BusheyMuseumPropertyTrust
CommentsonevidencepresentedbyHertsmereBoroughCouncilandtheBushey
HeathResidentsAssociationtotheInspectorofHertsmereSADM
ThePaddock,ElstreeRoad,BusheyHeath
1. Hertsmereisstillusingthewrongmethodology,nottheoneintheNPPF,despite
ourobjectionsfirstraisedayearago.Theirrevisedmarkingsandweightingshave
movedthePaddockfrom53rdplaceintheLGSrankingto9th.HBCadmittheir
methodologyinvolvesan‘arbitrary’cut-offpoint,andthat‘onbalance’LGSstatus
isjustified.Suchvariableresultsbasedonarbitraryweightingsandscoringsmust
beunsoundbydefinition.
2. Ourresponsestothecouncil’sexplanationforchangestotheirscoringsare:
a. RulingbythePlanningInspector.Therulingoftheplanninginspectortothe
seconddevelopmentaddsnothingtotheopinionofthefirst–exactlythesame
wordinghasbeenused.Inappropriatedevelopmentwasrefusedwithoutthe
addedprotectionofaLGS.TheInspectorssaidthattheopennatureofthesite
‘contributes’and‘adds’tothestreetscene,whereasthecouncil’scriteriasaysit
should‘define’or‘separateitfromotherareasnearby,’tobeaffordedfullmarks.
b. ShortageofParks.TheChapter6ofthe2011OpenSpacestudyonParksand
GardensthatHBCrefersto,definesParksandGardensas‘urbanparks,formal
gardensandcountryparks,whichprovideopportunitiesforvariousinformal
recreationandcommunityevents’.TheprivatePaddockwithnopublicaccesscan
thereforeneverbeaparkorgarden.ItsaysthePaddockmustbeprotected
becausethereisageneraldeficitofparksandgardensinBushey.HBChasno
targetforparksandgardensperse.Busheyhas0.76hectaresof‘generaluse
space’/1000peopleagainstalocalplantargetof0.4hectares/1000peopleand
theFieldInTrustrecommendedminimumof0.55hectares/1000people.The
OpenSpacestudystatesthereisaparkaccessibilityprobleminNandSWBushey
–butclearlynotintheSEcornerofBusheywherethePaddockis.Residentsclose
tothePaddockhaveunfetteredaccessto49hectaresofopenspaceatStanmore
Common–notinHertsmerebutonly0.6milesaway.Inaddition,thereis76
hectaresofopencountrysideandwoodlandownedbytheWoodlandTrustwith
freepublicaccessacrossthewholeofMerryHilllessthanamileaway.
DesignationofthePaddockasaLGSwillmakenodifferencetotheprovisionof
ParksandGardensforlocalresidents.
c. Historicalevidence.HertsmereandBHRAbelievethePaddockhashistorical
significancebecause‘thereisnodoubtthatthesitelieswithintheareaknownas
BusheyHeath(identified,togetherwiththeWarrenasanextensivecommon)
whichwasenclosedunderthe1806ActofParliament’1.Theyattachanenclosure
mapasevidence.However,thisistomisunderstandthemap,anannotated
versionofwhichisattached(seeappendix1).
Theenclosuremaphadtwopurposes:toidentifythoseparcelsoflandthatwere
enclosedaspartofthe1806act;andtoconfirmtheownershipoftheother
parcelsoflandthathadalreadybeenenclosed.
1GreenSpaces(PoliciesSADM35and36),note7.13,p.54
Enclosure–theestablishmentoflegalownership-wasacontinuousprocessover
manyyears,andby1750,50%ofthelandinEnglandhadalreadybeenenclosed
mainlybyagreementamongstlocallandownersforeacharea.‘Thecountyof
Hertfordshirehadbecomeoneofthemostimportantcorngrowingcountiesin
Englandinthe18thcenturyandasanaturalconsequenceenclosurebeganearly
andbythe18thcenturythelandwasverygenerallyinseparateoccupation…’.2The
ParishofBusheyappearstoonlyhaveeverhadoneoccupierforeachfieldfrom
1632onwards3,clearlyshowingthatthelandhadbeenenclosedformanyyears.
