and used the Hall as a conference centre with hotel/hostel facilities for the first floor accommodation of the command room and the northern limb of the service accommodation. Some degree of refurbishment internally and externally has taken place to the former service accommodation. However based on my casual observations it is doubtful whether the standard of conversion undertaken is of a sufficient standard to attract sustainable income as a

hostel or hotel since much better levels of facilities are required by the paying guest. Also it is doubtful whether a heritage assessment of the buildings was undertaken to give a better understanding of the heritage interests which need to be safeguarded and enhanced with the future use of the buildings.

6.5 Some commercial use is present in the amended former stables/coach yard and refurbished hut at the west side of the hall /command room.

6.6 Action Partners sold the Hall and grounds in 2014 and no doubt this reflects the difficulties of operating a conference /hotel/hostel from the property without undertaking substantial upgrading to the accommodation, some of which is affected by the adverse environment which has been created by the siting of the Command block in the 1950’s. Indeed some of the accommodation in the service wing adjacent to the command block appears to have been largely unused since the 1950’s because of the lack of natural daylight

7 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAWTRY HALL & ASSOCIATED HERITAGE VALUES

7.1 In the English Heritage description of the listing to Bawtry Hall it states that the later 20th century additions are of “no special interest”. From this I would presume that the buildings of “no special interest” relate to the RAF constructed Command block and the hut and single storey commercial premises to the west of the hall.

7.2 The description of the listing, in any event, is inaccurate since the extension to the service wing predates Peake’s occupation and is likely to have been present in 1854 having regard to the OS plan extracts.

7.3 The description ignores the attached Command Block constructed circa 1950’s and makes no reference whatsoever to the RAF use of the hall or the buildings attached to the historic house constructed during military occupation. The reason for listing would therefore, on face value, appear to relate solely to architectural features or interest associated with the historic part of the hall. The neoclassical architectural features are typical of the late 18th century although there is more than just a suggestion that the 18th century house possibly took in part of an earlier structure and indeed the internal layout is likely to have been the subject of alteration in the last half of the 19th century and early 20th century. Although the east facing elevation is the main visible façade from the public highway it is the south facing elevation which is the most attractive overlooking the area of the more formal gardens and parkland/ lake beyond. As can be seen from my earlier comments regarding the aspect of the main service wing incorporating the school room and night and day nurseries, faced south so that views from the main windows could take in the attractive formal garden and parkland setting. Unfortunately the siting of the Command Block in the 1950’s has caused significant harm to this part of the Hall and arguably also the siting of the refurbished accommodation to the west mainly used now for commercial purposes has adversely affected the setting by which the architectural features of the historic house can be enjoyed from the surrounding grounds.

7.4 Bawtry Hall including the grounds of the pre 1939 property, clearly has heritage significance resulting from Military occupation but this can be shown in two different and distinct periods namely World war II from 1939-45 and the post war period covering 1945 -1986. Nothing is known about the early war occupation of the Army and the West Kent Regiment and whether any alterations were undertaken to the original property to accommodate military use is not known but generally it is my experience that limited alteration , if at all, would have been undertaken to the

Hall itself by the army as it is my experience when looking at country houses requisitioned that they tended to make do with the accommodation as found with additional accommodation being provided in the form of huts which were more easily erected compared to the disruption caused by internal alterations and permanent extensions.

7.5 Significance associated with the use of the Hall for the head quarters of No 1 Group Bomber Command in World War II is mainly through association because there is no substantial physical evidence to the fabric show that the original Hall and grounds had been used and adapted for a use which essentially was administrative, acting as the facilitator between Bomber Command and the individual bomber stations/airfields that executed the battle orders. Clearly where airfields such as RAF Waddington and RAF Scampton still exist today, as operational stations, there are far greater levels of significance attached to those sites than merely an administrative centre /station. For example, there are different levels of heritage interest to be found in the buildings which were all originally erected for a specific purpose, be it in the inter war periods, during the war or in the Cold War and provide clear physical and visual links with events which took place at those relevant times.

