Site map
A History of Preston in Hertfordshire
The development of Temple Dinsley as of May 2025
On 31 August 2021, Princess Helena College closed its portals for the last time - the effects of
Covid delivering the coup de grace.
The house and garden had lain neglected and desolate for around two years until they were
added to the portfolio of The Door UK - a company which for twenty-five years has specialised in
“… finding uses for historic buildings that may have outlived their original purpose and are in need
of new life, our objective is to save them from falling further into disrepair and neglect.” Russell
Prince is the founder of the company.
The Door UK’s stated ethos is to “…seek to preserve and enhance … (the) historic fabric (of its
acquisitions) with appropriate detailing and finishing to the highest of standards. Each project is
carried out with a clear vision to deliver perfection while pushing the barriers to provide the very
best in bespoke and stylised living environments.”
Then began the process of obtaining planning permission and winning the support of local folk and
organisations (such as the Parish Council) for the project.
In the early spring of 2023, the Chairman of Preston Parish Council (PPC), Margaret Trinder, met
with Russell Prince. During the subsequent council meeting on 23 April, it was noted that, ‘Historic
England would be closely involved in the project’. However, at that time the company didn’t know
how many homes would be created.
By September 2023, a clearer view of the enterprise had emerged. PPC’s minutes included the
following information:
•
The Jekyll gardens and the parkland will be restored to how they were before.
•
In the main house there will be forty-three apartments of varying sizes.
•
The sports hall and the science block will be knocked down and a Courtyard
•
Mews type scheme will be built in the same location. There would have been stabling and
grooms quarters originally and this scheme will emulate that in the setting.
•
There will be between ten and fourteen dwellings, either houses or apartments.
•
The barn and the pumping station in the front field will be converted. There is an agricultural
building in the plantation which is listed and which will also be converted.
•
It is expected that the buyers of the apartments will be ‘down-sizers’ and not family orientated.
•
The development will be called Temple Dinsley.
•
It is expected that there will be sixty or sixty-one dwellings in total.
•
There will be a presentation in the form of a drop in session in the village hall for the
community to see the plans when they are finalised.
Villagers were keen to see these plans and several had the opportunity to meet Russell Prince
and discuss the plans for the estate.
A PPC meeting in January 2024 reported further developments:
•
In the main building there will be small apartments and they will be arranged to make the best
use of the space. Some will be one bed apartments, some bigger.
•
Where buildings are to be demolished eg the Sports Hall and the Science block, dwellings will
be built on the footprint to the same volume and there may be some family homes.
•
When the new dwellings at Temple Dinsley are occupied, a management company will take
over. Each property owner will have shares in the company which will decide on what happens
in the grounds. There will be covenants in place to prevent further development.
•
A traffic survey has already been undertaken which shows that the proposed sixty dwellings
will generate less traffic than the school did and will be spread out, rather than everything
arriving and departing within a short time frame It is expected that the planning application will
go in during May.
•
There will be drop in sessions in the village hall nearer the time so residents can view the
plans.
In September 2024, the planning applications re: • 24/01605/LBC & 24/01604/FP - Temple
Dinsley were discussed and members agreed to support the application in principle but with
objections made in regards to the two properties, Tank Barn and the Pumping Station. (Note:
these applications can be viewed in their entirety on the North Herts website.).
Three months later, in December, members agreed the response to the changes made to the
application with agreed changes to be finalised by email. The Temple Dinsley application was
granted consent by the Planning Committee on 30 January 2025. It will be several months before
the legal agreements are completed.
On 24 March 2025, both the planning and the listed building applications for Temple Dinsley were
approved.
1
Extracted from Preston Parish Council minutes
Public comments during the planning application process
There were 332 documents associated with the planning proposal. Some run to scores of pages and
all are detailed, as one would expect. This creates a problem: it is unreasonable to think that
members of the Preston Parish Council and local interested parties can consider all of the details and
decide whether or not they are appropriate. Many of the papers have been written by specialist
professionals and are perhaps a challenge for the lay person to absorb. My own experience of the
planning process in my home city is that those who sit on the planning committee are not necessarily
experts in this field and one wonders whether maybe they should be entrusted with the role which
they are endeavouring to adopt.