Atthetimeofthe1806BusheyEnclosureAct,theappointedCommissionershad
tofollowtheprocedureforenclosingaParishassetoutinthe1801
ParliamentaryEnclosureConsolidationAct.Thisstatesthateachlandownerhad
toprovetheirlegalentitlementtothelandtheyfarm4.Theparcelofland
numbered8,inwhichthePaddockislocated,shownasenclosedonthe1799
mapofBusheyParish(seeappendix2),andownershipistotheManorofBushey
withThomasNichollasthecopyhold5tenant,asconfirmedonthe1806enclosure
mapandinthe1809EnclosureAwardBook6(seeappendix3).Thekeyfactis
thatnonewcopyholdtenancieswerecreatedafterthe16thcentury7,includingin
theManorofBusheyandtheManorofBournhall,sothelandmusthavebeen
enclosed,notjustsince1799,butsincethe1500s.
WasthefieldknownasthePaddockpartof‘anextensivecommon’?
TheEnclosureAwardsbookgivesdetailsofthe‘wasteandcommonableland’of
BusheyHeathintwocategories:
1. “WasteandCommonableLand”allocatedtocertainlocallandowners(e.g.the
EarlofEssex,TheLordofBusheyManor,theRectorofStJames’Busheyand
theChurch)inlieuofrightsandprivilegesthatbecameextinctfollowing
enclosure,colouredgreenontheattachedmap8(seeappendix1).
2. “WasteandCommonableLand”thatweresoldoffbytheCommissionersto
covertheircosts,colouredblueonthemap(seeappendix1).
The‘common’orwastelandwasthereforetotheWestandSouthoftheturnpike
road,orBusheyHeathHighRoadasitisnow.Thatis,nowherenearthePaddock,
whichistotheNorthandEast.
2ChapteronAgriculture,pp.129-139,Ed.WPage,VictoriaCountyHistory,Hertfordshire,Pub1908
3BookletNo.1Bushey,ThenandNowbyGrantLongman,1967,p.4
4TheEnglishVillageCommunityandtheEnclosureMovement,WETate,1967,p.113
5CopyholdisatypeofownershipoflandinEnglanddatingbacktoFeudalism,evidencedbyacopyof
theManorCourtRollestablishingthetitle(seeappendix4)
6HertfordshireArchives;HalsRefNo:DP/26/26/1
7Copyholdestatehadtobeaparcelofamanoranditsexistencerequiredamanorandamanorcourt.
Furthermore,becauseitwasfoundedoncustomimmemorial(derivedfromvilleinage),itcouldnotbe
newlycreated.ManorialRecords3CopyholdTenure
http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/communityandliving/archivesandrecordoffice/guidestocollections/m
anorialrecords3copyholdtenure.aspx
8HalsRefNo:DP/26/26/1.FromtheEnclosureAwardsBook,1809,pages10-19,itisveryeasyto
identifywherethewasteandcommonablelandislocatedintheareaknownasBusheyHeath.The
followingparcelsoflandnumbered100,101a,101b,102,105and106wereallocatedinlieuofrights
andprivilegesandthosenumbered71,72,112,113,,114,115and116weresoldtocoverthe
Commissionerscostsandexpenses.
OtherevidenceiscontainedintheVictoriaCountyhistorythatstates‘Past
SparrowsHerneisBusheyHeath,whichleadstothecountyboundary.Beforethe
inclosureof1809,thisdistrictwasopenheathland’9.SparrowsHerneendsatthe
forkintheroadatthetopoftheEnclosuremap,andtheturnpikeroadleads
southfromtheforktothecountyborder.TheEnclosuremapshowsthatsouthof
SparrowsHernewouldhavebeenopencommontothewestoftheturnpikeroad,
includingalargegravelpit(nowtheMaryForsdykegardenandtheWarren
Lake),withthesmallholdingsofthehamletofBusheyHeath10totheeast.Pastthe
hamlet,atravellerwouldcrossthecountyborderandrideoverHarrowWeald
CommonandStanmoreCommon.