7.6 One of the locational features which made Bawtry Hall a good place for the siting of No1 Group Bomber Command HQ in 1941 was that it was not easy to spot from the air by enemy aircraft .Therefore the level of physical alteration and disturbance to the Hall was minimal during those years. To illustrate this point further when No 5 Group and No 4 Group vacated, during or after the war, their respective HQ buildings at St Vincent’s House near Grantham and Heslington Hall near York there was little in the way of permanent physical reminders left of the Group HQ operations and activities from within those historic houses. The siting of these Group HQ buildings was therefore a complete success as they were able to go about their vital work without interference from the Luftwaffe, whereas many Bomber stations, had the continual threat of being raided and having to deal with damage from frequent raids. A further interesting point to make ( regarding No 5 Group Bomber Command) is with regard to the famous Dam Buster Raid of 16th /17th May 1943 and the link between 617 squadron and RAF Scampton where the squadron was based for the raid. RAF Scampton has perhaps become the best known Bomber station of World War II because of the raid and accordingly has taken on different levels of significance associated with not just the raid but with regard to associations with 617 Squadron and it’s leader Guy Gibson VC, DSO, DFC, but also Barnes Wallace the inventor of the bouncing bomb. The runway, hangers and other buildings on site provide strong physical reminders of the raid to add to the significance of place. On the other hand, No5 Group Bomber Command HQ at St Vincent’s House where the details of the raid were planned and coordinated before

and during the raid have not had the same degree of recognition, acclaim and association with the raid. Similarly the events which were featured in Night Bombers related to a raid on Berlin involving 600 bombers and the work of No 1 Group HQ on the night was to ensure that there was no collisions on the outward journey and that vital information was obtained about wind speeds at the attack altitude so that instructions for bombing settings could be transmitted to ensure that the targets would be hit and the raid a success. In a way the work of Group HQ was about working behind the scenes and thus the level of association and degree of significance attached to the Group HQ buildings was not as great as at the actual airfields of Bomber Command. Therefore, the significance of World War II No 1 Group Bomber Command HQ use of the Hall can only be by association only, particularly where there is limited or no surviving evidence to indicate the wartime use. Post war redevelopment of RAF Bawtry Hall together with the development of the modern private housing schemes provides no opportunity to carry out further research such as archeological investigation to footings and services of buildings provided in the war years to facilitate the working of the station.

7.7 In contrast to the almost covert wartime operations of No 1 Group Bomber Command at Bawtry Hall, in the post war years there was no prospect of concealing the location of the operation and consequently permanent substantial structures were constructed, visible from aircraft or more likely from satellites taking into account developments in Cold War technology. The scale of post war development is not fully appreciated through the limited amount of archived documents showing plans which are available in the National Archives, or from the regular returns of personnel engaged at the Stations included in the operation logs for the station. However, if the information contained in Wikipedia relating to the accommodation of to up to 17,000 police officers to police the Miners’ Strike is accurate, this would give a better indication of the scale of the Station and presumably by that time in 1983 the technical accommodation would have been stripped of its equipment although the meteorological unit would still have been in operation. The station would therefore have been similar to a village situation which was virtually self- contained.

7.8 Unfortunately all that remains of the post war/ Cold War operation/buildings of the station is the Command Block which mistakenly in a number of documents has been referred to as having relevance to World War 2 operations, but by virtue of Night Bombers and OS plan interpretation I have firmly demonstrated that this is a post war structure. Therefore it is necessary to ask what significance this building had, if any, in relation to carry on the Cold War activities of the RAF. This is not an easy question to answer because the building has no special features which would

have enabled it to survive a nuclear attack and as mentioned there were no bomb proof doors to protect it against a conventional fighter attack. Mr. Frost in his Post which I have referred to in Para 5.5 makes the point that when the RAF pilots at Finningley or Lindholme took to the skies in a real scramble situation, they wouldn’t know what they would be returning to and thus it should be acknowledged that unless there were bunkers which could withstand a nuclear attack , command rooms such as at Bawtry Hall would have been expendable in nuclear warfare. In such circumstances it is probable that some other command centre that was protected, would have kicked into action. Whether there were further lines of communication in the event of nuclear war I’m certainly not qualified to speculate and perhaps also information that would be available has not been released through the National Archives as this may still be deemed as classified information.

