# The Rookery, Dukes Drive, Ashford In The Water, Bakewell, Derbyshire,  De45 1Qq

 
ANDREW SHEPHERD, ARCHITECT 
________________________________ 
453 GLOSSOP ROAD 
SHEFFIELD S10 2PT 
Telephone 0114 266 2458 
Email info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co.uk HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 
AND HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ROOKERY, DUKES DRIVE, ASHFORD IN THE WATER, BAKEWELL, DERBYSHIRE DE45 1QQ 1.00 
INSTRUCTIONS 
 
1.01 
A.D.W. Shepherd, Dip. Arch., Dip. Cons., R.I.B.A., F.R.S.A., I.H.B.C. of Andrew Shepherd, Architect is instructed by Mr. & Mrs. Richard Mayson, as householders of the Rookery, to develop the historical information they have already obtained about their home, and to utilise that information in providing a Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed alterations to their home as designed by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. of EG2 Norway Wharf, 24 Hertford Road, London N1 5QT. 

1.02 
Initial desk study took place in December 2015.  A detailed inspection of the buildings was made on 6th June 2016, commencing around 10.00 a.m., when the weather was dry, bright and sunny. 

1.03 
Further archive study was carried out between July and November 2016 at Chatsworth House, and the Derbyshire County Council Archives in Matlock. 

2.00 
LOCATION 
 
2.01 
The Rookery is a substantial dwelling with various outbuildings located to the West of 
the centre of the village of Ashford in the Water, which is approximately two miles to the West of Bakewell. 
 
2.02 
The building is located in the limestone area of the Peak District National Park. 
 
2.03 
The building is located on the former main trunk road from Bakewell to Buxton, but the 
modern A6 trunk road now passes to the South of the property on land acquired from the Rookery's curtilage from the Chatsworth Estate during the 1930's.  This is known as Dukes Drive.  There was formerly a road on the North side of the house marked as being "To Sheldon" or "Buxton Road". 2.04 
The River Wye passes through the curtilage, flowing from West to East. The location of the building is shown on the location plans attached. 

 
 
3.00 
DESIGNATION 
 
3.01 
The Rookery was designated at Grade 2 on 12th July 1967, reference UID80445.  The designation reads: 
 
"The Rookery GVII House.  Late C18, probably with earlier core.  Coursed limestone rubble with gritstone dressings.  Stones laid to roof.  Stone, tall gable end, ridge and side wall stacks.  Stone coped gable with moulded kneeler to west. Two storeys, irregular plan, five bay front elevation.  To west, advanced cross wing with full height canted bay window.  Plain sashes on three sides in plain surrounds.  To east lower wing with blocked central door case with bracketed stone hood.  To west, glazing bar sash in plain surround and another flush door case with bracketed stone hood under wooden porch. C18 glazed and panelled door.  To east, wide 3-light flush mullion window with plain sashes.  Above, similar window with glazing bar sashes.  To west three glazing bar sashes in plain surrounds.  Beyond, to west, string course over plain sashes with canted Venetian bay window above. Glazing bar sashes.  String course running from impost level of central light.  To rear, 2-light, double transomed stair window.  Interior - hall floor and stairs of Monyash marble.  Various C18 fireplaces. Listing NGR: SK1923569684". 

 
3.02 
The access bridge over the River Wye flowing entirely within the curtilage of the property is also a designated heritage asset: 
 
"Bridge at The Rookery GVII Bridge. C18.  Coursed limestone rubble with gritstone dressings.  Four arches with projecting keystones, two central segmental ones, with narrow, styled, semi-circular headed arches to either side.  Rubble parapet walls over, splaying outwards to each end.  Square sectioned copings.  Wooden gate to south side. 

 
Listing NGR: SK1922769630" 
 
3.03 
The adjacent Rookery Cottage is also designated in its own right: 
 
 
"Rookery Cottage GII Cottage. C18.  Coursed limestone rubble.  Gritstone dressings.  Stone slate roof to front, slate to rear.  Short.  Stone gable end stacks.  Stone coped gable with moulded kneeler to west.  Two storeys, double pile plan, three bays.  Advanced, central, full height canted bay with pyramidal roof and central segmental headed door case with plank door.  To east, formerly 3-light flush mullion window, now with horizontal sliding sashes. To west. 2-light flush mullion window with c20 leaded lights.  Beyond, plank door in flush surround.  Above, 2-light flush mullion windows with original leaded lights, either side of bay window.  Glazing bar sashes to three sides of bay and plain sill band.  To rear blocked 2-light mullion and transomed stair window.  Various 2-light flush mullion windows. Listing NGR: SK1923569684". 

3.04 
There is also a substantial former Barn within the curtilage of the Rookery, subsequently 
converted to a coach house, and converted to domestic accommodation in recent years, so this is also offered the same protection as the designated building. 
3.05 
In past times the Rookery Cottage has been in different ownership to the Rookery, but 
the current owners have reacquired the building and its grounds to reinstate a substantial part of the original site. 
 
4.00 
SUMMARY STATEMENT 
 
4.01 
The historical and association interest of the building is recognized by there being a 
written and limited photographic record of the building in the National Monuments Records, now subsumed into the Historic England Archive.  A copy of this document is 
attached at Appendix A. 
4.02 
The house and outbuildings are obviously of considerable historic and social interest. 
The interest of the present owners has led them to commission the research which has informed the report.  That takes the form of documentary study, and the use of map regression to give an understanding of the development of the building as a dwelling for the eighteenth to twenty first centuries. 
4.03 
As the former possession of one of the great aristocratic estates of the country there are 
much better archives of that history than for most houses of this size. 
4.04 
The tithe and Chatsworth Estate maps show the extent of the original Rookery estate at 
the time of the Sixth Duke of Devonshire, and its subsequent reduction. 
4.05 
These documents also show the development of the village of Ashford in the Water 
along the former Buxton Road to the West of the village centre, though the Rookery remains the most Westerly house, except for the former Manger's House of the Ashford Marble Mill to the South and West. 
4.06 
Those documentary sources, and the photographic records available, show beyond 
doubt that there was a substantial ancillary outbuilding to the North of the main house range, between that and the former Buxton Road. 
 
The current owners of the Rookery have a young family and seek to provide more space 
for their developing activities.  The restoration or restitution of that former ancillary outbuilding would satisfy that need. 
4.07 
In September 2015 Pre-Application Advice was offered to the owners, architects, Lisa 
Shell Architects Ltd., that the then current proposals would be unlikely to obtain the necessary consents.  Advice as to how to possibly make the proposals acceptable was 
offered, further to the acceptance of the principle of the proposal in general terms. 
 
 
The applicants and their architects have now revised their proposals to accord with that 
advice offered by the Local Planning Authority. 
4.08 
For historic interest, and to demonstrate the understanding of the significance of the 
heritage asset and its constituent elements, this report includes a fully illustrated description of all of the spaces in the house and the external fabric.  It is hoped that this amount of detail will show the Local Planning Authority that the applicants for  the changes proposed and their agents fully understand the asset, and that understanding has informed the current revised proposals. 
4.09 
Section 11.00 sets out our understanding of the relevant Town and Country Planning 
policies and guidance, from both national and local perspectives, and Section 12.00 tests the proposals against those policies and guidance and shows compliance. 
4.10 
The report concludes with a reiteration of the Applicants' needs for change at their 
home, and the suggestion that their revised and reduced requirements can be achieved without affecting the special qualities which give this place its heritage significance. 

| 5.00      | CONTENTS LIST    |
|-----------|------------------|
|           |                  |
|           | 1.00             |
|           | 2.00             |
|           | 3.00             |
|           | 4.00             |
|           | 5.00             |
|           | 6.00             |
| Copyright |                  |
| Page 8    |                  |
|           | 7.00             |
|           | 8.00             |
|           | 9.00             |
|           | 10.00            |
|           |                  |
|           | 11.00            |
|           | 12.00            |
|           | 13.00            |



Appendices 
 
 
Appendix A 
Report of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of 
England: Building Report BF 08622 dated November 2016. 
 
Appendix B 
R. Mayson: " The Rookery at Ashford in the Water: a short history " 
(Unpublished) dated 2016. 

## 6.00 Acknowledgements, Bibliography/Sources And Copyright Mr. And Mrs. R. Mayson

 
Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. 
 
The Chatsworth Estate retain copyright in all images supplied. 
 
Derbyshire County Records Office retain copyright in all images supplied. 
 
The National Library of Scotland retain copyright in all images supplied. 
 
Historic England in succession to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of 
England retain copyright for the report included in Appendix A. 
 
 
"Solar Design Tips: Your 10 point guide". London, undated. 
 
 
T. Brighton: 
"The Ashford Marble Works and Cavendish Patronage, 1748- 1905", Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society Vol. 
12, Number 6, Winter 1995. 
 
Campaign to Protect 
Rural England: 
"Design Guide", Bakewell, 2007. 
 
English Heritage: 
"Conservation 
Principles: 
Policies 
and 
Guidance 
for 
the 
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment",  London, 
2008. 
 
 
Historic England: 
"Making Changes to Heritage Assets: Advice Note 2", Swindon, 
2016. 
 
 
Historic England: 
"The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Advice in Planning 3", Swindon, 2015. 
 
 
Historic England: 
"Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice", Swindon, 2016. 
 
 
National Planning 
Policy Framework: 
Outline 
Resource 
and 
Planning 
Guidance 
@www.planningportal.co.uk accessed at various times.  
 
 
Peak District National 
Park Authority: 
 
I. Thomas: 
"Strategic Stone Study: A Building Stone Atlas of Derbyshire and the Peak National Park", English Heritage, London, 2011. 
 
 
I. Thomas & M. 
Cooper: 
"The Geology of Chatsworth House, Derbyshire", Mercian 
Geologist, 2008, Vol. 17 (1). 
 
Andrew Shepherd, Architect assert their right under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 11988 to be identified as the author of this work, c. 2017. 


7.00 
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 
 
7.01 
Published Sources 
 
The principal source is the report from 1992 of the Royal Commission for Historic 
Monuments, now subsumed into the Historic England Archive.  (ref. BF 086022 and 086022/1).  That document is attached at Appendix A. 
 
The historic buildings designation description is as stated previously. 
 
 
The present owners' researches are attached at Appendix B.   
 
 
There is no reference to the building in the recently revised Derbyshire volume of the 
"Buildings of England" series originated by Nikolaus Pevsner. 
7.02 
History as Published Sources 
 
 
The earliest history of the dwelling as found is the record of its purchase by the Duke of 
Devonshire in 1821 when the 6th Duke of Devonshire bought the property for £3,000 from the Estate of John Bullock.  In 1822 the Chatsworth Estate paid his Executors a further £21 8s 8d for "sundry fixtures".  History records that the tenant was one of his mistresses, all as set out in the document appended at Appendix B. 
 
After that relationship ended, the house was retained by the Chatsworth Estate and was 
then tenanted.  This continued until the Second World War, when the then cadet son of the then Duke of Devonshire lived there, or rather, his wife and young family lived there. Through a wartime tragedy they subsequently became the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, as described in Appendix B.  The house and grounds were subsequently sold into successive private ownerships after 1951. 
7.03 
Analysis of Historic Map Evidence (Regression) 
01. 
The Architect for the proposed restitution of a former outbuilding carried out initial maps 
regression showing the existence of the outbuilding and her drawing is attached. 
02. 
In addition to the Ordnance Survey drawings of the locality after 1850, I have been able 
to find various other maps in both the Derbyshire County Records Office, and the Chatsworth Estate Archive. 
03. 
The earliest is from 1752, being "A Survey Plan of Ashford Lordship, showing 
demesnes, freehold and copyhold lands".  The map is a little difficult to interpret, as the "Explanation" panel is very damaged.  The map does show a house (all houses are represented by the same charming 3D symbol) on the present location of the Rookery. (Image Map A).  To the North of the house there is a track marked, which subsequently became the Buxton Road.  To the East of the Rookery site, along that road are further dwellings. 
 
The Marble works site outside the North West corner of the present curtilage is marked 
with two "Mill-type" building symbols.  (Map B) 
 
 
There is extensive woodland all around the housing, particularly to the North and South 
sides. 
03. 
There exists an Enclosure Map Award of 1767, which is referred to in the Enclosure 
Award of the same year of the three Commissioners, Wm. Wyatt, Sam Brailsford and Sam White. 
 
The present site of the Rookery is marked as an 'Old Inclosure'.  No buildings are 
shown.  The "Marble Machine Works" are denoted, as is the River Wye.  (Map C). 
 
 
04. 
There is an Ashford Town Map of 1824.  By this time the plan of the house as 
represented is very much as it survives today, with the West crossing and the North East 
offshot wing existing.  (Map D). 
 
The Barn and what is now known as Rookery Cottage are marked. 
 
 
The bridge over the River Wye to the South is clearly marked, but the principal entrance 
to the property appears to have been from the North, from what was then marked as the "Road to Sheldon". 


The Chatsworth Estate map of 1824 is identical, except that there are presumed 
proposed plots for development marked to the East and South sides of the house. 
 
05. 
There is a further Ashford Tithe Map of 1847, (Map E), and the Schedule.  The 
Commissioners F.T.(?)W. Bullen and Rd. Jones set out their apportionment of the rent charge to be paid by each property in lieu of tithes, for the Township of Ashford. 
 
The map shows the main body of the house as extended, with the bay to the South front 
of the West crossing quite clearly marked, and a further building on the site of the proposed reconstruction. 
 
The paths through the Rookery grounds towards the West side of the curtilage are 
clearly shown. 
 
 
06. 
Another Estate map of 1857 prepared for the Duke of Devonshire shows the same 
curtilage and buildings.  (Map F). 
 

## Map G

 
Map G is an Estate map, prepared after the first Ordnance Survey in 1883 which shows the extent of the curtilage of the Rookery at the time which was very much more extensive than that today.  It obviously included "pleasure grounds" and an extensive orchard with walks to the East side. 

 
Map H shows the detail of the house and outbuildings.  The two outbuildings to the North side of the house are quite clearly shown, including the building it is now proposed to reconstruct. 

 
Map J seems to indicate that the Chatsworth Estate had sold off some of the original landholding, which seems to have been denoted as a further orchard with walks. 

 
Map K shows the garden to the West of the house, but there is no indication of the Ice House or Grotto, which would have been built by this time. 

 
Map L shows the very extensive scope of the Marble Works to the West of the overall 
site, with a fairly complex system of goyts and buildings. 
08. 
The first Ordnance Survey of this area in Derbyshire was apparently not until 1878, 
followed by the publication of the map in 1883 at the scale of 6" (inches) to 1 mile.    This shows the layout of the buildings, as it remains today, except that the detached outbuilding that it is now proposed to reconstruct then still remained.  This map seems to 
have been used as the basis of a Chatsworth Estate map.  (Map G). 
09. 
Presumably because of inaccurate cartography, the (presumed) outbuilding to the North 
side of the house is not shown as a separate building from the Ordnance Survey maps after 1889, but as an attached part of the building.  (Map N).  This is continued/followed on the O.S. maps of 1923 (map P) and 1946 (map Q). 
 

