Site of Cardinal Wolsey's Long Gallery could be ‘swept away with a JCB', neighbours fear

Telegraph

01-04-2025

In her objection, she wrote: 'The discovery of these foundations would be a remarkable archaeological find, but in any case, the potential archaeological importance of this site is enormous and cannot be ignored.'
A former CEO of English Heritage, Simon Thurley, once wrote that the gallery was 'admired so much by Henry VIII that in 1531 by royal command it was painstakingly dismantled and taken by cart to Thames Ditton for shipment by barge to Whitehall Palace for reconstruction as the Privy Gallery, which later became the spine of the whole complex,' according to Ms Rainbow.
She said her 'greatest fear' was that the new mansion could cause 'irreversible harm to the Green Belt, the historic landscape, loss of residential amenity and flooding and thus this proposal would create long-term damage.'
Wayneflete Estate was taken over by Henry VIII's chief minister, Wolsey, in 1519, and he used it as a base while overseeing developments at Hampton Court Palace. The Tudor king took possession of the palace in 1530, after Wolsey fell out of his favour amid the king's attempts to gain a divorce.
The self-declared guardian of Wayneflete Tower, Ms Rainbow gives presentations to local societies and groups on the history of the heritage asset and its residents, including Cardinal Wolsey. She writes that the gatehouse is sometimes referred to as Wolsey's Tower.
'The historical significance of the Wayneflete Estate cannot be ignored', Ms Rainbow said in her objection.
Ms Rainbow added that the application proposes that the entire site be changed to residential status, saying: 'In my mind, this is mischievous and is potentially indicative of major development plans. The site's Green Belt status is seemingly at risk.'
There have been almost 30 public comments of objection lodged against the plans. One of them - kept anonymous - states: '[There] have been subsequent applications to demolish the property and build a new much larger property. There has been a clear strategy of a creeping, ever increasing, size of development.'
DHA Planning states its plans to change the house and outbuilding 'will elevate its visual contribution to a level appropriate to its historical setting, complementing its Estate setting whilst also providing modern practical necessities'.
Archaeological assessment
Plans for the demolition and rebuilding of the existing dwelling and outbuilding had previously been approved, but the council later refused permission for the basement, swimming pool and underground walkway link. DHA Planning argued the refusal was because it had previously proposed to re-site the existing dwelling house, but now said it would remain in its current location.
Sophie Hamilton-Grey, in an archaeological assessment, wrote that the site was 'highly significant' in terms of local history. But she concluded that archaeology should not form a basis for rejecting the proposals.
'Whilst there is moderate potential for submerged archaeology, particularly of the mediaeval and postmediaeval and modern periods, further investigation can be carried out as part of a planning condition to ensure that any archaeological significance is explored, monitored and recorded', Ms Hamilton-Grey wrote.