7.9 It appears to me that RAF Bawtry Hall performed a number of standard functions in the Cold War period. Largely the standard role was routine, functional and administrative dealing with issues as discipline, welfare, training and support to Bomber stations both technically and administratively, but also, as in World War 2 , planning and monitoring of exercises and maneuvers whether these were instigated by NATO or by the British Government. The normal functions of Group also involved weather reports and forecasting which was an important aspect of operational flying duties for the various operational stations under the command of Bawtry Hall. However, it does appear that RAF Bawtry performed other perhaps non standard functions in relation to communications and therefore possibly some form of intelligence gathering although there is no definite proof. Collectively RAF Bawtry did clearly play a role in the Cold War but all of the operation would have been regarded as being “expendable” during the event of nuclear war. Earlier in the report I have referred to the RAF having the responsibility of controlling the nuclear “deterrent” which is perhaps on first impression is an odd word to use. The policy of successive post war UK & US governments has been to use the threat of nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential foes from employing nuclear weapons against us, or fellow NATO countries. This is a highly emotive subject and reference to CND has been made whereby various protest groups to include the Greenham Common protestors have campaigned for unilateral disarmament on the basis of getting rid of our deterrent would encourage our potential foes to disarm. The UK & US policy post war has always been to use the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent in order to negotiate with the USSR for multilateral disarmament and such Treaties as Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty 1968, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) 1 & 2 of 1972 and 1979 together with a whole host of treaties relating to specific types of missile withdrawal has helped to avoid a Bay of Pigs situation occurring and essentially has helped to keep the peace in the period 1945 89. The role of Bawtry Hall in the Cold war has been that of a small cog in a much larger

wheel which has encompassed operational installations/ sites and importantly, international diplomacy, but again as with the World War 2 situation, the actual “V” Bomber Stations which remain, there is considerably more significance attached to buildings and hangers which were specifically constructed on those operational stations to house “V” bombers and their weapons of mass destruction during the period 1945-68. The Significance of the this period in military history is particularly well illustrated in the Characterisation report on RAF Scampton produced on behalf of English Heritage in 2004 The role of the Group HQ on the other hand is again in the background and functional in nature. Unfortunately because of the manner in which RAF Bawtry was sold in the mid 1980’s under the Thatcher Administration it is impossible to determine the full role played by the station in the Cold War as most of the technical operational areas of the base have been demolished in order to accommodate new housing development and thus the opportunity to undertake further research or recording has been lost forever. This to a certain extent is acknowledged in so far as RAF Bawtry Hall has not been identified by English Heritage as a potential Cold War Heritage site. It is therefore virtually impossible to ascertain the significance of the Station as a Cold War site as it is not possible to make this assessment with most of the station having been demolished.

7.10 Sometimes heritage sites provide spiritual and intellectual inspiration and former military sites can have the effect of having a role to play in the act of remembrance, particularly for younger generations to remember and reflect upon the war service of perhaps an older relative who didn’t return from battle. However, I’m not entirely certain that Bomber Command HQ or Group HQ Bomber Command are the type of places that would provide this comfort, since again it is the actual bomber stations where loved ones were actually based and took off on their fateful mission that would provide this, since normal aircrew would have little attachment, if any, to Group HQ. The actual bomber stations in terms of remembrance of course rank behind war graves where, they exist, and places where the aeroplanes crashed, or were shot down. There is now the added complication that the relatively new, but long overdue Bomber Command memorial at Hyde Park corner, now demotes Group HQ buildings further down the order of importance in this respect. Also in Lincoln work has started on a major visitor centre which is a memorial to Bomber Command in Lincolnshire and this will no doubt push the significance of places like Bawtry Hall, Heslington Hall and St Vincent’s further down the pecking order particularly as there are no visual evidence of the activities of the RAF in the second World War

7.11 Taking the description of the listing of 1988 at face value, there is no potential conflict between the significance associated with the architectural interests and setting of the house particularly the west extension of the service wing which was designed to have a south facing aspect, since the command block is considered to have no particular special interest. If that description holds correct today, as it did in

1988, in theory, the command block could be removed and this would immediately improve the setting in which the listed building is enjoyed and the architectural features and interest would be returned to a pre 1950’s situation. This would result in the enhancement of the heritage asset from the present situation which can be seen from the photographs and commentary in paragraph 2.9 of the report to be somewhat grim particularly adjacent to the north side elevation wall of the Command Block

