Download now - Borough Council of Wellingborough

HARDWICK CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL
1. ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Hardwick village lies approximately 3 miles north-west of Wellingborough
and 8 miles north-east of Northampton. The roughly rectangular parish
covering just over 500 hectares is bounded north and east by Great and Little
Harrowden. The ground is mostly undulating, and covered by boulder clay,
between 114m and 137m AOD, except in the north-east where the downcutting of a small stream near the village has exposed limestones, clays and
silts along its valley sides [RCHME Vol. II 1979 HMSO].
1.2 The suffix of the place name suggests a farm, as in Bulwick (“Bull Farm”)
or Southwick (“South Dairy Farm”), and its early form, as in Herdewic (11th
century) and Heordewican (c. 1067), is apparently in the dative plural form,
suggesting a group of “hard-wicks”. Later spellings include Herdwiche
(1086) (to 1313, with –wik(e), wyk(e)), Hardewiche (1086), Herdwyk
(1220), Herdewike (13th century), Herthwyk (1250), Hardewyke (1397) and
Hardwyk (1428). [Gover et al].
1.3 Whilst it appears from the foregoing records of its place name extending at
least as far back as the Domesday Survey that an agrarian settlement has
existed here from early times, it is not possible to say with any certainty why
the village came to be located in this particular place. A possible clue may
lie in the nearby watercourse inasmuch as it would not only have provided
drinking water, but also that natural geological erosion processes, as
indicated above, made building materials such as limestone and clay readily
available.
1.4 Historically the village does seem to have extended south and south-west of
the church and manor house. Analysis of (much damaged) medieval and
later earthworks here by the Royal Commission for Historic Monuments in
England suggests settlement remains. Although only a group of rectangular
paddocks bounded by shallow ditches or low scarps survive, they are
interpreted as part of a rectilinear layout which follows the existing
arrangement of village streets [RCHME]. This supposition is supported by
two maps of 1587 [NRO, copy] and 1684 [NRO]. These show the area of the
southern earthworks already abandoned, but indicate at the north end (i.e.
the present open space around The Rookery) “an ‘island’ bounded by roads
on each side and to north and south by roads no longer in existence. This
area may have existed as a rectangular village green which by the 16th
century had been partially encroached upon” (i.e. by The Rookery or a
predecessor property). Traces of these roads and part of the island still
survive today as earthworks. The conclusion of the Royal Commission is
that the whole arrangement of earthworks and existing village may reflect a
consciously arranged plan for the original settlement.
1.5 Despite suggestions of an earlier larger village, however, available
documentary evidence indicates that Hardwick was always small and never
suffered a major reduction in population. Domesday Book lists a resident
population of 14. Bridges records 16 families in the parish in 1741, and this
had increased to 68 people by 1801 and to just 121 by the 1931 census.
1.6 Hardwick’s physical layout changed very little between 1886 and 1938 and
only limited additional residential development took place in the latter half
of the 20th century. As a result of the relatively compact form thereby
maintained, the present proposed village conservation area is drawn around
the entire extant built-up area.
2. KEY ELEMENTS OF STRUCTURE
2.1 The village is essentially linear in form and is located on a left/right-hand
bend configuration on a by-road running east-west, linking Wellingborough
with the A43. Its houses are fairly evenly spread out along the village street
and most are set back from the road with generous gardens, creating a
pleasant informal rural atmosphere. Nevertheless, there does remain a clear
sense of being “at the centre” at the street junction opposite the church. Once
it is realised that the open land opposite The Rectory is not arbitrarily
located and is likely to have comprised the original medieval village green,
then its structural significance as, in fact, the heart of the village can be fully
appreciated.
3. ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC QUALITY OF BUILDINGS
3.1 Listed buildings in the proposed conservation area (see tonal shading
notation on the Appraisal Map) are limited to the Manor Farmhouse and St
Leonard’s Church (both Grade II*). The oldest part of the picturesque 2.5­
storied manor house appears to be 14th century in date, a two-light traceried
window on the north side being of this period, but the building was altered
and largely rebuilt in the latter half of the 16th century by Thomas Nicolls
whose coat-of-arms is displayed over the front entrance. The building
assumed more-or-less its present appearance, with three-storey mullioned
bay windows, but was again restored and enlarged in 1775 and 1887,
indicated by datestones on the façade. [VCH IV 1939. OUP; List of
Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest 1986. DoE]. The
parish church is 13th/14th century early Gothic period with later Victorian
alterations. The 13th century west tower is one of the oldest parts of the
building and is of three stages with a single lancet window on its west face.
It features large buttresses, a bell-chamber and a (later) castellated parapet.
The interior contains monuments and brasses to the Nicholls and Bagshawe
families [DoE].
3.2 “Other Buildings of Note” are shown on the Appraisal Map in a lighter tone.
These are good quality examples of historic architectural styles mainly of the
18th and 19th centuries, with heights varying between 1.5 and 2.5 storeys,
mainly eaves-on to the road, some with 2-storey front gable projections.
These unlisted buildings thereby make a positive contribution to the setting
of the listed buildings and by the same token to the character and appearance
of the proposed conservation area as a whole.
3.3 The imposing Rectory is 17th century in date, its steep roof pitch and coped
parapets indicating that it was originally thatched. Features include local
brown stone construction, chimneys of red brick above stone and traditional
flush-closing casement windows. By the second half of the 19th century the
building had fallen into disrepair (although since tastefully extended and
restored) and so the rector built Hardwick House at the north-east end of the
village as a replacement. Hardwick House is a fine example of midVictorian decorative polychrome brickwork, seen in the contrasting
buff/blue/red brick window heads, blue brick string-coursing and the
chimneys articulated in receding blue engineering bricks on a red base. The
original sliding sash windows, patterned Welsh slate roof covering, large
glazed cast iron porch and stone pillars at the entrance with pyramidal
weathering capping are also notable.
