conservation statement for farleigh hungerford castle, somerset, uk

Conservation Statement

Farleigh Hungerford Castle, Somerset

A Conservation Statement for

Farleigh Hungerford Castle, Somerset

Prepared for

English Heritage

by

The Architectural History Practice Limited

February 2007

Farleigh Hungerford Castle: Conservation Statement 1

CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY---------------------------------------------------------------------4 PART ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STATEMENT----------------------------------5 1.1. Introduction 1.2. The site and its designations 1.3. Structure and purpose of the Statement 1.4. Authorship PART TWO: UNDERSTANDING----------------------------------------------------------8 2.1. Brief historical overview 2.2. Site development

2.2.1. The Montfort House (late eleventh to mid-fourteenth century) 2.2.2. Sir Thomas’s rebuilding (after 1377) 2.2.3. Sir Walter’s additions c1420-1430 2.2.4. Later Hungerford adaptations 2.2.5. Seventeenth and eighteenth century decline 2.2.6. Nineteenth century revival 2.2.7. Guardianship

PART THREE: MANAGEMENT HISTORY--------------------------------------------12 3.1. Working residence of the Hungerford family (up to 1686) 3.2. Quarry and farm (1686-1779) 3.3. Revived antiquarian interest (1779-1832) 3.4. The Jackson years and towards guardianship (1832-1915) 3.5. Guardianship I (1915-1984) 3.6. Guardianship II (1984-2006) PART FOUR: SITE GAZETTEER--------------------------------------------------------26 4.1. Levels of Significance 4.2. INNER AND OUTER COURTS----------------------------------------------------------26

4.2.1. Description 4.2.2. Designations 4.2.3. Significance 4.2.4. Management issues

4.3. CHAPEL------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30 4.3.1. Description 4.3.2. Designations 4.3.3. Significance 4.3.4. Management issues

4.4. THE PRIESTS’ HOUSE-------------------------------------------------------------------35

4.4.1. Description 4.4.2. Designations 4.4.3. Significance


4.4.4. Management issues 4.5. THE GRANARY---------------------------------------------------------------------------37


4.6. OTHER STRUCTURES------------------------------------------------------------------39


PART FIVE: KEY ISSUES----------------------------------------------------------------41 5.1. Future Presentation, Maintenance and Interpretation of the Site

5.1.2. Towers, east gatehouse, curtain walls and defences 5.1.3. Footings and below-ground archaeology 5.1.4. The chapel 5.1.5. The Priests’ House 5.1.6. The granary/ticket office 5.1.7. Other structures

5.2. Circulation and parking 5.3. Increasing visitor numbers 5.4. Hospitality 5.5. Disabled access PART SIX: POLICIES----------------------------------------------------------------------51 6.1. Statutory and legal requirements 6.2 Compliance with best practice conservation practice 6.3. Ongoing programme of planned maintenance 6.4. Restoration of missing features 6.5. Unavoidable fabric removal 6.6. Below-ground archaeology 6.7. Access 6.8. Site hospitality 6.9. Introduction of new technologies 6.10. Ecology and wildlife 6.11. Security equipment and signs 6.12. Further building research and recording 6.13. Archive BIBLIOGRAPHY---------------------------------------------------------------------------59 Appendices------------------------------------------------------------------------- (from) 60 Appendix 1: Ground plan Appendix 2: Guardianship area Appendix 3: Scheduled area Appendix 4: Phased site plan Appendix 5: Key to phased site plan Appendix 6: Scheduling description


Appendix 7: List description – Castle Appendix 8: List description – chapel, perimeter walls and gateway Appendix 9: List description – Priests’ House and adjoining range Appendix 10: Tithe Map, 1838 Appendix 11: First edition OS map, 1880s Appendix 12: 1903 OS map Illustrations accompanying text Fig.i: Reconstruction drawing of the castle as it might have appeared in the late seventeenth century (English Heritage) Figure ii: Sketch by Peter le Neve, 1701 Figure iii: The castle from the north, Samuel and Nathaniel Buck, 1733 Figure iv: East gatehouse and adjoining buildings, Samuel Hieronymous Grimm, 1789 Figure v: Inner face of east gatehouse and adjoining buildings, from Grose’s Antiquities of England and Wales, 1785 Figure vi: The chapel, roofless, engraved by ‘Sparrow’ in 1774, from Grose’s Antiquities of England and Wales, 1785 Figure vii: Chapel interior, watercolour of 1845 Figure viii: ‘Lady Tower’ from the east, 1850s Figure ix: Southeast tower from the Inner Court, probably late 1870s Figure x: External view of east gatehouse, 1914 Figure xi: East gatehouse as restored, Country Life, 1921 Figure xii: Junction between old wall and new pointing, Country Life, 1921 Figure xiii: Excavation of inner moat, 1924 (NMR) Figure xiv: Priests’ House, ground floor partition, NMR 1961 Figure xv: Aerial view of site (NMR) Figure xvi: Chapel interior, looking east Figure xvii: North chapel from nave Figure xviii: Priests’ House, west (courtyard) elevation Figure xix: Priests’ House, ground floor interior Figure xx: Granary, east (courtyard) elevation Figure xxi: Outbuilding from Priests’ House courtyard Figure xxii: Garage Figure xxiii: Inner Court looking north Figure xxiv: Priests’ House interior, ground floor, north end Figure xxv: Vehicular movement in the Outer Court Figure xxvi: Orchard site


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Farleigh Hungerford Castle is an ancient site of exceptional architectural, archaeological and historical significance. From the fourteenth century to the late seventeenth century it was the home of the Hungerford family, and the chapel retains a number of important funerary monuments to members of that notable family. After the sale of the site in the late seventeenth century the principal accommodation was abandoned, and the contents and materials dispersed or re-used. The medieval chapel and Priests’ House survived, the latter becoming a farmhouse. In the nineteenth century the significance of the site was increasingly realised, and the first attempts at its repair and presentation as a historic monument undertaken. Most of the site was taken into state guardianship in the early twentieth century, when a major, and controversial, programme of consolidation and repair took place, along with excavation of several areas. The Priests’ House was taken into guardianship at a later stage, and subsequently renovated. Farleigh Hungerford Castle is a monument in state guardianship, and at the same time a visitor attraction which needs to be presented in an attractive and comprehensible manner. While much of the site consists of structures and features which do not lend themselves to active ‘use’ as such, it also contains buildings which are in use and are capable of adaptation. The continuing desire for better conservation and presentation of the site, coupled with the necessity of meeting visitor needs and expectations, may generate a desire for change and adaptation. It is important that change is informed by, and takes full account of what is significant about the site. This Conservation Statement sets out the history and development of the Castle, and looks at management regimes, past and present. It assesses the architectural, archaeological, historical, ecological and educational significance of each of the elements that make up the site, and sets out the designations and constraints that affect them. It considers current issues facing the site, relating to maintenance and repair, presentation, circulation and access. The most pressing of these relates to the question of the burial of exposed features; the visual and practical arguments for this are presented and recommendations made. It is not the function of a conservation statement to make detailed proposals for future management. However, in assessing the significance of the various elements that make up the site, highlighting current issues and setting out policies, the document seeks to guide those involved in commissioning, designing and authorising new work at Farleigh Hungerford.


PART ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STATEMENT 1.1. Introduction Farleigh Hungerford Castle was built in c1370-80 by Sir Thomas Hungerford, on the site of, and incorporating part of, an older manor house owned by the Montfort family. It was extended early in the fifteenth century by Sir Walter Hungerford, involving the incorporation and rebuilding of the parish church as a private chapel. Chantry priests were appointed and a priests’ house built. The Castle remained the principal residence of the Hungerford family until 1686, when it was sold. The contents were stripped and over the following hundred and fifty years the Castle fell into decay and disuse. However, the Priests’ House remained occupied as a farmhouse, and was enlarged for this purpose. Further accommodation was added in and around the east gatehouse. The Castle’s fortunes revived in the nineteenth century, with increased antiquarian and popular interest in the site. In 1915 management of the castle was assumed by the Ministry of Works, which undertook a thorough and controversial programme of repair and restoration. Further programmes of repair and conservation followed, as well as a series of excavations. The Priests’ House was not acquired until 1956, and was subsequently renovated. In recent years, maintenance and repair have continued, and the interpretation and presentation of the site improved. The site has also been made more accessible to those with disabilities. English Heritage is embarking on a major further round of repairs, and is taking this opportunity to look ahead more widely at the future maintenance, presentation, interpretation and use of the site. The purpose of this conservation statement is to inform and guide that reassessment. 1.2. The site Farleigh Hungerford Castle is a scheduled ancient monument (national monument number 28840) in the care of English Heritage. It lies close to the Somerset-Wiltshire border in the village of Farleigh Hungerford, about three miles southwest of Bradford-on-Avon and about nine miles southeast of Bath (grid reference ST80105763). The local planning authority is Mendip District Council. The site overlies Oolitic limestone, belonging to the Jurassic group. The soil is fairly sandy in character. The Castle is currently owned by Farleigh Hungerford Castle Ltd but since 1915 has been in the guardianship of the state. It is now maintained and managed by English Heritage on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The Priests’ House and sunken garden are owned by the Secretary of State, having been acquired in 1956, as is the car park, acquired in 1961. The guardianship area is shown in appendix 2; this appears to be coterminous with the scheduled area (map in appendix 3). The scheduling does not include the chapel, the garage abutting the curtain wall by the south east gate, the former granary (now ticket office and toilets) or the tarmac and gravel surfaces. However, the ground beneath these features is included. The scheduling description is attached at appendix 6. In addition to the scheduling, the Castle is listed grade I. The chapel and its perimeter wall and gateway are separately listed, also grade I, and the Priests’ House and adjoining range are listed grade II*. List descriptions are attached at appendix 7, 8 and 9.


There is a public right of way through the Castle grounds. 1.3. Structure and purpose of the Statement This Conservation Statement has been commissioned by English Heritage, South West Region, from a brief prepared by Rob Harding, Project Manager for works at the castle. The Conservation Statement is intended to provide an understanding of the architectural, archaeological, historical and cultural significance of Farleigh Hungerford Castle. It is divided into six parts. Part One is an introductory section and provides the background to the preparation of the Statement. Part Two is entitled ‘Understanding’, and provides a brief account of the history of the site, its construction, use, development and subsequent decline and revival. This is drawn from existing published and unpublished material (see bibliography). Part Three is entitled ‘Management History’, and looks at the management of the site from the earliest days to the present. It includes an overview of past conservation and presentation philosophies, and how they have influenced the Castle we see today. Part Four comprises a gazetteer describing each of the main elements and areas, setting out their history and significance, as well as highlighting any management issues. The assessment covers architectural/archaeological, historical, visual/landscape, ecological, spiritual and educational significance, using internationally recognised categories for weighing significance. Part Five considers various current and possible future key issues relating to the management, maintenance and presentation of the site, and identifies areas of possible conflict as well as the scope for enhancement. Finally, Part Six sets out policies for the protection and management of the site. The statement comprises a single, comprehensive document that can be used to:

• Provide clear guidelines for the testing and evaluation of new development proposals or for material changes to the site or buildings.

• Help prepare long-term conservation programmes for the site and its various components.

• Inform day-to-day decisions with regard to maintenance and repair. • Help develop policies regarding the presentation and interpretation of the site. • Support applications for statutory consents. • Inform decisions on the management of the English Heritage estate and

possible future land acquisitions. In addition to these broader objectives, the document also seeks to address the following specific matters of policy:

• The future presentation and management of the site, and specifically whether walls and hard surfaces should be reburied and if so, which areas. Also whether moats should be partially infilled, and surface treatments varied to aid interpretation.


• Circulation within the site, the movement of cars and whether English Heritage should seek to acquire additional land.

• Future development and enhancement of the presentation of the site. • The development of new audiences and the growth of existing audiences. • Future use of the site for hospitality.

These specific policy areas are all addressed in Part Five. 1.4. Authorship and consultation

The Conservation Statement is written by Andrew Derrick, BAHons, AA Dipl Cons, IHBC, and a Director of AHP.

The following people have been consulted in the course of the preparation of this document, and the author is grateful to them for their suggestions and co-operation: Harriet Attwood, Education Officer, EH; Beth Cavanagh, Head of Visitor Operations, EH; Jenny Chesher, Historic Buildings Inspector, EH; John Goodall, Senior Properties Historian, EH; Kath Graham, Outreach Officer, EH; Rob Harding, Project Manager, EH; Revd Robin Hungerford (St Leonard’s Chapel Trust); Matt Hart, Visitor Operations Manager, EH; Kirsty Rodwell (Archaeological Consultant); Gary Stone, Health and Safety Coordinator, EH.