7.12 Notwithstanding the comments made in para 7.11 above it is important to note that the consideration of significance of a heritage asset has a wider meaning than when the property was first listed and in accordance with guidance policy issued by English heritage after 2000 concerning 20th century military sites, it is no longer appropriate to dismiss the Command Block has having no particular special interest. Nevertheless there is a conflict between the architectural interests associated with parts of the historic building and the Command block. These conflicts need to be recognized and considered in an informed manner in order to arrive at an acceptable conservation solution to take the management of the heritage asset through to a sustainable level for the next stage of the life of the property.

7.13 The significance of Bawtry Hall cannot be measured just in terms of the architectural interest associated with the historic Hall but for the reasons already mentioned the Significance of the RAF use including the remaining buildings is perhaps of less significance than originally thought.

7.14 In the situation of the remaining RAF constructed buildings having limited significance, because of the date of construction, the buildings offer little information or understanding about the military operation of Bawtry Hall, as a whole, as the special character of the RAF station which evolved around a country House has not been recognised in subsequent patterns of development that has taken place. On this basis, the overall level of military significance of the RAF constructed buildings that have been retained, is further reduced because the special character of the former RAF station, which was unusual, because it was not based around an airfield has been lost. Again I would take the view that the retained command building only has significance by association with its former use which was restricted to mainly peace time operation.

7.15 The significance of Bawtry Hall has a number of strands but can be summarized as follows:

1) The historic development of the House and the possibility that the house as constructed in 1785 took in parts of an earlier building. There are architectural features on the external side of the original house together with the main room proportions which are important heritage features. These features have not been particularly harmed by the RAF and subsequent users. 2) The development of Bawtry Hall in the 19th century was typical of a minor Estate held within a larger family Estate. The estate had clearly been used for minor family members and towards the end of the 19th century had been let to a succession of different tenants. The period between 1875 -1904 was a period of decline for the country estate and aspects of this can be seen at Bawtry Hall. The sale of the Bawtry Hall Estate was undertaken in similar circumstances as other estates throughout the Country

3) The ownership of the Hall and Estate by Maj. Peake is an interesting period in the history of the Hall and the Estate. Despite the decline of the Country House and estate after 1875 Peake’s ownership undoubtedly showed how reorganization of estates could prove profitable. At this period successful estates were managed at large scale operation or on the lower scale. Peake with the use of the Austerfield Estate was able to reorganize and obtain economies of scale which medium sized Estates were unable to achieve. This enabled Peake to develop the Hall and estate further particularly for entertaining and sporting purposes.

4) The farming economy progressed somewhat in the First World War but in peacetime fell into further recession with farms being reorganized throughout the 1920’s and 30’s and many Estates being sold. Bawtry Hall would not be immune to these economic pressures and at the time of the requisition of the property in 1939 Peake would have been approaching 80 years of age possibly not enjoying the same level of drive and enthusiasm necessary to reorganize the Estate further. Also in this period demand for agricultural estates plummeted together with prices.

5) Bawtry Hall therefore reflects the changing attitudes for the Country House Estate and the period from 1875 – 1939 shows how the Country Estate adapted to changing circumstances.

6) The war time occupation by the armed forces demonstrates how country houses were used without too much lasting changes made to the fabric and layout. The functions undertaken by Group HQ was similar to Heslington Hall and St Vincent’s House where in the latter two cases there is no trace of the RAF’s use and activities in the property. This would probably have been the case at Bawtry Hall had the RAF ceased to operate from there after 1945.

7) Post 1945 the significance of the RAF use relates to the construction of permanent buildings replacing the temporary structures put together in the Second World War to deal with the Cold War. The significance of Bawtry Hall in that period declined after 1968 as the Navy took on the nuclear deterrent function. However Bawtry Hall is likely to have had an important function in terms of communications and intelligence collection post 1968 although this again is likely to have diminished as technology advanced. The role of Bawtry Hall therefore in the operation of the Cold War is therefore limited and its importance diminished with time so that by the early 1980’s (before the end of the Cold War) it was considered to be obsolete. The property and grounds are not listed by English Heritage as a site which may provide greater information about the Cold War activities mainly because the buildings erected in the 1950’s and 60’s have been removed with the exception of the Command Centre.