10. 
The best evidence of the existence of the building which it is now proposed to 
reconstruct is photographs.  Two aerial view are shown below. 
 
The first shows the outbuilding set into a wall against the bank and the modern trunk 
road behind/above. 
 
The other shows very much more tree cover than today on the bank behind the building.  
 
 
From the view of the rear roof slope of the main range of the house, this would seem to 
predate the alterations to the roof known to have been carried out in the mid 1970's. 
 
7.04 
Primary Research 
 
As stated previously, principal primary research had been in the Archives of the 
Chatsworth Estate and the Derbyshire County Records Office. 
 
What might be described as the "social history" has already been researched by the 
present building owners.  (Appendix B). 
01. 
Sadly, most of the earliest records, such as the Account of the Tithes of Ashford of **1799**, 
the lists of Copyholders in Ashford in the Water of **1830**, and the Copyhold Tenants list 
of 1849, do not describe the names of the properties reported, merely the names.  There are no references to any of the names of the tenants, or the Rookery itself. 
02. 
The survey and valuation of the Duke of Devonshire's Chatsworth Estate carried out by 
John Cottingham in **1829** states what is assumed to be the Marble Works were then let to Richard Brown from 25th March 1830 (the quarter day) at £70 per annum: 
 
 
There is, also, in that **1829** survey a reference to the Rookery.  This states it to have 
been purchased "of Bullock", with an annual rental of £3 - 2 - 11, and a value of £40 - 0 - 0. 
 
By the time of the **1844** (anonymous) survey and valuation, the property was not 
described as being "in hand" to the Duke, though the property remained within the 
Chatsworth Estate until it was sold in the 1950's as the Estate liquidated assets so as to raise death duties for the Revenue. 
03. 
By the time of the **1858** valuation of the Duke's estates at Ashford, Sheldon, Holme, 
Bakewell and Over Haddon the property was let to Edmund Howarth at a yearly value (rent to the Duke?) of £60 - 2 - 0. 
 
The Rookery is described: 
 
 
"60 
The Rookery. Stone and Slated.  Dining Room, Drawing Room, Study, Butler's 
Pantry, Servants' Hall, Kitchen, Pantry, Larder, four principal Bedrooms and Coach House, Stable and Servants' cottages - al in order". 
 
 
Edmund Howarth was also the tenant of : 
 
 
"59 
Garden 
 
61 
Croft 
 
62 
Pleasure Grounds". 
 
 
These plots are noted on the map below, held in The Chatsworth Archive and thought to 
date from 1857: 
 
 
By this time it would seem that the Marble Works, described as the "Magpie Mine" was 
let by the Chatsworth Estate to "The Proprieters of Magpie Mine", including a house and yard at a combined yearly value (to the Duke) of £60 - 2. - 0. 
 
The first mention of Edmund Howarth as the tenant of the Rookery was in 1852, with a 
rental of £50 - 0 - 0 per annum.  This was a high value, as the Duke's lime kilns in Stoney Middleton only had a rental value of £30 - 0 - 0 and the Marble Works at Ashford of £40 - 0 - 0! 
 
It obviously took some time for the initial arrangements to be settled, as Mr. Howarth 
was stated to be £123 - 16 - ½ in arrears at the Quarter Day in 1852. 
 
The rent appears to have been paid regularly until 1858, when the property was said to 
be unoccupied at Michaelmas.  In the following year's accounts Mr. Howarth appears to have paid half the previous year's rent with £52, and the property now being let first to "Brigg's widow" and then Alfred Morewood. 
04. 
By 1896 the property was again unoccupied, and was advertised for lease by the 
Chatsworth Steward or Agent, Gilson Martin. 
 
At first a seven and a half year lease was offered, and subsequently a 14 or 21 year 
period was offered.  This was to be a full repairing lease at £60 - 0 - 0 rental per annum. Detailed requirements for repainting and repairs, including boundary fences, were stated.  There was a specific requirement to "manage the lands and gardens in a good and husbandlike manner"!  The fishing rights to the River Wye within the curtilage were, however, to be strictly reserved for the Duke! 
 
The particulars of the tenancy were quite explicit, and the following were the Particulars 
of the Rooms: 
 
Dining Room 
22' 6" x 15' 6" 

|     | Drawing Room    | 24' x 16' 9"    |
|-----|-----------------|-----------------|
|     | Breakfast Room  | 12' 9" x 13' 5" |
|     | Kitchen         | 15' 6" x 12' 9" |
|     | Scullery        | 10' 6" x 9' 3"  |

 
Butler's Pantry, Front Entrance Hall, Larder, Front and back staircases and Cellarage. 
 
 
Bedrooms 
15' x 15' 3", 15' x 11", 13' x 13' and 14' x 17' 6" 
 
2 Dressing Rooms 
11' 9" x 7' 8" and 9' 9" x 13' 
 
Servants' Bedrooms 
18' 6" x 12' 9" 
 
Lavatory, Box Room and Bathroom. 
 
 
Adjoining the house is a meat larder, storeplace, coal house, servants' w.c. and coke 
and bottle store. 
 
(This is believed to be the description of the building which it is now proposed to 
reconstruct.) 
 
Harness Room with Store Room adjoining, Gardener's Tool House, 2 pig cotes, fowl 
house and woodshed. 
 
Adjacent Coachman's Cottage: 
 
 
Living Room 
 
 
Scullery and Pantry 
 
 
Two Bedrooms. 
 
 
05. 
The Chatsworth Estate Account Books for 1820 to 1838 have been studied.  These were 
the years prior to and during Mrs. Warwick's occupation, until her departure in 1838, when the property was let to Revd. W. Giles as described subsequently. 
 
 
The Accounts for **1820** show arrears arising from a John Bullock in Ashford of £13 - 11 -
8.  Was this the same Mr. Bullock whose Executors sold the Rookery to the Duke of Devonshire? 
 
The Account Books for 1821 - 1824 (?) show very great expenditure on the Rookery, 
and even greater expenditure on the grounds. 
 
In **1821** a pond was infilled, and other considerable and frequent works to 'labour in 
garden', 'cleaning', 'planting shrubbery and forming walks', 'carriage of trees' and the like were carried out at an approximate total cost of £105. 
 
As might be expected, no accounts were paid over the Winter, with further works being 
paid for from March 1822.  Major items were "making walls, planting the Shrubbery and sundry at £39 - 11 - 10", "carting rubbish into the pond at £10 - 3 - 6", and "Chatsworth Farm Plants at £80 - 6 - 0"! 
 
Improvements to the house are described in detail in the **1822** accounts.  There were 
also considerable ongoing works to the grounds, such as the "Taking down Peacock Houses in the Pleasure Grounds at £5 - 8 - 0", "levelling the Rookery Garden at £43 - 2 - 0" and "carting around remaining soil at the Rookery Gardens at £79 - 12 - 0". Fencework alone cost £53 - 2 - 0. 
 
On and on went the expenses, to approximately £350 for the annual accounting period. 
 
 
Works to the House were not neglected.  There are regular payments to the same 
identified tradesmen for mason's work, the carriage of lime and stone, painter's and glazier's work, carpentry work, sundry deal furniture and (timber) repairs, recasting and fixing the leaden gutters, blacksmith's work, slater's work and whitewashing and colouring!  The expenditure was approximately £420.  The chimneys are understood to have been rebuilt and raised during this year, and the Grotto was reportedly constructed this year. 
 
On went similar works in **1823** to a cost of approximately £215.  By now, the gardens 
must have been in order for Thomas Wilson, Gardener, was paid £7 - 16 - 0 every 13 
weeks/quarter.  Flower seeds at 7s 3d were included in the buildings costs, however! 
 
By **1824** finishing works were strongly in hand, and generally reduced expenditure, 
including items at £3 - 10 - 0 for cartridge paper rolls for the Dressing Room, and £17 - 12 - 7 for painter's work. 
06. 
The expenditure continued though it by now seemed that finishing works were being 
carried out.  The same tradesmen were employed for carpentry, masonry, painters work, ironwork and plumbing and glazier works but, additionally, cartridge paper for (lining) the walls of the Dining Room was purchased for £3/10/-, as well as £4/12/4 being expended on drab cloth and drugget for lining both in 1824.  The whole expenditure for the year was £171/11/7. 
 
Interestingly, this is the year for the first entry in the accounts for the lady Benedictus 
Parker who remains in them until they end in 1849 as separate for the Rookery.  In this year she was paid for 60 weeks @ 2/6 for the keep of the Italian greyhound "Ondine"! 
07. 
The annual expenditure declined, with £92/4/4 in 1826 (the accounts for 1825 are 
missing), £86/11/7 in 1827, £117/3/- in 1828 (reputedly the first year of Mrs. Warwick's residence), and £81/8/- in 1829. 
08. 
The accounts show ongoing costs for "labour in the garden" of £40 to £50.  Regular 
"carriage of gravel" presumably showed the topping up of the extensive paths within the grounds.  Coal and soap/candles start to be regular, relatively large, annual expenditures at around £20 for the former and £10 for the latter. 
09. 
Joseph Paxton was paid £11/4/- in 1827 for the use of a labourer from the Chatsworth 
Garden for 16 weeks (@ 14/- per week).  £6/1/6 was paid in 1828 for Scotch roses, as well as the continuing hire of a labourer from the Chatsworth Garden. 
10. 
The menagerie maintained by Benedictus Parker varies from year to year, with entries 
for a dog and two cats, then cats, and in 1831 one George Wilson was paid £2/4/- for "stuffing a Persian cat"! 
 
11. 
Some of the unusual entries include Richard Sellors in 1828 for repairing the roof of an 
outbuilding and reslating the Waterkeeper's House for about £13, and the cost of coal from Staveley in 1832 @ £8/10/- with associated cartage costs of £10/11/3; £10/9/9 paid to Bramah and Prestage for a water closet apparatus in 1839; and over £20 being paid to a surgeon and medical supplier for "surgical attendance upon the Housekeeper" in 1834. 
12. 
Finishing or renewal and upgrading works can be seen to have been regularly carried 
out, with a slowly changing cast of tradesmen, most of whom also appear in the Chatsworth accounts for other labours elsewhere.  There are few furnishing costs, (six chairs in 1834), and some fabric items (chimney pipes in 1838, reportedly when the chimneys were raised), and an oven boiler in 1839. 
13. 
In 1837 there is again major expenditure with a total cost of £388/3/7½.  This must be 
the cost of the extension to the rear of the East end of the house.  There are entries for the same tradesmen with considerably greater earnings, and in addition for "earthing and foundations at the back of the house". 
 
These continued into the next year when Mrs. Warwick and the Duke, reportedly, finally 
parted.  The property was let to Revd. W.G. Giles, who was the Curate at Ashford 
 

Church, which was a living in the Duke of Devonshire's patronage.  The charity accounts show an annual gratuity payment of £3/-/- to the Revd. Giles.  The Estate also pay him £1 per week to maintain the garden.  From the Estate rentals it seems that the annual rent for the Rookery was £104, so the garden payment may well have been a charitable act.  The Revd. Giles nevertheless left in 1851 with £61 rent arrears. 
 
 
The annual Estate expenditure during the early years of his tenancy averaged around 
£98, so there was precious little profit from the rent as charged, notwithstanding the 
Revd. Giles's arrears.  Amongst the entries of interest for those years concerning 
alterations to the fabric were the opening of a sough in 1840, £11/18/9 in 1845 for a 
"floor a sefament (?)", about £20 in 1846 for repairs to the bridge over the River Wye, and in 1847 for "removing earth at the back of the Dairy", together with substantial masons' accounts from the same year.  Was this the original construction of the building which it is now proposed to reconstruct? 
14. 
As stated previously, the 1848 accounts are missing and from 1849 the Estate Accounts 
are set out differently, with no specific reference to the expenditure at the Rookery. 
15. 
The full record of tenants of the property after this period is known: 
 
 
Revd. W.G. Giles: 1838 - 1851 
 
Edmund Hayworth: 1852 - 1867 
 
Alfred Sarsby: 1866 
 
Succeeded by Agnes Sorby: 1866 - 1896 
 
John T. Dickenson: 1896 - 1898 
 
Frederick Lear: 1899 - 1910 
 
Walter C. Tinsley: 1910 - 1930 
 
Succeeded by Alice Tinsley: 1930 -1942 
 
Lord Andrew Cavendish: 1943 - 1946 
 
Col. H. Dacres West: 1946 - 1956 
 
16. 
The Chatsworth Estate Archives obviously hold other documents relating to the property. 
Between 1900 and 1903 there appears to have been a problem with the water supply and broken pipes to troughs with neighbours with such rights, and also the taking of the water supply from the Rookery to the Coach House for the washing of carriages. 
 
 
Tenders for alterations to the Rookery were reported to the Estate Steward, Mr. Gilson, 
in 1908 by John Ely F.R.I.B.A., Architect of Manchester, in the sums of £471 - 0 - 0 and £527 - 10 - 0.  The scope of these works is shown on the drawing on the next page.  It is believed that the works were never carried out , but the floor plan at that date is most helpfully shown.  It shows the Butler's Pantry still located in what we now know as the Hall. 
 
 
17. 

Amongst the Chatsworth archive is a drawing (included here) described as "Plan for extensions to the Rookery, Ashford c. 1920". 

 
The drawing is unfortunately undated and unsigned.  It is believed to have been found relatively recently in a cache of papers in an outbuilding roof void/attic, and the "c. 1920" 
attribution is certainly open to challenge. 

 
Comparison with the known 1908 plan on page 28 showing proposed alterations to the Rookery is interesting.  The 1908 plan clearly shows the Scullery Western extension to the side of the Kitchen. 

 
That is not shown on the "as existing" colour rendering of the other plan.  Were the 
"below stairs" arrangements within the original fabric of the house implemented?  The Wine Cellar of 1908 is marked as the Lady's Store and for China, and the Butler's Pantry is located in what is the Larder, and was so in 1908. 

 
The proposals show the construction of a large Billiard Room attached to the North West of the house, with the principal access through the Morning Room.  Attached to the Billiard Room was to be a service range to the North of the house with an enclosed courtyard.  Interestingly, there is a pencil annotation on the drawing showing a door to give access to that courtyard! 

 
This range is shown where much of the rear terrace, as now exists, is located.  It bears no relationship, however, to the Scullery extension as was, or the passage from the Coach House/Barn running around and the North side of the extended service range of the  house. 

 
So, is it possible to assume that the drawing is in fact earlier than the 1920's attribution? 

Does it predate the Scullery extension of the Kitchen/Servants' Hall which the Royal Commission report suggests was added in the mid nineteenth century?  There is, however, no evidence of that in the drawings attributed to the 1920's! 

 

18. 
In recent years, the property has been regularly updated and modernised as comfort 
standards have changed. 
 
These works include the following alterations: 
 
 
1. 
As stated previously, in the 1970s the rear roof slope of the main range was 
altered and reroofed with blue grey slates rather than the presumed previous sandstone slates.  Consent for this work was reportedly obtained with some difficulty. 
 
