Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan 2014 Volumes 1 and 2
Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan 2014 Volumes 1 and 2
Nexus Heritage
Commercial-in-Confidence
Report Number
3176.R 05
Report Status
Final report
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Date: 27/04/2014
Approved by:
Gerry Wait
Date: 28/04/2014
Revision Record
Revs 1 -3
Revision No.4
Revision No.5
Alterations to text
English Heritage
29 Queen Square
Bristol
BS1 4ND
United Kingdom
Report
2
CONTENTS VOLUME 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
POLICIES .......................................................................................................................54
8.
9.
CONTENTS VOLUME 2
APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS .......................................................................... 69
ASSET OW1: THE TOWER KEEP ......................................................................................................... 71
ASSET OW2: THE ENCLOSURE WALL
74
81
83
86
87
89
97
98
APPENDIX 6: LIST OF ASSETS FORMERLY IN THE ENVIRONS OF OLD WARDOUR, NOW LOST
(LUKE HUGHES)
104
Report
1
FIGURES
Report cover image: Old Wardour Castle tower keep (OW1) from the north-east
(Note: that the North tower is to the right of the entrance-way, the East tower to the left)
Figure 1 Location, south of Tisbury, Wiltshire (satellite image) ................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Old Wardour Castle and immediate environs: direct vertical image .......................................... 8
Figure 3 Access and topography (NB incorrectly located arrow is as given by GPS referencing) ........... 9
Figure 4 Old Wardour Castle, showing the extent of the current Guardianship area in red. .................... 9
Figure 5 Old Wardour Tower Keep as the visitor approaches it. .......................................................... 19
Figure 6 Engraving of 1732 by N & S Buck ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 7 The banqueting House viewed from the tower keep ................................................................. 21
Figure 8 Looking along the broader terrace to the Grotto ....................................................................... 22
Figure 9 The terraces, viewed from the top of the tower keep ................................................................ 22
Figure 10 The Grotto viewed along the axial approach from the tower keep .......................................... 23
Figure 11 The stone seats (standing stone out of sight to right) ............................................................. 23
Figure 12 C19th view of Old Wardour from the south ............................................................................. 29
Figure 13 Excavations in 1966 against the north face of the East Tower (MPBW; Luke Hughes) ......... 32
Figure 14 View from the south: compare Figure 12 (note openings at SE angle of precinct wall) ......... 34
Figure 15 Abstract from Andrews and Drury Atlas of Wiltshire (1751) (courtesy of L. Hughes) (NB
detached garden on hilltop above the castle to the E, already in existence by 1750, and therefore,
contra Cole, 2014, 7, unlikely to have been created as a temporary walled vegetable garden. ............. 35
Figure 16 Tower Keep: south-facing elevation (Luke Hughes) ............................................................... 37
Figure 17 Example of the views that guest chambers once offered....................................................... 37
Figure 18 Graffiti at Old Wardour ............................................................................................................ 41
Figure 19 Gaps/evidential value: was there a c.1578 re-fronting of the North and East towers? ......... 43
Figure 20 Repairs to the outer enclosure wall in 1992 (courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes); this illustrates the
danger of catastrophic collapse if not adequately monitored for movement. .......................................... 44
Figure 21 The first-floor Great Chamber from the north (showing the area of stonework badly affected
by water ingress following the insertion of a concrete floor) .................................................................... 45
Figure 22 Visitors view of the Castles tower keep over the under-appreciated precinct wall............... 46
Figure 23 View from the west in the 1960s, courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (note MPBW scaffolding for
repairs, and newly planted forestry, now maturing) ................................................................................. 49
Figure 24 (left: fissure in wall of Stables; right: tree-growth by point of 1990 failure of precinct wall) ... 50
Figure 25 North tower, showing location of staircase (proposed for viewpoint insertion) ...................... 60
Figure 26 East tower, second storey apartments (proposed for demountable displays) ...................... 60
Figure 27 The reception hut/shop, from the tower keep: courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (the structure
adds an unwelcome municipal feel to the site, not helped by the finger-post; a rationalised and more
sympathetic structure is needed) ............................................................................................................. 64
Figure 28 Parking overcrowding at entrance to site (courtesy Luke Hughes) (a full strategy for
rationalising parking is needed at the site, not least to improve the setting of the precinct wall) ............ 65
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire. It was
prepared between November 2013 and April 2014 by Nexus Heritage (sequentially Directors Dr.
Gerry Wait and then Dr. Keith Ray) for English Heritage, and was finalised in July 2014.
The purpose of this report is to consider the significance of the property, to identify gaps in
knowledge, and to specify (where possible) risks and opportunities for the buildings and
landscape. The aim also is to develop an action plan for future conservation and management
works that takes into account both necessary and desirable works, including those that may
improve the visitor experience.
Old Wardour Castle has an interesting place in English history, as a rare example of a design
with clear continental antecedents, built in its present hexagonal form originally by the Lovell
family when at the height of their influence on the periphery of the royal court of Richard II in the
late 14th century. It was subsequently remodelled into a fine fortified country residence on behalf
of the Cornish Arundell family around 1578, at least in part by the famed Elizabethan masonarchitect Robert Smythson who was working at the same time on Longleat House nearby.
Each of these major construction episodes was accompanied by the creation of a designed
landscape of gardens and parkland extending outwards from the main house and enhancing its
setting. However, a third major significance of the site concerns its role as the landscape
counterpoint to new Wardour Castle mansion from the 1760s, as a picturesque ruin within a
pleasure ground that included a number of architectural set-pieces and that was associated with
design and planting by the designer Richard Woods.
Key findings of the characterisation and assessment aspects of this study are that neither
structural/embellishment details of the tower keep nor the forms and function(s) of the
precinct/curtain wall are as well-understood or recorded as well as they might be; and that the
terraces within the latter wall on the north-eastern side of the castle could be of greater
significance to the overall understanding of the site than has hitherto been appreciated (with
possible origins as medieval gardens/prospect terraces).
Previous interventions and repairs to most of the buildings have mostly been done
sympathetically and with consideration for the historic fabric. However, some structural problems
are identified, that have not yet been fully addressed, and that may need some intervention in the
not too distant future especially in respect to the precinct wall of the late 16th century (founded
upon the late 14th century curtain wall).
The castle as visited today is authentic and easy to understand, with a more than acceptable
immediate setting and with a fine example of historic parkland and Wessex countryside as a
wider setting. However, more can and should be done to explain the role of the precinct/curtain
wall and early gardens; to achieve a more sympathetic treatment of the monument in respect to
its immediate environs; and to re-integrate the castle within its wider former parkland setting.
Interpretation and understanding could be enhanced by better use of some of the spaces within
the tower keep, notably two rooms on the ground floor which are nearly weatherproof and could
be improved, and two rooms in the south-east tower which could be partially-weatherproofed and
used for modest interpretive displays. There are a few other demountable structural additions
which might significantly improve a visitors appreciation, and changes to site office/shop that
would be highly beneficial. As is common to such sites, increased / improved site interpretation
panels could be installed, but at the risk of becoming increasingly intrusive and thereby detracting
from visitors overall appreciation of the castle.
Consultation included discussions with site staff and in-depth conversation with local residents
and adjacent landowners. The concerns of the latter in particular about utility services and site
management, and especially parking, and the relationship of the castle to the surrounding
Report
3
parkland, are noted in (both volumes of) the report. Recommendations are made concerning the
wider landscape setting in terms of both conservation management and presentation.
Volume 1 of the Conservation Management Plan contains the principal sections of the report that
characterise and evaluate the site, and identify options for conservation and other actions.
Volume 2 contains Appendices, and in particular a Gazetteer of the major site components and
heritage assets.
Report
4
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Old Wardour Castle. This first volume (of
two) provides an overview of the history and development of the site, notes gaps in knowledge,
describes past and present management regimes, has at its core a statement of significance,
and provides also an Action Plan to guide potential future approaches to the site.
A second volume comprises a Gazetteer that gives a more detailed account of the principal
individual heritage assets under English Heritage Guardianship at Old Wardour (presented as
Appendix 1), along with a series of further Appendices detailing consultees and providing
supplementary information. Each heritage asset described in this document has been given a
unique number (with the exception of parkland features) and this is used as a point of reference
throughout this document.
to understand the heritage assets of Old Wardour Castle, in the context of both the history of
the site and local, regional and national planning policy and frameworks
to highlight how and why the significance of the sites is vulnerable and to suggest ways in
which the management of the site can be enhanced in the future.
To consider the presentation and interpretation of Old Wardour Castle and make
recommendations where appropriate
The specific objectives for the Conservation Management Plan are to inform the:
management of the monument in order to continue to protect and sustain its significance
management of current levels of public access and enjoyment and where appropriate
identify additional opportunities in line with current feasibility studies
explanatory interpretation of the site to the public in a way that enhances the visitor
experience without adversely impacting on its significance.
Report
5
Methodology
This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by Gerry Wait and (then) by Keith Ray,
of Nexus Heritage. The process has been divided into several stages, which are reflected in the
structure of this document.
The first part is a succinct headline statement that seeks to capture the essence of the
importance of Old Wardour Castle in its own right in the national setting.
The second part follows the scheme set out in the English Heritage Conservation Principles,
and expresses significance in terms of four key values, or sets of values. These are:
Evidential Value, Historical Value, Aesthetic Value and Community Value, and Old
Wardour Castle is formally assessed here in respect to each set in terms of the individual
site components and groups of site components.
The preparation of the Statement has involved professional analysis by the authors of this Plan
and both formal and informal consultation and discussion with English Heritage staff and other
stakeholders. A full list of consultees is presented in Volume 2, Appendix 2.
Report
6
itemised in a table, along with their recommended priority. A further final part of the Action Plan
explains the reasons for the various recommended actions and for their priority status.
References (Section 8)
The bibliography provided in this report is a select one. A considerable number of references to
both primary and secondary sources were encountered during Plan preparation, and it soon
became obvious that there would not be scope to provide an inclusive (let alone exhaustive) set
of references. It also became clear that the compilation of a comprehensive reference archive is
a worthwhile objective in its own right. While it may seem to be of peripheral interest, this is
nonetheless an important task.
Reporting
This has been undertaken in several stages, in order to enable the results from the various
consultation processes to be fed into it.
A first draft was prepared by Gerry Wait in January 2014, following research carried out between
October and December 2013, a field visit in November, and compilation in early 2014. This was
circulated for initial comment, and a second draft was prepared.
Before the production of a third draft, and following a meeting and agreement with English
Heritage, Keith Ray took over primary responsibility for the completion of the Plan. Following a
review meeting organised by Win Scutt, Assistant Properties Curator for the West Territory, in
Bristol in mid-March, two site-based consultation meetings were arranged in late March and in
early April 2014, and a further (penultimate, fourth) draft report was produced.
Following a final consultation meeting with English Heritage regional staff in Bristol, a series of
final-stage drafts was produced. Most of the document was finalised in the period 14th 20th
April, following receipt of further information and comments upon the fourth draft version. The
present, final, version (July 2014), arose from further consultation responses and minor editorial
corrections and suggestions (by Win Scutt) received in May and June 2014.
The report has been written with reference to the following key documents:
English Heritage Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable
Management of the Historic Environment (2008)
Report
7
Figure 2 Old Wardour Castle and immediate environs: direct vertical image
Report
8
Figure 3 Access and topography (NB incorrectly located arrow is as given by GPS referencing)
Figure 4 Old Wardour Castle, showing the extent of the Guardianship area in red.