8 FACTORS AFFECTING THE SIGNIFICANCE AND SETTING OF BAWTRY HALL

8.1 Historically I have demonstrated that the property has been able to deal with managed change in the past particularly having regard to the dire situation facing agricultural estates in the late 19th century and early 1900’s. Major Peake is likely to have reorganized the Estate farming after 1904 to more profitable methods than the previous owners to enable some further changes in the layout of the house and also likely, some upgrading. It is also highly possible against poor trading conditions for agriculture estates after the First World War, Peake was able to use some of the proceeds of sale from the Austerfield Estate to put into Bawtry Hall. In 1939 at a time when many Estates and houses were falling apart and crumbling, Bawtry Hall was purchased /requisitioned by the military and as a result of this the fabric of the building was maintained in its 1939 layout and extent even though the land holding of the estate was no longer present. In the absence of the government intervention for war purposes there is no doubt whatsoever that the house and associated buildings which Peake acquired and improved would not have survived as a sustainable unit. In addition to poor economic conditions changes in social circumstances at this time made it difficult to manage a house with less staff wishing to be engaged in domestic service. Also given that Maj. Peake was around 80 years of age when the property was requisitioned it is unlikely that the house and estate would have progressed with limited market interest available for such properties.

8.2 The setting of the Hall has suffered significantly since the sale in 1986 compared with the pre 1939 setting. The Command building and the frontage buildings facing the main south elevation have had a considerable impact on the Hall particularly having regard to the setting which can be seen in figure 10. This has caused further problems with regard to maintenance and indeed some rooms have not been satisfactorily used because of looking out onto the blank walls of the Command building. Associated with the construction and use of the command building there have been other alterations and extensions which are rather poor and combine to have a poor impact on the heritage asset.

8.3 A further factor which has impacted on the Hall is the rather ad hoc residential development that has taken place within the grounds of the Hall. This had followed the Thatcher Government’s disposal of the former RAF holding without planning consents leaving developers and subsequent owners the risk and benefits associated 78

with development. As can be seen the initial owners hived off the RAF houses which had been constructed reasonably well away from the Hall and these were refurbished and sold on the private market. Subsequent owners obtained planning consents for different residential developments within the grounds without any real consideration given to the setting and significance of the Hall itself. Furthermore no direct consideration was given to enhancing the diminished heritage values of the Hall when normally if consent is given to develop in the grounds of a listed building such as Bawtry Hall planning conditions and agreements would be entered into in order that some of the proceeds of sale could be directed towards improving and enhancing the heritage asset. Due to the then Government’s unseemly rush to obtain some capital receipts without exploiting the planning system to gain maximum price on disposal I suspect that Doncaster MBC were restricted in what could be achieved in order to protect and enhance the heritage features of the Hall. The result is that the rather poor residential developments which have taken place have affected the Significance and setting of the listed building. This is particularly the case with the development which has taken place to the west of the former stables. Similarly, the development off the main access into the Hall from Tickhill Road is rather poor.

8.4 Action Partners the previous owners secured planning consents for conference and hotel uses but these have not proved particularly successful despite the fact that they appear to have spent a reasonable amount of money in terms of improving the décor of the principal rooms of the historic house. Works undertaken to upgrade the hotel or hostel accommodation in the 1950’s/60’s accommodation and in the former service accommodation appears to have been basic and has made no attempt to overcome the damaging affects of the post war RAF constructions that remain including the Command Building. Consequently large parts of the building particularly in the secondary areas have been left unoccupied and have deteriorated as they have not been utilized since possibly the war time use by the RAF.

8.5 Whilst the principal rooms have been carefully restored the adverse features of the secondary accommodation makes it difficult to find an optimum commercial use for the entire building. Hostels or hotel use is clearly limited because of the poor standard of accommodation in the secondary areas.

8.6 Access into the Hall is now limited off Tickhill Road which is now shared with other residential users and the initial aspect of the Hall is the former stable block which has been rather poorly refurbished. This is not entirely in keeping with a prominent Grade2* listed building where the principal elevation is the South and previously prior to the Military use the main access to the property would have been from the gate house to the south. The private residential development schemes therefore

have had no regard to the setting of the original house and this is still an important consideration when looking at potential uses of the heritage asset.