 
2. 
The present owners have converted the Barn to a domestic office and study 
accommodation; Upgraded the Kitchen and extended it to create a rear porch; Created a new bedroom by conversion from an existing bathroom, and carried out alterations to another bedroom. 
 
7.05 
Critical Evaluation of Previous Records 
 
The published sources of information about the building are relatively few, and so far as 
can be ascertained, are accurate.  It might be possible to challenge with some of the observations of the RCHM conjectural, but not to fundamentally disagree with them. 
 
 
The primary research reported sets out extracts from historic documents.  Their veracity 
cannot really be doubted.  Many of the Chatsworth Estate Accounts and Records are signed by the eminent Joseph Paxton, (1803 - 65) from his service as Estate Steward, though most histories only record that he was Head Gardener.  That cannot have been the case if he was signing his approval of Rental Books for the Estate. 
 
The regression of the numerous maps showing the property after the mid eighteenth 
century until the belated arrival of the Ordnance Survey to this part of Derbyshire in 1878, are mostly quite clear and consistent in showing the house and its grounds, and their development, followed by their retrenchment. 
 
 
The former outbuilding that it is now proposed to reconstruct really did exist! 
 
8.00 
BUILDING FORM 
 
8.01 
Survey Drawings: 
 
Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.: Drawings 
 
 
RKR 2SU 001D 
Ground Floor Plan As existing 
 
RKR 2SU 002E 
First Floor Plan As existing 
 
RKR 2SU 003D 
Roof Plan As existing 
 
RKR 2SU 101C 
Elevations 1 and 2 As existing 
 
RKR 2SU 102C 
Elevations 3 and 4 As existing 
 
RKR 2SU 103C 
Elevation 5 As existing 
 
RKR 2SU 104D 
RKR LO003C 
Sections AA and BB As existing Historic maps 
 
RKR LO002B 
Location Plan 
8.02 
Structure: 
 
The structure of the buildings is entirely typical for this part of Derbyshire, having 
presumed shallow foundations to solid stone faced loadbearing walls, supporting first floor timber floor joists and traditional roof trusses, purlins and rafters, under a mixture of sandstone stone slab and blue grey slates to the various roof slopes.  I imagine that the roofs were originally clad with sandstone stone slates, and the various alterations have caused the change. 
 
The Coach House is constructed of the same materials, in part over an older archaic (or 
reused?) timber cruck roof construction.  It is, of course, to be noted that the building was originally described as a "Barn" before its conversion to the Coach House, so that 
may well have been an original barn cruck construction.  The joints of the cruck blades are apped, and the purlins are trenched onto those blades, indicating an early provenance. 
8.03 
Materials: 
 
 
As  stated above, the materials are entirely typical for the vernacular of this part of the 
Peak District in Derbyshire, with limestone wall facings and gritstone dressings to openings, quoins and the like.  The blue/grey roof slates are presumably a modern replacement arising from the remodelling of the main body of the house in the twentieth century.  This is not a locally sourced material, but was readily used in the locality with the growth of their distribution by the expansion of the railways in the 1850s onwards. 
 
Rainwater goods are cast iron, replacing the lead for such items as described in the 
Chatsworth Archives Building Accounts of the 1820's and 1830's. 
 
Windows and doors are generally painted timber.  As described within section 10.00 the 
detailed Fabric Survey, a number of what appear to be historic timber sliding sash windows have no horns at their intermediate rails, which generally denotes their manufacture before 1840.  There are a number of panes of blown Crown glass to those windows which would again confirm their authenticity.  Evidence is available with the photographs taken in 1992 by the representatives of the Royal Commission (Appendix 
A) which show presumed nineteenth century replacement windows to the principal 
South elevation of the main wing of the house. 
 
 
Internally, all materials are typical, except for the use of what I believe to be Hopton 
Wood limestone to the Hall floor, and to the principal staircase to the Master Bedroom on the first floor.  I have never seen this material used for this purpose.  It is interesting that the Royal Commission do not state this, but that the material is "fossiliferous marble flags, probably of locally quarried Ashford marble.  I believe it to be Hopton Wood from 
nearby Middleton-by-Wirksworth.  There is the same stone at Chatsworth House, according to a reference. 1  What was described as "New Hopton Wood Stone" was acquired at Monsal Dale, until a legal judgement in 1910 protected the name of the original. 
 
A useful guide to the Stones of Derbyshire2 confirms the Hopton Wood stone is one of 
the local Bee Low limestones.  The South Eastern edge of the seam of these very clean calcium carbonate stones is Hopton Wood.  This is described as: 
 
"This is a consistent fine-grained, fossiliferous, crystalline, pale, cream coloured 
limestone, perhaps the UK's most widely used decorative indigenous limestone. 
From the 18C onwards it has predominantly been used in interior work (staircases, floors, door surrounds, wall cladding) in grand houses and official buildings…..It was much in vogue from 1850 to 1950 and still is, although it is still available in small quantities, but much in demand." 
 
Those descriptions and criteria precisely match the use of the stone at the Rookery. 
 
 
The door to the Drawing Room is of historic interest, though I believe it has been 
reworked. 
 
The extant historic fire surround in the principal bedroom of the West range is a thing of 
considerable beauty and historic interest. 
 
Most other finishes are modern, albeit presumably overlying the historic materials 
beneath!  The 1992 Royal Commission photographs interestingly in part record the furniture, fittings and decoration of a previous owner of the house. 
 
                                                        
9.00 
DETAILS OF CHANGE PROPOSED 
 
9.01 
The principal development now proposed is the reconstruction of the former outbuilding 
located to the North of the principal body of the house, against the bank up to the Buxton Road. 
 
 
This is most clearly shown on the submitted drawings. 
 
 
This photograph taken in the 1970's shows the former outbuilding prior to its being taken 
down around that time, presumably in conjunction with the known contemporary alterations to the rear of the main body of the house. 
 
The alterations to the rear roof slope of the main range of the house do not seem to 
have been carried out by this time. 


The outbuilding is also clearly shown on this photograph, also believed to have been 
taken in the 1970's. 
 
9.02 
That building was taken down in part and then resurfaced with pavings to create an 
external series of terraces. 


Photographs of terrace as existing. 
 
9.03 
The reconstruction will provide for ancillary accommodation to the dwelling.   
 
 
The principal accommodation of the reconstructed building will comprise a Laundry 
Room which is a requirement for a family with growing children, and containing plant, and a Wine Cellar. 
 
 
Stairs will lead up to a mezzanine floor level above, on which a Dayroom will be created 
with views Westwards across the grounds of the house. 
 
A part of the existing terrace will be lowered by just one step, so that access can be 
easily made onto it from the new Dayroom.  A flowerbed retaining wall will be taken 
down and rebuilt to achieve this, and the modern access steps up to the Terrace from the back door of the house will need to be altered. 


The existing large terrace to the Western side will be retained all as existing but the 
present poor quality concrete flaggs will be replaced with natural stone paving. 
9.04 
Investigation by the digging of test pits under the direction of the Consultant Structural 
Engineer has been carried out, and the walls of the reconstruction will be raised over new foundations, within the line of the historic walls, so that the new walls in no way affect the retaining wall back into the bank to the rear of the existing boundary wall along Buxton Road. 
 
The Consultant Structural Engineer has advised that the existing reduced wall and its 
unknown foundation cannot be accepted as a suitable founding for the new rear wall of the proposed restitution of the former outbuilding.  The historic wall will remain.  It will continue to contribute whatever structural foundation that it does, and a new concrete block wall of two leaves reinforced with structural steel mesh in the cavity/joint between the leaves will be connected to steel reinforcement in the new concrete floor slab. 
 
Investigation to date on the surface of that bank shows a plethora of damaged and 
dumped stonework and mass concrete, presumably as a foundation/reinforcement of the high stone boundary wall to the public highway. 
9.05 
The **walls** as raised will be faced externally in coursed limestone all to match the 
existing retaining wall as exposed, and also the main body of the house. 
 
The **roof** will be equally pitched, clad with blue grey natural slates, and panels of 
photovoltaic collectors on the South slope, which is concealed from all public views.   
 
The roof will have clay ridge caps to the ridge.  That ridge will be located at a lower level 
than the ridge of the gable wall of the existing Kitchen offshot. 
9.06 
The new structural **openings** will have sawn gritstone dressings, lintels and cills, and all 
doors and **windows** will be of painted timber. 
 
9.07 
The existing **Dining Area** within the Kitchen space within the main body of the house
is too small for the convenience of a large modern family. It is simple in form, with slated pitched roofs over stone loadbearing walls, and it is desired to extend it in the same form and materials for approximately 1.5 metres in length, all as shown on the submitted drawings. 
 
 
10.00 
DETAILED FABRIC SURVEY 
 
10.01 
I have carried out a detailed inspection of the buildings, both externally and internally. 
The purpose is to amplify the documentary sources of information as to the development of the complex of buildings, and to identify those aspects of the built fabric which have 
historic significance, and whether they are to be affected by the proposed changes. 
 
I base my assessments of the impact of the current proposals for change on the 
following drawings prepared by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.: 
 
RKR2/GA/001D 
 
RKR2/GA/002D 
 
RKR2/GA/003D 
 
RKR2/GA/101D 
 
RKR2/GA/102D 
 
RKR2/GA/103C 
 
RKR2/GA/104C 
 
 
I set out after my description of each building element or space my assessment of the 
impact of the changes proposed on that significance. 
10.02 
The building has grown and been remodelled through time.  The present owners have 
carried out extensive works of upgrading and modernisation to the Rookery itself, to the adjacent barn and to Rookery Cottage since 2006.  They have reacquired the latter building, so that it now forms part of the overall land holding. 
10.03 
The Rookery can be summarised by the listing description as set out at 3.03.  Bald 
description offers little of the actual charm of the building itself!  (Photographs 1 - 6). 
10.04 
Generally:  
 
 
From visual inspection, and certainly from documentary evidence, the house has 
obviously been significantly altered through the years, as described previously in the 
historical development section of this report. 
 
 
Generally the house is built of random limestone brought to course under sandstone 
slab roofs.  As stated previously, the rear roof slopes of the main range have been reclad in blue/grey slates. 
10.05 
External inspection: 
 
I will report on each section of the house, making my observations as to those elements 
of fabric which contribute in some way to the heritage significance of the whole. 
01. 
Main Wing: The **South** elevation is unbalanced.  This is principally caused by the two canopied doorways, the central one of which has been infilled.  I presume that was the original when the house probably comprised that central bay plus two single-light bays to each side, as so considered by the R.C.H.M. report of 1992.  That to the East side has now been changed to have a three-light window with stone mullions.  (Photograph 7). The Royal Commission report states that this wall was rebuilt.  I cannot see any physical evidence for this, and can only presume that they have some documentary evidence for that assertion. 
 
It is also asserted that the two very similar canopied door openings are 
contemporaneous and form part of the Duke's remodellings of the 1820's.  It is 
 

suggested that the two openings were used separately for different status visitors.  I cannot believe that.  I believe that the right hand (Eastern) door is the original, which became redundant with the remodelling of the interior of the original range,  I agree with their conjecture as to the internal evidence of the location of the original entrance lobby, which accords perfectly with that now infilled door opening. 
 
 
The diminishing stone slab **roof** above is surmounted by what must have been originally 
a central passage chimney and also a gable **chimney** to the East end of the house.
These have been raised in worked limestone ashlar over a plinth course on rubblestone base.  They are surmounted by distinctive clay pots.  The matching pots on an adjacent house, which is known to have been designed by Joseph Paxton, suggest that he had a hand in their being placed on this building as well.  (Photograph 8). 
 
The **walls** are of irregular rubble limestone brought generally to course with rather 
protruding mortar pointing.  The windows and door dressings are gritstone as is typical with this vernacular.  Interestingly, there is no plinth as there often is with buildings of 
this type. 
 
The First Floor **windows,** and that to the Ground Floor immediately adjacent to the 
modern entrance door, have no horns to the sliding sashes. The three sashes in the 
three-light window to the Ground Floor at the East end have horns.  The photographs taken in 1992 by the Royal Commission show that these ground floor windows were at that time presumed replacement nineteenth century single light sashes.  I understand that the present owners have caused those windows to  be replaced with small paned sliding sashes to match those at first floor level. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH.  NO ALTERATIONS PROPOSED. 
 
02. 
The **East** elevation has a blank gable to the original body of the house.  (Photograph 3). 
There is an area of unmatched patch pointing near the abutment to the rear offshot wing in what appears to be the butt joint between this gable and that extension.  (Photographs 9 and 10). 
03. 
Rear Offshot Wing:  That has apparently been constructed in two phases.  The first 
constructed is faced with a mix of rubble limestone plus one or two gritstones plus 
evidence of what were fairly ornamental gritstone quoins at high level.  (Photograph 9). 
Below that is an area of unmatched split limestone set in mortar pointing.  I wonder if there was some former door or other such opening there?  There is no evidence of that internally.  Certainly the levels do not work.  The Royal Commission suggest that this range was formerly of one and a half storeys, later raised to two with a subsequent remodelling.  That would explain these levels. 
 
There is a timber sliding sash window without horns at First Floor level, set into typical 
squared gritstone surrounds.  Interestingly, the jambs to each side have small blocks at their heads.  This suggests the stones may have been reused and "lengthened" to suit the desired new window opening.  There is evidence of former security bars having been removed in the lintel. 
 
The Ground Floor window again may have been reused.  The splayed jambs and cill are 
certainly more eroded.  These again may have been reused.  (Photograph 11). 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.. 
 
04. 
A further **extension** of that offshot wing is constructed in much higher status gritstone 
facing work materials with squared and coursed blocks.  The present strap pointing is unfortunate and the current owners intend to remove it, and replace it with more 
 
appropriate flush lime mortar pointing. 
 
Interestingly, the three window openings have stone heads and sills and the paired 
window has a central mullion but otherwise they have no jamb dressings.  None of the three timber sliding sash windows has horns. 
 
 
The face of the stonework has been punched, which again indicates higher status. 
There has been some erosion at lower level.  Interesting survivals of the past are the stable bell (photograph 12) and the pump, presumably to serve that stable.  (Photograph 10). 
 
The **North** return of that extension is constructed in the same materials with a 
delightfully detailed tiny window at low level!  (Photograph 13). 
 
The **West** facing wall again clearly shows the two periods of building with rubble 
limestone to the South side being jointed to the squared coursed limestone. 
Interestingly, there is a pink tinged limestone set of dressings around an unhorned sash window, rather than the usual buff/yellow. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH. 
 
05. 
A **further extension** to the West of that has been constructed in the recent past as 
shown on the 1898 Ordnance Survey map.   (Photograph 4).  The flat lead roof and lantern light are part of recent remodelling works, and the rubble limestone with gritstone quoining and window dressings of the offshot are historic.  It is now proposed that the walling be taken down and rebuilt to allow for the lengthening of that space. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH. 
 