Report
9
Report
10
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
1086
No known remains
1386
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
1393
th
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
Phase 3:
1485 1547
1547
Buys Wardour
1570
Phase 4:
Report
12
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
employed by Arundell to oversee the work
at Wardour.
The refurbishment, which provided
classically-inspired fronts to the main
entrance and also involved the replacement
of many of the windows, may be attributed
to Robert Smythson.
The bailey, or outer courtyard, is very large:
a maximum of 152m by 175m. The shape
reflects that of the keep and its towers. The
thin enclosing curtain wall survives for most
of the circuit, and retains the ground levels
which have built up within the bailey.
Soil levels within the bailey are known from
partial excavation to have been raised,
th
probably in the 18 century when the lake
was greatly increased in size, thereby
effectively sealing the medieval occupation
deposits beneath them. The wall belongs to
th
the 16 century alterations but is known
from partial excavation to be (at least in
part) on the line of the original curtain wall.
nd
Report
13
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
rd
1649
Phase 5:
From 1650 -
1732
Phase 6:
1756
th
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
1776.
Two surveys of Old Wardour were carried
out under this Henry Arundell. One of them,
a plan of 1753 shows a bowling green on
the upper side of the castle and pleasure
garden (it is not clear whether this was in
use, or planned).
Also, against the South Curtain wall are
located several structures: the house &
stew court &c. with stables, granary and
dogkennel to the north and west.
th
1754
1764
1773
th
Report
15
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
through an 18th century gateway, the
ragged piers of which are probably the work
of Josiah Lane, the builder of the grotto.
South of the bailey, outside the curtain wall,
lies the ruined shell of the stables built by
1686. The building has two gable walls,
each standing to first floor ceiling height,
linked on the southern side by a wall which
incorporates a series of wide arched
openings. The northern side of the building
is formed by the curtain wall.
In the early 18th century the castle ruins
were still surrounded by formal gardens.
After the construction of New Wardour
Castle between 1769 and 1776, the bailey
was laid out in the `picturesque' manner
and the grounds about it were landscaped
and planted.
The most prominent feature of the
landscaping within the bailey is a series of
terraces, facing the entrance to the keep
and running the full width of the bailey. An
English Heritage Ancient Monuments
Laboratory geophysical survey in the late
1990s recorded anomalies that would seem
to reflect garden features.
1773-1780
1792
th
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
1936
1946
th
th
Report
17
3. IDENTIFICATION
AND
HERITAGE ASSETS
CHARACTERISATION
OF
Identification
The Heritage Assets at Old Wardour Castle can, in the simplest terms, be identified as individual
visible structures (or groups of structures) and remains:
1. Tower keep (OW 1 below, and in Appendix 1)
2. The extended-hexagonal precinct (formerly curtain/bailey) wall and enclosed bailey
(OW2)
3. Banqueting House/Pavilion (OW3)
4. The elongated terrace(s), to the north-east within the garden (OW4)
5. Grotto (OW5)
6. Stone seats, entrance gateway and standing stones (OW6)
7. The Stables (OW7)
8. The external tower attached to the south-west corner of the precinct wall (OW8)
9. Structures incorporated into the southern stretch of the precinct wall (OW9)
10. The access and service tunnel (OW10)
It is important to list additional assets buried below-ground or existing out with the Guardianship,
either individually or in groups, to improve awareness of their information potential and their
fragility. As such, a further 10 assets or asset-groups are enumerated here and described below.
The medieval curtain wall and associated structures other than the gatehouse (OW12)
The documented mine and other (unknown) Civil War siege-works (OW16)
Former formal garden features in the Guardianship area, of 16th-17th century origin
(OW17)
Picturesque landscape features, including terrace, grotto and stone seat (OW18)
Designed landscape and parkland features out with the Guardianship area (OW20)
The first 10 visible assets (above) at Old Wardour Castle are clearly capable of full
characterisation, whereas those not in Guardianship, or that are below-ground elements, can
only be described in outline. They have (at best) only been glimpsed in ground-penetrating
exercises in the past, or are inferred as present (or formerly present) either from documentary
evidence or from limited archaeological investigations of one kind or another. In Appendix 1,
therefore, it is only assets OW 1-10 that are formally assessed in the Gazetteer in Volume 2 of
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
18
this Plan; the remaining assets are described in outline below. Assets mentioned within OW20
represent only a surviving fraction of what was once present in the surrounding parkland (See
Appendix 6), and are more fully described in Cole, 1999 (see section 9, below).
Initial characterisation
The Heritage Assets at Old Wardour can be characterised as follows.
Report
19
The bailey of the castle is large (around 150m at maximum north-south extent by 175m eastwest). In the late medieval period it was probably largely devoted to domestic and service
functions of the castle (and possibly the site of the chapel), but it may also have contained the
domestic castle gardens. In the period from 1578 to c.1760, the space was largely or wholly
devoted to providing the formal gardens and walks within the precinct wall, and the immediate
setting for the refurbished tower keep. In the period thereafter it was heavily-planted with trees
and shrubs, and laid to lawn (possibly initially with some planted borders remaining) to dramatise
Report
20
the romantic ruins in the Picturesque style: complete with the complementary new gateway,
stone seats, stone circle and Grotto (OW5, OW 6, below).
Richard Woods was probably responsible for the re-landscaping that is attested archaeologically,
whereby the ground-level within the outer ward/bailey, and against the inside of the precinct wall,
was raised. An instruction entered as a memorandum on 15th March 1766 described works
designed to level down the slops in the Castle Garden (Laird, 1999, 229-31). While the focus
has in the past been strongly upon how this action has potentially preserved earlier
archaeological deposits by sealing them, two more negative consequences need mention. The
first is that, because it is known that such deposits contain building rubble, it cannot be assumed
that the dumping and settling process has not in fact damaged those earlier deposits. Secondly,
the build-up of soil involved has apparently compromised the stability of parts of the precinct wall.
Figure 7
The banqueting house as seen today was probably designed by James Paine, and was built
almost certainly in the period 1772-3. It replaced an older dining room in the same location, and
some authorities have suggested that this was also the site of an original gatehouse. Its use as
an informal tea-room for visitors led to its being termed a Pavilion. The older dining building is
marked on an early 18th century map, but there is no evidence to support the notion that there
was ever a gatehouse here.
Report
21
lower terrace was apparently adapted as the platform for the construction for the Grotto (OW 5,
below).
The terraces conform closely to the plan of those shown as extant in this location on the survey
drawings of 1753 and 1773, and the lowest of the terraces is still, as shown on the 1753 plan
(Laird, 1999, Fig 135), the broadest. On that plan this broad terrace was identified as a Bowling
Green. As such, it is closely similar to the still-extant bowling green on the terrace above, and to
the east of, the main house at Trerice near Newquay in Cornwall, another Arundell property.
Figure 8
The origin of the terraces may be medieval: as noted below (Section 4, Gaps in knowledge),
they may have parallels elsewhere, even in moderately close proximity in another Wiltshire
medieval castle. Their form may have been planned integrally with the north-east facing entrance
faade of the tower keep, and so could be one of the original features of the site.
Figure 9 The terraces, viewed from the top of the tower keep
OW5 Grotto
The Grotto comprises rough-cast, but quarried stone. It was built by Josiah Lane, of Tisbury, in
1792. Its apparent informality of construction is an artefact of its dilapidation in the later 20 th
century. Its structure instead possessed a definite symmetry, but it survives today in anything
nearing its complete form only on its southern flank (to the right when viewed, as intended, from
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
22
the west). Its presence here from 1792 must mean that the bowling green was abandoned at, or
by, the time of construction of the Grotto.
The exact appearance of the Grotto as originally built is uncertain. At its base there are extensive
traces of the former plaster frostwork that once covered the structure, and this plasterwork
(remains of which are also held in store at Atcham) indicates that the structure once had a very
different appearance to that which it has today.
Figure 10 The Grotto viewed along the axial approach from the tower keep
Report
23
OW8 The external tower attached to the south-west corner of the precinct wall
the privy
This diminutive two-storey building projects southwards from the most south-westerly angle of
the precinct wall. This was described as a necessary house in the 19th century, and was
presumably originally designed as a privy. At the lower level it is accessed externally from a
doorway facing east. At the upper level, like the banqueting house, it was accessed from the
raised internal ground within the precinct wall. This access allowed for its main use, especially
when the banqueting house was being used in the 19th century as a tea pavilion. The threeseater privy itself survives intact as built.
OW9 Structures incorporated into the southern stretch of the precinct wall
A number of structures did once form, or do now form, an integral part of the precinct wall at the
lower level along the southern stretch of that wall. They may originally have been accessed from
within the outer court/ward of the castle. What is of interest about these structures is that two of
them feature simple barrel vaults in stone that, given their integral build with simple equilateral
pointed arches, appear nonetheless to be of medieval origin.
Report
24
A modest dairying complex, with house and yard, is shown on the 18th century estate maps as
once existing a short distance to the south of Old Wardour House. The foundations of the
buildings of this complex are now buried, but have been observed in situ beneath the turf (L.
Hughes, pers comm).
OW12 The medieval curtain wall and associated structures other than the
gatehouse
The medieval curtain wall surrounded the outer ward of the late 14th century castle. Very little is
known about its original form, however, or even the exact disposition of its lengths of walling. It
appears to have been broader than the existing precinct wall (built in the late 16th century), but
nothing else is known about its character. So, for instance, it may have featured supporting or
projecting buttresses, and angle- or interval-towers. It is likely, on analogy with other
concentrically-organised castles developed for display in the late 14th century, such as Bodiam
and Raglan, that this outer wall would have been designed to mirror the flamboyant design
evident in the main focal structure. Nor is it clear whether any ditch existed beyond the curtain
wall: no trace has apparently been observed in the various recorded interventions.
The associated structures, about which nothing whatsoever is known, are likely to have
comprised a mix of lean-to, integral or free-standing structures in stone (and also in stone-andtimber) placed up against, or close to, the interior elevation of the wall. Such structures would
most likely have included ancillary kitchens, stores, workshops, wash-houses, armoury and
stables: as well as the castle chapel.
Report
25
OW16 The documented mine and other (unknown) Civil War siege-works
Mendip miners under supervision of an engineer were brought in by Royalist forces under Henry,
3rd Lord Arundell, early in 1644, seeking to recapture the castle from the occupying troop of
Parliamentary cavalry under command of Edmund Ludlow. Arundells miners dug a shaft beneath
the curtain wall, which apparently extended up to the walls of the tower keep. It was packed with
explosives, which were ignited accidentally by a shot fired by one of Ludlows men. Ludlow
himself was awoken by the explosion, to find that a chunk of his bedroom wall (and much of the
west-facing external elevation of the castle) had been blown down by the force of the blast. The
breach in the curtain wall was then unsuccessfully stormed, and a further mine dug, causing the
occupants to surrender. The location of neither mine is known with any certainty, though again
the geophysical survey may provide clues. If negative anomalies (representing softer deposits)
provide a relevant indication, there may have been two further mines dug from the east towards,
and in one case up against, the East Tower. A diversion northwards in the more southerly of
these linear features (anomaly 23) may indicate that those directing the miners had some
particular knowledge of the castle (which, given Henry Arundells family ownership of the
property, would hardly be surprising): it heads towards the south-eastern side of the tower keep,
and then diverts northwards towards the front of the East Tower. The other mine in this area, if
this is indeed what is represented by the second linear anomaly (not numbered), heads more
directly towards the south-east (corner) angle of the East Tower, which it meets (Linford, 1997,
Plan C, refers).