I’ve read a few of the documents in their entirety (indeed, some were based on this website). I’ve
found errors (such as a map and conclusions which were assigned the date 1837, when the correct
date is 1873). Also, the proposals for the Temple Dinsley Rose Garden appear to be partly based on a
colourised photograph which is demonstrably wrongly coloured. These are minor details, but they
demonstrate that the planning process is not infallible, and may sometimes be questioned.
An example of this is Preston’s Mike Kellard (an expert in his field) expressing ‘considerable concern
in two key areas’: fire safety and means of access for emergency vehicles, and congested access
and circulation.
In short, ‘the devil is in the detail’ - and time will demonstrate the wisdom of the plans which have
been passed.
The comments for and against the proposals are recorded on the North Herts Council website. They
can be easily found and read using the references mentioned above. What follows is the briefest of
summaries and an attempt to convey the flavour of the public comments which have been published
regarding the plans. Any omissions are not intended to signal disagreement with the points made,
and I suggest the public reactions should be read in their entirety for a rounded assessment of their
erudite reaction to the scheme.
Of the twenty-seven or so comments, several supported the proposals - some adding a suggestion or
two. The main objection was to the building of new houses in the Summerhouse Plantation and the
treatment of the Tank Barn and Pumping Station. Ecological concerns were raised by some -
including the need for swift bricks - and that there had not been a detailed ecological survey. Some
details in the plans were questioned (such as a bathroom pod in the drawing room), its contradictions
and inaccuracies, and the terminology used. There was a risk to damage to archaeological deposits.
Others objected to the problems associated with the village infrastructure being overwhelmed by
the additional numbers of residents; the creation of a ‘new isolated housing estate’; the traffic
associated with the construction work and concerns that there was no investment in the village
facilities and infrastructure. A new cricket pitch and pavilion have been welcomed by Preston’s Cricket
Club. The Lutyens Trust added their “qualified support for the proposals. They are generally well-
considered, especially considering the rather difficult configuration of the building”. But they, like
others, were concerned about the ‘raised roof’ of 1936.
The Temple Dinsley site, 26 April 2025
I was kindly allowed by the Lutyens
Trust to join a tour of the Temple
Dinsley house and gardens on
Saturday, 26 April 2025.
The following photographs are of the
site as it now stands. No criticism is
implied - they merely present a
‘BEFORE’ record of the development
which may be compared with the
finished project.
Temple Dinsley: the mansion
The Temple Dinsley gardens
The Rose Garden
The Pergola Garden
The Belvedere
The condition of the house was better than I expected it to be. While there is some water damage, the
film crew have left few signs of their recent presence.
The gardens although overgrown, can be restored reasonably quickly with modern machinery and a
knowledgeable workforce.
The connecting path from the Rose Garden
1
For me, one of the disappointments of the proposal is the insistence that the gardens at Temple
Dinsley were designed by Gertrude Jekyll. As explained in detail on this website, there is no
documented evidence that this was the case. In fact, the gardens were designed by Sir Edwin
Lutyens.
The Door UK website announces “The buildings were substantially remodelled by Edward (sic)
Lutyens in 1908 and are set within majestic gardens and parkland grounds designed by Gertrude
Jekyll.” However, Lawrence Weaver (a contemporary of and collaborator with Jekyll) had several
opportunities to credit Jekyll with designing the gardens, which he did not take. There is no evidence
that she designed the gardens beyond oral tradition.
And so, a myth is perpetuated.
An appraisal of the plans by a member of the Lutyens Trust casework committee
Both the planning and listed building applications for Temple Dinsley were approved last
night with, as you might expect, a raft of conditions. The planning committee members were
unanimous in their decisions. Several of them commented that it was one of the best
schemes of its type that they had ever dealt with. In particular they noted the thoroughness
of the submission and the degree of local public involvement. There were no public speakers
against the proposals and the Parish Council chairman spoke strongly in favour, regarding
the scheme beneficial to the building and to the village. A rare degree of unity indeed!
The only concerns expressed were the lack of affordable housing, but the members
recognised that the NPPF did not require it in this case (no net increase in floor space) and
the cost of repair of the historic building, gardens and park would be great.Concern for
disability access was raised. Whilst the site was not fully accessible, the architect was
nevertheless commended on the extent of provision. It was also commented that residents
would have a long walk to the communal refuse bins. However, since the bins were in the
car park, disposal could be part of the domestic routine.
My view is that, whilst the scheme has some points we might regret, overall it is a scheme
we should welcome.
A brief pictorial reminder of the work that went into the realisation of Lutyen’s vision