8.7 To sum up this section the Significance and setting of the heritage asset have been adversely affected by the following factors;

 Poor main access which is shared and goes past the stables as the first appearance of the Hall  Inappropriate, unsympathetic modern residential development  No overall consideration given to enhancing the heritage features of the heritage asset in the disjointed development of the former RAF Station.  Adverse impact of the Command building on the former Hall which have resulted in substantial parts of the property being unused for 60 or more years.

9 THE IMPACT OF CURRENT PROPOSALS ON THE HERITAGE ASSET

9.1 The main issues facing the owner of the property are relating how to bring the whole of the heritage asset into active use given that parts have been unused for over 60 years. Beyond the single room depth of the main L shaped accommodation forming the east and south elevations of the property the accommodation is poor. The impact of the Command Building, poor access and proximity of inappropriate housing development make the building less attractive for commercial use including HQ offices, Hotel or hostel use.

9.2 The current proposals involve bringing the secondary accommodation into active use through the conversion to high quality apartments. By and large the proposals are able to maintain room layouts without too many alterations but it has to be noted that this accommodation underwent some alteration at the start of Peake’s ownership and therefore is not the original layout. It is not practical to allow such a large extent of the accommodation to remain unused and falling into disrepair. Residential under the circumstances would appear to be the optimum use available.

9.3 The proposals do not affect the layout of the original principal rooms of the Hall but ideally the intention would be to use them as a single occupation rather than to subdivide which would dilute the significance of this part of the building even further. It may well be the case with the beneficial occupation of the long term unused parts, that more active interest would follow for other compatible uses of the principal rooms, either independently of the former Command building, or in conjunction with it. The poor appointment of a substantial part of the accommodation appears to be having a detrimental impact for potential uses /interest in relation to the main part of the historic house.

9.4 The proposals are seen to be an important catalyst in order to provide beneficial occupation of the entire building given the serious problems which have impacted on not just the significance and setting of the building but the desirability of the building in finding appropriate end uses.

9.5 It may well be the case that the most suitable use of the principal rooms of the Hall would be as a single residential house although that is an option that needs to be left open at the moment particularly if the refurbishment of other parts of the Hall provide the necessary catalyst to promote greater levels of interest in the whole of the building.

9.6 Without being too critical of the previous owners their decision to refurbish the principal rooms was an error of judgment because the detrimental impacts affecting large parts of the building appears to have put off interest in the wider building as the enormity of conversion works was likely to be daunting and possibly beyond their financial means after restoring the principal rooms. The refurbishment of the principal rooms has proved not to be the catalyst necessary to find beneficial use of the entire building and this merely underlines the severity of the detrimental features affecting the property as a whole.

9.7 There is some residual office use from the previous owners in the remaining single storey accommodation to the west of the Hall. This will remain for the time being albeit the accommodation has been improved and the layout amended. Again this provides some flexibility for future associated use of the Command building for suitable commercial use. However there is some prospect that the commercial use could be in conflict with other potential uses and this would need to be monitored and assessed again with the possibility that the command building could form part of an imaginative residential scheme. For the moment there is no need to make any permanent decision regarding the future of this part of the building but a degree of flexibility is required to consider potential possibilities in the future.

9.8 The proposals included in this application are likely to provide positive benefits in securing sustainable long term uses for the entire building. In many ways there are parallels to Historic England’s strategy contained in ‘Heritage Works’ in so far as investment in the abandoned part of the property will assist in finding beneficial uses for other parts of the property. The situation facing Bawtry Hall has been exacerbated by the manner in which the Thatcher Government sold off military sites in the 1980s. The method of disposal has been severely criticized because it didn’t maximize the capital receipts available to the public purse and also as can be seen in the case of Bawtry Hall, no consideration whatsoever was given to safeguarding the heritage features including the setting of the heritage asset. The proposals therefore aim to overcome the detrimental features following disposal of the former RAF base.