Report
26
surrounding the outer walls of the tower keep, exactly as shown in 1732, and providing an outer
boundary to a walkway around the very base of the tower keep walls.
The additional detail of the lost east garden revealed in the 1997 survey is remarkable. So, for
example, a projecting rectangular wall-line apparently framed the existing visible dais leading to
the main doorway of the tower keep. Beyond this, four symmetrically-placed elongated ovalshaped anomalies presumably representing planting beds extend outwards from a central feature
(a probable fountain). Long flanking walls framing this group are indicated to north and south of
this fountain compartment. Beyond these latter walls to north and south were discovered two
circular anomalies (diameter around 25m) that appear to mark the site of two symmetricallyplaced circular beds surrounded by concentric paths or broad-walks, each perhaps bounded by a
cutboard or low wall. These are sufficiently hard landscaping features to have been in existence
for some time before 1732. Although it would seem unlikely that they would have remained
unaltered from 1578, especially given the disruptions of the Civil War sieges, it may be that they
represent a restoration of the layout dating from that time, carried out in the period between 1660
and c.1680, following the restoration of the property to the Arundell family.
Report
27
To the west, the Swan Pond was developed in the 18th century as an extension of an existing
rectangular pond. The massive bund or dam along the western margin of this Pond served as a
prospect walk that appears to have been designed deliberately to facilitate what are today the
best views of the castle from the west. This Pond is turn was likely to have been created in the
16th century from original, and perhaps simpler, medieval fishponds (although the prior existence
of a lake complementing the extravagant late 14th century castle cannot be discounted). As part
of the creation of the pleasure grounds in the late 18th century, a Bath House, presumably fed at
least in part by water drawn from the Pond, was built to the north-west of the latter, tucked in
beneath the northern end of the bund. This had a neo-Classical faade with rusticated
stonework, now re-set within the east-facing elevation of Ark Farm, which is built out from the
remains of the bath-house itself.
To the east of the castle, on the west-facing slopes, the line of The Great Terrace (Cowell, 2009,
232) created as part of Woods landscaping scheme is closely traceable. This was built as a
prospect-walk leading out from the New Wardour mansion, across the landscape park and
continuing past the Old Wardour castle ruins towards the south-east corner of the park and the
park lodge. As followed from the south-east, it was designed to afford continuous views over Old
Wardour, with a gently curving line descending the hill-slopes known as The Hangings,
continuing on towards New Wardour around the flank of the west-facing slopes:
At a few yards beyond the Lodge we enter the Terrace, consisting of a level grass
walk, formed upon the side of a declivity, well clothed with shrubs and trees
(and) at intervals the transient views obtained of the park and its contents (including
the waters near the Castle, the remains of that ancient edifice partially shaded by
tress and covered in ivy) add new charms to its more general features of
majestic greatness and privacy (Rutter, 1822)
A carefully-contrived set-piece structure here indicates the way in which the designers sought to
manage the experience of viewing the old castle and its landscape. At the point where a track or
path ascending from the Old Wardour ruins becomes a hollow-way, the sides of the track were
cut back and lined in stone. Where the Great Terrace approached this sunken track, a massive
Rock Arch (or curving vaulted tunnel, also attributed to Josiah Lane) was created to carry that
terrace-way over the sunken track:
On the hill above to the east, a detached garden appears on the 18th century plans close to the
edge of the scarp. This has been assumed to have been a kitchen-garden built as an interim
measure, although its internal design suggests rather more formality, and in origin it was
conceivably the site of a medieval pleasaunce.
Report
28
Figure 12
(Courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes): (note Fonthill House on the horizon, prior to its demolition)
Report
29
4. MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL
The site was taken into Guardianship by the then Ministry of Works in 1936. The area of
Guardianship included the Castle within its hexagonal surrounding wall, and was later extended
to include the ruined stables adjacent to Old Wardour House.
Old Wardour Castle has clearly been well conserved over much of the 78-year period 1936-2014.
During site visits in December 2013, January 2014, and March 2014 no obvious major structural
defects were observed and the site staff (Sally Hughes and Greg Bastin) confirmed that yearly
fabric inspections have been conducted, including at high level. Records are kept on site of any
rock-falls occasioned by winter frosts or rains, but there seem to have been few, testifying to a
generally good conservation condition of the standing fabric. There are, however, localised
conservation problems that were identified in the most recent condition survey (Caroe and
Partners, AMP survey 2008: see Risks, Section 6, below).
The insertion of concrete floors in various locations, and especially above the Lower Kitchen (in
the North-West tower), and on two floors in the East Lodgings (East tower), created water
ingress problems. These have only in recent years been addressed and further damage
prevented. Also, there is some continuing climatically-induced erosion of surface fabric,
particularly where once interior surfaces have subsequently been exposed, as for instance in the
stairway of the North tower. Moreover, the condition of the surviving lengths of the curtain wall
needs some re-assessment: there have in the past been some catastrophic failures of parts of
this wall, as in 1990 when an approximately 30m length immediately east of the Swan Pond and
north of the Banqueting House/Pavilion collapsed downslope westwards and had to be
underpinned with a new concrete foundation, and rebuilt (achieved in 1992).
The enclosure wall may not be in as reasonable condition as currently supposed: some lengths
bow outwards, and although a significant crack in the southern-most stretch has been patched,
movement has not necessarily been arrested; see also Caroe and Partners, AMP survey 2008,
and Risks, Section 6, below). The Banqueting House/Pavilion is apparently in reasonably good
condition. The Grotto, much of which has been removed or has decayed since its creation, is
also apparently stable, although in need of careful re-appraisal. The stone seating and decorative
rock assemblage at the far north end of the terrace are decayed and in part overgrown. The ruins
of the stables by Old Wardour House are in reasonably good condition, but the curtain wall to its
east is unstable and its access-ways and their portals are in need of (urgent) attention.
The surrounding lawns are well tended and simply maintained. The Grotto area was subject to
comprehensive planting in the later 1990s. However, it has since then lost some of its plants and
become somewhat overgrown: whilst this is not at all unsightly it does somewhat diminish its
character and value. Moreover, the flanking yews appear to require some attention, with
outgrown limbs vulnerable to windfall. The small stone-set viewing seats in the north corner are
likewise a little overgrown, and the growth of rhododendrons and laurels has robbed these seats
of their intended views of the Castle and more distant parkland. The planting of laurels, intended
apparently as a temporary screening device until other species such as box had grown up, has
been allowed to become permanent. Their continued existence needs some review, especially
where the root-growth and trunks have become a serious danger to undermining the fabric and
foundations of the curtain wall, and vegetation maintenance costs are considerable.
All the structures at Old Wardour Castle are, in principle, now subject to Periodic Condition
Surveys every 7 years. It is especially important that these are not limited to the tower keep
(OW1), however. Maintenance of the tower keep building is undertaken according to the
Schedule prepared in the most recent Asset Management Plan Survey (Caroe and Partners for
English Heritage, 2008).
The surrounding parkland and environs are broadly in good condition, although the close
environs to the east of the castle are badly in need of improved management and better
integration with its overall setting. The condition of both The Great Terrace and the Stone Arch
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
30
are a cause for alarm, since, once completely collapsed, it will be difficult to restore them. There
have been losses of particular features in the parkland over a number of years (see Volume 2,
Appendix 6), and others have been damaged by forestry and other operations. Meanwhile 20th
century planting has obscured the views from historic paths, and there is a perceived need,
especially from local stakeholders, for more integrated management, and where feasible,
restoration, of the wider landscape setting of the castle.
5. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE
The appraisal of the present state of knowledge of Old Wardour Castle, undertaken by Nexus
Heritage staff early in 2014, has identified a series of shortcomings in our collective
understanding of the archaeology and history of the property, and of the physical remains of the
heritage assets of greater and of lesser significance. There are a considerable number of gaps in
knowledge that could be identified here. However, given the limited scope of the present study,
there is a focus below only upon the four subjects, or themes, that are considered to be most
important to an improved understanding of the history and character of the castle. In practice,
each of these subjects represents a series of inter-related queries concerning sets of features.
The early history of the site, prior to the construction of the late 14th century
castle
This is in effect both an historical (in the sense of documentary) and an archaeological lacuna.
The early history of the area is hinted at, mostly, by surface archaeological finds. These include a
considerable number of flint and chert worked items and debitage, retrieved by Mike Felcey in
1989 from a number of locations mostly in ploughed, formerly parkland, fields to the west of Old
Wardour Castle and to the east of New Wardour Castle (for example, Wiltshire and Swindon
HER: MW12769 ST92NW051; MW12781 ST92NW110). These were identified as primarily of
Neolithic origin (blades and flakes; c.4000-2500BC), but also with a few Mesolithic items (c.90004000BC). A substantial group of similar items was also recovered in 1976 closer to Old Wardour
Castle, on the hilltop to the south-east (MW12772 ST92NW101, at ST 9430 2620; Devizes
Museum 1976.55). No items of similar date have been reported from the limited excavations on
the site of the castle itself.
A large sherd of Romano-British pottery was also recovered during field-walking in 1989 southwest of Island Pond in the parkland to the west of the castle (MW12797 ST92NW307), but
again, no similar finds were recovered in excavations at the site itself.
An Anglo-Saxon charter reference of c. 900 may be to Wardour, and there are references to its
manorial holding in the Domesday Survey (1086). There is circumstantial evidence from the
licence to crenellate of 1393 that a manorial site pre-existed the castle, and this makes perfect
sense in light of the 12th-13th century pottery that was retrieved both from archaeological
excavations undertaken in the 1960s and in a recent watching-brief work near the present site
entrance.
The exact form and/or structural detail of many parts of the late 14th century
castle are unknown
At first glance, this is hardly problematical since, surely, enough of the early structure is visible in
the tower keep at the centre of the complex? Such a view is misguided, for two reasons: firstly,
because close inspection of the standing fabric raises doubts as to whether the full extent of the
late 16th century remodelling of this building has so far been appreciated; and secondly, because
so much of the fabric of the late medieval castle beyond this central structure has been
demolished and the foundations concealed from view under later debris, below-ground. The
following are key questions:
Report
31
In reference to the tower keep, there remains some doubt, for example, about the
implication to be drawn from the engraving of the east-facing elevation contained within the
survey undertaken on behalf of the Earl of Pembroke in 1566. This depicts narrow twin towers
flanking the two three-storey windows of the Great Hall, in some contrast to the elevation that is
visible today. Was this simply an error of depiction, or are the architectural features and some of
the detailing that are assumed to be of late medieval date, in fact of Renaissance origin?
Laurence Keen clearly had similar doubts, due to the evident extent of patching, especially of the
North (but also the East) tower, and the absence of the string courses and bottom plinth along
the north-east facing front of both towers, which he thought could have occurred if the two
towers flanking the entrance projected originally further forward (Keen 1967, 70).
Keen then tested this possibility through excavation in 1966 but, finding no foundations existing
beyond the current faade, came to the conclusion that the string courses and bottom plinth,
which occur on all the other sides of the castle, were removed by Robert Smythson to balance
the decorative improvements of re-fenestration and of the new entrance. The good masonry
points to this. This is quite plausible, as is the linked idea that the irregular facing of these
elevations was due to a patching-up of the fabric (perhaps by Capability Brown) following the
Civil War damage. However, there remain anomalies. Firstly, Keen noted that there was a
disjuncture between the depth of the external foundations (approx. 0.4m deep) at the north-east
front of the East tower of the tower keep (in his Trench III), and the interior face in the cellar here,
which was found to be at least 2m deep (Keen, 1967, 70). Moreover Saunders excavation of
1962 against the eastern end of the south-facing wall of the tower keep showed that this had an
external batter of finely-dressed stone extending to around 2.5m, and this is absent from the east
face of the North tower.