06. 
The **rear North elevation** of the **main wing** now comprises a Ground Floor walling of 
rubble limestone with small plinth and window to the wine store internally, under a short 
length of slated pitched roof and then a long blue-grey slated roof up to the ridge.  I understand this roof form was altered in the mid 1970's. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW. 
 
07. 
West Cross Wing: The cross wing is attached to the central body of the house and it is believed to have been constructed by the Duke of Devonshire when he acquired the house in 1821 to give it higher status.  The construction certainly reflects that. 
 
The wing is set out in advance of the main body of the house.  The principal South 
elevation (photograph 14) has a canted bay with Venetian central light to the First Floor bedroom.  Generally the walls are of coursed limestone with gritstone dressings.  There are two band courses.  Quoining is with coursed limestone but the blocks are not particularly squared. 
 
A First Floor sash window is no longer operative and has no horns.  Most of the three 
Ground Floor sides of the bay have horns.  There is a coped pediment over the small hipped slated roof to the bay.  Interestingly, that does not reflect the roof slope behind. (Photograph 15).  I do not think this shows any history of previous change, it was merely set out this way for the aesthetic of the slope of the pediment. 
 
The **West** wall is of somewhat lower grade coursed limestone. (Photograph 2).  There 
are two windows to Ground Floor, timber sliding sashes without horns matched with 
shallower windows above to the First Floor.  There is a projecting eaves course of stone 
at the head of the wall, unlike the opposite elevation, where there is none. 
 
From this elevation the stone slate roof can clearly be seen with similar raised ashlar 
chimneys, and the same distinctive chimney pots referred to previously. 
 
One chimney is located over the eaves towards the South-West corner and there has 
been some soot staining of the limestone, presumably from leaks through the feathers 
and pointing of the flues. 
 
At the base of the wall there is a strange feature, being some type of plinth. 
(Photograph 16).  It does not, however, extend to the full length of the wall, but just a short central section.  At first I wondered if it was a part of the foundations/sub base of the internal fireplace and chimney.  I cannot, however, understand what. 
 
The principal feature of the rear **North** wall is a six-light window illuminating the 
staircase from the Ground Floor hall to the First Floor bedrooms.  This construction is in 
somewhat archaic style mouldings.  The Royal Commission report also suggests that some of the mullions and transoms of this window were reused components.  Some of 
these have regrettably been rather badly repaired with cement mortar but the original design and construction can be clearly seen.  The wall otherwise is constructed of coursed limestone.  (Photograph 17). 
 
At the Ground Floor level the shadows of former attached outbuildings can clearly be 
seen together with vent holes.  This elevation regrettably has become something of a services run support. 
 
There is a short length of return over the roof that abuts that of the main wing on the 
East side.  This construction is of much lower status rubble limestone, occasionally 
brought to course.  There is a rather complex meeting of roofs and leadwork. (Photograph 18). 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW. 
 
10.06 
INTERNALLY: 
 
In the following section of the report I report on the features of individual spaces/rooms 
within the dwelling which I think contribute to the heritage significance of the house, or 
offer evidence as to the date of its provenance or previous alteration. 
 
 
I use the room names denoted on Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.'s drawings Ground Floor 
Plan As Existing: RKR2/SU/001/D and First Floor Plan As Existing: RKR2/SU/002/E. 
 
In view of the very limited areas where it might be considered that the proposed changes 
described at section 8.00 will impact, there are only assessments of the Heritage Significance and Impact of the Proposals set out for those spaces. 
01. 
Hall:  
 
The pattern of **ceiling** beams shown on the drawing indicates this as being an area of 
change as might be expected.  If the principal original entrance was in the opening 
which now forms part of the Family Room, which presumably had some type of entrance chamber, then the room may have extended as far West as the principal beam running North/South into which a number of historic mortices can be seen.  (Photographs 19 and 20).  This beam has chamfered stop-ends to round rolled mould East/West onto the solid wall partition between this space and the Family Room.  The Royal Commission report correctly notes the moulding is stopped at one end and not the other, suggesting this indicates that it was reused in this position. 
 
There are two trimmed-out areas of ceiling joists.  One is by the former entrance way 
 
partition and the other adjacent to the beam.  I wonder if they reflect the location of an historic stairwell?  Prior to the construction of the West wind of the house there must have been a principal staircase connecting the original two storeys. 
 
Generally, plasterwork to **walls** to openings is rounded rather than squared.  There is a 
moulded timber dado rail which I would date to around 1840.  There are simple skirtings 
with a top roll moulding.  The window shutters remain with their ironmongery including the restraint bar.  (Photograph 21).  There is a limestone **fireplace** with fire grate which 
could be 18th or 21st century!  I understand it is to be the latter!  (Photograph 22).  One of 
the photographs taken by the Royal Commission in 1992 shows the fireplace and the backing wall which at that time had the backing stonework exposed and pointed up.  The stonework can clearly be seen to have never been intended for display!  A larger fireplace opening under a flat brick arch has been infilled and the present stone dressings to the smaller fireplace. 
 
The glory of the room is what I believe to be a Hopton Wood limestone slabbed **floor**. I 
have never seen a floor of this material before but know that it was used for that in high status buildings.  Its veining has proved too soft for long standing use and consequent wear, but the floor is still entirely serviceable. 
 
Interestingly, there are three squared recesses formed in it.  They do not line up.  The 
Royal Commission report suggests that these mortices indicate previous partition fixings for the partition walls and the Butler's Pantry which was located in this space, as can be seen on the reproduced drawing of 1897.  (Photograph 22). (Page ?). 
02. 
Drawing Room: This indeed is the principal reception room of the house and is 
thoroughly delightful.  (Photographs 24 and 25).  There is a flat plastered ceiling which is perhaps somewhat surprising.  There is perhaps some plaster scarring around the central chandelier which may indicate that there was formerly a plaster ceiling rose there?  There is a heavy cornice and high level moulded string course. 
 
There are timber stall risers to the windows in the bay, which conceal shutters which rise 
to infill the openings. 
 
Stylistically, the fireplace could again be 18th or 20th century!  The Royal Commission 
report presumably from documentary sources, stated at that time there was a 1950's 
replacement fireplace.  That was in turn replaced with the present in 2005 by the current owners. 
 
The shutters to the flank elevation window remain. 
 
 
The **floor** planks are generally exposed and painted and can be seen to be of some 
width.  There are deep skirtings with a top roll moulding. 
 
The **door** has decorative panels.  I suspect those have been fitted at some recent time. 
The six-panel door itself is of some antiquity.  (Photograph 26).  The historic ironmongery is in the main retained and serviceable. 
03. 
The **Study** to the North side of the house is approached through the bottom of the 
stairwell which will have been constructed in the extension of 1821 or thereabouts. On the 1897 plan it is shown, generally as existing now, and is marked as the Morning Room, though interestingly it is orientated such that it will receive no morning sunlight! The plaster cornice remains to the ceiling and the fireplace, but otherwise all other fixtures and fittings appear to be modern. 
 
There are substantial built-in cupboards under the stairs and into the wall, as shown on 
 

the plan.  The room itself has effectively been refitted as a modern working office.   
04. 
The **Family Room** will I believe have been the principal room formed in one of the 
earliest plan forms of the original dwelling in the original body of the house. 
 
There is one historic but undecorated **ceiling** beam spanning North to South, to 
presumably form the opening of the hall to the original entrance doorway.  (Photograph 
27). 
 
The long timber beam spanning from that to the East gable wall can be seen to have 
been formerly plastered as have the now exposed ceiling joints with nail fixings for the laths around them to the ceiling.  (Photograph 28). 
 
There is a historic long timber lintel over the three-light window.  (Photograph 29). 
 
 
There is no decorative plasterwork.  The skirtings appear to be modern.  There is a 
timber stall riser to the long three-light window.  There are timber shutters rising from a 
recess in the wall to infill the window openings.  (Photograph 30). 
 
The fireplace now has a wood-burning stove located in what I think must have been a 
rebuilt opening.  Stylistically, it matches that in the Hall adjacent, and so could either be archaic, or alternatively, of twentieth century provenance!  Both are located in what I believe to the oldest rooms in the house, so their matching could offer the clue that they are archaic.  They are, however, in disturbingly good condition…..! 
 
The floor is carpeted but feels to be timber construction underneath. 
   
 
The timber door has one glazed panel and appears to have been re-panelled generally 
around an original muntin. 
05. 
The **Inner Hall** is approached via a short length of corridor from the Reception and 
Family Room.  It too has a floor of a mixture of Hopton Wood and gritstone stone paving.
There is an arched opening to the Wine Cellar.  Also, ingeniously, a W.C. has been formed in what originally was the location of the rear service staircase, as seen on the 1908 plan 
 
Happily, the servants' bells mechanism remains.  (Photograph 32). 
 
06. 
The **Wine Cellar** is located in one of two chambers.  Shelving is formed, as is often 
found, with stone slabs, which are undoubtedly historic and formed part-larder and partfood store.  It is located in an extension to the rear of the original main body of the dwelling, with a small ventilating window. 
 
There are four steps down to its floor level, which both gave more headroom to the 
rooms above and made for cooler storage conditions.  The ceiling of that outer chamber could be formed by plaster applied directly to the underside of stone roofing slates. However, there is hearsay that these service spaces were vaulted, possibly for security, which appears to be the case from the internal form of the space. Otherwise the old stone slates htat historically formed the ceiling of the space, may have simply been left in situ when the roof was remodelled, and reclad, in the 1970's. 
 
The former external walls to the house are now enclosed. 
 
 
The only other item of historic interest besides the vaulted forms of the ceiling is the 
historic ironmongery (photograph 31) where it is sadly redundant to the proper security of the door. 
Unfortunately the main volume of the cellar has been partitioned to accommodate a hot water cylinder but will be recovered to its earlier form in the resiting of the equipment into the reconstructed outbuilding. 
07. 
The **Laundry** door is of interesting planked braced timber construction with old 
ironmongery.  (Photographs 33 and 34). 
08. 
The **Kitchen** range opening remains in modern use.  (Photograph 35).  It is the historic 
previous extension to this which it is proposed now be further extended. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM/LOW.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH. 
 
09. 
The principal access to the First Floor is via the **stairway** built into the extension at West 
end abutment to the original dwelling.  Its elegance can hopefully be seen in photographs 36 and 37. 
 
The treads and risers are again clad with what I believe is Hopton Wood marble, which I 
again have never seen before.  There is a pine moulded handrail affixed to a newel post. I suspect the balusters between replace some more historic types though the locations appear to be the same (photographs 38 to 40) even where metal reinforcements have been built into the tread.  Might there have been an elegant  metal rail originally? 
 
The string to the wall has a simple roll moulding to its top and there is a moulded dado 
rail. 
10. 
At First Floor level the junction of the floor levels from the new "gentry" wing and the 
original body of the house has led to a rather awkward stair down to that former accommodation.  (Photograph 41).  This reflects the greater ceiling heights in the higher status West cross wing. 
 
What I presume was changed to plan form originally with two bedrooms and a dressing 
room has been converted so that the Master bedroom remains at the South end of this wing, there is a Dressing room to the centre, and a large Bathroom to the rear (North) end. 
11. 
The **Master Bedroom** is a delightful space with coved ceilings leading to a flat central 
area.  (Photograph 42). 
 
There is a heavy projecting plaster moulded cornice.  (Photograph 43). 
 
 
The windows, along with an opening sash, have had two panes altered to allow their 
"screw" opening for reduced ventilation provision.  (Photograph 44).  There is still Crown glass glazing to these windows. 
 
There is a delightful 18th century fireplace with the fire surround with black Ashford 
marble and Blue John crystal inlay.  (Photographs 45 and 46). 
 
The **Dressing Room** has been fitted out to modern standards.  There is trap access into 
the roof void above. 
 
In that **roof void** the modern insulation is very disturbed, presumably by services 
installations/alterations and that needs to be re-laid and smoothed down to be effective. 
 
There appear to be three King post trusses of some antiquity.   
 
 
The first matter of surprise is that there is an underlay of relatively modern bituminous 
 
sarking roof felt.  This means that it must have been re-roofed at some time up to the 1960s. 
 
There is a mixture inside that of historic adzed timbers and sawn replacements.  Some 
fillets have been provided, presumably to level up the bow which had developed in the 
rafters.  Some rafters are set on their side, with others in the more correct "upright" position.  Purlins appear to be trenched.  There are lots of pegs and morticing. (Photographs 47 to 50). 
 
This room is connected to a **Bathroom** adjacent, which again has two covings to the 
ceiling, and is fitted out to modern standards.  The principal surviving heritage artefact  is 
a delightful 18th century fireplace with Hopton Wood marble surround.  (Photograph 51). 
 
12. 
The original core **East-West range** of the house was presumably only the depth of the 
bedrooms and bathrooms along the South elevation with an access corridor on the North side.  (Photograph 52).  There is a stone arch over the opening to the stairs onto 
the access corridor. 
 
The lean-to ceiling along the corridor has exposed presumed historic rafters.  There are 
significant storage spaces between sections of solid wall along the North side of that corridor, except for that which is breached with the observation light down into the Kitchen access corridor.  (Photograph 53).  The 1857 plan reproduced preiously shows this to be the site of the secondary staircase. 
13. 
The **former Dressing Room** is now a delightful modern fitted child's Bedroom and is 
delightfully tidy! 
14. 
The adjacent **Bedroom** is open to the underside of the roof and has an exposed king 
post truss, purlins and rafters.  The truss shows mortices from previous pegs.  The 
purlins show mortices, presumably for partition muntins.  The purlins are part trenched onto the principal rafter of the exposed truss.  (Photograph 54). 
 
There is a Hopton Wood marble fire surround and limestone fire grate. 
 
 
The en-suite **Bathroom** has been fitted out to modern standards with new surface 
finishes.  The floor is raised, presumably to accommodate drainage connections?
(Photograph 55). 
15. 
The adjacent **Bedroom** is again fitted out to modern standards and a historic retained 
fireplace and surround not matching any of the others in the house.  There is an access to the roof void above. 
 
From that **roof void** there is access into the roof void of the North offshot wing over the 
Kitchen  (Photographs 56 - 58).  There is quite a lot of evidence of beetle attack on the timbers, particularly the purlins.  Some modern purlins replaced the originals, presumably when the roof was raised for the altered rear roof pitch.  There is modern sarking felt to this roof as well.  The roof has a mixture of adzed (historic) rafters and modern sawn replacements or additions.  There are a large number of struts and props, supporting the main structural timber members. 
16. 
At the East end of the corridor there is access into the return offshot Eastern wing (over 
the Kitchen) which is at a raised floor level.  There is a small Bathroom again fitted out to the highest modern standards with no historic fabric remaining exposed.  There is a small access trap in the landing outside the space, into which I was unable to gain access. 
 
17. 
The remainder of the accommodation at this floor level of the offshot wing is a further 
Bedroom fitted out to modern high standards of finish.  There is an access trap to the roof void above which is inaccessible because of the room's furniture.  There is an original stone fireplace, surround and cast iron grate. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW. 
 