TheVictoriaCountyhistoryofMiddlesexsaysthatHarrowWealdCommonwas
‘consistentlycalledBusheyHeathin18Cdocuments’andforStanmoreCommon
’Mostofthewastelayinthenorthwestpartofthe[GreatStanmore]parish.Itwas
originallyconsideredpartofBusheyHeath11’.Thisissupportedbytwoother
sources.MrWWDruettstates‘HarrowWealdandpartofBusheyHeathatone
timeclaimed1,500acresofcommonfieldsandallthatremainstodayisthe45
acresknownasHarrowWealdCommon’.12AndtheStanmoreSocietynewsletter,
Spring1994,statesthatStanmoreCommon,‘originallyconsideredpartofBushey
Heath,itwasknownasStanmereheathby1637,whenoneacreoflandwas
enclosedasabowlinggreen,althoughtherearereferencestothecommonandthe
Heath(e)in1578.13
MostofthewasteandcommonablelandandtheGravelpitsintheareaknownas
BusheyHeath,HarrowWealdCommonandStanmoreCommon,allrestonthe
StanmoreGravels14,andhencehavethecorrectgeologyforheathland(see
appendix5).Physically,alltheseareasformacontiguous,extensivecommonof
manyacresatthetopofthehill,nexttoBusheyHeathhamlet.Itseemsveryclear,
therefore,thatthe‘extensivecommon’wastotheWestandSouthofthehamletof
BusheyHeath,andwascommonlycalledBusheyHeath.
Incontrast,thePaddockdoesnotlieontheroadgoingsouthtothecounty
border,buttotheeast,physicallynearertoLittleBusheythanthehamletof
BusheyHeath.ThePaddockhasevidenceofbeingfarmed,ratherthanbeingopen
heathlandorcommonland.Firstofall,aslandwithacopyholdtenant,ithadbeen
enclosedcenturiesbeforehand–theEnclosureAwardbookalsosaidithad
‘ancientinclosures’15-andenclosedlandwasworkedbecausethecopyhold
tenanthadtopayanannualrenttotheLordoftheManor.Secondly,theborder
ofthelandhasasinuousoutline(seemap-appendix2),arelicofanearlier
medievalfieldsystemi.e.itishistoricfarmland–againconsistentwithcopyhold
tenancy.Thirdly,thefieldwasonLondonClay(thewronggeologyforheathland)
9BritishHistoryOnlinehttp://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol2/pp179-186
10Describedas‘AtinyhamletontheedgeofStanmoreCommon’inDiannePayne’sbooklet,‘From
HartsbourneManortoFryingPanAlley’,Pub.2012,p.6
11BritishHistoryOnlinehttp://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol2/pp179-186
12TheStanmoresandHarrowWealdthroughtheages’byWWDruett,pub.1938
13HarrowLocalHistoryCentreArchives,PinnerView,Harrow,HA76PX
14BritishGeographicalsurvey,mapE256,NorthLondon
151809EnclosureAwardBook,page47.HalsRefNo:DP/26/26/1
andwascontiguouswitharangeoffieldsgoingdownfromthetopofthehillat
LittleBushey.FieldsinMiddlesexandSouthHertfordshireonLondonClaywere
oftenlaidupforhayeveryyearbecauseoftheirunsuitabilityforarablefarming.
EasyaccesstofertiliserfromLondonallowedseveralcropsofhayperannumfor
whichtherewasagoodmarketinthecapital16.
Conclusion:IntheadditionalcommentsbyHBCjustifyingtheiropinionthatthe
PaddockmeetstheNPPFLocalGreenSpaceCriteria,theystate’thesitehasbeen
identifiedasformingpartoftheoriginalheathorcommonlandwhichmadeup
BusheyHeathwhichwasenclosedintheearly19thcenturybyaParliamentaryact.
AssuchitconstitutesoneofthefinalremainingpartsoftheoriginalBusheyHeath
inthelocality’.Theresearchthatwehavecarriedoutandsetoutaboveshows
thatthisstatementisunsound,because:
• Itisnotpartoftheoriginalheathorcommonland,whichistothewestand
south,ratherthanthenorthandeastwhichiswherethePaddockis;
• Ithadbeenenclosedmanyyearsbeforethe1806EnclosureActcameinto
forceandwasfarmlandnotheathorcommonland;
• ItisnotoneofthefinalremainingpartsoftheoriginalBusheyHeath–butthe
MaryForsdykegardenandWarrenLakeis,asisHarrowWealdCommonand
StanmoreCommon.[ItshouldbenotedHBCdonotciteanyhistoricalevidence
tojustifytheMaryForsdykeGardenbeingaLGSdespitetheCouncilnotice
boardattheparkexplainingitwasanunenclosedpartoftheoriginalcommon].