Figure 13 Excavations in 1966 against the north face of the East Tower (MPBW; Luke Hughes)
Nor does Keens explanation account for an apparent shallowness of the interior splays of the
original window openings in this elevation, for example as visible from the chambers on the
interior wall of the East Tower. There was insufficient time to permit further exploration of this
tentative observation on the visit of 3rd April 2014, but more intensive fabric investigation may be
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
32
able to resolve this query, as would further more closely-targeted geophysical survey and further
small-scale excavation at a point, or points, along the north-east facing parts of either tower.
In reference to the curtain/bailey wall, the exact form of the medieval curtain wall is
uncertain, as is the nature of any attached buildings. That the present wall is a 16th-century
rebuilding of the medieval wall has been suggested from the results of limited excavation against
its interior face, and from the watching brief carried out in 1991 when part of the precinct wall
collapsed. However, the form (especially the ground-plan, features such as towers, and the
superstructure) of the medieval wall, and even fully its extent, are uncertain. So, for example, it is
not certain that the 16th century wall is coincidental with the medieval circuit at any point on the
eastern side. There are structures beneath the southern-most length of the present precinct wall
that seemingly considerably ante-date the main period of construction of Old Wardour House
(that is, they are apparently of medieval origin), and their configuration raises the possibility that
they once formed part of a medieval gatehouse or service complex (Keen noted that these were
of a style that would place them in the early 16th century: 1967, 72).
Concerning the site of the gateway through this enceinte, the exact location where any
gatehouse stood is unknown, although there is a strong presumption that such a building would
have formed part of the 1393 design for the castle. If this had stood in alignment with the
entrance-passage into the tower keep, it is possibly odd that the 1997 geophysical survey
registered no trace of it. That this is of more than passing interest becomes evident when the
possible location of medieval gardens associated with the late 14th century castle is considered,
since there may have been significant design reasons why the gatehouse and gardens were
arranged in a particular configuration (see the discussion of medieval gardens, below).
Concerning structures built against, or within, the curtain wall, the geophysical
survey undertaken by AM staff in the 1990s raises some intriguing questions as to what form the
structures were that may have preceded the medieval castle, or that were contemporary with its
use before the Reformation. So, for example, a series of high-resistance anomalies located
towards the curtain wall to the east of the tower keep (Linford, 1997, Plan C, 5: features 2, 3 and
4) were thought possibly to be the walls of buried buildings. More survey investigation is needed
to pursue this possibility.
A number of details concerning lost features and finishes from the late 16 th
century refurbishment
There is apparently no full audit available of the work that might be attributed to Robert Smythson
at the site, and the full nature of the embellishments that can be inferred from the standing fabric
has never been researched (as far as can be understood from the documentation available to the
authors of this report). Indeed, there appears not ever to have been a full analytical and recording
study of the fabric of the building, such as was achieved in the 1980s and 1990s for structures
such as Clun Castle in Shropshire and Goodrich Castle in Herefordshire. This is particularly
regrettable given the importance attached to Smythsons work by architectural historians
including the author of the Wardour guidebook.
Such a survey would ideally need to be undertaken in tandem with a study of all the architectural
fragments either retained on site or held in store elsewhere. The black marble fragments from the
Smythson fireplace and over-mantel from the Great Hall, some of which were found as
(historically) thrown down the well in the centre of the inner courtyard, appear to be closely
similar to those from an equivalent feature also by Smythson at Longleat (Cameron Moffett,
message and detailed inventory). It is entirely plausible that such a study (which could be the
subject of an academic dissertation, if closely enough supervised by a professional competent to
do so) would not only enable the reconstruction of features from still-visible fireplaces etc., but
might also enable some idea to be gained of features that belonged to the missing western
apartments.
Report
33
The exact character of formal gardens surrounding the medieval castle or the
Elizabethan house
If a medieval garden existed close by the castle, it was probably restricted in area at a particular
location within the curtain wall. Such gardens, closely walled about and separated from the
service areas of the complex have been excavated in recent years, as for instance at
Haverfordwest Priory in Pembrokeshire. The possibility has been briefly noted above, that a
detached garden, or pleasaunce, once existed on the hilltop above the castle. This is certainly
plausible given the otherwise eccentric location of that feature overlooking the castle on the edge
of the scarp: and it may not be coincidental that it was placed as if deliberately to overlook the
principal faade of the tower keep, which faced north-eastwards. Again, this view would have
been framed by the deer park to the west.
Be that as it may, another possible location for a medieval garden or walks is provided by a
relatively recent re-reading of the evidence for Ludgershall Castle, some 30 miles to the northeast of Old Wardour on the north-eastern flank of Salisbury Plain. This suggests that the northeast sector (of the outer ward of the castle) is a wide, flat-topped terrace a walk or raised
garden that complements the residential apartments and was linked architecturally with them
(Wilson-North, 2003, 30). This should at least raise the possibility that the broad bowling green
terrace at Old Wardour could have had its origins as early as 1393, and its presence could be
explained in specific reference to the projecting towers and entrance-way of the tower keep, with
which it could have been integrally designed. This is a radical suggestion that should be
researched further, even though it would imply that the original entrance was not symmetricallyplaced but, was, rather, located broadly where the present site entrance is located.
By the same token, the arrangement of the late 16th century gardens is far from certain. As noted
above, it seems inherently unlikely that gardens designed and laid out as early as 1578 would
have remained unaltered across the intervening 150 years to the date of the Buck print in 1732,
especially given the likely impact of the Civil War sieges, and the aftermath. Although it seems
most likely, therefore, that the formal gardens as shown then date from the period between 1660
and c.1680, following the restoration of the property to the Arundell family under Charles II, it is
not clear, and perhaps needs to be established from purposive archaeological investigation,
which elements are to be dated from that time, and which could have been adapted from the
original, Renaissance, design.
Figure 14 View from the south: compare Figure 12 (note openings at SE angle of precinct wall)
Report
34
Figure 15 Abstract from Andrews and Drury Atlas of Wiltshire (1751) (courtesy of L. Hughes)
(NB detached garden on hilltop above the castle to the E, already in existence by 1750, and
therefore, contra Cole, 2014, 7, unlikely to have been created as a temporary walled vegetable
garden.
6. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
This Statement of Significance is set out in two parts. Firstly, there is a succinct general
statement of the importance of Old Wardour Castle, especially in terms of castle design and
landscape, in its own right and in the national setting. Secondly, there is a detailed appraisal of
the significance of Old Wardour in the terms set out by English Heritage in the document
Conservation Principles (2008). This considers what the heritage value of a site such as this is,
and who values it, and for what reasons. The four categories of value, evidential value,
historical value, aesthetic value, and communal value provide the parameters within which
such an assessment has been made and is presented here.
Report
35
with, and perhaps was inspired by, the Chateau de Concressault (Department de Cher, France)
which, redesigned by Jean, Duc de Berry, in the mid-14th century is also hexagonal in plan (and
was destroyed, ironically, by the English during the Hundred Years War in the early 15th century,
and never rebuilt).
The importance of display and architectural effect at late medieval Wardour, a fortified house
rather than defensible castle (particularly in the age of artillery), is marked by the grandeur of its
state rooms and apartments ranged over the five storeys of the central tower keep. This effect
was formerly reinforced by the lavishness of its interiors (as illustrated by inference in the
illustrations within the Lovell Lectionary of 1400-1410). Its renown was assured by the place held
by the Lovells, through marriage, on the periphery of the court of Richard II in the closing years of
the 14th century.
Two centuries on, that renown was given new life. A volume, The Metamorphosis of Ajax,
produced by Sir John Harrington in 1596, contains an account of a discussion held in 1592 at
a castle, that I call the wonder of the West; so seated without, as England in few
places affords more pleasures; so furnished within, as China nor the West Indies
scarce allows more plenty.
An annotation by Harrington in a copy of the book indicates that the castle concerned was
Wardour, and that those involved in the meeting included Sir Matthew Arundell (who had
commissioned the refurbishment of the castle in around 1578), as well as the latters wife, his son
Thomas, the latters wife and her brother the Earl of Southampton; and the discussion, he
testifies in the book, led to the construction at this castle of one of Britains first, experimental,
water-closets, utilising one of the fine late 14th century vertical garderobe drains (that nonetheless
regularly became blocked and foul-smelling).
Not only does this description of the late 16th century castle indicate the richness of furnishings
within the castle, but it bears witness also to the carefully-staged aesthetic beauty of its setting.
Given that it is likely that Harrington, godson of Elizabeth I, was no stranger to the aesthetics and
facilities of late Elizabethan mansions and palaces royal and otherwise, and was probably
therefore a connoisseur of their accoutrements within and without, this is high praise indeed: and
the statement establishes, if informally, the nature of its standing among the elite of that age.
This marks also the significance of the structure at the height of its development.
However, the importance of Old Wardour Castle is reflected also in the verve and originality of its
initial late medieval design, and in the striking way in which, as a ruin, it was incorporated into a
particularly striking and affective Picturesque landscape of the mid-late 18th century.
Old Wardour is therefore hugely significant historically and structurally, both in the English
national story (through its courtly elite and advanced design associations) and also in reference
to this layering of extraordinary, successive, structures and designed landscapes:
Late medieval distinctive concentric tower keep and curtain-walled castle set within an
extensive hunting park
Old Wardour Castle is described in its Schedule of Ancient Monuments entry as:
A fine example of a tower keep castle, constructed in the 14th century less for
defence than for luxury and ostentation. Its form, unique in England, clearly takes
inspiration from France. It is argued by some to have been designed by William
Wynford, one of Englands finest architects.
Report
36
This description certainly captures the character of the castle as a structure in design terms, but it
does not do (nor is it intended to do) justice to the historical associations of the castle, or the
importance of its setting (which is detached in the Registered Parks and Gardens entry, which
itself necessarily focuses upon the third designed landscape pertaining to the castle, when the
structure was a ruin). In reference to the setting, there is a question also, whether it was the deerpark that was more important than the castle, and whether the latter was simply a hunting lodge.
This point was raised by Beric Morley (1981), and was highlighted more recently by Liddiard
(2005, 62; 105), given that the castle had over 20 rooms for guests, and that the park was so
large. In practice, the castle served as both a favoured residence and as a hunting lodge, and
extensive and well-appointed guest accommodation was intended to enable it to accommodate
guests with large retinues.
No doubt part of the draw of Wardour, in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, especially for the
courtly elite, was the proximity of such a large park for hunting as well as the aesthetic pleasure
of the prospects that took in the possibility of the chase. Chris Taylor (2000), for example, noted
that the location of the guest apartments at Old Wardour Castle in the western towers was hardly
likely to have been accidental: the view from the relevant chambers taking in, as it did, the finest
views of the Park to be had anywhere within the tower keep.
Report
37
While Old Wardour is a fine example of its type, it is not typical, but rather it is idiosyncratic if not
unique. Like Kenilworth it represents in its late medieval grandeur the height of a particular
structural and contextual aesthetic, and like Kenilworth also, the Elizabethan palace created out
of the medieval extravaganza was itself replete with dazzling contemporary architectural
embellishments, installed with no expense spared.
Report
38
Evidential value. This is derived from the potential of the place to yield evidence about past
human activity. Evidential value in this case focuses upon the particularly rich historical
resource associated with Old Wardour.