PART TWO: UNDERSTANDING

2.1. Brief historical overview

The following is a very brief outline of the history of ownership of the site; a more detailed account can be found in the English Heritage guidebook.

Farleigh Hungerford Castle was built in the late fourteenth century and represents the conversion and upgrading of an existing manor house into a castle under a ‘licence to crenellate’. Known originally as Farleigh Montfort, Farleigh was a manor of the Montfort family, from whom it was acquired in 1369 by Thomas Hungerford. Thomas was steward to John of Gaunt, and briefly Speaker of the House of Commons. He was knighted through the offices of John of Gaunt and in 1383 obtained a licence to crenellate his newly-acquired property, which became known as Farleigh Hungerford. He died in 1398, and is buried in the chapel of St Anne, which he had built on to the parish church.

Thomas’s son Walter was a soldier who fought alongside King Henry V at Agincourt. He was raised to the peerage under Henry VI, became a Knight of the Garter and rose to be Lord High Treasurer before his death in 1449. He enlarged the castle by adding the outer court, thus enclosing the parish church, which he made into his own private chapel. He endowed two Chantries, and built a house for the chaplains to the east of the chapel. It is likely that he also built the new parish church, which lies a short distance to the south of the Castle.

The third Baron was attainted in 1461 and was executed in 1464 following his capture in the Lancastrian rout at Hexham Field. In 1462 Farleigh was granted to Richard, Duke of Gloucester who succeeding as King Henry VI in 1483, granted it to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk. However, Norfolk died on Bosworth Field in 1485; Walter Hungerford was knighted there and in the following year recovered Farleigh.

In Tudor times, Farleigh was witness to various dramas and tragedies. Agnes, second wife of Sir Edward Hungerford, was accused of poisoning her husband and as a result was hanged in 1523. Her stepson, the last Lord Hungerford, kept his third wife walled up for four years in one of the towers of the castle and allegedly tried to have her poisoned by the chaplain. Her husband was beheaded by Henry VIII, not on account of his treatment of his wife, but for treason (his chaplain denounced the king as a heretic) and homosexual practice. The barony disappeared with his death, and for the second time Farleigh passed to the king. However, it was sold back to the family by Queen Mary in 1554.

The Hungerford family continued to hold Farleigh until the end of the seventeenth century. At the time of the Civil War, Sir Edward Hungerford was a zealous Puritan, and commanded the Parliamentary forces of Wiltshire, while his half-brother John was a Royalist, who from 1644 was in charge of the garrison at Farleigh. This was captured, bloodlessly, by Sir Edward in September 1645.

Sir Edward’s younger son, also Edward, was a Royalist and a member of the court of Charles II. Known as ‘The Spendthrift,’ he gambled away the family fortune and estates, and in 1686 sold Farleigh to a Mr Baynton, who was primarily interested in the internal fittings (fireplaces, panelling, even floors), which were stripped out and sold.

In 1730 the Castle was bought by the Houlton family, for whom it served primarily as a quarry for building materials, not least for Farleigh House, which they built in the park


outside the Castle. The Houltons remained owners of the Castle until 1891, when it was briefly acquired by Lord Donington, who sold it to Lord Cairns, who in 1915 placed it in the guardianship of the Ministry of Works. The Priests’ House was purchased by the Ministry of Works in 1956, and the area of the current car park in 1961. The site is now managed by English Heritage.

2.2. Site development The site plans at appendix 1 and appendix 4 identify the various phases of development at Farleigh Hungerford Castle. The following is a summary of the most significant phases. 2.2.1 The Montfort House (late eleventh to mid-fourteenth century) Most of the literature relating to Farleigh assumes that the earliest surviving fabric belongs to Sir Thomas Hungerford’s late fourteenth century rebuilding. However, recent analysis of the fabric at the northeast corner (Rodwell 2004, 10) has identified differences in alignment and wall thickness which suggest that the curtain wall at this corner belongs to the Montfort phase and is possibly thirteenth century or earlier in date. To the south of the Montfort house, and now enclosed by the Outer Court, is the former parish church of St Leonard, which is largely fourteenth century in date. 2.2.2. Sir Thomas’s rebuilding (after 1377) The site is bounded by moats on the south and west sides, and by a natural escarpment on the north and east sides. Within these natural defences, Sir Thomas Hungerford built a rectangular enclosure, now known as the Inner Court. Within the court were the domestic buildings of the household. At its centre was the great hall, raised over an undercroft, and richly adorned with panelling and frescoes. The high table was located at the east end, raised on a dais, with the main withdrawing room beyond. The service area gave off the low (west) end of the hall. There were further service buildings to the north, latrines and drains discharging onto the slope of the outer walls and, at the northwest corner, a small courtyard or garden. Later additions probably carried out by Sir Thomas Hungerford and possibly relating to the licence to crenellate (obtained retrospectively in 1383) include the northeast and possibly the northwest and southeast drum towers (Rodwell 2004, 11-12). Sir Thomas also added a chapel dedicated to St Anne, over a burial vault on the north side of the parish church. His fine monument is under the arch separating the north chapel from the main body of the church. 2.2.3. Sir Walter’s additions c1420-1430 Thomas’s son Sir Walter Hungerford added the Outer Court to the south in the second quarter of the fifteenth century. This has a ditch on all three sides and a main entrance on the east side approached over a causeway. Here is a two storey gatehouse which formerly incorporated a drawbridge. There was also a west gate, now mostly lost, and a surviving tower in the middle of the south wall. A further tower at the south west corner and the curtain wall west of it are now lost. Sir Walter appropriated the parish church of St Leonard for his private use and is generally thought to have built the new parish church, also dedicated to St Leonard,


which lies about half a mile to the south of the Castle. He endowed the chapel with two Chantry priests and built the Priests’ House that survives to the east of the chapel. 2.2.4. Later Hungerford adaptations Adaptations and embellishments carried out by the Hungerfords in the sixteenth century include the building of a new gateway to the chapel, and further embellishment of the chapel with family tombs. The arms of Edward Hungerford were added over the gatehouse entrance in about 1520, and in the early seventeenth century a new domestic building was added outside the gate house, with two storeys and a gabled attic. The Castle was the centre of an extensive estate lying beyond its perimeter walls, used primarily for hunting and for the value of the woodland. They were described by the officer of the Crown at the time of Walter Hungerford’s attainder (1540):

The sayde Castell standeth in a parke lenyng unto a hill side, portly and very strongly builded, having inward and outward wards, and in the inward wardes many fayre chambers, a fayre large hall, on the hedde of which hall iij or iiij goodly great chambers, with fayre and strong roffes, and divers other fayre lodgings, with all manner howses of offices. The parke wherin the sayde castell standeth ys ij myles and iij quarters in circuite, a very fayre and parkely grounde, being envyroned rownde aboute with highe hylles, and in the myddes a brode and depe ronnyng streme running throw it, and harde by the castell walle, very well set with grete okes and other woode, which is valued to be worth cccc li , and ys replenished with xxvj dere of auntlot, and xliiij of rascall,1 and the Kinge’s highness dothe gyve, by reason of the sayde castell, iij advousons, and ij chauntryes, which ij chauntries doe stand within the walles of the castell (Jackson 1879, 11).

2.2.5. Seventeenth and eighteenth century decline In the early years of the seventeenth century the ditch adjacent to the east gatehouse was infilled, the ground built up and domestic buildings added. These do not survive but the footings remain visible. The inner moats on either side of the barbican at the entrance to the inner court were also infilled and turned into gardens. After the sale of the Castle in 1686 the site went into a period of decline, its primary value becoming a source of materials for new buildings. However the site remained occupied, and new buildings were erected. The Priests’ House was extended northwards to form a long range overlooking the escarpment. The east gatehouse was occupied and extended. In 1701 the Castle was described as being very ruinous, and all of the buildings within the Inner Court were lost during the years of the eighteenth century. The Priests’ House was used as a farm building, and at some time before 1838 a granary and wash house were built at the east end of the chapel. 2.2.6. Nineteenth century revival The Romantic and medieval revivals and the associated cult of the Picturesque encouraged a revival of Farleigh’s fortunes. The Revd J.E.Jackson was curate at Farleigh Hungerford from 1832 until 1845 and maintained an association with the Houlton family and the Castle until his death in 1891. He gathered a huge amount of material about the Castle and its history and in 1836 oversaw the establishment of a charitable trust to look after the chapel. Four years later he organised the first excavations. Guidebooks began to appear from 1852, and the Castle became a popular tourist site and picnic spot. 1 i.e. lean animals, not fit to hunt or kill


2.2.7. Guardianship In June 1915 management of the Castle transferred from the then owner Lord Cairns to the Office (later the Ministry) of Works, Lord Cairns retaining the freehold. The Priests’ House remained in use as a farmhouse and was excluded from the transfer. That building was purchased by the Ministry of Works on 15 March 1956. On 1 December 1961 the car park area was acquired by the Ministry. The site is now managed by English Heritage on behalf of the DCMS; the guardianship area is shown in appendix 2.


PART THREE: MANAGEMENT HISTORY This section looks at the phases in the history of the management of the Castle and, for more recent years, approaches to its conservation, repair, alteration and presentation. The phases in the management history of the Castle can be very broadly summarised as follows:

1. Working residence of the Hungerford family (up to 1686) 2. Quarry and farm (1686-1779) 3. Revived antiquarian interest (1779-1832) 4. The Jackson years and towards guardianship (1832-1915) 5. Guardianship I (1915-1984) 6. Guardianship II (1984-2006)

3.1. Working residence of the Hungerford family (up to 1686)

Fig.i: Reconstruction drawing of the Castle as it might have appeared in the late seventeenth

century (English Heritage) From its earliest construction up to the point of its sale in 1686, life at Farleigh Hungerford Castle centred around the buildings of the Inner Court, and in particular the great hall. That is, the focus of life was precisely in those buildings which do not remain today. The chapel and Priests’ House were essentially ancillary structures, and the outer walls and towers were above all expressions of status. Relatively few changes took place at Farleigh Hungerford between Sir Walter’s additions in the early fifteenth century and the end of the Hungerford occupation in 1686. When the antiquary John Aubrey visited in the seventeenth century he considered that it was then one of two houses (Old Stourton House being the other) which survived almost unaltered from the time of the ‘old English Barons’ (Jackson 1879, 10).


Such expenditure as did take place was concentrated on the embellishment and repair of the chapel, including its reroofing about 1600, and on improving the domestic buildings. According to one account, ‘the walls of the Great Hall were covered with fresco paintings of men in armour and warriors on horseback’ (Jackson 1879, 60). A sale of contents in about 1700 hints at the quality and opulence of the internal fitting out; payments made included £40 for the dining room chimney piece and hearth, £61 for the paving from the summer house and £30 for two tables and accompanying pedestals from the hall (Hughes 2001).

Figure ii: Sketch by Peter le Neve, 1701 A sketch plan prepared by Peter le Neve in 1701 (figure ii) gives an indication of arrangements not long after the Hungerford sale and before the Castle’s decline. The plan shows the Castle in its parkland setting, with a corn mill on the river to the east, and a flint lodge in the park to the north. Stable buildings abut the walls on the internal face of the outer court. The chapel is shown with its enclosing retaining wall and western gate and steps. There are gardens on the site of the ditches on either side of the barbican leading to the living accommodation in the Inner Court. Across a courtyard is the main entrance to this accommodation, with the hall to the right and the kitchens to the left. Beyond these is a small private garden. The sale of Hungerford land in 1686 brought about by the fecklessness of Sir Edward Hungerford included the manors of Farleigh, Tellisford, Wick Farm, Hinton Abbey,


Norton St Philips, Ilford, Rowley, Wellow, Rode and Langham. These were all sold for £56,000 to Edward Baynton of Spy Park, Wiltshire, ‘who parcelled it out to severall persons so that only the house and about 4 acres remain in the hands of the trustees of the said Edward Bainton the park being sold to 3 persons all the trees cut down and now enclosed & divided’ (Hughes, 2001). 3.2. Quarry and farm (1686-1779) It would appear that Mr Baynton’s primary interest in the Castle was in the value of its internal fixtures and fittings. Once the contents of the hall had been stripped and sold, it became possible to realise the value of the fabric itself as a source of building materials. A Mr Thomas Cooper bought the Castle in 1705, except for the chapel and ‘Dairy House’ (as the Priests’ House had then become known), which had already been sold to Mr Joseph Houlton, and which may thereby have escaped demolition. The chapel was also spared, and indeed, an untraced account book cited by Jackson states that in 1717 its roof was repaired at the expense of Nicholas Baron Lechmere, whose mother was a Hungerford (Hughes, 2001). Jackson states that having acquired the Castle, ‘Mr Cooper appears to have pulled it to pieces and the Mr Houlton of the day was customer for materials’ (Hughes, 2001). However, according to another account cited by Jackson, most of the damage seems to have been done by Mr Houlton himself, who having acquired the whole site, ‘pulled down the mansion in 1730 to build the present mansion house at the foot of the hill to the south. He found the materials so firmly cemented together that 25 men were employed near a twelvemonth in demolishing it. He also took up the broad pavement at the bottom of the moat which surrounded the Castle walls which were of Keynsham stone […] All the neighbouring people were allowed to take away materials for building after Mr Houlton had selected what he chose: & the Meeting House at Beckington is built almost entirely out of the materials, as are many other houses’ (Hughes, 2001).