 
BARN 
10.08 
Exterior: 
01. 
This is located to the East side of the main house.  I presume that it was originally used 
as stabling and as a Coach House, as that would seem to be the purpose of the nicely detailed doorway to the West gable.  (Photograph 101). 
 
That **West** elevation is certainly the most interestingly detailed, with regular large 
gritstone quoins, gritstone surrounds and a flat arch over the presumed Coach opening, with a fixed 16-light window set within stone dressings in the gable above.  There is a ridge chimney above, again constructed of gritstone.  The verge details show evidence of change, and mortar infilling of different depths of joint. 
 
There is an external gritstone flagg forecourt to the entrance doors. 
 
 
The **South** elevation (photograph 102) again shows the remodelling of the building to 
give it its "polite" West front, with a very apparent butt joint between that construction and the more random vernacular construction of the remainder of the elevation. (Photograph 103).  The stone voussoir arch is, I presume, a modern intervention, as it is certainly not a vernacular detail in this locality.  The other two windows have more typical gritstone squared dressings. 
 
A modern garage has been infilled between the South wall of that building and a 
substantial wall between this area and the garden to the river frontage below. (Photograph 102)  I presume this to be a modern intervention.  It abuts the gable wall of the Rookery Cottage adjacent. 
 
The **North** elevation also shows evidence of past change.  (Photograph 104).  The 
"polite" return to the West gable is very much shorter.  There has obviously been a history of movement of that part of the wall, with this section of the building moving away from the remainder, and being repaired.  There appears to be an infilled door or window adjacent. 
 
The stonework is of a very much lower status, being random rubble brought to course 
with completely different face work.  There are some interesting stones incorporating sections of what I presume is Ashford black marble as commercially quarried from the quarry nearby as described previously.  (Photographs 105 and 106). 
 
 
There are modern windows set within historic openings generally with gritstone 
surrounds.  There is a further butt joint towards the East end of the wall indicating a different build period for this section. 
 
The **East** gable is of random un-coursed limestone with gritstone quoins.  (Photograph 
107).  It appears to have been repointed in modern times. 
 
The **roof** is of blue/grey slates to the rear (North) slope, and a plethora of plastic vents 
located near the eaves and near the ridge, so it has obviously been re-roofed in modern times in accordance with the ventilation of roof provisions of the current Building 
 
Regulations!  On the South side the roof is clad with sandstone slates to match the main house. 

 
Interior: 
02. 
The interior of much of this building has been substantially altered in the recent past.  It 
could be said to now be an exemplar of the creative conservation, and the reuse of a historic building for an economic use. 
 
The building is cruck framed with two of the frames remaining.  One is exposed in a 
double-height space.  (Photograph 108).  Skilled modern design has created an upper level with timber, glass and steel.  (Photograph 109). 
 
Tradition is maintained with a stone flagged floor in the principal space.  The purlins, 
rafters and posts of the crucks show evidence of the previous different uses of the building.  The arrangement of the purlins over the cruck blades is archaic and dated to 
approximately 1800-50. 
 
Historically there would seem to have been a fireplace at First Floor level, perhaps for 
grooms or postmen or coachman's sleeping accommodation over the stables below? (Photograph 110). 
 
At the East end of the building's Ground Floor, remnants of the historic stable remain 
with three stalls still extant.  (Photograph 14). 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW. 

10.09 
THE GROUNDS 
01. 
As can be seen from the location plan, the grounds of the property are extensive.  Those 
to the South side of the River Wye, cutting through the property running from West to East up to the frontage along Duke's Drive, are of no relevance to this report. 
 
02. 
The bridge over the river is a delightful structure.  This is all a designated heritage asset 
in its own right rather than merely being within the curtilage of the Rookery.  (Photograph 201). 
03. 
There are gardens laid out to the front, South side and East side of the property up to 
the river.  These are wholly delightful and appropriate to the house.  There is a formal box hedge garden and extensive lawns immediately in front of the house running down to the river.  (Photographs 202 - 204). 
04. 
As described previously, the grounds are very extensive.  To the South and West end of 
the property is a delightful walk along the riverside through woodland.  This now terminates at the back of (house) which was formerly the home of the Manager of the Marble Works and just on the other side of the road to the site of the Ashford Marble Mill. 
 
There is a delightful riverside walk (photograph 205) including both a Grotto constructed 
of tufa (similar to that at Stourhead in Wiltshire) (photograph 207) and also an Ice House (photograph 206) for which part of the steps giving access down into the river to collect the ice still remain! 
 
It is understood that the curtilage used to extend to encompass the Ashford Marble 
Works, now mainly demolished to allow for the construction of Duke's Drive (now being the A6 trunk road).  The stone extracted was known as Black Marble. 
 
As stated previously, the Works were founded in 1748 by Henry Watson, who was a 
relative of the stone carvers, White Watson of Bakewell and Samuel Watson of Chatsworth.  The Works closed in 1905.  Details of the position of the mine and the Chatsworth patronage are described previously.  (Photographs 208 - 214). 
05. 
The area of the grounds which would be impacted by the proposed works as described 
at Section 9.00 is the terracing to the North of the house, between it and the boundary wall to the back of the public highway now known as Buxton Road, and so to the rear of the dwelling. 
 
The area was formed by the taking down of a former outbuilding to approximately half its 
height, infilling the void between the rear retaining and three other walls and paving over it to create the sequence of terraces now existing.  (Photographs on pages 37-41) 
 
Behind that original rear wall to the outbuilding, there is now a levelled strip of ground, which is effectively beyond the garden.  (Photographs on pages 37-41).  What appears to be a ruinous remnant of the former outbuilding still exists as shown on photograph 224. 
 
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW.  IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH. 


11.00 
PUBLISHED POLICIES AND GUIDANCE 
 
11.01 
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES 
01. 
The principal document is the **National Planning Policy Framework (2008)** - These 
proposals are too micro-scaled for these policies to be relevant, beyond their general thrust that the development contribution to national economic growth is to be encouraged. 
 
The heritage advice contained within the document is: 
 
 
Section 12: **Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment**.  This sets out 
Governmental guidance/policy. 
 
(126) 
Desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets 
and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, 


Desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local 
character and distinctiveness, 
 
 
(132) 
Any harm or loss to Grade II building should be exceptional, 


Any loss or harm should require clear and continuing justification, 
 
 
(134) 
Where the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the 
significance of the asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 
 
02. 
Beyond the NPPF further guidance is published by the Government on the Planning 
Portal website.  The Planning Practice Guidance: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment states: 
 
(008) 
Decision taking: in the historic environment 


What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into 
account? 
 
 
(015) 
What is a viable use for a heritage asset and how is it taken into account in 
planning decisions? 
 
(017) 
How is it possible to assess if there is substantial harm to be caused by the 
proposals? 
 
 
(019) 
How can proposals avoid or minimise harm to the significance of  a heritage 
asset? 
 
03. 
The primary legislation remains the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings 
and Conservation areas) Act 1990.  That states: 
 
 
"7. 
Subject to the following provisions of this Act no person shall execute or cause 
to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or its alteration or extension in any manner which will affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorized. 
 
8 (1) 
Works for the alteration or extension of a listed building are authorized if: 


(a) 
written consent for their execution has been granted by the local planning 
authority……..; and 
 
 
(b) 
they are executed in accordance with the terms of the consent and of any 
conditions attached to it. 
 
 
10(1) 
…. an application for listed building consent shall be made to and dealt with by 
the local planning authority. 
 
10(2) 
Such an application shall be made in such form as the authority may require 
and shall contain - 
 
 
(a) 
sufficient particulars to identify the building to which it relates, including a 
plan; 
 
 
(b) 
such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works 
which are the subject of the application; and 
 
 
(c) 
such other particulars as may be required by the authority. 
 
 
16(1) 
….the local planning authority …. may grant or refuse an application for listed 
building consent and, if they grant consent, may grant it subject to conditions. 
 
16(2) 
In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local 
planning authority ….. shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 
 
16(3) 
Any listed building consent shall …… enure for the benefit of the building and of 
all persons for the time being interested in it." 
11.02 
Further advice and guidance is available from the Government's heritage agency 
Historic England: 
 
Their publication "**The Setting of Heritage Assets**: Historic Environment Good Practice 
Advice in Planning Note 3" is relevant. 
 
01. 
The advice in this document, in accordance with the NPPF, emphasises that the 
information required in support for applications for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent should be no more than is necessary to reach an informed decision, and that activities to conserve or invest need to be proportionate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and the impact on the significance of those heritage assets. 
02. 
It suggests that the primary concerns are the relationship of the proposals to curtilage, 
character and context. 
 
Curtilage is defined as "the legal term describing an area around a building and, with listed structures, the extent of curtilage is defined by consideration of ownership, both past and present, functional association and layout.  The setting of a historic asset will include, but generally be more extensive than, its curtilage". 
 
Character "of a historic place is the sum of all its attributes, which may include: its 
relationships now and through time; its visual aspects; and the features, materials and spaces associated with its listing including its original configuration and subsequent losses and changes". 
 
Context "is the term used to describe any relationship between it and other heritage assets which are relevant to its significance … and can include the relationship of one heritage asset to another of the same period or function or with the same designer or architect". 

03. 

The **extent of setting** states: 
 
 
"The NPPF makes it clear that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced.  Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve". 

04. 

View and setting are described: 
 
 
"The contribution of setting .. is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or dynamic, including a variety of view of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the asset". 

05. 

These lead to a description of the importance of the setting and the significance of heritage assets which are described as follows: 
 
"Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation.  Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset". 

 
The importance of **cumulative change** and **change over time** are expressed. 

 
 
Understanding the history of change will help determine how further development within the asset's setting is likely to affect the contribution made by setting to the significance of the heritage asset. 

 
Many heritage assets have settings that have been designed to enhance their presence and visual interest. 

06. 

This leads to recommendations regarding a Staged Approach to Proportionate Decision Taking, which suggests that: 
 
 
"All heritage assets have significance some of which have particular significance and are designated and the contribution made by their setting to their significance also varies …. not all settings have the same capacity to accommodate change without harm to the significance of the heritage asset.  This capacity may vary … 
 
Protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change; indeed change may be positive". 

 
Amongst the Government's planning objectives for the historic environment is that conservation decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of a heritage asset's significance and are investigated to a proportionate degree. 

07. 

The **process** of determining the effect of any proposed alteration to the setting of a heritage asset could be as follows: 
 
1. 

Identifying the heritage assets and their settings. 

 
 
2. 

Assessing whether, how and to what degree those settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. 

 
3. 
Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the 
asset such as: 
 
 
Location and siting 
Form and appearance 
Additional effects Permanence 
 
 
4. 
The proposals should attempt to maximise enhancement and minimise harm: 


Enhancement is described as: 


Removing or remodelling an intrinsic building or feature. 


Replacement of a detrimental feature by a new or more harmonious one. 


Restoring or revealing a lost historic feature. 
 
11.04 
Further guidance to decision makers is primarily offered by the following document from 
the same source: 
 
"Historic England: Making Changes to Heritage Assets, Historic England Advice 
Note 2". 
01. 
This states: 
 
 
"3. 
A reasonable and **proportionate approach to owners' needs** is therefore 
essential. 
 
5. 
(an important consideration) …. is an **understanding of the significance** of 
individual elements, derived from both the physical evidence and documentary sources. 
 
7. 
Change … can normally be characterised as: 
 
 
Repair 
Restoration Addition and alteration, either singly or combination…" 
 
02. 
Restoration is described as: 
 
"23. 
Restoration may range from small scale work …. to large schemes to restore the former appearance of buildings, with the addition of major missing elements … 
 
24. 
Restoration is likely to be acceptable if: 


The work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of 
the heritage asset, and is executed in accordance with that evidence. 


The work proposed respects previous forms of the heritage asset. 


No archaeological interest is lost if the restoration work could later be 
confused with the original fabric. 


The maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to 
be sustainable. 
 
25. 
Restoration works are those that are intended to reveal or recover something of 
significance that has been enabled, observed or previously removed. 
03. 
Guidance for the principles of **Addition and Extension** are similarly defined: 
 
 
"41. 
The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets … 
aside from NPPF requirements such as social and economic activity and sustainability are suggested as the following: 
 
 
Proportion, Height, Massing, 
Bulk, Use of materials, Durability and adaptability, Use, Enclosure, Relationship with adjacent assets which includes: 
 
 
definition of spaces and streets, 
alignment, active frontages, permeability, treatment of setting". 
 
04. 
It is suggested that it would not normally be good practice for new work to dominate the 
original asset in either scale, material or as a result of its siting.  Assessment of an 
asset's significance or its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate. 
05. 
At paragraph 42 it states: 


"The historic fabric will always be an important part of the asset's 
significance…., however, the retention of as much historic fabric as possible… is likely to fulfil the NPPF policy to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, as a fundamental part of any good alterations or conversion." 
06. 
Similarly, it suggests that the junction between new work and the existing fabric needs 
particular attention, both for its impact on the significance of the existing asset and the impact on the contribution of its setting. 
 
Where possible it is preferable for new work to be reversible, so that changes can be 
undone without harm to historic fabric. 
07. 
The document then sets out the various elements of a heritage asset that might be 
affected by any proposed intervention.   


The existing elements of the building to be affected by this application are described 
previously in Section 10.00. 
11.04 
The principal general advice offered by Historic England (formerly English Heritage) with 
regard to the sustainable management, including change, of the historic environment is set out in their document: 
 
"Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management 
of the Historic Environment".  
 
01. 
This describes the six principles for the conservation of the historic environment in 
England and Wales as being: 
 
1. 
The historic environment is a shared resource. 
 
 
2. 
Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment. 
 
 
3. 
Understanding the significance of places is vital. 
 
 
4. 
Significant places should be managed to sustain their values. 
 
 
5. 
Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent. 
 
 
6. 
Documenting and learning from decisions is essential. 
 
02. 
The document goes on to describe how heritage values might be assessed for any asset 
or place for their evidential, historical, **aesthetic** and **communal** values. 
 
 
From this advice is then offered as to how the heritage significance of a building or place 
may be assessed. 
 
From this information, then methods as to the managing of change to significant places 
can be assessed. 
03. 
From these guides to understanding, Historic England's Conservation policies and 
guidance are set out. 
 
Of those, the following are relevant to this application for change: 
 
 
Restoration New work and alteration 
 
 
For **Restoration** normally to be acceptable to a place of heritage significance, it is 
suggested that: 
 
"the heritage values of the elements that would be restored outweigh the values of 
those that would be lost; 
 
 
the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place, 
and is executed in accordance with that 3evidence; 
 
 
….. 
 
 
the work proposed respects previous forms of the place; 


the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be 
sustainable." 
 
 
For **New work and Alteration**, that should normally be acceptable if: 
 
 
"there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand the impacts of the 
proposal on the significance of the place; 
 
 
the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where 
appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed; 
 
 
the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now 
and in the future; 
 
 
the long term consequence of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated 
to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in 
the future. 
 
11.05 
Local Planning Authority Guidance/Policies: 
01. 
The principal document of the Peak District National Park Authority is the Local 
Development Framework Core Strategy. 
 