Historical value. This is derived from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of
life can be connected through a place to the present. Historical value at Old Wardour is
primarily associative. This stems from the place concerned being where something
momentous happened (that) can increase and intensify understanding through linking
historical accounts of events with the place where they happened (English Heritage 2008,
28).
Aesthetic value. This is derived from the ways in which people draw sensory and
intellectual stimulation from a place. The aesthetic value of Old Wardour lies in the design
value of its buildings and immediate environs, and their broader setting and in the interplay
between these three elements.
Communal value. This is derived from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to
it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal value at Old
Wardour is an important consideration due to the sites significant role at a genuinely pivotal
moment in English mediaeval history, and its continuing resonances in national history
thereafter.
Although this Statement of Significance deals with the site as a whole, reference should also be
made to the Gazetteer, in which the significance of some of the key individual Heritage Assets is
assessed.
Evidential value
Evidential value derives from the physical or genetic lines that have been inherited from the past
(English Heritage 2008, 28). There is very considerable evidential value at Old Wardour, deriving
both from the buildings and the landscape.
The tower keep (OW1) dates originally from around 1390 to about 1415 or thereabouts. There
were then significant additions and alterations in the period 1547-1640. This second period,
under the Arundell family, is largely legible as an overlay to the highly unusual medieval
hexagonal castle and transformed it into an Elizabethan country home. The evidential value of
both phases is very high, providing excellent insights into the thinking behind the design of later
medieval castle residences and Elizabethan manors, and into life within their walls.
Report
39
The precinct wall (OW2, OW9) as visible today dates to the 16th century remodelling and
therefore so too does the tower that houses the slightly unusual 2-3 seater privy built into the
southern angle (OW8). This feature of the site is judged to have considerable, if subsidiary,
evidential value. The building of the precinct wall was followed, probably in the 18 th century, by a
raising and levelling of the internal precinct (the former outer ward of the 14th century castle), thus
effectively burying earlier features and remains, which may now survive in relatively good
archaeological condition.
The Banqueting House/Pavilion (OW3), of the late 18th century, is an example of the addition of
an ornate building for dining in parks, and is typical of the period.
The terraces on the north-eastern side of the castle precinct (OW4), may be of 16th century date,
or even of medieval origin. If this is the case, their evidential value is extremely high. The Grotto
(OW5), the Stone seats and stone circle (OW6) are broadly of the period 1765-1800 and are
typical of park and garden designs and treatments of that period. Although the Grotto has lost
some of its fabric and its planted character and the seats have lost some of their intended view,
they nonetheless individually and as a group retain very high evidential value, as capturing the
design and aesthetic principles affecting how the setting of a medieval ruin should be
experienced. This high evidential value is also true of the Stables (OW7).
Old Wardour House (OW11) is privately-owned (under separate ownership to the castle and
surrounding landscape), and lies outside the Guardianship monument, but is integral with the
historic complex.
As noted above, there are many heritage assets that are not visible, and that are not (yet) located
with any accuracy, at Old Wardour (OW12 19). They include the Domesday manor, any
medieval buildings (and associated deposits) that preceded the late 14th century castle, the late
medieval curtain wall, the mine of the Civil War that brought down 1/5 of the Castle (and other
Civil War siege works), and the early formal gardens. As buried archaeological remains these
would have considerable evidential value and their potential to be affected by various site works
should be borne in mind.
Historical value
Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of
life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or
associative (English Heritage 2008, 28).
Old Wardour has a particularly high historical value through association with the Lovell and
Arundell families and their aristocratic and royal connections, through its role in events in the Civil
War, and also due to its role in the history of rural parkland and the aesthetics of landscape. Its
capacity to illustrate these associations along with other aspects of the history of the wider
locality strengthens this value.
The links with the Lovell and Arundell families which were of the first importance in England
during their respective periods of influence - makes their seat at Old Wardour of the highest
historical significance, in particular in respect to the politics of lavish display so richly illustrated at
the site.
The Castle building (keep/tower house: OW1; curtain/bailey/precinct wall, OW2/OW9; and
possibly also the terraces, OW4) represent the highest historical value because of the way in
which as an ensemble they exemplify the links of the Lovell and Arundell families with the Court
and aristocratic fashion at key points in English history. The role of the castle in two Civil War
sieges was an important one and adds a layer of historical value to the ruined remains. The later
features, including the Banqueting House/Pavilion, terraces Grotto, and Stone Seats also have
significant historical value in relation to experimentation in landscape design and the history of
gardening (OW3, 4, 5, 6, 8).
Report
40
The historical value of the complex in relation to the medieval period is therefore of the highest
order, followed by the Elizabethan period remains. The Civil War period was equally important
historically, and for the effect that it had on the historic fabric especially of OW1, but is most
evident in the absence of that part of the Castle destroyed in the siege works. The parkland
remains of the later periods, at least as surviving within the Guardianship area, are also of great
intrinsic interest.
Aesthetic value
Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation
from a place (English Heritage 2008, 30). Aesthetic value might be the result of intended design,
or it may have come about more or less fortuitously as a result of the evolution of a place over
time. Old Wardour as a whole has an extremely high aesthetic value.
The EH Brief provides the following summary: Old Wardour Castle is a fine example of a tower
keep castle, constructed in the 14th century less for defence than for luxury and ostentation. The
site is presented as a romantic ruin.
Old Wardour is an outstanding example of the apogee of 14th-15th century small castle design
and construction by the Lovell family. The aesthetic value is then enhanced by the overlay of
(broadly) Elizabethan period refinement added by the Arundell family, and attributed to Robert
Smythson.
The loss of a substantial portion of the castle during the civil war left a ruin, but for the most part
the medieval and Elizabethan works are still legible and are reasonably readily appreciated by a
visitor. The picturesque ruin was then deliberately carried forward in the parkland designs and
maintenance of Woods and Brown, resulting today in the conserved castle remains and in the
surrounding parkland which provides the setting.
Other aesthetic qualities, such as several extensive areas of early graffiti, are lesser contributors
to aesthetic value (Figure 18).
Report
41
Mowl then turns to The Banqueting House on the outer wall of the Old Castle which looks as if
an estate worker had designed it by improvising around a trained architects drawing for an
octagonal pavilion. It has a clumsy charm and commands a vista of pleasant landscape
improvisations (Mowl, 2004, 110).
The sunken green lane, behind the Grotto, is another device of Woods parkland scheme for New
Wardour, and while still accessible to pedestrians it has now lost all of its intended views as the
surrounding woodland has grown up.
Old Wardour Castle should have been a focal point from New Wardour but in fact is barely
visible, lost in the background of hills and trees.
To modern eyes, the castle complex is outstandingly aesthetic. This explains why the castle
featured in the 1991 Hollywood film Robin Hood Prince of Thieves as the castle of Loxley. This
connection is potentially detrimental (though by 2014 is diminishing) in that it may confuse the
true story of the castle with all the drama and romance that the story entails with another
narrative with no historical veracity.
Communal value
Communal value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it and is
therefore perhaps the most subjective of the four values discussed here (English Heritage 2008,
31). Communal value may be commemorative, symbolic, social or spiritual.
The EH Brief provides the following summary: Old Wardour has been important to both the
families who owned the castle and the local community for many centuries and contributes to
local cultural life through the many events that EH currently manages. The site and the
landscape in which it sits are used by many local residents both for dog walking and as a general
recreation area.
It is a little difficult to judge communal value at Old Wardour Castle. The nearest proxies available
would seem to be the popularity of the site with school visits and the very high attendance
achieved for themed open days. The views of visitors are assessed in a limited way in Section 6,
below. The use of the Castle and Banqueting House/Pavilion as settings for weddings (25-40 per
annum) is also strongly indicative of a communal value ascribed to the place. The site staff
suggest that local residents routinely use the site, but perhaps more for informal dog walks than
as an historical destination.
Communal value is probably the weakest of the four main values at Old Wardour, although future
careful surveys of visitors and local people could produce some considerable surprises for
instance in the case of the former, the degree to which a visit to this castle contributes to the
sense of antiquity and history to be experienced in the English countryside and amongst its
ruined monuments; and for the latter the degree to which the presence of the castle affects
perceptions of living in local places such as Tisbury and Chilmark. The graffiti around the
entrance to the castle itself is a reminder of previous visitors and draws upon a collective
memory.
Report
42
Figure 19 Gaps/evidential value: was there a c.1578 re-fronting of the North and East towers?
Report
43
Figure 20 Repairs to the outer enclosure wall in 1992 (courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes); this
illustrates the danger of catastrophic collapse if not adequately monitored for movement.
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
44
Figure 21 The first-floor Great Chamber from the north (showing the area of stonework badly
affected by water ingress following the insertion of a concrete floor)
Report
45
Figure 22 Visitors view of the Castles tower keep over the under-appreciated precinct wall.
Report
46
another person said that the castle itself could do with information above the first floor
(presumably meaning from the first floor upwards).
Regarding the visitor experience overall, some individual comments are worth recording more
fully:
Old Wardour Castle was definitely one of the highlights of our visit to the UK (Canadian
visitor)
Great introduction (to castles) for our little people (NZ visitor)
One of the best places wed been that afforded a real visual of how things used to be
(USA visitor)
Although this ruin was a fortress, it looked more like a palace (German visitor, in
translation, 2013)
Enough mystery to keep the kids hooked (USA visitor)
On a hill in the middle of the English countryside with views over a small lake in an eerie
silence (Italian visitor, in translation, 2012)
While of course such testimony is highly anecdotal, there are sufficient recurring themes to
provide the basis for further exploration of what the site means to people from a wide variety of
perspectives.
A guidebook, recently revised and updated (Girouard, 2012), which provides an in-depth
history of ownership and events affecting the property, and a room-by-room and structure-by
structure guide, amply illustrated, including an illustrative cutaway reconstruction of the
castle c. 1400.
Interpretation panels (Two on the lawn around the keep, one in the internal courtyard, one in
the hall at first-floor level and a set of panels in the Pavilion)
Informal contact with staff and volunteers within the rooms of the Castle, and to a lesser
extent in the grounds.
Arguably, this approach is in need of some revision, in part in light of the new guidebook. So, for
example, the status of the late medieval castle as a structure expressing the height of court
fashion (owing to the, albeit indirect, familial connections of the Lovells to the person of Richard
II) needs emphasising. The building complex was luxurious by the standards of the day, and
approximates a small-scale palace reflecting the position of John, Lord Lovell, as one of the
leading figures in southern England at the time.
Another potentially important possible adjustment would be to emphasise the transformations
that took place successively in the designed landscape. This would not just be as visible today
(belonging principally to the Picturesque landscaping and additions), but also the successively
earlier designed environs: the formal gardens likely to have been associated with the late 16th
Report
47
century refurbishment, and the gardens, fishponds/lake and parkland associated with the
medieval castle.
Report
48
Figure 23
View from the west in the 1960s, courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (note MPBW
scaffolding for repairs, and newly planted forestry, now maturing)
Constraints
A significant constraint is the degree to which it is required or desirable to maintain the status quo
in terms of what is visible. Clearly, the fabric of the castle cannot and will not be compromised.
The appearance and presentation of the site, and in effect the setting of the main feature, the
ruined keep, also must not be adversely affected.
Opportunities
However, there is scope to adapt the use of roofed structures, and to provide improved access to
the building and its internal spaces. These are discussed at greater length in the Action Plan
proposals (Section 8, below).
