C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 47 Architecturally speaking A rethink on historic parks, gardens and landscapes With the publication of PPS5 comes the confirmation that the presumption in favour of conserving a designated heritage asset is not to be limited to listed buildings (as was worryingly set out in the draft PPS15). Instead the presumption in favour of conserving a designated heritage asset will now include registered parks and gardens (and world heritage sites and battlefields). No doubt many will consider that the new PPS does not go far enough and that other statutory controls should have been introduced. Indirectly, though, through PPS5’s strong emphasis on the importance of significance in assessing the value of a heritage asset, there will be more opportunity for protecting historic parks and gardens than ever before. Establishing the significance of a historic park or garden will require greater reliance on architectural and historical information. Under policy HE6, applicants will now have to supply information about a heritage asset’s significance, and explain how this significance would be affected by change or development. This includes all heritage assets, whether designated or not, and encompasses registered and nonregistered parks and gardens alike. The level of architectural and historic information required to support an application affecting a heritage asset should be proportionate to the significance of the asset, PPS5 tells us. Naturally an undesignated park or garden would not be considered to have the same significance as its registered counterpart, so the level of information submitted with each application will vary according to the perceived and actual significance of an asset. This requirement to submit information relating to non-designated assets could be especially important to historic landscapes because it is estimated that the Register of Parks and Gardens is far from complete. Just a small amount of new information could raise the profile and perceived value of an undesignated site and could trigger additional research to establish where the significance of the site lies. For example, a piece of long-forgotten information, such as the fact that a landscape or garden building had a connection with a famous historical figure, or pioneered the use of a particular stylistic mannerism, could prompt a reappraisal of an asset’s value. An understanding of the historical context of a site is important to historic parks, gardens and landscapes in a way that doesn’t always apply to built heritage assets. Once-great landscapes can lie hidden beneath years of growth, or be disguised by overlaid golf courses or parks. Even where a building has been substantially altered, its physical presence is normally obvious. The same is not always true for historic landscapes or gardens such as at the La Source garden which lies just south of Orleans in France. La Source, once an important example of an 18th century political landscape, is now a municipal park. Its highly visible, architectural features and structural landscaping have almost all gone, although traces of the earlier garden do survive if you know where to look. The site originally surrounded the La Source Chateau, which belonged to the well-known English politician and aristocrat Viscount Bolingbroke. In 1715 Bolingbroke defected to the Jacobites and fled England in a packet boat dressed as a valet. Having betrayed the Whig party, he was exiled in France, where he created a garden full of marble inscriptions, temples and water features designed to display his loyal patriotism and the misery he felt at his exclusion from Albion. There is much more historical and landscape significance associated with this site than a stroll through the now municipal park would immediately reveal. It is the historical context of the park, and its association with its original owner, which provide the key to its real significance. Another example of a deteriorated but historically valuable landscape surrounds Wilbury House in Wiltshire. Hidden in undergrowth in the flat landscape are the remains of a system of weirs and channels built to control the criss-crossing of the seasonal streams which run across the parkland. Several of these water features are barely recognisable. Nearly all have to be hunted out and then interpreted. On their own they appear to be unconnected and unimportant remnants in an unremarkable landscape. But the historical and architectural context of Wilbury gives great significance to the garden. Wilbury House and its landscape were designed and built by the nefarious William Benson. He imported his architectural preferences straight from the early 18th century Hanoverian court in Germany.Wilbury House was the first 18th century neoPalladian villa to be built in England. The garden, which at first appears confusing, contains evidence of early 18th century hydraulic water features. These can only be fully explained when Benson the man is understood. Benson travelled to the Hanoverian court of Elector George, the future King George I, and there became involved in designing a fountain for the famous palace gardens of Herrenhausen. On his return to England, Benson continued experimenting with hydraulics in his own garden in Wiltshire. The landscape at Wilbury would be misunderstood or, worse, passed over as insignificant, without knowing its historical context and understanding its owner. Historic parks and gardens, including their structures, are still often under-researched.Where they have deteriorated over time and their key features lie hidden, so too can their full meaning and value. It is hoped that this stronger emphasis on significance under the new PPS will lead to a better quality of information being submitted with applications. It is then up to us as decision makers to attribute the correct amount of significance to a particular site and afford it the right degree of protection – perhaps even putting some gardens forward for designation. Carole Fry, a director of AHC Consultants
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=