10 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 I have been able to trace the historic development of Bawtry Hall both in terms of its development and decline in the C19 followed by some degree of improvement and upgrading during the years 1905-39 when the property was in the ownership of Maj. Peake. Most certainly in Peake’s ownership the property was greatly improved to be a major sporting estate. Income from the substantial farming activities helped to maintain the estate and Hall. By the 1930s this way of lifestyle was coming to an end and it is likely that major reorganization of the estate would have been required in the absence of military use.

10.2 In terms of the RAF war time use of the property there is very little left, if at all to indicate that the building had been occupied as Group 1 Bomber Command HQ. This is entirely consistent with other Group HQ buildings in requisitioned country houses and therefore any significance in relation to the Second World War use is by association only.

10.3 The post war RAF use is indicated by more significant investment in additional buildings and technology on the station. Only the Command Building has been retained and the significance attached to this building is limited mainly due to the Polaris submarines of the Royal Navy having the nuclear deterrent from 1968 and therefore any significance of the station in respect of the Cold War activities diminished after this date. The former station was not included in English Heritage’s list of Heritage Cold War sites and this no doubt reflects upon the fact that the functions performed at the station became obsolete in Cold War activities. Undoubtedly from the evidence I have been able to obtain from the National Archives the station is likely to have been involved in communication and intelligence gathering associated with the Cold War. However the buildings and equipment were likely to have been removed by the military prior to disposal of the station. Also the hasty development for residential purposes of land associated with the ‘Aerial Farm’ has destroyed the potential for future research in this regard.

10.4 The significance of the Hall and the Command building in terms of the Cold War is therefore limited. In any event the current proposals cause no harm or loss to any remaining significance that is attached to the former military use.

10.5 Unlike Heslington Hall and St Vincent’s House, the military use of Bawtry Hall has caused substantial harm to the significance of the original country house and its setting. This harm cannot be overturned and was exacerbated by the methods of disposal of the public assets by the Thatcher Government.

10.6 The current proposals should be viewed as making a positive statement towards achieving full occupation of a building where parts have not been properly utilised

for over 60 years and should provide a catalyst for greater interest and use for the entire building. The residential use intended for parts of the building should be seen as the most suitable and optimum use given the circumstances which have affected the heritage asset. Accordingly, it is requested that local planning authority give favourable consideration to the proposals.

D.R. Hornsby B.Sc., FRICS, BCAS

(RICS Accredited Building Conservation Surveyor)

9 October 2015

REFERENCES

1) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AT KEW RELATING TO RAF BAWTRY AIR 28/2171 AIR 28/2334 AIR 25/1679 AIR 2/12558 AIR 25/1703 PA 1716/5/11/3/10

2) DONCASTER MBC ARCHIVES D2MB/592 DY/DAW/9/222 DY/SIM/7/178

3) SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL ARCHIVES CM/2319-2326 Leases 1885-1903

4) BASES OF BOMBER COMMAND THEN & NOW by Roger A Freeman ISBN 1 870067 35 5 5) BRITISH MILITARY AIRFIELD ARCHITECTURE- FROM AIRSHIPS TO JET AGE by Paul Francis ISBN 1 85260 462 6) BRITISH AIRFIELDS THEN & NOW by Leo Marriott ISBN 0 7110 2515 0 7) STRONGHOLD A HISTORY OF MILITARY ARCHITECTURE by Martin H. Brice ISBN 0 7134 4356 1 8) DEFENDING LINCOLNSHIRE A MILITARY HISTORY FROM CONQUEST TO COLD WAR by Mike Osbourne ISBN 978 0 7524 5399 6 9) ACTION STATIONS 4. MILITARY AIRFIELDS OF YORKSHIRE by Bruce Barrymore Halfpenny ISBN 1 -85260-373-9 10) BUILT TO ENDURE: THE STORY OF THE RAF AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION BRANCH IN THE COLD WAR by Group Captain Nigel Walpole ISBN 978-1-906183-06-6 11) HISTORIC MILITARY AVIATION SITES- CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE By English Heritage 2002 12) RAF SCAMPTON:HISTORIC CHARACTERISATION 2004 by English Heritage / Atkins 13) NIGHT BOMBERS https://archive.org/details/NIGHT-BOMBERS 14) http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history/articles-of-interest/cold-war