Enhancing Visitor Experiences
From an interpretation point of view, it is worth noting that the guided tour, as presently delivered,
is in places at variance with the audio and written guide. Moreover, it does not take account of
the latest research, and contains some factual errors. Whilst guided tours may suit an older
demographic, this approach can be less popular with younger adults and families.
The Store in the castle (to R of the front entrance on the ground floor) is a nearly
weatherproof space and might be useful for more than storage of chairs, for example as a
space for schools.
(Note that surveys for bats may be required, and there are issues with ingress of water from
above and as run-off from the courtyard).
The cellar beneath the East tower elicits many visitor comments and might be usefully given
visitor access.
The rooms on the first and second floors of the East tower could be made slightly more
weatherproof (there would be structural concerns arising from making them fullyweatherproof: for instance condensation) and used for out-door standard information panels
and (even for) wall-mounted display of architectural or other fragments; and limited sturdycabinet based displays of artefacts
There is scope to use the castle keep more effectively as the backdrop for events, including
performance events
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
49
The North tower has no access above first-floor level but has the potential to provide
spectacular views out over Lake and Wardour Park to New Wardour beyond. This is the best
single viewpoint of the wider setting and improved access could thus enhance the visitor
experience.
(Note that a fabric assessment and risk assessment would need to be made, to ensure that
health and safety issues were taken full account of. The insurance implications would also
need to be carefully assessed.
its overall structural stability, and the stability and condition of specific lengths: for instance
along the north-west facing stretch, where former buildings once stood that were built
against, or integrally with, the wall;
the existence of hidden chambers within the walls, especially where, as noted below for the
westernmost wall length, these are not known as well as those along the southern wall
length, and where missing stones may cause a deterioration in wall condition
the outwards pressure exerted by the volume of soil deposited against the inner face of the
precinct wall in the late 18th century, and especially in light of recent climatic conditions
(including heavy rainfall) the potential ponding of water within these deposits;
the impact of continuing growth of trees and other vegetation (especially laurels) and their
root-systems in undermining the rear elevation of the wall, and continuing to overgrow the
wall at various points
decay/potential collapse of at least some of the structures included within the southern-most
length of wall (OW9)
Figure 24 (left: fissure in wall of Stables; right: tree-growth by point of 1990 failure of precinct
wall)
The latest Asset Management Plan review (Caroe and Partners for English Heritage, 2008) noted
problems with drainage at the western angle (Photo 470-004/P7), with stones missing where
internal chambers exist that have not been mapped or surveyed (in the same area: P7), damp
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
50
and wet recesses along the wall face behind the northern end of the Banqueting Hall/Pavilion
(OW3), and in various places a considerable overgrowing of vegetation. This was regarded as
particularly serious along the lengths to the south of the present entrance (P15). Although this
was dealt with by cutting back of vegetation, such operations do not provide a long-term solution
where total eradication of the offending vegetation (especially laurels) would do so.
The 2008 AMP survey also focused upon the condition of the southernmost length and structures
integral with it. Missing copings and water penetration into the wall core-work were a particular
concern (P5).
As regards the management of the bailey/outer ward of the castle itself, there were no apparent
issues at the time of visits in late 2013 and early 20014, apart from vegetation management
discussed above. However, the 2008 AMP survey (Caroe and Partners for English Heritage,
2008) noted badger damage both to the western area beyond the (lost) west apartments of the
tower keep, and outside the curtain wall to the north-west of the site entrance (Photos 470-010/
P4 and P6), and mole damage is also likely in lawned areas.
The condition of paths was also raised as an issue for health and safety and visitor management,
if not for conservation as such. An example given was the loss of surfacing and spreading
edges to paths around the inner perimeter of the wall (P10).
Constraints
The wall needs to continue to define, and to make secure, the enclosure around the tower keep.
Any conservation interventions, and especially the addressing of concerns about vegetative
impact, need to be undertaken in such away as not to cause unanticipated consequences in
respect to other conservation (or site security, or insurance) issues.
The wall serves a secondary purpose of restricting unauthorised entry. It is understood from the
site staff that unauthorised entry can be achieved relatively easily in a few points (e.g. behind the
entry, near the stone seating, and along the NW salient) but that at least in recent years has
occasioned little trouble (e.g. little or no graffiti). This is related to the issue below of restoring the
intended visitor sight-lines from the stone seating to the keep and the wider landscape, which
would have the effect of making such access to the interior even easier than at present.
Opportunities
The curtain/precinct wall should be regarded as an integral part of the castle, rather than an
incidental boundary or retaining structure.
Enhancing Visitor Experiences
A fuller awareness for the visitor of the place of the curtain/precinct wall in the history of the site
would produce a significant enhancement of the experience of visiting the castle, not least
because there would be a more realistic appreciation of its real former size. The removal of
vegetation and the provision of an interpretation panel to the right (west) of the current entrance
would help considerably in this regard.
subsidence affecting the cellar steps, and damage to stonework (470-002/P11 refers)
horizontal fracture above the relieving arch in the south elevation (P12)
Report
51
vertical fracture in the render (?and brickwork) above the west window (P2)
loose stone above the cellar window in the north elevation (P9)
damp penetration, plaster damage and timber rot in the interior of the cellar (P6, P7)
Another conservation issue raised by site staff is the absence of lighting (an issue which recurs in
respect to the tower keep as it is of great importance for visitor amenity and site management).
However, simply in terms of conservation, the provision of lighting in a style appropriate to the
period of the building, and possibly some form of background heating, would improve the
conservation performance of the building.
Use of the basement space to store a seldom-used (and monstrously large) disabled access
ramp seems ill-advised. The basement might be better used to store the chairs used for
weddings, and at the same time provide a better store for shop items; other simpler solutions
could be devised for DDA compliance.
Constraints
The structure is a Listed Building.
Opportunities
The structure offers little scope for future development.
Enhancing Visitor Experiences
Sympathetic internal lighting for Pavilion- would make the space far more useful and versatile,
and interior far more authentic and attractive for events. This would greatly enhance the visitor
experience.
Report
52
Likewise, the woodland and terraces are also becoming overgrown and have lost the designed
wildness that was intended at the setting for the Grotto. Pruning and replanting would also
improve the woodland fringe.
Report
53
7. POLICIES
This Conservation Plan should be reviewed after 5 years, in 2019. Set out below is a brief
Statement of Philosophy, followed by Policy Objectives, General Policies (which apply to the site
as a whole) and Specific Policies (which apply to either specific elements or sites within the
Guardianship Monument or to particular aspects of the Monument).
This Plan has outlined current understanding of the Monument, and has identified a series of
issues and opportunities. In this section of the Plan a management framework is established to
promote this understanding for the benefit of visitors alongside the conservation of the significant
elements of the Monument. This approach is in accordance with the English Heritage duties for
the care and the promotion of the site.
Philosophy
The most basic philosophic tenet of this plan is that the management of the Monument should
maximise visitors enjoyment, appreciation and understanding, commensurate with the long-term
conservation of the most significant aspects of the Monument as defined in previous sections.
This fundamental premise still pertains. From this tenet several consequences flow:
Visitor understanding of the site depends on presentation facilities and upon a factual
knowledge of the site, which in turn requires further historical and archaeological
investigations
Visitor appreciation and enjoyment of the Monument derives from both the presentation
facilities and the conservation of the romantic, tucked-away and hidden gem character of
the site
The management of the Monument cannot be undertaken in isolation, but rather (in the current
jargon) in partnership with a range of other stakeholders. These have not always, and perhaps
not yet fully, been defined thus far. So, for instance, although the needs and views of the
immediate neighbours (and owners) of the site have been canvassed and heard in the
preparation of this Plan, there has been no attempt to consult with visitors (including schools
sending visits from within, say a 25-mile radius), or with other local residents (in particular, of
nearby Tisbury).
Policy Objectives
The main policy positions should address the following objectives:
1.
Long-term conservation of the most significant aspects of the Monument as defined in this
Plan.
2.
Maximise visitor enjoyment and appreciation of the immediate environs of the castle and the
wider designed landscape by minimising intrusive and non-beneficial change.
3.
4.
Develop an education strategy, in partnership with local organisations and with purposedesigned facilities on site, to maximise the potential for Old Wardour to serve as an
educational resource for a wide-range of subjects and topics.
Report
54
5.
Maximise the potential improvements to visitor facilities on-site, limited as they are by site
conditions and context. Working in partnership with local residents and stakeholders will be
the key to success.
6.
Provide the factual basis to understanding the site, whilst recognising the importance of
accommodating alternative interpretations and beliefs.
7.
Maximise the opportunities and minimise the problems associated with existing
infrastructure, and in particular consider the options for improving the location and
organisation of parking.
General Policies
One of the most basic policies in most conservation and management plans is a do nothing
approach. This is appropriate for the majority of the area within the precinct wall at Old Wardour.
The policies and actions presented below are, essentially, exceptions to this rule of do nothing.
Unless a specific site area is mentioned below, the conservation policy is effectively do nothing.
The policies have developed out of the preceding sections. Where elements of significance have
been identified and are vulnerable to a threat, policies have been devised to retain or enhance
significant elements. Policies are usually framed as a general strategy, in order that the
professional judgement of English Heritage staff is brought to bear to determine practicability and
detailed methodology.
Report
55
Report
56
8. ACTION PLAN
This Action Plan sets out a series of objectives for the future management of the site. These are
specific actions, drawing on discussion in Sections 3, 4 and 5 above.
This list of specific actions is arranged numerically, and the Action Plan objectives are prioritised
as HIGH (within 1-2 years), MEDIUM (within 2-5 years) and LOW (in 5 years or more) priorities.
A second list, which is arranged in order of priority, is provided in Appendix 3.
This Conservation Management Plan, and the recommendations made within it, should be
reviewed in five years time.
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
OW1
LOW
LOW
All
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, 3
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
Report
57
Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW3
MEDIUM
LOW
OW1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW/MEDIUM
OW4, 5, 6, and 18
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 4, OW5
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
OW4, OW5
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
LOW-MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
HIGH
(NB this refers
only
to
the
Guradianship
area)
Report
58
Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10
MEDIUM
LOW/MEDIUM
OW 1-10
LOW
MEDIUM
OW20
Requires
colaborative
project, lengthy,
but high value
retrun
Will
inevitably
require
partnership
funding
HIGH
LOW
vegetation management
22. Visitor reception and shop
improvements: develop
plans for same
23. Review of special events
24. Conservation and opening
up of landscape areas
beyond Guardianship site,
especially immediate
environs to east.
All
Report
59
Figure 25 North tower, showing location of staircase (proposed for viewpoint insertion)
Figure 26 East tower, second storey apartments (proposed for demountable displays)
Report
60
Report
61
Report
62
Report
63
clear and simple action would be to reinstate the terraces at back of shop, and cut back the
laurels and rhododendrons, to restore (in part) the view of the Castle from the seating area as
originally intended. This would greatly enhance the visitor experience in this part of the site.
Figure 27 The reception hut/shop, from the tower keep: courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (the
structure adds an unwelcome municipal feel to the site, not helped by the finger-post; a
rationalised and more sympathetic structure is needed)
Larger retail space is needed: lack of space leads to lack of stock leading to loss of sales.
The entrance-building is large and unsightly, and distinctly old-fashioned and out-of-keeping
with the site.