Figure iii: The Castle from the north, Samuel and Nathaniel Buck, 1733

The Buck brothers’ engraving (figure iii) shows the extent of abandonment and dereliction in 1733. It shows the original domestic buildings roofless and windowless, and the turrets minus their conical roofs and, in some cases, in an advanced state of decay. The east gatehouse also appears to be in poor condition, although the building of seventeenth century character that was built against and outside this (figure iv), and


which must have then existed, is not shown. The chapel appears to be in good condition, corroborating the account of repairs made to the roof in 1717. The Priests’ House appears to be in reasonable condition, the tall flue an indication of occupation, and to the north of this is a square structure, most probably a dovecote. This illustration encapsulates the shift that took place around this time, away from grand manorial residence focussed on the Inner Court towards an agricultural function centred on the former Priests’ House and the Outer Court.

Figure iv: East gatehouse and adjoining buildings, Samuel Hieronymous Grimm, 1789

The relative poverty of the farm in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is evident in the neglect of what must have been fairly new farm buildings (fig. v). By 1805 the seventeenth century building abutting the east gatehouse was roofless. Vernacular buildings surviving from this period of agricultural use include the granary, built probably in the early nineteenth century the east wall of the chapel, an outbuilding to the north of the Priests’ House built partially over the ditch between the Outer and Inner courts, and a stable (now rebuilt) forming part of a yard to the former Priests’ House outside the enclosure. These buildings all appear on the tithe map of 1838 (Appendix 10). 3.3. Revived antiquarian interest (1779-1832) In the course of the eighteenth century the chapel was allowed to fall into an advanced state of disrepair, as shown in an engraving of 1774 (Figure vi). However, its fortunes improved in 1779 when the roof was repaired at the expense of John Peachey Hungerford of Dingley Hall, Leicestershire. At about the same time the side windows of the chapel were blocked. ‘He is said to have spent £150 upon restoring the Roof and such of the windows it was thought to retain: in short he made it weatherproof’ (Jackson 1879, 247). This work was driven primarily by reverence for the monuments within the chapel, and may be regarded as a turning point in the history and management of the site.


Figure v: Inner face of east gatehouse and adjoining buildings, from Grose’s Antiquities of England and Wales, 1785

The owner at the time of the 1779 repairs was John Houlton, who was the first family member to take an active interest in the chapel. Jackson records that he carried out further repairs to the building in 1806, and sometime after 1808 employed ‘a Mr Cranch, a scene painter at the Bath Theatre’ (Jackson 1879, 173) to paint the walls with a scheme of architectural stencil decoration, traces of which remain. Sometime before 1832 he decided to house his collection of weapons and armour in the chapel, the ‘cabinet of curiosities’ which survived more or less intact until the 1970s. He also introduced new church furnishings, including the font (brought over from the parish church in 1832) and the pulpit, constructed from various pieces of Jacobean carpentry (figure vii). All this was in the spirit of Romantic aristocratic medievalism so popular at that time. A wider and deeper realisation of the archaeological and historical significance of the site as a whole had to await the arrival at Farleigh of the Revd J.E.Jackson. He represented the new generation of serious antiquaries, imbued with a scholarly concern for accuracy and less interested in imaginative and playful recreations of the Middle Ages.


Figure vi: The chapel, roofless, engraved by ‘Sparrow’ in 1774, from Grose’s Antiquities of

England and Wales, 1785

Figure vii: Chapel interior, watercolour of 1845


3.4. The Jackson years and towards guardianship (1832-1915) Mr Jackson was appointed curate at Farleigh Hungerford in 1832, and became a friend of the Houlton family. From that point until his death in 1891 he devoted his energies to researching, documenting and rescuing the Castle and its chapel. His notes on the history of the Castle, written over several decades, were collected and bound into a large folio volume which is now deposited at the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Museum, Devizes. As well as documenting the history and development of the Castle, Jackson initiated work to secure greater understanding, and repair of its fabric. In his will, proved in 1839, John Houlton had set up a trust fund which would make £2.10s available each year for the repair of the fabric of the chapel, and Jackson quickly initiated repairs, notably to the south roof slope. The east window of the chapel of St Anne was unblocked and new and salvaged stained glass introduced. In 1844 the wall painting of St George was uncovered. An impression of the chapel interior in 1845 is shown in figure vii. The 1840s also saw the first attempt to clear and excavate the Inner Court, and to improve its interpretation. This is part of Jackson’s account:

The area of the quadrangle lay for years after the House had been pulled down, strewn over with piles of stone and mortar rubbish. These again becoming covered with moss and weed, gave the place a neglected appearance: & also rendered it difficult to trace any outline of what had existed here. In 1846 a considerable clearance and excavation was made, some of the foundation brought to light and many hundred cartloads of rubbish were removed […] Whenever in the excavation alluded to as made in 1846 any portion of foundation was brought to light, it was raised a foot or more so as to appear more distinctly above ground and to enable visitors to form a better outline of the building (Jackson 1979, 150).

However questionable an approach by today’s standards, this was the first rigorous attempt, informed by detailed study of documents and engravings as well as of the fabric unearthed, to seek to establish the form of the buildings of the Inner Court, and to increase their legibility for visitors. For example, Jackson reports that:

On levelling the ground in the NW corner of the Lower Courtyard in 1845, the foundations of some rooms were brought to light. The remains of an ashpit, furnace, oven and flue, showed that the back part of the house lay on that side. Towards the NE corner of this court (garden in Neve) was found a red tiled floor in good condition and from this apartment there was some appearance of a passage which may have lead to what appears in Buck’s view as a small postern gate at the east front (Jackson 1979, 44).

Elsewhere in his account, Jackson refers (p.150) to ‘a noble stem of ivy’ on the southwest (Lady) tower, which had caught fire and hastened the partial collapse of that tower in 1842. However, it would seem that he enjoyed the picturesque qualities of this growth, and was not unduly concerned about its impact on the fabric. Ivy continued to flourish with great abundance on the walls at Farleigh Hungerford throughout these years (figures viii and ix). Within the courtyards, and between the newly exposed and raised foundations, the grass was kept smooth and short by grazing (figure viii). The demarcation between the former inner and outer courts was marked by a wooden post and rail fence.


By the end of the 1850s, therefore, it may be said that the Castle had been transformed from a neglected ruin to a managed ancient monument, well tended but with a romantic air of overgrown ivy that appealed to Victorian sensibilities. The site had been excavated, and the foundations revealed and accentuated to aid understanding. Jackson’s first guidebooks appeared in 1852, and further editions in 1860 and 1879. The site became a popular visitor attraction.

Figure viii: ‘Lady Tower’ from the east, 1850s

In 1891 Jackson died, and in the same year the Houlton family sold the estate to Lord Donington, whose wife (who died in 1874) had been Baroness Hungerford. Lord Donington died in 1895 and the property was held by his trustees until 1907, when it was sold to Lord Cairns. He is believed to have cleaned and repaired the chapel, but otherwise did little in his brief period of ownership.


Figure ix: Southeast tower from the Inner Court, probably late 1870s 3.5. Guardianship I (1915-1984) In 1915 Lord Cairns transferred the Castle into the guardianship of the Office (later Ministry) of Works. The farmhouse and its ancillary buildings (comprising the Priests’ House, the granary and its lean-to wash house, the outbuilding to the north and adjoining garden on the infilled moat) were not included in the guardianship agreement. In 1914, prior to the transfer of the site into guardianship, the Ministry made survey drawings and a full photographic record (figure x). However, repair and restoration were delayed by the First World War, and did not start until 1919. From then until 1927 a considerable amount of work was undertaken at Farleigh, under the direction of Frank Baines, Principal Architect to the Ministry of Works. The contractor was Hayward and Wooster of Walcot Street, Bath. The east gatehouse was tackled first, being stripped of its ivy and consolidated and repaired in 1919-20 (figure xi). Work also took place at this time on the chapel, southeast tower and south wall. In 1921 work started on a further tower, provoking a controversy that was to rage for many months in the local press and the pages of Country Life. The alarm was initially raised by Harold Peto of nearby Ilford Manor, Bradford on Avon. Peto had begun his career as an architect and went into partnership with Ernest George in 1871. The partnership was dissolved in 1892, after which Peto became increasingly interested in garden design. He was imbued with the ideals of the Arts and Crafts movement, and was highly antipathetic to the methods and approach of the Ministry.


Figure x: External view of east gatehouse, 1914

Figure xi: East gatehouse as restored, Country Life, 1921


In May 1921 Peto wrote to H.Avray Tipping of Country Life, urging him to ‘raise a storm against the Office of Works’:

What they have done I consider altogether needless to get stability – pumping in cement grout which they have brought to the outer surface of stones. Grout has run over the whole surface of the old stone reducing the whole mass to a uniform dull colour, the colour of a new Cheshire Cheese. (Hughes, 2001)

Figure xii: Junction between old wall and new pointing, Country Life, 1921 Tipping took the matter up with C.R.Peers, Chief Inspector for the Office of Works, and the matter was investigated by an official who responded by stating that while cement had been used for grouting the cavity, lime mortar had been used for the pointing, and this was set back one sixteenth of an inch behind the line of the masonry (figure xii). The yellow colouring, it was argued, was the natural colour of the stone reappearing; this would soon weather down. He also added that ‘in accordance with our practice we habitually remove all shrubs and ivy growing on the walls as they cause continual, increasing deterioration’ (Hughes, 2001). This response did not succeed in diffusing the controversy. Tipping visited the site in November 1921, and was scathing in his criticism of the Ministry’s efforts. He contrasted the ‘warm and living’ character of the unaltered fabric with the ‘icy touch of a mechanistic and bureaucratic age’. Describing the treatment of a curtain wall, he wrote ‘the play of light and shade, the colour and liveliness of plants and moss and lichen, still remaining on the upper part of the bastion, are replaced by grey and lifeless uniformity’. He considered that the ‘archaeological’ approach had triumphed at the expense of the ‘artistic’, whereas best practice would have combined both of these approaches. Here was indeed a clash of conservation philosophies. It resurfaced again when the grazed meadow grass of the outer court was replaced with turf. This further example of


the Ministry ‘wasting the taxpayers’ money’ prompted a further letter from Peto to Country Life. He maintained that the old grass was ‘perfectly in keeping with the building and what you would expect to find in the place, whereas the new shaven lawn, which would be suitable for a college quad, is to my mind quite out of keeping…’ (Hughes, 2001). There is no evidence that the controversy of 1921 influenced the Ministry’s approach, and the programme of repair and consolidation continued until 1925. In 1924 excavations were carried out in the area of the inner moat by the southwest tower, and the ditch dug out to approximately its present level (fig.xiii). Excavations continued through the 1920s and 30s, including the exposure of the remaining stone revetments to the western moat, but it seems that written records were not kept. Apart from some minor repairs to the fabric and contents, the Ministry did not turn its attention to the chapel until 1931, when repairs were made to the roof (Hughes 2003, 66-9). At the same time the wall painting of St George and the Hungerford Coat of Arms over the east window were stabilised by being impregnated with beeswax, a standard method of conserving wall paintings at that time. This treatment helped to seal the dampness in the walls, exacerbated at the east end by the presence of the wash house. In 1951 the wall paintings authority Professor Tristram expressed concern at their deterioration, and in 1954 there was a further application of beeswax to St George and the coat of arms. By this time, that method was falling from favour and plans for

Figure xiii: Excavation of inner moat, 1924 (NMR) similar treatment of other wall paintings were not implemented. Repairs were however carried out at this time to the roof of St Anne’s chapel (Hughes 2003, 75-7).


Figure xiv: Priests’ House, ground floor partition, NMR 1961 Concerns about the deleterious impact of the wash house on the condition of the chapel and wall paintings prompted the Ministry to renew its efforts to acquire the buildings of the farmhouse, and this was achieved in 1956. A major renovation of the Priests’ House followed. A local newspaper account reported the work thus:

The building is 80 feet by 22 feet, and part will be converted to provide living accommodation for the custodian. The conversion is a long process in view of the Victorian alterations which have hidden much of the ancient parts of the building. Extensive but careful gutting of the building will take place and there will be an examination of the ancient parts. The restoration will allow the public to see the mediaeval roof trusses, doors and window openings. The work of examination and conversion will probably take three years or more, depending on the labour and funds available […] At the same time, improvements to the exhibits in the chapel are under consideration (Hughes 2003, 78).