3. TurningnowtothesubmissionbytheBusheyHeathResidentsAssociation:
a. HistoricalSignificance.See2(c)above.
b. Artisticheritage.Noneofthepaintingsreferencedhaveanyprovenancethatthey
werepaintedonorofthePaddock.JustbecausethePaddockhastreesand
bluebellsdoesnotmeanthatapaintinginoraroundSouthHertfordshirethathas
treesorbluebellsmustbeofthePaddock.Asidefromthelargeoaktreeonthe
Paddock,mostoftheothertreesonthesitearerelativelyyoungsilverbirches,
probablydatingbackto1929.Inhisdiaryentryof26thJanuary1929,Albert
Chewettwrites‘InspectedthePaddockandmeasuredforplantingtrees’with
furtherentriesinMarch1929tosaythattreeshadbeenplanted.Thepaintings
referencedbyBHRAareheavilywooded,moreinkeepingwithtreesonStanmore
Commonthanasmallgroveofwhatwouldhavebeensaplings.
c. Memoriesoflocalresidents.Whilstweappreciatethattheoutlookoverthefield
isnice,andthatsomeresidentshavefondmemoriesoftheponieskeptonthe
field,itisapparentthattherewasnocommunityinterestinthefielduntil
developmentwasmooted.
d. Appealdecision.See2(a).
e. MrsChewett’swishes.BMPTfullyacknowledgethatshewouldpreferthe
Paddocktoremainasitwas.However,whilstshesaidshedidnotwantReveley
Lodge‘disposedof’,shedidnotattachthesameconditiontothePaddock.Indeed,
bysayingthatshewishedittobeusedasgrazing,‘whennotrequiredbythe
trust’,sheenvisagedthatuseforgrazingmightnotbepossible.Itshouldalsobe
rememberedthatin1986shesoldhalfoftheReveleyLodgegardenfor
16ChapteronAgriculture,pp.129-139,Ed.WPage,VictoriaCountyHistory,Hertfordshire,Pub1908
development(TheBriars)tofundtherestorationofpartsofthehouse.TheTrust
thereforebelievesthatitsactionisconsistentwithbothMrsChewett’swishesas
setoutinherwill,andherpastactionsthatprioritisedherhouseoverland.
4. TheBusheyMuseumPropertyTrustcontendsthattheCouncilhasnotappliedthe
NPPFcriteriacorrectlyandourresearchhasconclusivelyshownthattheevidence
theyhaveprovidedisincorrect.HertsmereBoroughCouncilthereforecannot
demonstratea‘particularlocalsignificance’becauseoftheuniquehistoryofthesite
asoneofthelastremainingpartsoftheoriginalBusheyHeath.
Inconclusion:TheCouncilstateintheirHearingStatementatpara7.6that:
“anysitewhichscoredlessthan2inboththe“Amenitybenefitandsenseofplace”and
“Culturalandheritagebenefits”isdeemednottobedemonstrablyspecialandthus
disqualifiedfromLGSdesignation.”
TheevidencewehavepresentedhasdemonstratedthattheCouncil’sassessmentof
theheritageconsiderationsbearingonthesiteisfundamentallyflawedandtherefore
unsound.IntheAssessmentMatrix,ThePaddockisaccordedaCulturalandHeritage
benefitsscoreof2,increasedbyweightingto10,therebycontributingtotheCouncil’s
scoreattributedtoThePaddockof30,thelowestpossiblescorethatwouldwarrant
thesite’sdesignationasaLGS.
However,giventheevidencenowproducedwhichunequivocallydemonstratesthat
theCouncil’sassessmentofthesite’sheritageisincorrect,theweightedCulturaland
Heritagebenefitsscoreof2must,onthebasisoftheCouncilsownmethodology,be
reduced.IftheCulturalandHeritagebenefitsscoreofthesitewerereducedto(say)1,
twoconsequencesnecessarilyfollow:
• Firstly,asthesitehasaCulturalandHeritagebenefitsscoreoflessthan2,it
axiomaticallyisnotdemonstrablyspecialandmustbedisqualifiedfromLGS
designation;and
• Secondly,ifthesiteisaccordedaCulturalandHeritagebenefitsscoreof1,
increasedbyweightingonthebasisoftheCouncil’smethodologyto5,The
Paddock’saggregatescorewouldthentotal25,lessthantheminimumscoreof
30requiredforasitetobedesignatedaLGS.
AdoptingtheCouncilsownmethodologytheevidencethereforeclearlyshowsthatThe
PaddockcannotsoundlybedesignatedasaLGS.