The conclusion of the authors of this report are that the existing building (and its yard) is trying to
accomplish a variety of functions that need to be rationalised in terms of use of space and interrelation of those functions. There is need for investment in a structure that is more suited to its
setting and better-designed. This would require significant investment, but would have definite
benefits not only operationally, but also commercially. It could be achieved simply, with a light
timber and glass structure in which entry, ticket, information, monitoring, shop and refreshment;
as well as office and site maintenance functions, retail and information functions could be
accommodated more efficiently within the footprint of the current building plus its compound.
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
64
historical costume pageants related to the site (this could have been an original feature of
the staging of the site in both 1578+, and subsequently)
antiques roadshows
art exhibitions
charity sports events along Public Rights of Way starting from/ending at the property
American Maryland Society annual visitors and supporters more could be made of
Figure 28 Parking overcrowding at entrance to site (courtesy Luke Hughes) (a full strategy for
rationalising parking is needed at the site, not least to improve the setting of the precinct wall)
Working group to resolve site neighbour, utilities and landscape park issues
AP 24. The issues concerend fall into three groups, and could be tackled independently or
sequentially. The first set, regarding services to the site and waste from it, need to be tackled
point by point with a determination from all parties to reach agreement in a finite time-span. The
second set, regarding events protocols and parking (above) require a formalisation of the former,
and a clear strategy for improving immediate site environs and intial access from the lane. This
could include provision of a less visually intrusive car-park further up the lane. The third will
require a joint working party to seek to absorb the implications of the present Plan for the
management of the wider landscape, and reciprocally, the findings of the Wardour Park Strategic
Masterplan (4th draft) for the management of Old Wardour Castle and its immediate environs.
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Report
65
9. REFERENCES
Caroe and Partners, Architects, 2008 English Heritage AMP Survey, Old Wardour Castle
(12.2008)
Clark, K. 2003 Informed Conservation. London, English Heritage
Cole, D. 1993 (Dominic Cole and Land Use Consutants), Wardour Park Historic Landscape
Survey and Management Plan.
2014: (Dominic Cole Landscape Architects and LUC), Wardour Park Strategic Masterplan, 4th
draft.
Cowell, F. 2009 Richard Woods (1715 1793): Master of the Pleasure Garden. Boydell
Press.
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012 National Planning Policy
Framework, London, HMSO.
Everson, P. 2003 Medieval Gardens and Designed Landscapes in R. Wilson-North, The Lie
of the the Land: Aspects of the Archaeology and History of the Designed Landscape in
the South west of England. Exeter, The Mint Press.
English Heritage, 2011 Corporate Plan 2011-2015, London, English Heritage.
2012: The National Heritage Protection Plan Action Plan 2011-15: English Heritage
Revision 1: September 2012 March 2015, London, English Heritage.
2008: Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of
the Historic Environment. London, English Heritage.
Girouard, M. 1966 Robert Smythson and the Architecture of the Elizabethan country
house.Yale UP
1991: Wardour Old Castle, Wiltshire. Country Life, 185, 44-9
2009: Elizabethan Architecture: Its Rise and Fall, 1540 - 1640. Yale UP
2012: Old Wardour Castle. London, English Heritage.
Goodall, J., 2005 Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, Country Life 199, 94-5.
Gover, J.E.B, Mawer, A., & Stenton, F.M. 1939 The Place-Names of Wiltshire English PlaceName Society, Cambridge Universsity Press
Keen, L. 1967 Excavations at Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Archaeological and
Natural History Magazine, 62, 67-78.
Laird, M. 1999 The Flowering of the Landscape Garden: English Pleasure Grounds 17201800. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania UP.
Liddiard, R. 2005 Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500.
Macclesfield, Windgather.
Linford, N. 1998 Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, Report on Geophysical Survey, 1997.
English Heritage AM Lab Report 5/98. (Contains references to Central Archaeology
Service interim reports, 1997, on evaluation trenches at Old Wardour in the 1990s by
S. Reilly).
Morley, B. 1981 Aspects of Fourteenth-Century Castle Design in A. Detsicas, (ed)
Collectanea Historica: Essays in Memory of Stuart Rigold. Maidstone, Kent
Archaeological Society, 104-13.
Report
66
Report
67
Volume 2 Appendices
Asset number
Type of Asset
Official designation and number (for example Listed Building number and grade, or
Scheduled Ancient Monument number)
Summary description, drawn from official listing and HER inscriptions, from the site Guide,
and also from field-based observations (made on 15, 25 and 28 February 2013 and 18
March 2014 - GW; and 26 March and 3 April 2014 - KR )
Photographs
Interpretation
A brief statement of significance (mostly, this has already been supplied in Volume 1)
o Survival / Condition: how well does the asset survive, both above and below
ground?
o Fragility / Vulnerability: what are the threats to the asset, and how serious are
they?
o Rarity: how rare is this type of asset, both regionally and nationally? Is it important
as a good example of the commonplace and most typical?
o Group Value: is the asset associated with other assets of the same period, or is it
part of a sequence of sites which has developed through time?
o Diversity: are there variations in the type of asset specific to its region and period?
o Potential: what potential does the asset have to teach us about the past? Can we
predict if it is likely to contain as yet undiscovered archaeological evidence? Is
there potential to improve interpretation and understanding for the public?
o Amenity value: is it already accessible to the public, or does it enhance the visitor
experience?
Volume 2 Appendices
69
Figure 1
OW6
OW2
OW5
OW1
OW4
OW3
OW10
OW8
OW9
OW7
Volume 2 Appendices
70
Volume 2 Appendices
71
towers, and the central part of which was recessed to reveal two of the windows of the great
hall set laterally over the entrance-passage. These latter structures are substantially intact.
The accommodation consisted of a series of suites of rooms in the sides and angles of the
hexagon, and in the twin towers. On the north-east side, at ground level, the elongated
entrance-passage features an external doorway, a passage and an internal doorway. It is
flanked by a porters lodge on one side and a store-room on the other. Above these was the
Great Hall, ranged over three storeys, and occupying the focal place of the entire structure. The
north gable and roof of this Hall are missing. The location of the Screen at the south end of the
Hall is evident in the bare fabric of the interior stonework here, as are structural details of the
late 16th century refurbishment. The drastic reconfiguration of fireplaces, doorways, door-heads
and other openings (apart from the tall Perpendicular windows in the east and west elevations)
is very apparent.
The East tower flanks the entrance-passage and Great Hall to the east, forming the left-hand
side of the faade, as viewed from the north-east. A vaulted cellar at ground-floor level is
surmounted by the former buttery and servery, and, on the two floors above this, are the East
tower lodgings, now with concrete floors. The North tower flanks the entrance-passage and
Great Hall to the west, forming the right-hand side of the faade, as viewed from the north-east.
A vaulted cellar at ground-floor level supports a lobby for the west end of the Great Hall at firstfloor level. Above this, the North tower lodgings are now without floors. The North tower stair
was substantially rebuilt and widened as part of the 16th century alterations, but is now ruinous.
To the west of the lobby at the north end of the Hall stood the Great Chamber, above a groundfloor wine-cellar. This Chamber rose two storeys, and was later modified into the Great Parlour,
a kind of family common-room, in the late 16th century. The only substantially-intact element of
this room is the interior wall of the south-facing elevation. It was the focus for the family
apartments that continued westwards with a Withdrawing parlour, and a suite of family rooms
and bed-chambers. These apartments bore the brunt of the Civil War explosion, and are reduced
to foundation-level on their external side (that forms the west-facing part of the hexagon).
To the west of the East tower, the remains of the kitchen, with extraordinary fireplace flues rising
almost the entire height of the original structure, are very much the key feature. (NB that the
location of the Lower Kitchen and Wine Cellar are transposed in the illustrative locational figure
on page 9 of the Guidebook). The apartments along the western ranges are only fully traceable
along the wall lining the central courtyard. From these remains it is evident that each set of
apartments was (or could be) self-contained, with a single entrance accessed at ground-floor
level from the courtyard.
Another particular feature of the tower keep at Old Wardour is the presence of a sophisticated
network of latrines emplaced within (and not projecting from) the fabric of the walls.
Interpretation:
A multi-phase hexagonal tower keep: of unusual design and with some exquisite detailing.
Statement of significance:
The primary significance of the tower keep is that it provides the main feature at the castle that
exemplifies and illustrates both the innovatory design of the hexagonal castle of 1393, and the
subsequent modifications of 1578.
The significance of the castle and its landscape overall are set out in full in Volume 1.
Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic, and Communal value are all high, especially if the latter is
focused upon the visual impact on visitors.
Volume 2 Appendices
72
Criteria
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
High
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
High
Group Value
High
Diversity
Med
Potential
High
Amenity value
High
Volume 2 Appendices
73
The precinct wall comprises seven unequal lengths of walling, each of which mirrors its
corresponding wall of the tower keep. In those lengths that have not been subsequently
modified, the external wall-face rises through a plinth to a pseudo wall-walk crowned with
traces of decorative castellation (evident for example on the north-west facing length). The
extent to which the precinct wall extended to the north-east is uncertain. The walls that,
flanking the north-east faade of the tower keep, extend towards the foot of the hill to the northeast of the castle, are poorly-preserved for around half of both their lengths. A wall aligned
north-west to south-east may once have connected these two framing walls, or alternatively
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
74
they could have been linked by a part-wall and railings, or by a planted (eg box) hedge. This
linking feature need not have been placed at the extremity of these walls, and is more likely to
have been placed at a point close to the base of the present terrace.
The bailey itself comprises (a) the original ground-level within the bailey wall, and the
foundations of structures (presumed mostly service buildings) and associated deposits built
integrally with or adjacent to the wall, and later features such as formal gardens; and (b) rubble
and other deposits brought in or levelled out to raise the levels to the present lawned areas,
especially to the south-west and west of the tower keep. These latter deposits have shown to
vary in depth between 0.4m and 2m, with the deepest deposits recorded to the west.
Interpretation:
1) Precinct wall, defining an inner enclosure providing gardens/setting for the tower keep.
2) Formerly, curtain wall (or, bailey wall) surrounding the outer ward of the late medieval
castle
Statement of significance:
This wall is fundamental to an understanding of what the castle ensemble at Old Wardour was
providing and exhibiting at various stages in the history of the site. Described here as
surrounding the outer ward, in the context of a tower-keep this could be described as an inner
ward; however, there is no trace of any further enclosure beyond this wall, so outer ward is
preferred here.
Not only in terms of understanding (its exact form in the earlier period is unknown; the nature
of buildings integral with it or beyond in in the post-medieval period is poorly-understood), of
conservation management (its condition and problems appear not to have been closely
assessed), and interpretive terms (the visitor is given almost no information about it), this asset
seems to the authors of this report to be remarkably poorly-appreciated and neglected. It is not
its form or features that are important in their own right, so much as its considerable
significance in the history of the site, and as an integral major element of the whole castle.
After the refurbishments of 1578, the bailey itself had no functions other than ornamental and
recreational. However, this would have been among the busiest areas of the medieval castle,
and the effect of the raising of ground levels in especially the western half of the contained area
in the period 1766-c.1770 was to seal the remains of the earlier period of occupation of this part
of the site under between 1m and 2m of rubble derived from the tidying up of the western
elevation of the tower keep.
Evidential value and historical value is high. Aesthetic value is medium. Communal value should
be higher.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Volume 2 Appendices
75
Med
Rarity
Med
Group Value
High
Diversity
High
Potential
High
Amenity value
Low
Volume 2 Appendices
76
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
High
Volume 2 Appendices
77
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
Med
Group Value
High
Diversity
Low
Potential
Med
Amenity value
High
Volume 2 Appendices
78
Volume 2 Appendices
79
1578, although the narrower upper terraces may have been planted as elongated
borders.