Photographs taken by Ministry before the start of works (figure xiv) indicate a simple vernacular farmhouse interior rather than a ‘Victorian character’. This restoration programme also included the conversion of the granary to a ticket office and lavatories. The wash house, long identified as the primary cause of damp in the chapel, was demolished, and the drainage in the courtyard improved. In 1961 the Ministry acquired some additional land outside the west gate, and the present car parking arrangements took effect. In 1962 a new footbridge was built spanning the ditch between the inner and outer courts, replacing a timber one put up by the Ministry in 1926. In 1969 there was a collapse in the revetment on the outer side of the west moat and repairs were carried out. Demolition of the wash house did not arrest the deterioration of the wall paintings. Between 1978 and 1983 the beeswax was carefully removed and the paintings


stabilised and consolidated. Some of the early nineteenth century paint scheme was removed to reveal a medieval brocade pattern in the east window reveal. In 1983 the figure of the kneeling knight was conserved. 3.6. Guardianship II (1984-2006) In 1984 management of the site passed to the newly-created agency English Heritage. Since then there has been a steady programme of maintenance and repair, as and when funds have permitted. Repair techniques have moved away from the methods of the old Ministry of Works approach, and lime-based repairs are now favoured. Benevolent plant growth is not discouraged, and there is a great awareness of the ecological significance of the site. The grass cutting regime has been slightly relaxed, although there has not been a return to Peto’s preferred grazed meadow grass. The chapel roof has been repaired (2001) and there have been further repairs to (and reports on) the wall paintings. The condition of the stained glass is being monitored. The display in the Priests’ House has been revamped on more than one occasion, and both this building and the chapel have been made accessible to visitors in wheelchairs. In 2005 there were about 15,000 visitors, roughly 40% of them being members of English Heritage. In 2006 a new guidebook was published.


PART FOUR: SITE GAZETTEER The following section deals with each main element or area within the site and provides

• an outline description • a note on the relevant designations • an assessment of significance • a note on any significant management issues.

4.1. Levels of Significance

Significance is essentially a hierarchical concept, using descending levels of value. These follow guidelines established by James Semple Kerr (The Conservation Plan, 1996), which have been adopted by the Heritage Lottery Fund, English Heritage and others. The levels of significance are:

• Exceptional - important at national to international levels, reflected in the statutory designations of scheduled monuments, grade I and II* listed buildings and equivalent nationally designated sites (including those of ecological and nature conservation value).

• Considerable - important at regional level or sometimes higher, e.g. grade II

listed buildings.

• Some – of local to regional significance, often for group value, e.g. locally listed buildings or buildings making a positive contribution to a conservation area.

• Little – of limited heritage or other value.

• Negative or intrusive features, i.e. those that actually detract from the value of a

site e.g. a modern corrugated iron shed adjacent to an important medieval building.

4.2. INNER AND OUTER COURTS

Figure xv: Aerial view of site (NMR)


4.2.1. Description The Inner Court is the original structure built by Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1380-90, although it does incorporate earlier fabric from the Montfort house at the northeast corner (Rodwell 2004, 10). Built of course, rough-faced Doulting stone, it consists of a rectangular enclosure, originally containing the hall, surrounded by a curtain wall, with a circular tower at each corner. There is an entrance and inner gate at the middle of the south side. Only the southeast and southwest towers and parts of the curtain wall survive to any considerable extent above ground level. The original inner gate consisted of a pair of round-fronted towers with a narrow paved passage between them. There was a ditch in front of this, spanned by a drawbridge, the abutments of which remain in situ. Connected to the gate towers by two thick walls, and added by Sir Thomas at the time of his building of the outer court, is a barbican with a semi-octagonal front. The ditch to the east of the gate is infilled, that to the west was excavated in the twentieth century. The courtyard of Sir Thomas’s castle is paved with stone pitching and retains some of the flagstones of the pathway, leading across to the domestic buildings which occupied the north side of the court. These included a hall and kitchen, now surviving only as footings and substructures. There were also ranges of buildings within the courtyard built against the south and west curtain walls which have now disappeared. The Outer Court was added on the south by Sir Thomas’s son, Sir Walter Hungerford, in about 1420-30. It is more irregular in plan, and has a ditch on all three sides, lined with stone. This was usually dry, although there is a dam with a sluice towards the bottom of the western moat. The main entrance is by the east gatehouse, which is approached over a causeway. Originally there was a drawbridge, but this became redundant when the ditch was filled and domestic buildings added outside the curtain wall in the early seventeenth century. The gatehouse consists of two storeys, with an arch set into a square-headed recess into which the drawbridge once closed. Above this are two holes for the chains of the drawbridge, and between these the sickle badge of the Hungerfords. Above this is the family coat of arms with the initials EH, added by Sir Edward Hungerford in the 1520s. On the north side of the gatehouse is a doorway, which presumably gave access to the wall walk. In the seventeenth century this structure was adapted to serve a domestic function and a gabled roof was added; the present battlements here and on the adjacent curtain wall are a nineteenth century restoration. The west gate of the Outer Court is now mostly lost. From this gateway the curtain wall crosses the inner ditch and joins up with the southwest tower of Sir Thomas’s castle. The south tower is located around the centre of the south curtain wall and survives up to curtain wall height. It was originally closed by a wall on the courtyard side, and the present arch is an early nineteenth century restoration. Stables formerly abutted the curtain wall in this area, as evidenced by the stone floor. At the southwest corner is the site of another tower which, along with the curtain wall running west of this to the site of the west gate, no longer survives. Unlike the Inner Court, the Outer Court contains several roofed buildings. These are described and assessed separately below.


4.2.2. Designations The Outer and Inner courts form part of the designated scheduled ancient monument (no.28840). It is also part of the grade I listing of the Castle. The scheduling and listing descriptions are attached at appendix 6 and 7. A botanical survey and evaluation (Somerset Ecology Consultants, 1991) has recorded three notable species at county level – wych elm, cowslip and pyramidal orchid. It concluded that the variety of habitat types found would fit the criteria for County Wildlife Site designation, but this does not appear to have been implemented. However, the site does support legally protected species and a range of habitats of value for wildlife, and English Heritage has a responsibility to take these into account in its management of the site. 4.2.3. Significance Architectural/Archaeological The buildings of the Inner Court constitute the earliest part of the Castle, including remains of the Montfort house. Farleigh Hungerford is an example of an enclosure castle, a defended residence or stronghold, which was a building type developed from the twelfth century with construction knowledge acquired during the Crusades. Enclosure castles are rare nationally; the scheduling description states that there are 126 recorded examples, and that Farleigh Hungerford is ‘a striking and well preserved example of its class’. Although the buildings of the Inner Court have been lost, the remains of the towers and curtain walls to both courts are substantial and powerful. The following buildings and structures are of exceptional architectural and archaeological significance:

• The surviving towers, east gatehouse, ruined west gate, curtain walls and outer

ditches with their revetments; • The medieval low walls of the inner court associated with the barbican, inner

gatehouse, great hall, great chamber, kitchen and bake house and east and west ranges

• areas of stone pitching, particularly the large area in the inner court.

The following buildings and structures are of considerable architectural and archaeological significance:

• Raised and rebuilt sections of wall belonging to the Jackson excavations in the inner court

• The footings of the seventeenth century house outside the east gatehouse • Footings and paving for former stables in the outer court against the south

curtain wall • Wall enclosing the infilled moat to east of barbican

The following buildings and structures are of some architectural and archaeological significance:

• Wall flanking external approach to east gatehouse • Rebuilt lengths of curtain wall between the southwest turret and the west gate

and on either side of the southwest tower


Historical Sir Thomas Hungerford was a prominent figure in late fourteenth century public life. He was steward to John of Gaunt and briefly Speaker in the House of Commons. His son Sir Walter was also Speaker in the House of Lords and became Lord Hungerford in 1426. The Castle remained in the ownership of the Huntingfords almost continuously until 1686 and in that time witnessed various intrigues, dramas and scandals over the centuries, as previously described. Representing the development of the house of a major family, the buildings of the Inner and Outer Court are of exceptional historical significance. Visual/landscape The Castle is raised on high ground on the south bank of a bend in the river Frome. It is set within a historic landscape of high visual quality and appeal. The picturesque qualities of the ruined castle in this setting have been appreciated by artists and visitors for two centuries. The towers and walls of the Inner and Outer Court provide much of this appeal, and are of considerable landscape and visual significance. However the current appearance of the low walls, paving and foundations of the inner court is rather arid and visually confusing (figure xxiii). Whatever their archaeological and historical significance, in visual and landscape terms these are considered to be negative or intrusive features. Ecological/wildlife While no nature conservation designations currently apply, the buildings of the Inner Court, like others on the site, do support legally protected species. The ramparts are a mosaic of grassland habitats and the walls support a number of specialist plant species. Four species of bats are thought to use the Castle. The mown lawns within the Castle complex and three of the surrounding banks have been assessed as of ‘little botanical interest’ (Conservation Consultancy 1999). However, the two banks along the southern boundary are considered to be floristically more interesting, and feature a diverse range of herbs. A botanical survey and evaluation has recorded three notable species at county level and concluded that the site met the criteria for County Wildlife Site designation (Somerset Ecological Consultants, 1991). The inner and outer courts, and the associated ditches and walls, are of considerable ecological/wildlife significance. Educational/recreational The buildings of the inner court form the historic core of the Castle. These and the perimeter structures of the outer court, notably the east gatehouse, have high educational value for local schools and general visitors. In the words of the English Heritage teachers’ guidance leaflet, ‘The Castle provides an obvious and tangible link to the past for several specific study units in National Curriculum history as well as for local history studies. However, it is also an ideal and safe venue for practical work in a number of other disciplines including Maths, English, Religious Education and Art’ (English Heritage 1999, 5)


In addition to its educational value, the Castle is a popular resort for picnickers, walkers and cyclists. A public footpath runs through the site. The castle is of considerable educational and recreational significance. 4.2.4. Management Issues The maintenance and repair of the curtain walls, gates and towers of the Inner and Outer courts are relatively straightforward and are covered by relevant policies in part 6. The most significant management issues facing the Inner and Outer Courts relate to:

• The maintenance and presentation of the footings and foundations of now-lost buildings, particularly those of the Inner Court. Many of these are in poor condition, subject to wear and tear from visitors and frost damage, and are not readily legible or understandable even to the well-informed visitor;

• The question of vehicular movement from the east gatehouse, across the outer court and through the former west gate to the present car park.

• The public footpath which runs through the outer court. These issues are discussed in greater detail in part 5. 4.3. THE CHAPEL

Figure xvi: Chapel interior, looking east


Figure xvii: North chapel from nave 4.3.1. Description The history and development of the chapel are described in detail in Hughes, 2003, and those wishing for a full account should refer to that publication. The chapel was originally the parish church, and is dedicated to St Leonard. Dating from the middle of the fourteenth century, it has a projecting northern Chantry chapel of St Anne, built in about 1385 to house the tomb of Sir Thomas Hungerford. When Sir Walter added the Outer Court, he appropriated the building as a private family chapel and built a new parish church, also dedicated to St Leonard, about half a mile to the south. The chapel continued to be maintained and embellished throughout the tenure of the Hungerfords. The seventeenth century saw many changes to the building, including its ‘de-Romanising’ following the surrender of the castle to the Parliamentarian Sir Edward Hungerford. With the end of the Hungerford tenure, however, the building fell into disuse and disrepair. Interest revived in the later eighteenth century and repairs were undertaken in 1779 and 1808. The fortunes of the building improved dramatically with the arrival of the Revd J.E.Jackson in the parish, and in 1839 he was the chief instigator in the establishment by the Houlton family of a trust to maintain the building. The family converted the building into a ‘cabinet of curiosities’, with much armour and other items of antiquarian interest. Many of these items remained in situ until the 1970s. The chapel is enclosed by a battlemented perimeter retaining wall of Doulting stone, an early nineteenth century rebuilding of a feature which appears to have existed in 1701 (figure ii). This incorporates a sixteenth century western gateway with a four-centred arch with the Hungerford arms over and a nineteenth century gable surmounted by a cross. A timber gate leads through to a flight of steps down to the chapel. Like the perimeter walls and the fabric of the Inner and Outer Courts, the chapel is built of random rubble Doulting stone, with ashlar quoins. It consists of a gabled west porch, aisleless nave and chancel under a continuous roof. This is clad with stone slates and


there are diagonally projecting buttresses at the corners. The chapel of St Anne projects north from the chancel, and lies over a burial vault, built under the chapel in the early seventeenth century. At the west end of the nave the main door has a moulded pointed arch, and above this is a three-light Perpendicular window with a drip mould. The north and south nave and chancel walls consist of five bays, the windows blocked since the mid-nineteenth century or earlier. The east window is of three lights and has panel tracery and a depressed arch. The west porch is a sixteenth century addition and is entered through a four-centred moulded arch, above which are the arms (sickles and sheaths) of the Hungerford family. The porch has a wagon roof, previously plastered. From the west door of the nave, five steps lead down to the stone flagged floor of the chapel interior. The nave and chancel comprise a single undivided space under a steep roof with ‘A’-frame trusses with stop moulded chamfers on the ties and collars. This is probably of early seventeenth century date (tree-ring analysis has given a felling date of 1590-1622), and was originally plastered (Hughes 2003, 12). There is evidence of an earlier, shallower roof in the plaster over the east window. Giving off the north side of the chancel is the Chantry chapel of St Anne, entered under a wide, almost hemispherical arch. The chapel has a low pitched roof, like that of the nave an early seventeenth century replacement, and contains the remains of a rich scheme of seventeenth century painted decoration. The floor of the chapel is paved with black and white marble tiles, also of seventeenth century date. The relatively plain outer shell of the chapel encloses an interior containing furnishings and memorials of outstanding quality and importance. Chief amongst these are the various memorials to members of the Hungerford family in St Anne’s chapel. These include:

• Recumbent figures of Sir Thomas Hungerford, 1398 and Joan Hussey his wife, 1412, under the arch to the chapel. Sir Thomas in chain mail, his head resting on a helm and his feet on a lion, his wife in cloak and mantle, head upon cushion and feet on two dogs. Within an iron grilled enclosure.