GranvilleTaylorMACEngMIET,Chairman
KatharineWhitakerBA(Hons),PGCE,Trustee
ForandonbehalfofBusheyMuseumPropertyTrust
Acknowledgements:
HistoricalresearchbyKatharineWhitaker.Katharinehasafirstclasshonoursdegree
inHistoryfromtheUniversityofWestminsterandwasHeadofHistoryatSirJohn
LawesSchool,Harpendenuntilsheretired.SheisamemberoftheSouthWest
HertfordshireArchaeologicalandHistoricalSocietyandhaslivedinBusheysince1970.
Bibliography
VictoriaCountyHistory,Hertfordshire,Ed.WPage,Published1908
TheEnglishVillageCommunityandTheEnclosureMovement,WETate,Pub.1967
FromHartsbourneManortoFryingPanAlley,byDiannePayne,Pub.2012
BookletNo.1,BusheyThenandNowbyGrantLongman,1967
TheStanmoresandHarrowWealdThroughTheAgesbyWWDruett,Pub.1938
1809,EnclosureAwardsBook,HalsRefNo:DP/26/26/1
StanmoreSocietyNewsletter,Spring1994.HarrowLocalHistoryCentreArchives
Websites:
BritishHistoryOnlineforHertfordshire:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol2/pp179-186
BritishHistoryOnlineforMiddlesex:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol4/00172-198
UniversityofNottingham
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/researchguidance/deedsindepth/co
pyhold/copyhold.aspx
Bedfordshirearchivesandrecordoffice:
http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/communityandliving/archivesandrecordoffice/guidestocollections/m
anorialrecords3copyholdtenure.aspx
Maps:
1799PlanoftheParishofBusheyintheCountyofHertford,HalsRefNo:DP/26/29/1
1806BusheyEnclosureMap,HalsRefNo:DP/26/26/1
BritishGeographicalSurvey,MapE256,NorthLondon
Appendix 1
1806 Enclosure Map – Courtesy of Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies Centre, RefNo: DP/26/26/1. Annotation by Granville Taylor
*
Appendix 2
Parcel 8
Plan of the Parish of Bushey, 1799 – Courtesy of Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies; Reference Number DP/26/29/1
Appendix 3
Parcel 8 - Copyhold to Mr Capper Manor of Bushey
Extract from the Bushey Enclosure Map 1806 – Courtesy of Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies, Reference Number DP/26/26/1
Extract from page 47 reads:
‘All that piece of land or parcel of land
numbered 8 on the said Plan
containing five acres and thirty one
perches as Copyhold of the Manor
of Bushey holden of the said Mary
Capper bounded by ancient
inclosures belonging to the said –
Thomas Nicholl by an allotment
numbered 9 to the said Thomas
Nicholl by the Road leading from
Sparrows Hearn towards Aldenham
and by an Allotment numbered 6 to
Jonathan Matthew And we do order
and direct that the owner or owners
of this Allotment for the time being
shall make and maintain good and
sufficient Fences against the said
Road’
Bushey Enclosure Awards Book, Page 47 – Courtesy of Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies,
Reference Number: DP/26/26/1
Appendix 4
Definition of Copyhold
A type of ownership of land in England dating back to
feudalism, evidenced by a copy of the Manor Court Roll
establishing the title. Smaller landholdings within
manors were held by copyhold tenure. Title deeds for
these pieces of land do not exist in quite the same form
as the freehold land. This is because the freehold of
copyhold land was owned by the Lord of the Manor.
The people who actually lived on and farmed manorial
lands were only tenants of the manor. They held their
land by custom, which varied between manors.
Copyholders (the tenant) did not have legal protection
under common law and were burdened with many
obligations.
However, most copyhold land could be bought and sold,
inherited by descendants, left in a will, mortgaged, and
settled, just like freehold estates. But, every transfer of
land had to go through the Lord of the Manor. The land
was surrendered back to him and the official record of
transfer of copyhold was written up in the Manorial
Court Rolls and a copy of that record given to the new
tenant before he was admitted. The Lord of the Manor
had the right to take fees from new tenants, and to
receive a payment called a ‘heriot’ on the death of one
of his old tenants. Copyhold land tenue was abolished
by Act of Parliament in 1922 and came into effect in
1926.
Source: University of Nottingham
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/res
earchguidance/deedsindepth/copyhold/copyhold.aspx
Appendix 5
Extract from map E256, North London
Courtesy of the British Geographical Survey
Location of
Paddock
KEY:
Stanmore Gravels
Claygate
London Clay
Superficial Deposits
Head Propensity – is based on the geotechnical properties of the London Clay.