Protecting Sheffield's historic parks and gardens
Valerie Greaves and Marion Barter describe how the city is dealing with a rich legacy left behind by the Victorians.
Sheffield is probably not the first place which springs to mind when historic parks and gardens are mentioned. But the City's industrial past has actually left behind a rich legacy of designed landscapes in the form of Victorian public parks and the gardens created for the mansions of the steel magnates; some of the latter were given to the City and became some of its earliest public parks, while others have survived as the grounds of institutions. The value of these was largely overlooked until recently.
Steps to offer protection to this part of the City's heritage began with a policy to safeguard the character, set- ting and appearance of historic parks and gardens, included in Sheffield's deposit draft UDP in 1993. At this time it was unclear what sites the policy would protect. The only sites in Sheffield on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens were the 1830s Sheffield Botanical Gardens and the privately owned Oakes Park, an 18th century landscape park on the southern edge of the City. A list of historic public parks was initially included in the policy but very little research had been done on these and none at all on private gardens. A local landscape architect and lecturer, Joan Sewell, agreed to carry out the necessary research to put forward recommendations for a Local Schedule of Historic Parks and Gardens. The Garden History Society, in its 'Advice on the Protection of Historic Parks and Gardens in Development Plans, 1992', encourages local authorities to produce local schedules to complement the national Register and Sheffield's policy applies to both category of site.
The Sheffield survey started by examining the 1900 OS maps of the City to compile a list of potential sites. After establishing which sites were still in existence, a shorter list was drawn up for detailed site survey and permission sought from the owners. In some cases this was refused and the garden could only be viewed from outside or not at all. Sites were then considered against a list of criteria, which were adapted to suit local circumstances, based on those used by English Heritage for the national Register. The most promising candidates were then researched from documentary sources. With the public parks there were, of course, no problems with access and their history and development are well documented. Research into private gardens proved very time consuming. It has taken four years to compile the Local Schedule, with some sites being added at the last minute when access became available or in response to particular threats. The Schedule is not comprehensive and could be added to.
The main types of historic parks and gardens in Sheffield are: gardens relating to original pre-1800 halls; gardens of mid to late 19th century villas; 19th century public parks; linear valley parks of the 19th and 20th centuries; gardens of workers' cottages; gardens of 19th century hospitals and almshouses; 19th century cemeteries; early 20th century parks and private gardens. An interesting outcome of the fieldwork was evidence of a distinctive local style, particularly in mid to late 19th century villa gardens. The main features are gritstone boulders for foot- path edgings, walls and rockeries, and pollution tolerant evergreens for structural and perimeter planting, particularly holly, yew and laurel. There was even some use of recycled materials from the steel industry such as spent crucible pots and blocks of clinker for walls.
The final list in the Local Schedule contains 16 public parks and 27 private gardens. Most of the latter are now the grounds of institutions: schools, hospitals, student residences, hotels and five groups of almshouses. Only seven are the grounds of private houses or flats. All are vulnerable to development pressures, if not for total redevelopment, then from building extensions or car parks. They are also vulnerable to neglect, and to changes to their character caused by development just beyond, but in view of their boundaries.
Public parks are not immune from threats to their historic character due to changes in the ways in which they are used and maintained. Drastic reductions in funding for maintenance have combined with a growing emphasis on both nature conservation and demand for facilities for formal recreation. The demise of the resident park keeper and reduced maintenance have led to the redundancy of historic buildings such as park lodges and to increased vandalism to buildings and other structures. A pair of attractive and valuable wrought iron entrance gates to one park were stolen overnight.
Three documents have been produced as a result of the survey work; a Policy Background Paper which sets out the survey methodology and describes each site in detail, with plans showing their important features; Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) lists the sites and advises site owners and development control officers on how the policy will be implemented; and an Internal Advice Note for the benefit of development control officers, with a checklist of questions to be asked when dealing with applications affecting a site on the Local Schedule. The sites are protected from damaging development proposals by their inclusion in the Local Schedule now being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
The consultation process for the SPG included all site owners, commu- nity groups involved with particular parks, English Heritage, the Garden History Society and the recently formed Yorkshire Gardens Trust. The latter three organisations were very supportive of the initiative. Of the community groups only one responded, the very active and knowledgeable Friends of the Botanical Gardens. Of the site owners, nine out of 27 responded and only four of these objected to their gardens being included on the Local Schedule. Three of these obviously had an eye to development potential, and indeed one had already had an appeal against refusal of permission for residential development dismissed. All four objectors could see no justification for protecting private gardens which are neither accessible nor visible to the public. However, these are not valid considerations, as sites were largely selected on the basis of their intrinsic historical interest. The SPG has now been finally approved by Committee and there is no right of appeal against a site's inclusion in the Local Schedule. Around 10 of the sites have recently been the subject of planning applications. It will be interesting to see how the SPG stands up to testing at any future appeals.
The project has resulted in other positive outcomes, in addition to giving parks and gardens some protection through the planning process. It has raised awareness amongst both officers and Members of the City Council and the public of the importance of designed landscapes to the City's character and heritage. Joan Sewell has given several talks to local groups which have been enthusiastically received. In addition, the research has led to two more parks being added to the national Register (Norfolk Park and Weston Park) and it is hoped that others will soon be added. In the case of Norfolk Park, this has resulted in a successful bid to the Urban Parks Programme of the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Norfolk Park, laid out in the 1840s as a public park by the Duke of Norfolk has suffered from vandalism and underuse. The £2.5 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund will be used to restore neglected lodges, entrance gates and other features, and also to encourage sustainable community use. An essential part of the project will be the design and provision of a new community building in the park, part- funded by SRB. In addition to Norfolk Park, the Sheffield Botanical Gardens have been offered a grant of £5.4 million. The grants are the largest yet offered to one authority outside London and reflect the national importance of these parks. Additionally, other major positive aspects of these projects have been an increased awareness of the value of historic parks and gardens to the City, together with the importance of thorough research, informed intervention and clear conservation principles. This recognition has now spread beyond the Conservation Officers in Planning to other departments in the authority. The bids and the design projects were led by officers within the Parks and Open Spaces Division, who have now become skilled in this field.