3.4 Having become functionally obsolete, the traditional barns at Manor Farm
are presently undergoing a programme of refurbishment for a combination
of domestic and business use. In addition, following the successful
negotiation of the planning permissions and listed building consents with the
Council, three new dwelling units have been consented and at time of
writing are under construction. As a result of extremely high standards of
architectural design and materials specification, the presentation of the
emerging development scheme is wholly commendable, making a worthy
contemporary contribution to the character and appearance of the proposed
conservation area.
4. SPACES/GREENSPACE: CHARACTER AND RELATIONSHIPS
4.1 The spatial aesthetics of Hardwick village derive fundamentally from the
interrelationship between a relatively low development density and the large
numbers of trees which are apparent both in the public realm and as a
backdrop within property gardens. Accordingly, whilst there is no significant
“townscape enclosure” (which would conventionally have been the result of
built-up frontages on the back-edge-of-pavement), north of Medlows it is the
street and property trees themselves which create a striking and characteristic
sense of intimacy. As shown on the Appraisal Map, the regularly-spaced
street limes run from the north entrance to the village down to Medlows, and
this treed setting becomes more marked at Hardwick House where garden
specimens on either side of the street contribute to a dense forest-like
atmosphere.
4.2 In contrast with the northern part of the village, the main street between
Medlows and The Rookery is much more open in character. Deep grass
verges visually link the “undeveloped” undulating and sparsely-treed former
village green with St Leonard’s churchyard, which is shown in the special
“Area Identity” notation on the Appraisal Map in recognition of its
significance as a place of tranquil retreat.
4.3 Traditional limestone (and occasionally brick) walling at back-edge-of­
pavement, shown in the dotted notation on the Appraisal Map, positively
contributes to the character and appearance of the proposed conservation
area by helping to create an overall sense of continuity and enclosure when
read together with associated vernacular buildings.
4.4 In terms of the wider landscape setting, as a result of Hardwick’s peculiar
topography it is a settlement which is neither readily seen from outside
vantage points nor itself provides obvious viewpoints of the surrounding
terrain. The only exception to the latter, perhaps, is the middle-distance view
at the top end of the village looking approximately due north to the
Orlingbury church tower (duly marked with a “Vista” symbol).
5. BUILDING MATERIALS
Common building materials and features of special architectural or historic
interest visible from the public realm include:
• Walling
Limestone/ironstone admixture - regular coursed rubble or cut stone;
red-brown stock brick, or polychrome (as at Hardwick House); stone
cartshed with brick segmental arches/pillars, seen at The Rectory.
• Roofing
Welsh slate; plain tiles; concrete.
• Free-standing walling
Regular-coursed rubble stone. Capping in “cock-and-hen” or
triangular-section engineering brick. Boundary treatment also
includes timber wicket gates.
6. EXTENT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
6.1 20th century expansion of the village is represented by a total of 13
dwellinghouses (not including the three already mentioned as under
construction at Manor Farm). These are shown on the Appraisal Map
without any notation. Whilst they are all generic building types and
therefore lacking in true local distinctiveness, they may nonetheless be
viewed as benign or “neutral” elements in conservation terms because
they:
(i)
respect the low-density tradition;
(ii)
are acceptable in terms of massing (bulk and height), proportions
and relationship to the road frontage;
(iii) are built of materials which, if not traditional, are mellow enough
to blend visually in a satisfactory manner with the older
vernacular buildings.
6.2 There are not considered to be any elements in the draft designation area
which could be said to represent damage, intrusion or a loss to the built
environment which it is desired to conserve.
7. NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
These are limited to:
• The Church of St. Leonard’s. The building continues to function as a
place of worship, but as the Hardwick parish alone is unviable, the
appointed vicar has responsibility for a group of local
parishes/churches. The church as a “land use” is the single most
significant built component of the proposed conservation area’s
character, both as a building type and as regards its apparent
relationship with the plan form (overlooking the medieval village
green). It is therefore shown on the Appraisal Map with a
“Landmark” symbol.
• Manor Farm. The farm has been gradually winding down as an
operational unit over the last five years or so. This is perhaps to be
regretted given the farming tradition which, from the etymology of
the place name, appears to have remained in existence for a thousand
years. Although the present owners are still actively involved in
farming, the yard itself will never now be used for its original
purpose. However, it is intended to reuse the two barns on the south
side of the yard for business purposes, and this is to be welcomed as
a means of maintaining a modicum of active commercial life in the
village. A glimpse “G” symbol is placed at the entrance to the yard in
recognition of the point of interest which it will continue to represent
as a (former) working farm.
• Livery Business. A livery yard and horse paddock is accessed off the
road to the west of the church. Again a business enterprise like this
provides valuable local colour and activity, and is recorded on the
Appraisal Map by the arrowed “Transparency” symbol.
8. MANAGEMENT/ENHANCEMENT PROPOSALS
As a result of survey work associated with this Character Appraisal, two
potential project areas have been highlighted to achieve sustainable
enhancement of the proposed conservation area, viz:
1. Undergrounding of the telephone/electricity cables and
removal of poles.
2. Drawing up of a scheme for the management and long-term
preservation/ replacement of the significant village trees.