• Sir Walter Hungerford, 1596 and his son Edward, 1583, in the southeast corner. Richly polychromatic epitaph.

• Sir Edward Hungerford, 1607 and his wife Jane, in the northeast corner. Similar to Sir Walter’s epitaph.

• Mary, 1613, sister to Sir Edward Hungerford, in northwest corner with bronze epitaph plate on wall over.

• Sir Edward Hungerford, 1698 and his wife Margaret Holliday, richly carved white marble effigies in the centre of the chapel.

Beneath the chapel, and entered from the outside on the north side down a flight of steps, is a barrel vaulted crypt, built in the early seventeenth century at the same time as Sir Edward’s remodelling of the chapel above. This contains eight lead coffins, six adults and two children, four of them anthropomorphic (that is, with faces moulded onto them). At the centre of the nave at the west end is the grave slab, dating from about 1480, of the chaplain of the Chantry established by Sir Walter. Immediately to the east and in line with this is a plain octagonal font, its sides cut down. It is raised on two steps and is probably fourteenth century in date. Possibly from the original parish church, it was later placed in the new parish church, from which it was transferred by the Houltons in the 1830s. The chapel contains extensive remains of medieval and later wall painting schemes. This includes a large and impressive fifteenth century figure of St George on the east wall and


an associated dragon and kneeling figure (almost disappeared). There is an extensive and rich seventeenth century scheme of painted decoration in the north chapel, and remains of a nineteenth century stencil decorative scheme in the nave by Cranch, a painter of stage scenery from Bath. Other features of the chapel interior include the altar slab, which is probably original to the chapel, but is now set within an assembly of carpentry dating from about 1600. The ogee-headed piscina on the north side of the chancel dates from about 1440 and was brought here from the parish church in 1874. On the south side is an oak pulpit, made up from various pieces and incomplete, the parts dating from about 1600. On the north wall there is an oak bench, also a composite, bearing the Hungerford arms (added in the nineteenth century). The east window of the nave and the windows of the chapel of St Anne contain much Flemish and Dutch stained glass of seventeenth and eighteenth century date, introduced by the Houlton family in the mid-nineteenth century. 4.3.2. Designations The chapel is still in occasional use and is excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath it is included. It should be assumed that the crypt is also scheduled, along with the perimeter retaining wall and western gateway, insofar as they are not specifically excluded. The scheduling description is attached at appendix 6. The chapel, perimeter wall and gateway are also included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest, in grade I. The list description is attached at appendix 8. The chapel is not designated for its nature conservation interest, but bats roost in the building, and are protected. 4.3.3. Significance Architectural/Archaeological/Historical The chapel is the oldest and most significant roofed structure on the site, being the ancient family chapel of the Hungerford family and before that the parish church. Apart from a period of neglect and decay in the eighteenth century, the building has been in continuous use, and has been richly embellished at various stages in its history. It contains an outstanding collection of Hungerford monuments as well as other fittings, original and imported, of high artistic and historic value. The crypt contains possibly the best collection of anthropomorphic coffins in the country. The chapel and crypt are of exceptional architectural, historical and archaeological significance. The western gateway dates from the sixteenth century and is of considerable architectural, archaeological and historical significance. The enclosing perimeter wall is a nineteenth century reconstruction and is of some architectural, archaeological and historical significance.


Visual/landscape The chapel is relatively modest in size, and contains no tower or belfry. The external walls are to some extent hidden by the surrounding perimeter retaining wall. Its roof however is a prominent feature, the stone slates sitting well with the group of buildings to the east. The chapel, along with the western gateway and perimeter wall, are buildings of considerable visual/landscape significance. Spiritual The chapel is still in occasional use, and retains its ambience as an ancient place of prayer and burial. The various religious allegiances of members of the Hungerford family tombs reflect the turbulent religious history of this country in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The removal of the suits of armour and other objects of antiquarian curiosity in the 1970s has allowed the religious ambience of the chapel quietly to reassert itself. The chapel is a building of considerable spiritual significance. Ecological/wildlife While the chapel is not designated for its nature conservation interest, bats roost in the building, and are protected. It is therefore a building of considerable ecological and wildlife significance. Educational The chapel is an important part of school visits to the site, and forms part of the staff-led guided tour. It provides the most tangible evidence of the human history of the site and its occupants, and contains monuments of major artistic significance. Visitors can learn here something of the turbulent religious and political history of the Hungerford family and of the country. It is a building of considerable educational significance. 4.3.4. Management Issues Management issues relating to the chapel include:

• Use. Is it simply an ancient shell housing some important monuments and fittings, or is also a functional building, capable of appropriate use, and income generation?

• What changes might be permitted in the event of such an extension of use? • How should the chapel be presented to visitors? • Are the access arrangements satisfactory? • What provision is being made for the conservation and maintenance of the wall

paintings, monuments and stained glass? These questions are considered in greater detail in part 5.


4.4. THE PRIESTS’ HOUSE

Figure xviii: Priests’ House, west (courtyard) elevation

Figure xix: Priests’ House, ground floor interior 4.4.1. Description The Priests’ House lies to the east of the chapel, from which it is separated by a cobbled yard. It is built forward of the line of the curtain wall, dramatically raised over the defensive bank on the east side of the Castle, overlooking the river Frome. Built originally in about 1430 for the chaplains serving Sir Walter’s Chantry, it became a farmhouse in the seventeenth century and was extended northwards to form a long range along the Castle perimeter. The building was only taken into guardianship in 1956, after which repairs and adaptations were undertaken, involving the removal of later farmhouse vernacular finishes and fabric (see figure xiv) and the exposure of medieval


rubble walls, roof trusses, door and window openings. It now serves as a museum, and has recently been made more accessible to disabled visitors. Like all the other buildings on the site, the Priests’ House is built of random rubble Doulting stone and like the chapel it has a stone slate roof with stone copings on the gables. There is a moulded ashlar stone chimney stack on the north gable. On the courtyard elevation the original accommodation comprises two storeys and three bays, with an entrance through a moulded doorway in the north gable, now incorporated within the later farmhouse addition. The windows are two-light sixteenth century casements with central stone mullions. There are two pointed arch door openings on this elevation, probably dating from the seventeenth century, with vertical boarded and studded doors of twentieth century date. The seventeenth century extension is also in Doulting stone and consists of two storeys and three bays on the courtyard side. There is an entrance is on the right of this elevation with a chamfered stone door frame. It too has hollow chamfered stone mullioned windows. From the courtyard entrances steps lead down into the interior. The ground floor accommodation in the Priests’ House probably consisted originally of a hall to the south with a fireplace in the eastern wall. To the north of this, and separated from it by a timber partition, was a second room, which has a fireplace of sixteenth century date, a latrine shaft and evidence of the fixings for original timber window shutters. The staircase was in the southwest corner, now replaced by a modern stair. The first floor accommodation consists of four bays, divided by three stop chamfered cross beams, the centre one of which retains elements of medieval painted decoration. There is a barrel vaulted plaster ceiling, with two exposed curve braced collar trusses and evidence of timber partitions. The seventeenth century addition is built of two storeys over a cellar, now much altered internally. 4.4.2. Designations The Priests’ House, including its farmhouse addition, are included in the scheduling, and are also listed in grade II* as ‘Priest House and adjoining range’. The scheduling and list descriptions are attached at appendix 6 and 9. 4.4.3. Significance Architectural/Archaeological/Historical The Priests’ House is of primary significance as a medieval house built for two Chantry priests, occupying an important visual and historical relationship with the nearby chapel. This is a rare and important juxtaposition. The design of its early seventeenth century extension appears to be deliberately contextual, accentuating the picturesque and dramatic silhouette of the building. Whether this is antiquarian Gothic Revivalism or Gothic survival is difficult to judge. The building is of exceptional architectural, historical and archaeological significance. However, the interior lost many of its historic finishes and much of its domestic character during the renovations of the 1960s. Its present stripped appearance seems insensitive and heavy-handed, and must be regarded as a negative or intrusive feature.


Visual/landscape The Priests’ House is dramatically located overlooking the defensive bank on the east side of the Castle, from which views the building has a scale and presence contrasting with its more modest, domestic courtyard elevation. This view from the east has frequently caught the imagination of artists and printmakers. The courtyard elevation enjoys an important visual relationship with the cobbled paving and the surrounding buildings, in particular the chapel. The Priests’ House is a building of considerable visual and landscape significance. Ecological/wildlife While the Priests’ House is not designated for its nature conservation interest, bats roost in the building, and are protected. It is therefore a building of considerable ecological/wildlife significance. Educational The Priests’ House is in use as a museum and is also, as the only habitable and relatively flexible building on the site (apart from the chapel and the small education room in the outbuilding to the north), important as the location of educational activity. It is much in demand from schools, and is of considerable educational significance. 4.4.4. Management Issues Management issues relating to the Priests’ House include:

• Are the present uses appropriate, and could they be changed or extended? • Is the present appearance and presentation of the interior satisfactory and if

not how might it be improved? • Are access arrangements satisfactory?

These questions are addressed in Part 5. 4.5. THE GRANARY 4.5.1. Introduction The granary lies to the south and east of the chapel. It is built into a steep slope, presenting a single storey to the outer court, where it serves as the main ticket office and shop, and two storeys towards the courtyard of the Priests’ House, where it has arcaded ground floor openings, behind which are now located visitor lavatories. Apart from the arches on the east elevation, which are formed of red brick, the granary is built of Doulting rubble stone under a gabled stone slate roof. There are two casement windows on east elevation tucked under the eaves. At its northern end there formerly stood a single storey lean-to wash-house, built against the east wall of the chapel and demolished in the 1960s. At the southern end is a flight of steps linking the higher ground of the outer court and the lower courtyard in front of the Priests’ House. The granary has not been established with any certainty is likely to be early nineteenth century in date, and is certainly no later than 1838, when it is shown on the tithe map.


Figure xx: Granary, east (courtyard) elevation 4.5.2. Designations The building identified in the scheduling description as ‘the former ticket office and toilets’ is excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath it is included. While it may merit listing in grade II, at present the building does not appear to be separately listed. It is however listed by virtue of its physical attachment to, and forming part of the curtilage of, the listed chapel and Priests’ House. The granary is not designated for its nature conservation interest, and the building is not known to house any legally protected species or habitats. 4.5.3. Significance Architectural/Archaeological/Historical While the interior of the granary has been refitted in modern times, and contains no discernible features of interest, externally it is an attractive vernacular building, built of local materials matching those used elsewhere on the site. It is a tangible reminder of the agricultural use to which the castle was put in the years before its ‘rediscovery’ as a picturesque site and ancient monument. It is a building of considerable architectural and historic significance. 4.5.4. Management Issues The use of the granary does not raise any significant management issues, other than those relating to circulation and vehicular movement. These are addressed in part 5.