This is again too generalised for relevance to the proposals, but reference will need to 
be made to the following policies: 
 
DS1 
Development Strategy: "sensitive managed delivery in order to meet our 
purposes to conserve and enhance the Peak District". 
 
L3 
Cultural heritage assets of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic 
significance - Cultural Heritage Strategy document - requires that the owners of assets should be: 


"encouraging the refurbishment and reuse of disused or underused 
buildings to enhance their contribution to the historic character of an 
area". 
 
 
a) 
Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the 
significance of … assets and their settings. 
 
b) 
Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted 
where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset…. 
 
c) 
Development proposals will be expected to meet the objections of any strategy 
… that has as its objective the conservation and where possible enhancement of cultural heritage assets. 
02. 
The next tier of policy documentation is the: Saved Local Plan Policies. 


Of these Policy LC3 Design Layout and Landscaping states: 
 
 
(318) 
Layout of buildings should respect and relate well to traditional pattern….etc., 
etc. 
 
(319) 
For individual buildings, factors such as plant form, section or massing, and 
details…materials are important….. 
 
Other clauses regarding **Listed Buildings** state: 
  
 
(334) 
Best use of a historic building is very often that for which it was designed. 
 
 
(335) 
Applications for development or work affecting a listed building should show 
why the works are desirable or necessary. 
03. 
Policy LC6 Listed Buildings (as might be expected) states: 
 
 
"a) 
Planning applications for development affecting a listed building and/or its 
setting should clearly demonstrate: 


(i)  
how these will be preserved and where possible enhanced; 


and 
(ii)  
 
why the proposed development and related works are desirable or necessary. 
 
b) 
… 
 
 
c) 
Development will not be permitted if it would: 


(i)  
adversely affect the character, scale, proportion, design, detailing 
of , or materials used in the listed building; 
 
 
or 
(ii) 
result in the loss of or irreversible change to original features or 
other features of importance or interest. 
 
d) 
In particular, development will not be permitted if it would directly, indirectly or 
cumulatively lead to: 


(i) - (iv) and (vi) - (vii) (not applicable) 


(v) 
the replacement of original features other than with original 
materials and with appropriate techniques. 


(viii) 
extensions of more than one storey to the rear of listed small 
houses or terraced properties." 
04. 
Supplementary planning guidance is offered by the Local Planning Authority's "Detailed 
Design Guide", being a Supplementary Planning Document to the emerging Local Plan, 
adopted in July 2014. 
 
For **Alterations and Extensions** this states: 
 
 
"1.4 
The Authority's policies seek to ensure new development will be controlled so 
that the valued characteristics of the Peak District can be conserved and enhanced. 
 
 
Local Development Framework Core Strategy General Spatial Policy GSP3 
requires all proposals for development to pay particular attention to impact on the character and setting of buildings, and be of a scale that is appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park. 
 
 
Core policy L1 states that the development scheme and enhance valued 
 
characteristics, and L3 requires that development affecting cultural heritage 
assets must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the 
significance of architectural and historic assets and their settings.  Saved Local Plan Policy LH4 states that extensions and alterations should not: 
 
 
Detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, 
its setting or neighbouring properties. 


Dominate the original building where it is of architectural or vernacular merit.


Amount to the creation of a separate dwelling or an annex that could be 
used as such. 
 
 
1.5 
We expect… the work to be sympathetic, subservient to the original building, 
and limited in size.  Insensitive design can spoil both an existing building and an area. 
 
 
1.6 
Principles of **sustainable development** should inform the design of alteration 
and extensions, as set out in: 
 
 
Design Guide Chapter 6 


Supplementary Planning Guidance: Climate Change and Sustainable 
Building 


P.D.N.P.A.'s Leaflet "Sustainability and Historic Buildings" 
 
 
2.12 
Solar Panels - 
 
 
With regard to that sustainability, the following advice is offered for the 
proposed use of solar panels: 
 
 
"Adding photovoltaic and solar thermal panels to a roof fundamentally alters its 
character and appearance.  If panels need to be site on a roof, placing them on inner slopes where they cannot be seen is the ideal". 


The Authority also publish a guidance leaflet: Design and Siting of Solar 
Panels, Conserving your Historic Building series of leaflets which confirm the same advice.  This is stated to be: 
 
 
They should be in the least obtrusive location. 
 
They should be the least obtrusive type. 
 
They should be considered in conjunction with any reroofing of any existing building. 
 
The simplest configuration of panels should be provided. 


3.00 
For **Extensions**, the following advice is offered: 
 
 
3.3 
Design Principles 
 
 
The key aim is to achieve a complementary relationship with the existing 
building and its context.  There are 3 main factors to consider: 
 
 
Massing 
 
Materials 
 
Detailing and style 
 
 
3.4 
Massing - 
 
 
Size smaller in volume and lower than the existing building. 
 
 
Shape reflects the proportions of the existing building. 
 
 
Location obvious location is the side or rear. 
 
3.10 
Spacing off (any) **rear extension** entirely so that it looks more like a subsidiary 
building linked minimally to the existing is another possibility.  This allows the 
original building to retain its integrity….  An extension large enough to function in terms of an independent dwelling … is unlikely to be acceptable in policy terms. 
 
 
Materials 
 
3.15 
Constructing the extension in the same materials as the existing house is the 
preferred option. 
 
 
Detailing and style 
 
3.17 
It is easiest and usually best to copy the detailing and style of the original 
building. 
 
3.18 
With regard to style, another **equally valid approach** is to detail the extension 
in a more contemporary style.  This is more easily achieved if the other two variables of massing and materials are both treated in a traditional manner. 
Any new extension, while being of its time, also needs to respect and be in 
harmony with the existing building.  This means reinterpreting the original 
detailing in a new way respecting what exists at present and designing an 
extension whose details have a strong visual relationship with the main building. 
 
4.00 
Other **material planning considerations** stated can include the following: 
 
 
4.2 
Neighbourliness Outlook Amenity Privacy Daylight 
 
4.3 
Outlook and amenity 
 
4.11 
Landscaping 
11.06 
Historic England have also published guidance about solar panels: "Small Scale Solar 
Electric (photovoltaic) Energy and Traditional Building".  This reiterates the Government's commitment to a reduction in the national dependence on fossil fuels by promoting alternative sources of energy, in the light of the growth in demand for domestic electrical consumption by 32% since 1970, and 19% since 1990. 
 
 
The guidance suggests that the principles of minimal intervention and reversibility are 
applicable for the provision of such panels, together with more detailed consideration as to the orientation of the roof slope, the effects of possible shading, and the effects on wildlife, principally bats and other bird life. 
 
11.07 
Key recent further advice is offered by the publication: "Solar Design Tips: Your 10-
Point Guide".  This is a reduced version of a Building Research Establishment Report: 
"Ensuring Place-Responsive Design for Solar Photovoltaics on Buildings" (2016) published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.  This included a case study showing the acceptability of roofing an outbuilding within the curtilage of a historic country home with in-roof photovoltaic panels. 
 
The "tips"  offered by the document are the consideration of the following: 
 
 
Colour and contrast - try to make the panels visibly unobtrusive. 
 
 
Framing - to panels or not, to attempt to keep panels visually unobtrusive. 
 
 
Sizing - to coordinate with other components to appear more integral. 
 
 
Symmetry in panel layout. 
 
 
Coverage - to be proportionate to the overall roof size. 
 
 
Consider complementary features, such as rooflights matching the panels in 
size/positioning. 
 
 
Consideration of the panels' mounting system - "in-roof" preferred to "on-roof". 
 
 
Roof location/positioning - attempt to make the panels as visually unobtrusive from 
ground level or nearby. 
 
 
Neighbouring roofs: attempt to match adjacent installation on similar roofs/dwellings. 
 
12.00 
ASSESSMENT 
12.01 
In this section it is hoped that the scope of the proposed works can be tested against the 
criteria and guidance regarding the decision making of proposals for change to designated heritage assets, as set out in the previous section. 
 
12.02 
Significantly different proposals to those now submitted were sent to the Peak District 
National Park Authority by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. in 2015 seeking Pre-Application 
advice as to the likelihood of their being acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. 
 
The Planning Authority's Pre-Application advice was offered by email and dated 22nd 
September 2015. 
 
This stated that new outbuildings are normally acceptable in principle, provided that they 
would not harm the character, appearance or amenities of the host property. Consideration would need to be given to the scale, form and massing of the proposal in 
relation to the existing building and its setting, and the extent to which design details and materials reflect (the) traditions of local buildings. 
 
Supplementary Planning Guidance set out in the Authority's Design Guide advises that 
any ancillary outbuilding should be designed in sympathy with the property it serves, with (the) materials and roof pitch(es) reflecting those of the host property. 
 
The advice stated that the reinstatement of the ancillary outbuilding at the Rookery 
would be acceptable in principle. 
 
 
The proposals as then designed were then described in detail, and the advice concluded 
that the design as then submitted was unlikely to be acceptable. 
 
The design as now submitted has been significantly revised, specifically to overcome the 
stated objections as set out in the Pre-Application advice, as follows: 
 
The proposed restitution of the former outbuilding would not now be linked to the 
existing house; 
 
 
The design "ethic" of the redesigned proposal in its scale, form and massing has 
been reduced and simplified, to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the listed building.  The roof pitches are now symmetrical, the eaves and ridge lines have been lowered, the accommodation proposed is for storage and plant on the principal ground floor level, with a mezzanine gallery at the upper level. The materials proposed fully reflect and adopt the local vernacular. 
 
12.03 
The earlier proposals also showed the proposed extension of a part of the rear Service Range, which were deemed in the Advice offered to have created a negative impact and therefore harm the significance/legibility of the listed building, and so would be unlikely to be acceptable. 
 
That proposal has also been redesigned to attempt to retain as much historical fabric as 
possible, and sacrificing/rebuilding the previous late 19th Century addition to create the 
space required.  The "out of scale doors" referred to in the Pre-Application advice have 
been omitted and replaced by timber components of typical sizes. 
 
The internal space of the former Kitchen or part Servants' Hall is simply too small for a 
family dining table for a modest sized family in the 21st Century. 
 
The other two internal proposed changes described in the Pre-Application Advice have 
 
been omitted in the submitted proposals. 
12.04 
The proposals are of a scale and scope such that the national planning guidance 
regarding proposed change to historic assets are only applicable in broad principle, all as set out at sections 11.01.01 and 02. 
 
 
It is suggested that the proposals entirely meet the guidance of section 126 of the 
National Planning Policy Framework, in the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of (this) heritage asset(s) and putting (it) to visible uses consistent with their conservation. 
 
The proposed enhancement and upgrading of the facilities of this dwelling will achieve 
that aim. 
 
It is suggested that the loss or harm to the significance of the dwelling in extending the 
Kitchen Dining area would be less than substantial, and would contribute to retaining the 
optimum viable use of the asset.  (Sections 132 and 134 as described at 11.01.01). 
12.05 
With regard to the Planning Guidance to the NPPF described at section 11.01.02, it is suggested  that the **setting** of the asset will not be compromised in any way by the proposed design as revised in accordance with the Local Planning authority Pre-
Application Advice, that the revisions described to the original design have sought to 
minimise any assessed harm to be caused to the significance of the asset. 
12.06 
Historic England's various advices are fully described previously at 11.02, 11.03 and 11.04. 
 
With regard to the **setting** of the existing house (document 11.02), it is suggested that 
the relationship of the proposed restitution of the former ancillary outbuilding to its original size and location as best can be plotted from documentary and photographic evidence as described/attached, to the altered and extended historic dwelling creates a minimal impact on short or long views into and across the property, and enhances it in "restoring or revealing a lost historic feature".  (11.02.07.04). 
 
At 11.03 guidance is offered to **making changes** to assets.  It is suggested that the 
heritage significance of the existing dwelling is fully understood, and its development 
(and reduction!) over time.  The changes proposed are the **restoration** of the former ancillary outbuilding, and the **addition** to the Kitchen and minor **alterations** to the interior as described, fully meet the recommendations set out.  There is compelling evidence of the size, form and materials of the former outbuilding, which it is hoped to restore.  That work respects the existing forms of the rest of the dwelling, and the works are indeed "those that are intended to reveal or **recover** something of **significance** that 
has  been enabled, observed or **previously removed**".  (Section 25 as noted at 
11.03.02). 
 
It is suggested that the reduced size and form of the proposed Kitchen extension meet 
the recommendations for Additions and Extensions.  (Section 41 as noted at 11.03.03). 
12.07 
Similar advice from Historic England is set out in the Conservation Principles
publication described at 11.04.  The revised proposals as submitted meet the similar criteria for the acceptance of change for works of **Restoration** and New Work and 
Alterations as described. 
12.08 
The policies and guidance offered by  the Peak District National Park Authority as the 
Local Planning Authority are fully set out at section 11.05 of this report. 
 
Suffice to say that there will have been those policies and guidance which will have 
contributed to the full Pre-application Advice offered by that Authority.  No policies have changed in the interim, so it is expected that the advice would remain the same. 
 
The advice offered a year or so ago has been fully accepted, and is reflected in the 
revised designs now submitted. 
12.09 
Both the Local Planning Authority and Historic England offer advice regarding the 
provision of **photovoltaic roof panels** to heritage assets. 
 
It is believed that the advice has been followed, with the **least obtrusive type** of panel 
being proposed, in the **least obtrusive location** on the small facing (inner) roof slope of the proposed restituted outbuilding, facing away from the public roadside, and hillside above, in the **simplest configuration**, in conjunction with what is proposed to be the 
reconstruction of the **roof structure**, and its cladding with natural slates. 
 
13.00 
CONCLUSIONS 
 
13.01 
The present stewards of the Rookery have invested heavily in retaining and enhancing its 
features which give it such a delightful heritage significance.  It is their family home, and the demands of a family of growing children have led them to the view that more space is 
required. 
13.02 
The family business is wine consultancy and sales, so a large secure storage facility is 
required.  This is proposed for the principal floor level in the restituted ancillary outbuilding. 
13.03 
The house itself is not large, with two principal reception/living rooms and the Kitchen 
space.  As is the modern mores, the Kitchen space is now not large enough to seat all members of the family and any member of unexpected guests, as teenage children are wont to produce! 
 
As these children grow and their social works expand, they will require living space "out of 
their bedrooms", and their parents have the foresight now to try to create a "snug" over the proposed wine store in the restituted ancillary outbuilding. 
13.04 
It is believed that this document demonstrably shows an understanding of the historic, 
cultural, aesthetic and evidential significance and development of the house. 
13.05 
It is suggested that the revised and reduced changes now proposed in its continuing 
evolution as a family home will cause no harm to its heritage significance, and in fact preserve and enhance it. 