4) Before this, it is just possible that the broadest terrace formed a raised level prospect
walk and the upper terraces a garden from 1393, with this medieval garden terracing
facing directly onto the north-eastern faade of the castle, and providing views of the
deer-park beyond.
Statement of significance:
If the latter interpretations (3 and 4) are upheld, these terraces are transformed from being seen
as of incidental significance within the site, to being one of the more enduring and significant
features of the site, and an addition to the understanding of the aesthetics of castle design in
the medieval period.
Although medieval gardens are being recognised at many castle sites, the importance of the Old
Wardour garden (if such it is) is that it was designed integrally with one of the most striking
architectural features of the tower keep: the north-east facing entrance faade.
Evidential value is high; historical value is high. Aesthetic value is currently low, since it serves
merely as the setting for the Grotto. Communal value is low, given that visitors will have no
sense of its importance in site history.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Beyond the limits of the Grotto, the terraces are relatively wellpreserved, but have inevitably not been managed as if they had
any particular significance within the site.
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
High
Group Value
High
Diversity
High
Potential
High
Amenity value
Med
Volume 2 Appendices
80
Volume 2 Appendices
81
from site and stored at Atcham, that at least the faade of the structure was encrusted with
plaster frostwork, designed to give the structure a wholly confected appearance. Whether this
was originally further embellished by being painted is uncertain.
Interpretation:
An ornamental grotto. Such structures were created to provide a naturalistic counterpoint to
architecturally-elaborate and finely constructed buildings, and were a fashionably essential
component both for the garden environs of great houses and for contrived walks in the wider
designed parkland landscapes surrounding them.
Statement of significance:
The importance of the Grotto is as a key component and focal point of the romantic/Gothick
garden. Evidential value is high, historical value medium, aesthetic value is medium (would be
higher if restored); communal value is medium.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Enough survives to gain some idea of what it is, and its role
within the site; however, much of its fabric and finishes have
been lost or degraded
Fragility / Vulnerability
High
Rarity
Med
Group Value
High
Diversity
Low
Single-phase structure
Potential
Med
Amenity value
Med
Volume 2 Appendices
82
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Volume 2 Appendices
83
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
Med
Group Value
High
Diversity
Med
Potential
High
Amenity value
Low
Volume 2 Appendices
84
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
Low
Group Value
High
Diversity
Low
Potential
Low
Amenity value
Low
No public access
Volume 2 Appendices
85
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
High
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
High
Group Value
High
Diversity
Low
Potential
Low
Amenity value
Med
th
pleasure
Volume 2 Appendices
86
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Volume 2 Appendices
87
Rarity
Med
Difficult to assess
Group Value
High
Diversity
High
Potential
Low
No public access
Amenity value
Low
No public access
Volume 2 Appendices
88
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
Med
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Rarity
Med
Uncertain
elsewhere
Group Value
High
Diversity
Med
Potential
Med
Amenity value
Low
how
well-documented
are
similar
structures
Volume 2 Appendices
89
Volume 2 Appendices
90
Concerns were expressed that there has been little long-term resolution of a number of
issues to do with site management and control of visitor numbers
Particular issues are around parking arrangements, and in the past from noise of events.
There is a concern to find a way of re-thinking parking to avoid overcrowding at busy
times in summer; also concerns about access road blockage particularly for emergency
vehicles at busy times
There is a tension (which EH also has to balance) between the promotional use of the
site as a tourist resource and visitor attraction, and the need to conserve the historic
fabric and (if possible to enhance) the setting.
Ongoing concerns about the supply of services (water, electricity), and drainage
General agreement that the present location of the foul drainage facility is inadequate
Strong feelings about the special character of the place, and especially the parkland, have
given rise to the commissioning of the Wardour Park Strategic Masterplan, and there is a
strong feeling that English Heritage should facilitate the better integration/re-integration
of the Guardianship site with the immediate and wider parkland environment.
However, there are doubts as to English Heritage commitment to resolve the issues
concerned
Site staff wish to be more efficient operationally, and there are some ongoing issues
regarding (eg) chairs for events, disabled access, etc that need resolving
Ongoing concern that visitor facilities, ticket-office, shop etc need rethinking, and better
provision (lots of visitor feedback on cramped entrance conditions, especially at the
entrance to the shop
Wish to see better on-site signage etc, and more interpretation beside the guidebook
available to visitors
Want to see better use of roofed spaces within the tower keep, and improved
opportunities for using it as a viewing platform out into the countryside
The site is difficult to manage and promote, because it is neither a self-guided site nor a
major attraction, and because access is so difficult
There is a positive attitude towards collaborative working, and the curatorial officers are a
key conduit between the regulatory/conservation staff and the site promotion/visitor
amenity staff
The conservation issues (fabric etc) are not seen to be important, compared with those
faced at other Guardianship sites
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
91
The resource of materials in care (architectural and other items especially the
catacleuse fireplace surround - on site and at Atcham) could be made better use of, and
be better-deployed/displayed on site
The parkland issues are too difficult to resolve; this has been tried (HLS) but failed; there
is no mileage in trying this again (this view was conveyed at second-hand, and may not
represent the more optimistic approach of EH staff more generally)
A working group should be established to try to develop a strategy for the point-by-point
resolution of issues around the provision of services to/from the Guardianship site, and to
act as a formal conduit for the resolution of problems as they arise
Road access, signage and parking are particular issues needing to be resolved, and the
immediate setting of the castle, should be the subject of particular attention.
Volume 2 Appendices
92
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
OW1
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
HIGH
LOW/MEDIUM
OW4, 5, 6, and 18
18 Rationalisation of
display/interpretation
panels
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10
HIGH
LOW
All
1. Conservation action to
address concerns about
fabric
3. Develop action strategy for
health and safety
improvements, especially in
respect to steps and railings
in tower keep
8. Remove obstructions/
rethink DDA aspects;
9 Provision of DDA-compliant
buggy-transport on limited
route within-site, upon
request
Volume 2 Appendices
93
Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
point-by-point resolution
of issues around the
provision
of
services
to/from the Guardianship
site, and to act as a formal
conduit for the resolution
of problems as they arise.
Road access, signage and
parking
are
particular
issues needing to be
resolved,
and
the
immediate setting of the
castle, should be the
subject
of
particular
attention
Volume 2 Appendices
94
Priority
Cost
Assets
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
5. Develop anti-vandalism
strategy
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, 3
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW3
MEDIUM
LOW
OW1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 4, OW5
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
MEDIUM
LOW/MEDIUM
OW 1-10
7. Weather-proofing and
conversion of rooms in
south-east tower for
displays
Volume 2 Appendices
95
Priority
Cost
Assets
LOW
LOW
All
13.
Further
geophysical
survey
(esp
Ground
Penetrating Radar)
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
OW4, OW5
LOW-MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
LOW
MEDIUM
OW20
Requires
colaborative
project, lengthy,
but high value
retrun
Will
inevitably
require
partnership
funding
Volume 2 Appendices
96
The catacleuse (marble) fireplace surround, from the Great Hall. A drawing exists of this
feature, as recorded from early documentation before the Cicil War. Chunks of it were found
down the well in the 1960s. These are now the principal surviving fragments held in store.
The cost of conserving these fragments is prohibitive. But a drawing could be made of the
surviving fragments, and these matched against the historic drawings to create a modern
reconstruction.
There are substantial amounts of plaster frostwork detached from the Grotto. These could
be restored to site, were the original appearance to be reconstructed; or they could be
displayed as an educational resource on site.
There are quite a few classical urns (in fragments) from the site, and fragments of statuary:
all assumed to belong to the romantic presentation of ruins in the pleasure grounds.
However, this large group of items does need sifting and assessment, to better establish
what belongs with what.
Relatedly, there is a large DEL (directly employed labour) heap of stonework on site, derived
from the various patchings and tidying-up operations on the site, historically since 1936.
Some pieces protruding from this heap look interesting, and potentially important. They
need to be assessed more carefully. Perhaps the heap needs closer examination (dare we
suggest, excavation?); it will become invisible if left much longer.
There are a few oddments that could be used in displays, such as a cameo brooch,
presumably found when the ruins were initially tidied up.
The remainder of the collection comprises excavation finds from Laurence Keens
excavations, and presumably also that of Andrew Saunders. Such finds could be assessed
for their potential to be used as part of on-site displays.
Volume 2 Appendices
97
File Name
hsqe
Brief-Old_Wardour_Castle-2008
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-14
SW England-1991
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-15
SW England-1992
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection Report Vol 1-1995
Hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection Report Vol 2-1995
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection Report Vol 3-1995
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection report Appendix A1995
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection report Appendix B1995
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection report Appendix C1995
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-19
Inspection report Appendix C-
hsqe
hsqe
hsqe
1995
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-21
Botanical Survey SW England1992
Report-Old Wardour
Access Audit-2001
Castle-
Report-Old Wardour
Action Points-2007
Castle-
hsqe
Report-Old Wardour
Asbestos Survey-2004
hsqe
Castle-
Hsqe
Hsqe
Historic
Buildings
Commission
hsqe
Report-Old WardourCastle-M&E
Schedule
Mechanical
&
Electrical
Maintenance/Response Contract Ref No
202
&
Monuments
Volume 2 Appendices
99
hsqe
hsqe
hsqe
Wildlife Statement
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Elevations 2
Plans
Elevations 3
July 92 Elevation 1 2 3 4
Plans
Elevations 4
July 92 Elevation 1 2 3 4
Plans
Elevations 5
July 92 Elevation 1 2 3 4
Plans
Plans
Castle Elevations
Elevations 2 3 4
Volume 2 Appendices
100
Plans
Plans
Exterior Elevations NE
Plans
Exterior Elevations NW
Plans
Exterior Elevations SW
Plans
FirstFloor Plan
First Floor
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Gothic
Pavilion
Protection
Gothic Pavilion
14/2/1992
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Plans
Record of Survey 2
May 1989
Plans
Record of Survey 3
May 1989
Plans
Record of Survey
May 1989
Plans
June 1992
Plans
Site Plan
March 1967
Plans
September 1997
Plans
June 1992
Plans
September 1988
Plans
West Elevations
May 1985
West
Lightning
Lightning
Protection
Volume 2 Appendices
101
Plans
Surveys
Dec 2008
Surveys
Surveys
Surveys
Surveys
Surveys
Old Wardour
201378980
Surveys
Texts
Castle
LUC
Historic
Landscape
Survey
Management Plan May 1993
and
2014 01 21 15 27 10
Historic
Landscape
Management Plan 1993
and
2014 01 21 17 05 16
2014 01 21 17 09 40
2014 01 21 17 14 20
2014 01 21 17 15 26
NMR Report
2014 01 21 17 16 20
2014 01 21 17 17 11
2014 01 21 17 19 32
2014 01 21 17 21 34
Survey
Volume 2 Appendices
102
Texts
2014 01 21 17 25 53
2014 01 21 17 27 22
Watching Brief
2014 01 21 17 28 17
2014 01 21 17 34 55
2014 01 21 17 38 58
2014 01 21 17 40 12
2014 01 21 17 41 20
2014 01 21 17 42 01
2014 01 21 17 43 11
2014 01 21 17 44 15
2014 01 21 17 42 19
Addendum
to
the
archaeological
assessment of proposed drainage, water
and electricity supply between the ticket
office/shop and the gothic Pavilion. Various
documents and dates.
Volume 2 Appendices
103
Volume 2 Appendices
104
Volume 2 Appendices
105
Volume 2 Appendices
106