4.6. OTHER STRUCTURES 4.6.1. Description There are two smaller vernacular buildings surviving from the period of agricultural use. An outbuilding (figure xxi) lies to the north of the Priests’ House, built partially over the corner of the sunken garden in the former inner moat. It is built on a tapering plan on the line of the former curtain wall, of rubble Doulting stone under a gabled stone slate roof. The building is probably roughly contemporary with the granary; both structures are shown on the 1838 tithe map (Appendix 10).

Figure xxi: Outbuilding from Priests’ House courtyard

Figure xxii: Garage Lying outside the east gatehouse is a gabled building of similar materials, now a garage (figure xxii). This is a much rebuilt former stable, shown on late-eighteenth century


engravings with a steeply pitched lean-to roof, and rebuilt in its present form before 1890 (Hughes 2001). This building formed part of a yard to the farmhouse (former Priest’s House), outside the enclosure and accessed from an arched gateway formed in the curtain wall immediately to the south of the house in the seventeenth century. 4.6.2. Designations The garage is specifically excluded from the scheduling, and the outbuilding is not specifically included (although the ground beneath both structures is included). Neither building is separately listed, but the outbuilding is deemed to be listed by virtue of its physical attachment to, and location within the curtilage of the grade II* Priests’ House, and the garage by virtue of its attachment to the grade I listed curtain wall. 4.6.3. Significance The outbuilding and store are of some architectural and historical interest, as modest vernacular buildings possessing group value. They do not have any discernible ecological, social or other significance. 4.6.4. Management Issues These are practical buildings which are capable of serving a range of purposes. See part 5.


PART FIVE: KEY ISSUES This Statement of Significance is not intended to provide ready-made solutions to questions relating to the management or development of Farleigh Hungerford Castle. These questions require detailed specialist input and careful evaluation, and any suggestions or proposals contained here should be subject to rigorous debate and consultation. However, the document can suggest a series of benchmarks based on significance which can be used to assess proposals which might have an impact on the site and its buildings. The Castle is a monument in state guardianship, but at the same time it is a visitor attraction which needs to be presented in an attractive and comprehensible manner. While much of the site consists of structures and features which do not lend themselves to any ‘use’ as such, it also contains buildings which are in use and are capable of adaptation. Those parts which are not in functional use are nevertheless susceptible to damage or erosion from the elements or from visitors. Present day visitor and other needs or expectations may generate a desire for adaptation of the site and its buildings. It is important that such considerations should take full account of what is historically significant, and that this informs any proposals for change. 5.1. FUTURE PRESENTATION, MAINTENANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE 5.1.1. Towers, east gatehouse, curtain walls and defences These should continue to be maintained and repaired as necessary, following the relevant policies set out in part 6. The general policy should be to ‘conserve as found’, with no attempt to return these structures to earlier appearances. Aesthetic considerations will be balanced with archaeological; benevolent plant growth should not be discouraged and the qualities of the structure as a pleasing ruin as well as an archaeological document should be borne in mind. 5.1.2. Footings and below-ground archaeology There are several areas in the site where the footings and foundations have been revealed, and in some areas rebuilt and raised, in order better to inform the presentation and understanding of the site. This is particularly so within the Inner Court, although there are also significant areas of ‘revealed archaeology’ in the outer court and outside the east gatehouse. These attempts have characterised the management of the site since the 1840s, and especially since the 1920s, but have not always significantly aided its presentation or conservation, or our understanding of it. In the Inner Court it is not immediately clear whether the hard landscaped areas represent former internal or external spaces, whether low walls represent internal or external faces, or whether exposed areas belong to former ground floor areas, or to basement areas. The precise date, meaning and significance of some of the low walls is still not fully understood. Furthermore, there is no clear visitors’ route through this area. Elsewhere, some areas of paving are incoherent and add little to the visual presentation of the site. The surfaces and footings are prone to damage from frost and from visitors’ feet.


Figure xxiii: Inner Court looking north

The presentation of the exposed footings and paved areas therefore needs to be rationalised and improved, and there would appear to be a case for reburying some of these features, either partially or totally. This is a possibly contentious idea, and presents particular difficulties in the Inner Court. Reburial might be considered if the area in question:

• is physically vulnerable and would be best protected in this way; • is of relatively lesser significance; • does not readily add to the appearance, presentation and understanding of the

site. Wholesale reburial of features in the area of the Inner Court is not desirable; it is recommended that those belonging to the Great Hall, Great chamber and undercroft, kitchen range, east and west ranges and inner gatehouse should remain delineated. Areas which might fulfil some or all of the criteria for reburial include the following (please refer to ground plan and phased site plan at appendix 1 and appendix 4):

1. Within the Inner Court, all existing features of the inner courtyard, including the pitched floor, which is suffering from exposure and visitors’ feet. The outline of the former courtyard could be delineated in some manner, perhaps by low box hedging. The footings of the ranges running around the east, west and south sides of the court (including the sunken area in the south east corner), should be retained on view.

2. The footings of the seventeenth century house outside the east

gatehouse. These were excavated and exposed soon after the Castle was transferred into guardianship. The footings are more extensive than the evidence of the above-ground structure shown in early engravings suggests, and their true nature and function has not been established. The footings


relate to a building which is of significance in telling the post-medieval story of the Castle. However, their current presentation (given their prominent location) gives them undue emphasis, adds little to the appearance and presentation of the site, and requires regular maintenance and repair. Infilling while leaving one or two of the upper courses visible would adequately draw attention to the existence of buildings here; if desired, this information could be expanded upon in interpretative panels or in a future guidebook.

3. The floor of the former stables abutting the inner face of the south

curtain wall of the Outer Court is of interest insofar as it denotes the function of the buildings previously located here, with evidence of the threshold, drainage etc. It is suggested that the main paved area should be retained, and the outlying fragmentary sections of paved area reburied. The fact that the stable buildings were originally more extensive than the retained excavated floor area suggests can be brought to visitors’ attention by other means.

4. The remains of paving before the entrance to the former barbican, as

excavated, are random and fairly meaningless, as well as presenting a possible trip hazard close to the steps. It is recommended that these areas are buried and the steps, which are in poor condition, consolidated and built up as necessary.

5. The area within the former west gateway could be infilled to provide

reasonably level access from the footpath. Provision of steps would allow for safer public access from the gate to the dry ditch running to the south. Here the revetments are in need of consolidation, repair and localised rebuilding.

The visual confusion in the inner court would be reduced and the present rather sterile appearance enhanced by the introduction of a new landscaping scheme over the courtyard area. This would make this area more accessible to disabled visitors, and allow the creation of a viewing platform for the area of the main buildings of the Inner Court. Some of the walls of the Inner Court have been repointed in hard cement which is now cracking and thereby allowing moisture to enter the core. These will need careful conservation. Removal of the hard mortar may be more damaging than its retention, and the hard mortar can be regarded as of significance in the history of the management of the site. However, where it is clearly doing harm, and its removal can be effected without causing damage, it should be removed and made good with an appropriate lime mortar. Where existing footings are retained, they should be maintained and repaired, ensuring that the repairs take account of the fact that in parts they represent a nineteenth century augmentation. Repairs should be preceded by appropriate analysis and recording. Medieval, nineteenth century and twentieth century work may all call for different repair techniques, so that distinct phases are not homogenised in the course of repairs. The possibility of infilling the excavated moat to the inner court, between the inner gatehouse and the south-west tower, has also been raised2. Previously infilled to create a garden in the seventeenth century or earlier, this area was excavated by the Ministry in the 1920s. While reburial would return this area to something approaching an earlier

2 EH brief for conservation statement.


appearance, this solution is not recommended unless the conservation case for doing so is overwhelming. The excavated moat is of evident interest to visitors, marks the separation between the inner and outer courts, adds visual interest and articulation to the site, and is not subject to wear and tear from visitors’ feet. 5.1.3. The chapel In recent years the St Leonard’s Chapel Trust has been formed, to encourage wider use of the chapel for worship and other appropriate activities, and to encourage the maintenance and repair of the structure. English Heritage is encouraged to continue to work in partnership with the Trust to ensure the continued and extended appropriate use of the chapel. Use While the building is occasionally used for services, the chapel is essentially a monument in guardianship and presented as such. However, there would appear to be scope for increased use of an appropriate nature, such as weddings (if it is licensed for these – otherwise for blessings) and concerts, as well as for religious services. The Trust owns a collection of plastic chairs which are stored elsewhere on site and put out as the occasion demands. The provision of permanent seating of appropriate materials and design would encourage wider use of the chapel. Some of these uses would be income generating. If they were to take place outside the summer months, the question of heating the chapel, and the impact that this might have on the fabric (notably the wall paintings), would need to be addressed. In 1923 plans were prepared, but not implemented, for the installation of heating in the chapel (Hughes 2003, 41), placing the boiler in a vault under the chancel. Appearance and presentation Although a medieval structure, the interior of the chapel contains a considerable amount of later embellishment and rebuilding, particularly dating from the seventeenth century. This was a time of considerable religious turbulence and discord, both within the Hungerford family and in the country at large. A possibly contentious idea, but one which may need to be addressed in the future, would be the reinstatement of a plaster ceiling in the nave and chancel. That there was a ceiling on this seventeenth century roof is clear from the fabric and from documentary evidence (Hughes 2003, 16) and reinstatement would arguably provide a greater degree of architectural homogeneity to the interior, as well as lightening it and helping to keep down heating costs (should heating ever be considered necessary or desirable). The obstacle to wheelchair access to the chapel has been overcome by the addition of a chair lift alongside the steps at the west end. This is a utilitarian addition which does not enhance the chapel, but which is relatively unobtrusive, has not damaged significant fabric, and has added greatly to the experience of disabled visitors. The pulpit enjoys an uneasy status, not quite liturgical fitting, yet not wholly an exhibit. Its integrity as either would be enhanced by the reinstatement of steps. Maintenance and repair The maintenance and repair of the building envelope, and of the walls and gateway marking the chapel enclosure, is relatively straightforward and is covered by relevant


policies in part 6. The conservation of the wall paintings and the stained glass are matters of current concern; dampness continues to affect the wall paintings, and normal ongoing deterioration coupled with previous inappropriate repairs is affecting the glass. English Heritage is in receipt of appropriate specialist advice on these matters, and monitoring is taking place. Similarly, specialist advice should be sought when works are proposed for any of the monuments. Setting The area around the chapel within the perimeter wall is attractively laid out as a garden. This does not seem inappropriate, although it does of course have maintenance implications. 5.1.4. The Priests’ House Use The Priests’ House is now used as a museum and is entered by a doorway and steps from the courtyard. It has recently been adapted to facilitate wheelchair access to the ground floor. In its present form the building has two rooms on each floor, with some items from the chapel included in the display. At present the displays are spread around the building, and are not always clearly presented. For example, the provenance and relevance to this site of the sacred vessels and liturgical items displayed on the first floor is not explained. Exhibits are mixed with display boards, and there is no clear demarcation of areas set aside for different purposes e.g. display, interpretation, or practical areas for school parties. The cellular form of the building makes a variety of distinct uses possible, depending on English Heritage’s needs and priorities. The building is capable of either vertical or horizontal division to facilitate these uses, but a vertical division that worked with its two principal phases would be preferable. Possible uses include

• Museum space • Location for interpretative material • Education room • Tea room • Hospitality • Staff accommodation • Holiday accommodation

The building is clearly the most appropriate on the site for the display of exhibits and interpretative material, and for educational purposes. These are central to the understanding and enjoyment of the site, and are not optional extras (although it is worth reviewing the need to display all these exhibits in this building, or indeed on this site). At present there is no provision for refreshments on site. A modest provision would no doubt be welcomed by visitors, and possibly add to the length of their stay. However, this may need staffing, and the income generated may not justify the additional costs. An alternative option might be to allow for some form of self-service provision in the existing education room.


Provision for private functions would be useful in terms of income generation. Use of the upper floor for this purpose is the most obvious option, although large gatherings might require an additional staircase. Questions of access might also arise. Alternatively, a part of the building could be used for staff living accommodation or let as holiday accommodation. Either option may bring security benefits by virtue of overnight human presence on site, although the security implications of letting would need to be carefully considered. The seventeenth century addition might be furnished appropriately for such a purpose, with the original medieval building retained as the public area. Treatment and presentation The treatment and presentation of the interior is not straightforward. The building is self-evidently of considerable architectural and historical importance, but the thorough programme of renovation undertaken after it was taken into guardianship left it looking rather stripped and lifeless. That programme included the removal of internal partitions, wall and ceiling plaster as well as the renewal of floor boarding and part of the ceiling structure. Two staircases were removed and a new spiral staircase introduced at the southwest corner of the building.