A.D.W. SHEPHERD, Dip. Arch. (Manc.), Dip. Cons. (A.A.), R.I.B.A., I.H.B.C., F.R.S.A. 
ANDREW SHEPHERD, ARCHITECT CHARTERED ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, 453 GLOSSOP ROAD, SHEFFIELD S10 2PT Telephone: 
0114 266 2458 
ADWS/TAM
E-mail:  
info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co.uk 
# Royal Commission On The Historical Monuments Of England Historic Building Report

      The Rookery 
Ashford 
           in the Water 
      Derbyshire 

November 1992 

## Crown Copyright

Shelley House, 
                 Acomb Road, 
                               York YO2 
                                         4HB 
Tel: 
      (0904) 
              784411 
                        Fax: 
                              (0904) 
                                      795348

Derbyshire NGR: 
SK 191 696 

Ashford 
         in the Water 
                                                             NBR No: 
                                                                      86022 

## The Rookery Summary

The Rookery is 
                    a two-storey house constructed in limestone rubble with 
stone slate roofs. 
                          It consists of a four-bay east-west main range with 

a three-bay rear wing extending north of its east end and 
                                                                                                                                   a three-bay 
cross-wing at 
                                its west end. 

The earliest identifiable phase 
                                           is 
                                                a mid-18th century house probably 
corresponding to 
                       the present main range, 
                                                       with 
                                                              a service room or rooms 
in the south end of 
                           the rear wing. 
                                                Surviving features include 
                                                                                     a two- 
light mullion window in the east wall of the rear wing and a fireplace 
with 
      a flat brick arch 
                               in the cross-wall 
                                                       of the main range. 

In the second quarter of the 19th century the building was remodelled; 
according to tradition, 
                                       these works were 
                                                                   to provide accommodation for 

a mistress of the 6th Duke of Devonshire. 
                                                                                              A large cross-wing was added 
at 
       the west 
                            end 
                                     of the main range, 
                                                                                 containing 
                                                                                                           a ground-floor drawing 
room and parlour, 
                                        a stair and three first-floor bedrooms. 
                                                                                                                                     At the same 
time 
           the 
                     front wall 
                                              of 
                                                     the main range was 
                                                                                                  rebuilt, 
                                                                                                                       incorporating 
                                                                                                                                                       two 
identical entrances with canopies 
                                                                             on scrolled 
                                                                                                           brackets. 
                                                                                                                                     In 
                                                                                                                                            the west 
room 
           of 
                   the main range 
                                                      a butler's pantry was 
                                                                                                          created, 
                                                                                                                                leaving 
                                                                                                                                                  an 
                                                                                                                                                         L- 
shaped passage on the west and north sides. 
                                                                                                      A narrow one-and-a-half- 
storey outshot was added on the north side of the main range, providing 

a cellar at semi-basement level, 
                                                                          and at first-floor level 
                                                                                                                                   a small room 
and access from the new stair 
                                                                    to further bedrooms 
                                                                                                                  in the main range. 

From 1943, while Chatsworth House was requisitioned for use as 
                                                                             a girls' 
school, 
          the Rookery was briefly home 
                                              to the Duchess 
                                                                 of Devonshire. 

## Report

The mid-18th century house probably 
                                                   had 
                                                        a 
                                                            two-room plan 
                                                                                to 
                                                                                    the 
                                                                                          main 

range, 
        possibly with 
                          a central entrance 
                                                  lobby immediately east 
                                                                               of 
                                                                                   the 

present cross-wall. 
                        There was 
                                    a 
                                       lobby 
                                              in this position 
                                                                  in 
                                                                      the 
                                                                          19thcentury 
         remodelling 
                        (see 
                              below), 
                                       subsequently 
                                                       incorporated 
                                                                      into 
                                                                             the 

east 
       room. 
                 A 
                    transverse 
                                   beam 
                                          towards 
                                                     the 
                                                           west 
                                                                  end 
                                                                        of 
                                                                             this 
                                                                                    room

supports 
          two 
               axial 
                       beams 
                              of 
                                  uncertain 
                                              date 
                                                    and 
                                                         probably 
                                                                     marks 
                                                                            the 

position of a removed cross-wall. 
                                      The 19th-century arrangement may in 

this 
       respect 
                  have 
                         perpetuated 
                                          an 
                                               earlier 
                                                          plan 
                                                                 form, 
                                                                          but 
                                                                                the 
                                                                                      only 

surviving evidence 
                     for 
                          this 
                                is 
                                   the 
                                        great 
                                               length 
                                                       of 
                                                           the present 
                                                                        east 

room in proportion to its width. 
                                         No original features were apparent in 

the east room of the main range, although from its relationship to the 

rear service wing 
                       it 
                           is likely that 
                                               it was originally 
                                                                      the housebody. 

The west 
             room 
                    is 
                        divided 
                                    from 
                                           the 
                                                 suggested 
                                                               lobby 
                                                                        by 
                                                                            a 
                                                                               stone 
                                                                                        crosswall and 
           is heated by 
                           a fireplace with 
                                                 a flat brick arch 
                                                                        in this wall. The position of the room in relation to the service wing and the modest 

size of the fireplace suggest that it was probably the parlour. 
                                                                                    It 
                                                                                        is 

spanned by an ovolo-moulded transverse beam. 
                                                    This moulding suggests 
                                                                               a 

17th-century date, but the beam appears to be re-used: 
                                                          at its north end 

the moulding 
                   is stopped about 60cm short of 
                                                                the wall 
                                                                             and at 
                                                                                        its south end 
     it 
         is unstopped; 
                             also, 
                                     redundant joist seatings conflict with 
                                                                                            the 

wall 
      positions. 
                       The 
                            floor 
                                    of 
                                         this 
                                               room 
                                                      is 
                                                           of 
                                                               fossiliferous 
                                                                                  marble 

flags, 
        probably 
                    of locally quarried Ashford marble. 
                                                                    The first-floor rooms in the main range extend into the roof-space. 
                                                                There is no access to 
     the 
            roof 
                     and no 
                                 trusses 
                                              are exposed, 
                                                                    but room divisions 
                                                                                                      appear 
                                                                                                                  to 

indicate 
          a four-bay roof. 

The 
     rear wing 
                    is bonded with 
                                          the east gable 
                                                               of 
                                                                    the main range 
                                                                                          and 
                                                                                                is 

probably contemporary with it. 
                                   It appears 
                                               to have been 
                                                             a single bay in 

length originally 
                      (though 
                               it 
                                   is possible 
                                                 that further bays have been 

replaced 
          by modern rebuilding 
                                   of 
                                      the 
                                           north 
                                                  end) 
                                                        and was probably 
                                                                            of 

one-and-a-half storeys. 
                          The east wall, 
                                          like 
                                                the masonry elsewhere 
                                                                        on 

the 18th-century building, 
                                       is unquoined. 
                                                            By contrast, 
                                                                               the first-floor 

masonry of the east wall has gritstone quoins at the north end of the

south bay, 
             implying 
                        a later raising of 
                                                the south bay 
                                                                 to 
                                                                     two storeys. 

The 
     ground-floor 
                        room probably contained 
                                                         a kitchen 
                                                                        or 
                                                                             other 
                                                                                     service 

room. 
         It 
             is 
                lit from the east by 
                                           a two-light mullion window with iron 

glazing bars. 
                 This has double-chamfered jambs which might suggest 
                                                                             an 

earlier 
         date, 
                but 
                     the 
                          lintel 
                                   is 
                                      plain 
                                              and 
                                                   the 
                                                        mullion hag 
                                                                      a narrow 

chamfer 
         inside 
                 and 
                      out, 
                            features which 
                                             are 
                                                  more 
                                                        likely 
                                                                 to 
                                                                    be 
                                                                        of mid- 

18th century date. 
                         Possibly the jambs are re-used. 
                                                                   It 
                                                                       is likely that 

the rear wing was raised to two storeys prior 
                                                                 to the major remodelling 

of 
     the 
           19th 
                    century. 
                                    The 
                                          gritstone 
                                                          quoins 
                                                                      at 
                                                                           the 
                                                                                 north 
                                                                                           end 
                                                                                                  of 
                                                                                                       the 

raised masonry are not paralleled on the remodelled work, 
                                                                     and neither 

is 
     the form of the east-facing window, which has 
                                                                                    a projecting sill and 

formerly had five vertical iron bars. 

In 
     the 
            second 
                       quarter 
                                     of 
                                          the 
                                                 19th 
                                                         century 
                                                                       the 
                                                                             main 
                                                                                      range 
                                                                                                was 
                                                                                                       refronted, 
          a 
             rear outshot 
                             added against 
                                              the 
                                                   north wall, 
                                                                  and 
                                                                        the 
                                                                             large 

cross-wing added at the west end. 
                                      All 
                                           three elements 
                                                            are bonded with 

each other and constructed 
                                  in unquoined limestone rubble 
                                                                         (squared and 

coursed 
          on 
              the 
                    south 
                           and 
                                 west 
                                       elevations) 
                                                      with 
                                                             plain 
                                                                     gritstone 

dressings. 
             Tall stacks 
                           to 
                               the main range and cross-wing, 
                                                                  constructed 

in 
     squared 
                   limestone 
                                    with 
                                             moulded 
                                                           caps, 
                                                                     belong 
                                                                                  to 
                                                                                        the 
                                                                                               same 
                                                                                                        phase. 

These alterations 
                      are recorded 
                                       in 
                                          two watercolours 
                                                                in 
                                                                    the Chatsworth 

Archives, 
           probably 
                      dating 
                               from 
                                     the 
                                          1840s. 
                                                    By 
                                                        this 
                                                              time 
                                                                    the 
                                                                         house 

belonged 
          to 
             the Devonshire 
                              Estate. 
                                         Documentary evidence 
                                                                 states 
                                                                         that 

Elizabeth Warwick, 
                     mistress 
                               of William Spencer, 
                                                     6th Duke of Devonshire 

(1790-1858), 
              was installed in the Rookery 
                                              in 1828.' 
                                                          This may well have 

been 
       the 
            reason 
                     for 
                           the 
                                comparatively 
                                                  lavish 
                                                           refurbishment 
                                                                             of 
                                                                                 the 

accommodation, 
                 the 
                      alterations 
                                   providing 
                                               high-status 
                                                             reception 
                                                                        and 

bedrooms in the cross-wing and improved circulation in the remainder of 

the building. 
                      However, 
                                    the 
                                          first-floor 
                                                            room 
                                                                   in 
                                                                        the 
                                                                              outshot 
                                                                                          has 
                                                                                                 an 

inscription 
             in 
                the plaster reading 
                                       'Revd Giles 
                                                    1837', 
                                                            which provides 

another possible date for this phase. 

The cross-wing projects both north 
                                                and south 
                                                              of 
                                                                  the main range, 
                                                                                         and 

also wraps 
              around 
                        it 
                            on 
                                the 
                                     north 
                                             side. 
                                                       It 
                                                          has 
                                                                a projecting 
                                                                                  eaves 

course 
         and 
              shaped 
                       kneelers 
                                   at 
                                       the 
                                            south 
                                                    gable. 
                                                                The 
                                                                     south 
                                                                             wall 

incorporates 
              a large canted bay window on each floor. 
                                                           Room heights 
                                                                          in 

the wing are considerably greater than elsewhere 
                                                                       in the building, 
                                                                                               and 

the higher status of the rooms 
                                             is also indicated by the use 
                                                                                       of plaster 

cornices. 
             Much 
                   of 
                       the 
                            ground 
                                    floor 
                                           is 
                                               taken 
                                                      up 
                                                          by 
                                                              a 
                                                                 large 
                                                                        drawing 

room, 
       lit by the bay window and from the west, with 
                                                                   a fireplace on the 

west wall 
            (replaced 
                         in 
                            the 
                                 1950s). 
                                            The north end of the ground floor 

is divided between 
                                  a 
                                     small parlour 
                                                              lit 
                                                                      from 
                                                                               the 
                                                                                      west, 
                                                                                                 with 
                                                                                                          a marble 

fireplace 
           on 
              the north wall; 
                                the 
                                     stair; 
                                             and 
                                                 a small unlit closet with 

a vaulted ceiling opening off a passage linking parlour and stair. 
                                                                                                                                                         The 

stair has marble steps, slender turned balusters and a ramped handrail. 

It 
     curves 
                 around 
                             an 
                                   open 
                                           well 
                                                    to 
                                                         a north-south 
                                                                                  first-floor 
                                                                                                      passage 

giving access 
                to three bedrooms, 
                                      and is lit by 
                                                      a six-light mullion and 

transom window on the north wall, 
                                      composed of re-used parts 
                                                                    of doublechamfered window surrounds. 
                               The principal bedroom is at the south end, 

lit by 
         a Venetian window in the canted bay, 
                                                             and has an original marble 

fireplace 
           on 
               the 
                    west 
                          wall 
                                (with 
                                       an 
                                          inserted 
                                                     late-19th 
                                                                 century 
                                                                           cast 

Askey, iron grate) 
and a vaulted ceiling. 

The 
     rebuilt south wall 
                                of 
                                     the main range 
                                                          is characterised by square 

window surrounds 
                    to 
                       the 
                            two west bays 
                                            and 
                                                 a single 
                                                            tripartite window 

to each floor lighting the two east bays. 
                                                                     It incorporates two matching 

entrances, 
            one 
                 at 
                     the west 
                               end, 
                                     and 
                                          one 
                                               roughly central. 
                                                                    Both have 

stone canopies on heavy scrolled brackets. 
                                                     The west doorway opens onto 

a 
     passage 
                        along 
                                      the 
                                                west 
                                                            side 
                                                                        of 
                                                                                the 
                                                                                          original 
                                                                                                               parlour, 
                                                                                                                                    created 
                                                                                                                                                       by 

partitioning off a small room occupying its south-east corner. 
                                                                   This is 

said to have been 
                      a butler's pantry. 
                                                Although 
                                                           the partition has been 

removed, 
           its position 
                          is apparent 
                                         from mortices 
                                                          in 
                                                              the marble 
                                                                           floor. 

It 
     is 
           associated 
                              with 
                                        a 
                                            reduction 
                                                             in 
                                                                   size 
                                                                            of 
                                                                                  the 
                                                                                          original 
                                                                                                         parlour 

fireplace, 
             which 
                     was 
                          provided 
                                      with 
                                            a 
                                                small 
                                                       cast-iron 
                                                                    hob 
                                                                          grate 

decorated with figures in classical costume. 
                                                  The passage gives access 

to 
     the drawing room 
                                 in 
                                      the wing and, 
                                                             at 
                                                                  its north end, 
                                                                                            to 
                                                                                                 the stair. 

It also continues eastwards 
                                              from this point, 
                                                                         via 
                                                                                a lobby, 
                                                                                               to 
                                                                                                    the 
                                                                                                           rear 

wing. 