Figure xxiv: Priests’ House interior, ground floor, north end

The present appearance of the interior bears little relation to any previous appearance, but rather bears the hallmark of a now unfashionable approach to the treatment of ancient monuments. However, it would be inappropriate, and probably impossible, to return the building to any of its previous appearances. What is possible, and desirable, is an enhancement of its domestic character and a mitigation of its ‘scraped’ appearance. This could be achieved by of applying plaster and limewash to the internal walls and ground floor ceilings. This would effect a radical transformation of these spaces, and would require careful explanation to visitors. The spiral wooden staircase is not considered to be of a particularly appropriate design and its replacement with a well detailed and constructed, but non period-specific, staircase might be considered. This need not be in the present location; the relocation of


the stair to the northern end of the building (figure xxiv), within the seventeenth century extension, may allow for a more efficient use of both floors. This location is closer to the existing entrance for wheelchair users and, if it were ever considered desirable or possible to extend wheelchair access to the first floor, it should be possible to provide a lift in this area. Maintenance and repair The maintenance and repair of the exterior of the Priests’ House is relatively straightforward and is covered by relevant policies in part 6. 5.1.5. The granary/ticket office Use The granary lends itself well to its current use as a ticket office and shop with lavatories below, but its location within the site does raise management issues. The upper floor facing towards the Outer Court is the current ticket office and shop. Visitors arriving by vehicle (the vast majority) have to drive through the east gatehouse, cross the Outer Court in their vehicle, park beyond the west gate, and work their way back to the ticket office on foot. It is to be hoped that these arrangements can be improved upon (see below), but even in that event, continued use of the building as a shop and ticket office would remain likely. The location of the lavatories on the ‘ground floor’ behind the arcades facing towards the courtyard is appropriate. They have been recently upgraded to provide improved facilities for the disabled, and by contrast the existing unimproved lavatories for non-disabled visitors now appear somewhat below standard. Maintenance and repair The maintenance and repair of the outer structural envelope of the granary is relatively straightforward and is covered by relevant policies in part 6. 5.1.6. Other structures Use The outbuilding to the north of the Priests’ House and the garage below and outside the east gate are practical buildings which are capable of serving a range of purposes. The current use of the outbuilding as an education room is useful, but it could also lend itself to other purposes, such as a small self-service refreshment area. The garage is a useful adjunct to the Priest’s House, and maybe particularly useful if part of that building was to be used as staff or holiday accommodation. Maintenance and repair The maintenance and repair of these two buildings is relatively straightforward and is covered by relevant policies in part 6.


5.2. CIRCULATION AND PARKING Parking The present arrangements for car parking are far from ideal. At present visitors arriving by car enter the site at the east gatehouse, and drive across the outer court. If another vehicle is leaving at that point, one of them would need to pull onto the grass to allow the other to pass. Visitors then pass through the former west gate, beyond which is the parking area. They then walk back to the ticket office, close to the east gatehouse (unless their curiosity has been insufficiently aroused, in which case they might turn around and drive away).

Figure xxv: Vehicular movement in the Outer Court The visual appearance of the Outer Court is not enhanced by vehicles driving across it (figure xxv). The tarmac surface and speed bumps are visually inappropriate, however practical and necessary. Vehicular movement spoils the tranquillity of the outer court, and is a possible hazard to public safety. It may cause difficulties when events take place in the Outer Court. For all of these reasons, it is highly desirable that vehicles should be excluded from the Outer Court. Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory present manner in which it is reached, the location of the car park is acceptable, and indeed there is no obvious alternative location. A different means of reaching it therefore might be considered. This could best be achieved by the acquisition of land immediately to the south of the Castle (figure xxvi), which would provide an alternative vehicle route around the outside of the site to the existing car park. In that event, an assessment of the archaeological impact of the new route would need to be made. An assessment of the significance of the dry stone wall separating the orchard from the present parking area would also be required if a new opening was required here.

If diversion of the drive is not feasible, replacement of the existing tarmac and speed bumps with stone flagged ‘cart tracks’ set in the grass would have a traffic calming effect and would be visually more appropriate.


Figure xxvi: Orchard site

Public footpath

At present a public footpath runs from the east gatehouse, through the Outer Court and out through the west gate. The footpath should be accessible to walkers at all times, even by night, when the Castle is closed to the public, and during the winter months, when it is only open at weekends. This clearly gives rise to security and other management anxieties, and it is desirable on both counts that the footpath should be re-routed around the outside of the perimeter wall, perhaps following the line of a new vehicular access through the orchard, should that become possible. However, re-routing a public footpath is not an easy matter, and there is no assurance that consent would be forthcoming.

It is worth considering whether the security concerns raised by the footpath are more apparent than real. It is clear that anybody determined to enter the grounds of the Castle with mischievous intent would not find this difficult, and locking the gates would not be a major deterrent. However, locking the gates is likely to give rise to reasonable objections from legitimate users of the footpath. It might therefore be preferable to install a wicket gate in the east gatehouse for the use of walkers outside regular opening hours. This coupled with appropriate security lighting and CCTV coverage may allay the security concerns, although a human presence on site would be better still.

5.3. INCREASING VISITOR NUMBERS The author is not an expert in marketing, and no market research has accompanied the preparation of this Conservation Statement. While it is apparent that the site could accommodate significantly more visitors, it is doubtful whether it could do so under present arrangements. Most visitors arrive by car, and a significant increase in vehicular movements across the outer court would generate problems. However, increased numbers of coach parties could be encouraged. The absence of catering may discourage some visitors from returning. The lack of seating and heating hinders the use of the chapel, and the lack of a water supply and drainage limits the potential of the Priests’ House. It is likely that improvements in all these areas, accompanied by increased marketing and promotion, would lead to an increase in new and repeat visitors.


5.4. HOSPITALITY It is considered that there are opportunities for increased use of the site for hospitality, as identified above. These are desirable in so far as they help to generate income and raise the profile of the property. However, they should not be allowed to interfere with visitors’ experience or enjoyment of the property or put at risk the buildings, their contents or the archaeology of the site. Use of the Priests’ House for private functions or of the chapel for weddings or other functions should not take place during published opening times. The site contains two locations in which marquees might be erected for hospitality or other revenue-generating events. The most convenient location is on the grass in the outer court. However, this is also a highly prominent location, and is unlikely to be acceptable during public visiting hours. A second possible location is on the site of the infilled moat between the inner gatehouse and south-east tower. This is on a built up area, and is unlikely to involve disturbance of below-ground archaeological features. It also has the benefit of being a relatively inconspicuous location. However, it may present problems relating to access and means of escape, especially for larger gatherings. Applications for marquees should include details of the proposed method of erecting and stabilising the structure. Concerns about possible damage to below ground archaeological features would be overcome by a requirement that marquees should be stabilised and weighted with water or concrete weights, with the use of pegs and stakes prohibited. 5.5. DISABLED ACCESS An access survey was carried out in 2001 and various improvements and adaptations have been made. The chapel and Priests’ House have been adapted to allow for wheelchair access. At present only the ground floor of the latter is accessible, but it may be possible to provide access to the first floor by means of a platform lift if this were considered desirable and affordable. This would however need to be very carefully designed and located in order to be acceptable in historic buildings terms, and the cost would need to be weighed against the benefit. The Inner Court is not easily negotiable for those operating wheelchairs, or for those with impaired mobility, although this would be improved were the recommendations of 5.1.2. (above) to be implemented.


PART SIX: POLICIES 6.1. Statutory and legal requirements Issue: English Heritage is required to comply with all relevant statutory and legal requirements relating to the site. Discussion: The current (2007) review of heritage protection proposes a unified designation system and a streamlining of consent regimes. This should greatly simplify the management of Farleigh Hungerford Castle, which is at present subject to a variety of designations and consent regimes. Pending the implementation of such reforms, however, existing arrangements will continue. There may be times when the demands of one piece of legislation come into conflict with those of another, e.g. the requirements of DDA or wildlife legislation may be difficult to reconcile with conservation demands. In such cases disputes should be resolved with reference to this assessment of significance, and to the status of such requirements (mandatory or simply desirable). The principal legal and statutory requirements that will need to be considered are:

• Scheduled monument consent: Works to or within the area of a scheduled ancient monument, including repair, are normally subject to scheduled monument consent (SMC). However, works carried out by English Heritage on monuments in the care of the Secretary of State are subject to Class VI of the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1984, whereby SMC may be granted, subject to any conditions specified in the schedule.

• Listed building consent: SMC takes precedence over listed building consent

and works to areas included in the scheduling do not require LBC. However, the chapel, education room, granary (shop and lavatories) and garage are excluded from the schedule, and are listed either in their own right or as curtilage structures. Listed building consent will be required from the local authority for any works of alteration, extension or demolition that affect the character of these as buildings of special architectural and interest.

• Planning permission: Any alterations that materially affect the character of

the building constitute ‘development’ and therefore require planning permission. New developments, access routes or increased parking provision would also be subject to the control of the local planning authority. The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications.

• Safety of Occupants: Arrangements for means of escape in case of fire come

within the ambit of the Building Regulations and Building Control. Although English Heritage benefits from the Crown Exemption with regard to building controls, it may be advisable to consult the relevant public authorities if a new or extended use is likely to have significant fire or other public safety implications.

• CDM Regulations (1995): The CDM regulations require the appointment of a

Planning Supervisor to ensure the safe execution of any works, be they alterations, repair or maintenance, which come within the scope of the regulations. The design of alterations and repairs must be made in the


knowledge that the risks on site from construction operations are recognised and fully addressed.

• Disability Discrimination Act (1995): Under Part III of the DDA service

providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to any physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use the service provided. It should be borne in mind that the DDA does not override planning or listed building legislation, and the need to obtain those approvals too.

• Health and Safety: Health and safety issues should be managed bearing in

mind the need to maintain and preserve the special architectural, archaeological and historic interest of the site, as well as meeting health and safety objectives.

• Bats: Works that might disturb bats or their roosts and routes should be

preceded by a bat survey, and consent sought from Natural England, who will recommend to Defra whether a licence should be granted and, if so, on what terms.

Policy 1: Appropriate approvals will be sought and obtained wherever necessary, and all work shall comply with statutory requirements. 6.2. Compliance with best conservation practice Issue: The need for all repair, maintenance and general conservation work to be carried out in accordance with best conservation practice.

Discussion: The following general principles should underpin any conservation and repair work programmes.

• To repair, develop and maintain the site in accordance with established international and national conservation standards and to ensure that all statutory and legal requirements are met.

• To ensure that the design and execution of repairs or alterations takes

account of the special interest of the site and is undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced professional advisers and contractors.

• To ensure that all health and safety issues are resolved bearing in mind both

the need to maintain and preserve the historic appearance of the buildings and at the same time provide safe access, circulation, and enjoyment thereof.

• To pursue a policy of minimum intervention to the historic fabric of the site.

Policy 2: The safeguarding of the special architectural, archaeological, and historical interest of the Castle will underpin all works of repair, maintenance and adaptation, and all such works will be carried out in compliance with best conservation practice.

6.3. Ongoing programme of planned maintenance Issue: The need for regular, prompt and efficient maintenance, and the principles and practices that should be followed when undertaking this.


Discussion: The need for regular, prompt and efficient maintenance has been proven to be a successful and prudent method of preserving historic buildings and ancient monuments. Neglect of small items of repair – such as regular cleaning of gutters and down-pipes – can result in small defects developing rapidly into major problems.

A regular programme of inspection supported by careful maintenance and repair should be formulated, and sufficient funding allocated to ensure that it is properly carried out. Specific points to be addressed include:

• The site should be cared for by a strictly planned maintenance and repair regime based upon a complete and sound knowledge of its construction and materials, coupled with regular inspections and prompt preventative maintenance and repair.

• The site should be subject to a programme of regular (quinquennial)

inspections and reports. Such inspections should be on a comparative basis so that the rate of deterioration of the fabric can be ascertained and monitored.

• Building fabric should not be over-restored, but should rather be brought up

to a condition where it can be looked after by normal building maintenance. Works of repair and maintenance should not attempt to make the building look ‘new’ by injudicious cleaning or over enthusiastic repair resulting in the destruction of the patina of age. Cleaning of the stonework is not considered desirable or necessary.

• On the roofed structures, particular attention should be paid to keeping all

rainwater goods such as gutters, down-pipes and gullies in good working order and free from debris and leaves. Inspections of the rainwater system should take place by the maintenance team a minimum of twice a year at the beginning and end of autumn.

• Where building work is to be carried out all existing historic fabric should be

carefully and suitably protected from damage.

• Regular documentation supplemented by photography should be undertaken as the maintenance personnel responsible for looking after the site will change.

• Lightning conductors if required should be planned so that the exposed

façades are not disfigured with down tapes. Down tapes should be located in unobtrusive corner recesses or within rainwater pipes.