The central doorway 
                            in 
                                the south wall probably opened 
                                                                            into 
                                                                                    the 
                                                                                         lobby 

posited above, 
                 with access 
                               to 
                                  the service wing beyond. 
                                                                The provision 

of two front entrances 
                                    is unusual and might suggest that the building 

served a dual function. 
                            However, 
                                      the position of the doorways seems to 

indicate 
          a 
             main entrance 
                              to 
                                 the 
                                      west 
                                            and 
                                                 a 
                                                    service 
                                                              entrance 
                                                                         in 
                                                                            the 

centre of 
            the main range, 
                               though 
                                       if this 
                                                is 
                                                    the case 
                                                               it 
                                                                   is surprising 

that 
      their 
               relative 
                           status 
                                    is 
                                        not 
                                              differentiated 
                                                                  in 
                                                                      some 
                                                                             way, 
                                                                                      The 

large tripartite window lighting 
                                          the 
                                               east 
                                                     room suggests 
                                                                       a relatively 

high status use 
                    - 
                      it may have been the dining room, positioned close to 

the kitchen and other services 
                                              in 
                                                  the 
                                                        rear wing. 
                                                                          The 
                                                                                 original 
                                                                                              rear

wing may have been extended at this time, although in its present form 

the extension 
                    is modern. 
                                      A single-storey westward projection 
                                                                                           at 
                                                                                                its 

north 
       end 
            appears 
                      to 
                          be 
                              of mid-19th 
                                             century 
                                                        date, 
                                                               and was 
                                                                          probably 

built 
        abutting 
                   an 
                        earlier 
                                  extension. 
                                                   Given 
                                                           the 
                                                                 quality 
                                                                           of 
                                                                                the 

accommodation provided at this date 
                                      at the west end of the house 
                                                                     it is 

unlikely that 
                the service rooms 
                                    of 
                                        the 18th-century house would have 

been adequate without expansion. 

The outshot 
                 on the north 
                                   side 
                                          of 
                                               the main range provided 
                                                                                 a cellar 
                                                                                              at 

semi-basement 
               level 
                      and 
                          a small 
                                   room and passage 
                                                      on 
                                                          the first-floor. 

The cellar is entered from the rear wing via 
                                                             a doorway with a segmental 

keystone arch, 
                and consists of a single segmental-vaulted space divided 

by 
     an original 
                        partition 
                                       into 
                                               two 
                                                      stores, 
                                                                    The 
                                                                           west 
                                                                                   store 
                                                                                             contains 

stone 
       storage 
                  racks. 
                            The 
                                 first 
                                         floor 
                                                 is 
                                                     reached via 
                                                                     a short 
                                                                               flight 

descending from the main stair. 
                                   The balustrade 
                                                    is identical 
                                                                  to that of 

the main stair and appears 
                                      to be contemporary with the remodelling. 
                                                                                                   A 

passage along the south side of the outshot provided access to bedrooms 

in 
     the 
            main 
                     range. 
                                   A 
                                       room 
                                               on 
                                                     the 
                                                            north 
                                                                      side 
                                                                               of 
                                                                                     the 
                                                                                            passage 
                                                                                                          has 
                                                                                                                 a 

north-facing window. 
                       The present pitched roof probably replaces 
                                                                    a flat 

or 
     very 
              shallow-pitched 
                                        roof, 
                                                  causing 
                                                                the 
                                                                       window 
                                                                                   to 
                                                                                        be 
                                                                                              cut 
                                                                                                     down 
                                                                                                             in 

height 
        to its present 30cm. Visited: Adam Menuge, 
                         Colum Giles 
                                                                       July 1992 

Report: 
Adam Menuge 
35mm Photography: 
Colum Giles From the north-east, showing the rear wing (and later extension).

 

## The Rookery At Ashford‐In‐The‐Water: A Short History

Situated on the edge of the Peak District village of Ashford‐in‐the‐Water, The Rookery was originally a Derbyshire longhouse with adjoining farmyard, cottage and barn., probably originating from the sixteenth century.  According to The Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire published in 1892, the 'earliest inhabitants we can trace were the family of Milnes, say in the sixteenth century, now ennobled; it has since probably been the homestead of scions of two other baronial houses, the Fynneys and Cheneys'. In the eighteenth century The Rookery was owned by the Bullock family, Lords of the Manor of Norton (formerly in Derbyshire and now part of Sheffield). The family had a reputation for eccentricity.  Noah Bullock, built himself an ark on the Derwent and lived in it with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Another member of the family who resided at The Rookery was 'partial to intoxication [and] would sit on horseback for hours to drink huge quantities of beer, preferring such a position to the cosy hostelry of the village or his own drawing room'. The Rookery was bought from the executors of John Bullock by the Sixth Duke of Devonshire (1790 - 1858) in 1821 for the sum of £4,000. It was described at the time as 'a small estate' and obviously included some land and possibly mineral rights for the nearby marble mines.  According to Chatsworth's records the house was in good condition and Duke, 'The Bachelor', needed to spend very little on the property to prepare it for his mistress, Elizabeth Warwick. Most of the money was spent on laying out the garden where it is recorded that he planted 200 roses bought from Paris.  The Sixth Duke eventually had several mistresses installed in houses close to Chatsworth and The Rookery, being the first of these, became known locally as one of the 'birdcages'. Elizabeth Warwick didn't spend a great deal of time at The Rookery. She had another residence near Marble Arch in London and apparently she disliked life in the country. The Duke had a stormy relationship with Elizabeth Warwick, which finally broke up in March 1838. However from transcripts of his diaries it is clear that the he developed a great fondness for The Rookery, riding out from Chatsworth to entertain guests there at the weekend. Among his regular guests were the Arkwrights and the sculptor Sir Francis Chantry who also came from the village of Norton.  In September 1821 the Duke writes 'I went to see the Rookery at Ashford - my new home…it is uncommonly pretty, by the clear rapid River Wye. I am fonder of this place each time of coming to it.' The Duke took to fishing in the River Wye and on 31st December 1821 he writes 'here ends the year 
1821. It has certainly been a happy one for me. The causes of happiness have been…. the time spent at Chatsworth and The Rookery with Georgiana [daughter of the 5th Duke and Duchess of Carlisle] and her family.' However in October 1822 he writes 'my society bores me but my love for this place never ceases. It rained today and I drove to the Rookery and placed there my old travelling bed brought from Russia.' Stone in all its forms was a passion of the sixth Duke. At the far end of the gardens, upstream from the house, was the Ashford Marble Works founded by Samuel Watson in 1748. Here items were fashioned from Ashford marble ('Black Marble') mined on The 
 
 
Arrock and in Rookery Plantation to the front and rear of the house. In March 1823 the Duke records that 'he saw new columns at the works' and a year later he chose a new chimneypiece for The Rookery. A chimneypiece of Ashford marble inlaid with Blue John can still be seen in principal bedroom.  The Duke introduced Florentine green marble as an inlay in Ashford marble and an inlayed marble table, ordered for the Prince Consort, gained an Exhibition medal at the Great Exhibition in 1851. Princess (subsequently Queen) Victoria visited The Rookery when she came to North Derbyshire with her mother, the Duchess of Kent, in 1832 at the age of thirteen.  Her diary entry for October 20th reads: 'we then went to the Rookery,,..belonging to the Duke on the banks of the River Wye, very pretty and cool. From there we walked to the Marble Mills and saw how they sawed and polished the marble. There was a little cottage there that sold Derbyshire spar [Blue John] in different little shapes and forms, and some marble pieces too. We then drove home having bought a good many things.' E. Rhodes in his *Derbyshire Tourist Guide* of 1837 describes the contemporary scene at The Rookery: 'a little beyond the Church, we crossed the bridge on the left, and then followed the immediate bank of the river, in the direction of the Marble Mills; a short but very delightful walk. In our progress we passed the Duke of Devonshire's cottage ornée [sic], a secluded spot of uncommon beauty. The building is covered with trellis‐work, even to the chimney pots, to which ivy has as yet, only in part aspired. Roses, jasmine, and passion flowers, are trailed amongst the deep green leaves of this elegant but insidious plant. Proceeding forward a few hundred yards, we crossed the river, nearly opposite to the Marble Mills.' The distinctive tall chimneys on The Rookery were possibly designed by Joseph Paxton (1803‐1865), appointed head gardener at Chatsworth at the age of 20 and who was responsible for building Crystal Palace in London for the Great Exhibition in 1851. Among many buildings designed by Paxton is Rose Cottage on Buxton Road immediately behind Rookery Cottage, which has similar chimneys to The Rookery. The house and grounds at The Rookery were maintained by the Chatsworth Estate until 1848 but the property was let to tenants from 1838 onwards, the first tenant being the Rev. W.G. Giles who left in 1851 with £61 rent in arrears.   In White's Directory of Derbyshire, High Peak Hundred, dated 1857, The Rookery is described as: …an ancient mansion overgrown with ivy, having a fine lawn in front, and closely adjoining to the Buxton Road, is the residence of Edmund Hayworth, Esq.   The house is sheltered from the north by lofty hills, whilst towards the east and west, noble timber trees skirt the grounds which are laid out with great taste. Here and there a lofty beech or spreading ash intercepts the view of the swiftly passing waters of the Wye, which is crossed by an ivy clad bridge, that gives additional charm to the whole scene. A rising woody eminence in front, closes the verdant prospect, which, though not extensive, is particularly pleasing and enchanting'.   

On Lady Day 1866 Alfred Sorby took over the tenancy at the Rookery. He died in Sheffield 
later the same year but his widow Agnes remained as tenant until her death in 1896. The 
Sorby family were well‐known tool manufacturers in Sheffield and Henry Clifton Sorby 
(1826 ‐ 1908) was a microscopist and geologist. His major contribution was the 
development of techniques for studying iron and steel with microscopes. This paved the 
way for the mass‐production of steel. He was President of Firth College, Sheffield, which 
became the University of Sheffield in 1905.   
 
Writing during Sorby's time in the third edition of On Foot Through the Peak published in 
1876, James Croston describes The Rookery as 'an old‐fashioned, nearly overgrown with 
ivy, delightfully situated in a shallow hollow by the sparkling Wye, where trim lawns and 
flower beds and tastefully laid out pleasure grounds have taken the place of the wilder 
charms of untrimmed nature. The gardens are environed by noble timber trees, in which 
a colony of rooks have established their abode, and in front an ivy‐shrouded bridge which 
spans the river gives access to the plumy woods that mantle the opposite slopes, and 
adds its charms to the romantic beauties of the scene'.   
 
During the First World War it is known that the house was tenanted by Walter C. Tinsley, 
Master of the High Peak Harriers. His son, Alan Deane Tinsley who fought in the Canadian 
Infantry (Manitoba Regiment) was badly wounded at Ypres and died, aged 28, at Roulers 
(now Roeselare, Belgium) on 13th May 1915. He lies buried at Roulers Communal 
Cemetery.  A plaque was placed in his memory on the south wall of the nave of Holy 
Trinity Church, Ashford.   
 



In the 1930s the village of Ashford was bypassed by the main road, which now passes in front of the property rather than behind. The land was ceded by the Chatsworth Estate and the road (now the A6) is known as 'The Duke's Drive'. The Marble Mills had ceased production in 1905 and were partially demolished with the construction of the road. The agent's house, which was separated from the mill by the new road, lies just beyond the end of the garden at The Rookery and is known locally as 'Marble Cottage'. An extensive collection of items made from Ashford Marble can be viewed at Buxton Museum. The Devonshire connection with The Rookery was reinstated during the Second World War when Lord Andrew Cavendish (subsequently 11th Duke of Devonshire, 1920 ‐ 2004) 
moved in with his wife and young family in 1943 to 1946. He had married the Hon. Deborah Mitford (1920 - 2014) in 1941 and she gave birth to a daughter, Emma, in 1943 and son Peregrine ('Stoker') in 1944 (now 12th Duke of Devonshire). With Chatsworth House requisitioned as a girls school and the male members of the family and household away at war, she lived at The Rookery accompanied by her baby daughter, a nanny named Diddy and Violet, an evacuee with two small sons as well as three dogs, a pony and trap, a pig and a cow. In her autobiography Wait for Me!: Memoirs of the Youngest Mitford Sister, she describes life at The Rookery during the war: 'in November 1943 Andrew embarked for Italy with his battalion.  Our daughter Emma was eight months old and we needed a house of our own. I moved into The Rookery, a dark, damp house in Ashford‐in‐ the‐Water (the River Wye flows through the garden) belonging to the Chatsworth Estate. There were pigsties, stables and a paddock where I kept my driving pony. In the kitchen, a huge coal range took up one wall and smuts penetrated everywhere. The stove gave off such fierce heat, rapidly followed by the depressing sight of cold grey ashes, that our wartime rations were often inedible'. She goes on to record: 'we paid rent to the Chatsworth Estate to live at the Rookery. Our income was small and I was appalled by the size of the estate bill for logs, our only from of heating apart form the ancient kitchen range.'  Apparently they did not use all the rooms in the house and the drawing room at The Rookery was filled with furniture and artefacts from Chatsworth. 

Following the sudden death of the 10th Duke of Devonshire in 1950 at the age of 55, The Rookery (together with a number of houses in Ashford) was sold by the Chatsworth estate in 1956 to pay 80% death duties. These were finally paid in 1967. The Rookery was bought by the then tenant, Colonel H.D. Wise who resided at there until the late 1970s. The old kitchen garden, which lay to the east of Rookery Cottage, was sold off by Colonel Wise in 1959 and now forms an adjacent property known as 'Miles Croft'. In 1970 the roof of the main house was replaced with gritstone used at the front of the house and Welsh slate at the rear, presumably to lighten the load. A number of stone‐built outhouses were demolished in the 1970s as well as a flat‐roofed extension at first floor level.  The original service staircase from the kitchen was also removed and replaced by a new downstairs cloakroom and boiler room. 

he late 19
70s to the e 2000s Th he Rookery e, Mr and Mrs C. Ma ry Cottage w acfarlane, M ff by the Ma Mr and M
acfarlanes Mrs R Mayso was sold of on in 2005 
who then b bought bac use, cottag ge, coach h ouse and g gardens, w ver Wye, a are all priv ed. The iv works has s closed an vately own nd The Duk ke's Drive b unds. Other rwise the R
Rookery is h the grou The ground ookery incl lude a brick e been built ds of the Ro t by the sixt th Duke of Devonshir okery, the Barn, Rook kery Cottag ge and the b are all Grad de II listed. From t Swayne Rooker Mr & M
 
The ho the Riv marble through
1876.  T to have The Ro house a Sources s:  
y had a suc ccession of Bernard rs R Lamb b, Mr and f owners:  
Mrs I Hum mphreys.  
in 1987. Th he Rookery y was purc chased by ck Rookery Cottage in 
 2008. 

which exten es on eithe er side of d to 9 acre vy has gon e (replaced d by wiste bypasses th he village o eria), the and cuts much as described of Ashford in 1837, 1
k‐lined iceh house and t tufa grotto
1857 and 
, thought e.   
bridge over r the river giving acce ess to the 

son 2017  
          

 
Chatsworth archives (by kind permission of Her Grace, the Dowager Duchess of 
Devonshire).   
 
Devonshire, D., Wait for Me!: Memoirs of the Youngest Mitford Sister, London 2010 
 
Tilley, J., Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire, 1892 
 
Tomlinson J.M., Derbyshire Black Marble, Matlock Bath, 1996  
 
White's Directory of Derbyshire, High Peak Hundred, 1857