• The building and its architectural elements should be protected from

damage or erosion caused by pigeon or other bird guano. Policy 3: A documented maintenance programme will be instituted, with appropriate supervision and audit procedures in place to monitor its performance. 6.4. Restoration of missing features Issue: From time to time the opportunity may present itself for elements of the building to be returned to an earlier form. An appropriate policy needs to be in place to guide such decisions.


Discussion: The general principle adopted by English Heritage in the management and maintenance of its sites is to ‘conserve as found’, and there is a presumption that this policy should apply here. Conjectural restoration of missing features should not be countenanced in any circumstances. However, there may be instances where reinstatement of previously-removed features or finishes is desirable, in order to aid the presentation, appearance or conservation of the fabric. Reinstatement of a missing feature or element may be permitted, where one or more of the following criteria apply:

• Reinstatement is supported by incontrovertible evidence, from the fabric and/or from documentary sources;

• It would avoid damage to significant historic fabric; • It would be readily reversible, should future needs or discoveries make this

desirable; and • It would be beneficial to the presentation or conservation of the site.

Policy 4: There shall be a presumption in favour of the conservation of the monument ‘as found’, and against the restoration of missing features. Restoration may be acceptable in certain circumstances, and would need to be justified against the criteria set out in the Conservation Statement, and made subject to appropriate consultation. 6.5. Unavoidable fabric removal Issue: Principles to be followed when repairs and alterations appear to necessitate the removal of building fabric, details, fixtures or fittings. Discussion: Any proposal to repair or alter the building should be assessed to see if it affects historic fabric. If the removal of original or significant fabric is deemed to be unavoidable, it should be established that there is not a more appropriate and less intrusive alternative. Consideration of fabric removal should be based on the following principles:

• Changes and aesthetic discontinuities may form part of the special interest of the building or monument;

• Subsequent changes to the original design should normally be retained if they contribute to the significance of the building or monument; and

• Only changes which remove positively detrimental alterations should be encouraged.

Where important historical elements have been removed in the course of building works, these should be stored for future reinstatement or reuse, and the existence of such elements should be drawn to the attention of designers and contractors carrying out works of alteration or adaptation. Before removal, the fabric should be appropriately recorded. Policy 5: Proposals for the removal of original fabric will be tested against the principles set out in the Conservation Statement.

6.6. Below-ground archaeology Issue: The site is of national archaeological importance, and any works affecting below-ground archaeology need to take account of this.


Discussion: The archaeological significance of the site is beyond dispute. Poorly planned landscaping works, service trenching or other disturbances associated with building works could result in the destruction and loss of archaeological evidence. It is therefore important that appropriate procedures are in place to safeguard this aspect of the site’s significance. Properly observed and recorded trenches could provide valuable information about the history of the site. Records of such interventions should be properly evaluated and preserved in the site archive. Any work should take account of the principles and policies outlined in PPG16 (Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology). Policy 6: The likelihood of the existence of important archaeological evidence will be considered when planning any development or maintenance work, and appropriate action will be taken to mitigate the impact of any such work. Any work will take account of the principles and policies outlined in PPG16.

6.7. Access Issue: Under the Disability Discrimination Act (1995), service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to any physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use the service provided. As an employer too, English Heritage has a duty to make reasonable adjustment to avoid substantial disadvantage to any employee. Discussion: The DDA has provided the impetus for a great many physical changes to historic buildings and sites, most usually to provide for wheelchair access. These changes can be destructive, but the worst consequences can usually be avoided with careful thought and imagination. In the case of Farleigh Hungerford the chapel and the ground floor of the Priests’ House have been made accessible in as unobtrusive and undamaging way as the circumstances have allowed. The first floor of the Priests’ House is at present inaccessible and the area of the Inner Court accessible only with difficulty. Improvements in both areas are both desirable and capable of being achieved without great damage to the site and its significance (see Part 5, Key Issues). It should be borne in mind that the duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the need of people with disabilities is a continuous one, and not the result of a once-and-for-all audit. English Heritage will therefore need to review the impact of the changes that have been made, and the need to make further changes, at periodic intervals. Useful guidance on access is contained within English Heritage’s Easy Access to Historic Properties (2004). Policy 7: Easy and dignified access to and within the site and its buildings shall be encouraged, wherever this can be achieved without damage to historic fabric and negative impact on the appearance of the site and buildings. 6.8. Site hospitality Issue: Whether the site lends itself to use for hospitality and corporate entertainment. Discussion: It is considered that there are opportunities for increased use of the site for hospitality, as identified in 5.4 (above). These are desirable in so far as they help to generate income and raise the profile of the property. However, they should not be allowed to interfere with visitors’ experience or enjoyment of the property, or put at risk


the buildings and their contents, or the below-ground archaeology of the site. Use of the Priests’ House for private functions or of the chapel for weddings or other functions should not take place during published opening times. Marquees should be erected and dismantled outside opening times. There are two possible locations for these, depending on the nature and timing of the function; these are the outer court and the sunken garden. Applications for marquees should include details of the proposed method of erecting and stabilising the structure. Marquees should be stabilised and weighted with water or concrete weights, and the use of pegs and stakes prohibited. Policy 8: The use of the site for hospitality and other income-generating functions will be encouraged, provided they do not interfere with visitors’ experience or enjoyment of the property. Marquees will be permitted only in the Outer Court and sunken garden, and shall be stabilised and weighted with water or concrete weights. 6.9. Introduction of new technologies and services Issue: How to effect the sensitive introduction of new technologies and services where these are conducive to the continued or extended use of the building.

Discussion: The roofed buildings on the site (Chapel, Priests’ House, Granary, store, and garage) may all be in need of new or upgraded services from time to time to allow for their continued or extended use. It is important that the provision of new technologies and services is carried out with full regard to their visual and physical effect on the archaeological and architectural character and appearance of the building in question. It may be anticipated that those new services and facilities will in turn become redundant in due course, and will need to be upgraded or replaced to meet new requirements. For this reason such installations should normally be non-destructive and reversible. Equally, existing unsympathetic or redundant service installations should be carefully removed and the surfaces made good. The design and installation of services in historic buildings is a highly specialised area, demanding an appropriate level of professional advice and the use of specialist contractors. Great care and skill are needed to prevent irreversible damage and loss of historic fabric. Policy 9: The physical and visual impact of new technologies and services will be fully evaluated and works designed to ensure that the significance of the building is not compromised. Any changes will be as far as possible reversible. Existing unsympathetic or redundant service installations will be carefully removed and the surfaces made good.

6.10. Ecology and wildlife Issue: To ensure that the ecological and wildlife significance of the site is taken into account and given due protection. Discussion: The site is of ecological and wildlife significance. Parts of it are inhabited and used as roosts by bats and nesting birds. All species of bat are fully protected by law, as are their roost sites, and most resident nesting birds are protected by provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Any works which involve disturbance to or modification of a bat roost will require a licence. No wall cavities which could hide a roosting bat should be filled unless they have first been checked for the presence of bats


by a competent person. External artificial lighting should be kept to a minimum, especially around the chapel. Staff and contractors should be advised of the presence of bats and nesting birds, and plan operations around this. If there is a perceived conflict between different conservation objectives (e.g. from bats’ urine on the monuments in the chapel), English Heritage will work with others to seek to resolve this on the basis of knowledge, consultation and agreement. Such discussions need to be informed by this assessment of significance and by the weight and status of the legislation in question (ultimately, which should take priority). Damaging woody vegetation on the walls and defences should be controlled using spot treatment or weed wipes only, to protect any botanical interest, and to preserve the picturesque qualities of the site. The two banks along the southern boundary of the site contain the most diverse flora within the site.

Policy 10: English Heritage will ensure that staff and contractors are aware of the ecological and wildlife significance of the site, and will work with the relevant authorities to ensure that all conservation requirements are appropriately addressed when works are proposed. Site management will be geared towards maintaining and enhancing bio-diversity, where this is compatible with building conservation needs.

6.11. Security equipment and signs Issue: The need for signs and security equipment to be located and installed so as to minimise their physical and visual impact. Discussion: The public use of the building demands clear and appropriate signs. There may also be the need for security equipment (CCTV cameras, burglar alarms). The provision of new signs or security equipment should bear in mind the advice of PPG15 (C.69) that ‘only undamaging and visually unobtrusive positions for such fixtures should be agreed’. Archaeologically sensitive areas should be avoided, and wherever possible, non-technological solutions adopted. Policy 11: Signs and security installations will be kept to a minimum and located and fixed so as to minimise visual and physical disturbance.

6.12. Further building research and recording Issue: The importance of ensuring that further research and recording needs are identified at an early stage. Discussion: Farleigh Hungerford Castle has been extensively studied and recorded, and the list of documents and publications in the bibliography at the end of this Conservation Statement is by no means comprehensive. Nevertheless there are certain gaps in our knowledge. Records relating to works carried out in the earlier years of guardianship are surprisingly sparse. In recent years very valuable work has been done by Kirsty Rodwell in detailed analysis of the fabric in certain areas, and by Pat Hughes on the documentary and other evidence relating to the post-medieval history of the site. Further work on the detailed analysis of the fabric would be desirable, particularly in those areas of the Inner Court where the age, purpose and significance of some low walls have yet to be established. Further research into the history and development of the Priests’ House would also be welcome, especially if changes are proposed to that building.

In the event of a re-routing of the vehicle circulation through the orchard, an assessment of the archaeological impact of the new route would need to be made. An assessment of


the significance of the dry stone wall separating the orchard from the present parking area would need to be made if a new opening was required here.

Policy 12: At an early stage in planning any new work, whether internal or external, appropriate building analysis and documentary research will be undertaken to inform the proposals. Appropriate inventories will be compiled to safeguard early fittings and features.

6.13. Archive Issue: The need for an improved central archive, detailing information currently available, to be updated on a regular basis.

Discussion: At present the files and archives relating to the site are held at English Heritage’s regional offices at Queen Square. Over the coming years it may be necessary to revisit and reassess certain historical information, and future research may disclose archive and other sources not previously reviewed. Rationalising and indexing the central site archive would ensure that copies or extracts of relevant data were available at one point for those needing information. The archive should continue to be augmented with further investigation and survey work, together with details of repair and maintenance.

Policy 13: A properly curated and accessible archive will be established and kept up to date with the regular addition of records of works, investigations and surveys.


BIBLIOGRAPHY Unpublished works Conservation Consultancy: Ecological Assessment of Farleigh Hungerford Castle, 1999 Country Contracts: Bat Survey, May 2006 English Heritage: Farleigh Hungerford Castle Priests’ House; Discussion Document: Future Uses and Potential for Improvements, August 1999 English Heritage: Farleigh Hungerford Castle: Site Landscaping, Stage 1 Report: Project Proposal (undated) Hughes, P: Farleigh Hungerford Castle: Visual Evidence of the Site 1700-2000, for English Heritage, 2001 Hughes, P: The Chapel at Farleigh Hungerford Castle: Building and Repair 1363-2003, for English Heritage, 2003 Humphries, D (Holy Well Glass): St Leonard’s Chapel, Farleigh Hungerford Castle: Glazing Report, 2006 Purcell Miller Tritton and Partners, Access Survey, 2001 Rodwell, K.A. Farleigh Hungerford Castle, Somerset: An investigation of the fabric of the inner court, 2004. Somerset Ecology Consultants: Botanical Survey and Evaluation of Farleigh Castle, 1991 Published works English Heritage: Farleigh Hungerford Castle: Information for Teachers, 1999

Jackson, Revd J.E: A Guide to Farleigh Hungerford, Co. Somerset, Third edition, 1879

Kightly, C: Farleigh Hungerford Castle, English Heritage guidebook, 2006

Oman, C: History of Farleigh Hungerford Castle in Somerset, 1926


APPENDIX 1: Ground Plan


APPENDIX 2: Guardianship area


APPENDIX 3: Scheduled area


APPENDIX 4: Phased site plan (prepared by Kirsty Rodwell)


APPENDIX 5: Key to phased site plan (Kirsty Rodwell)

FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD CASTLE Key to phased site plan

13th century or earlier

Late 14th century first phase

Late 14th century second phase

Probably 15th century, inner court

Priests’ house, 1430

Mid 15th century, outer court

16th or 17th century

Early 19th century

Walls, uncertain date

Drain courses

Historic paving


APPENDIX 6: Scheduling description

MONUMENT NUMBER --------------- 28840 NAME ---- FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD CASTLE MONUMENT DESCRIPTION -------------------- The monument includes an enclosure castle situated on high ground on the south bank of a bend in the River Frome. The castle which is Listed Grade I includes an inner court and outer court with natural and man-made defences surrounding it. The inner court lies at the north west end of the castle and comprises a hall with curtain wall and towers. The hall is of quadrangular plan comprising a rectangular enclosure surrounded by a curtain wall with a circular tower at each angle. The entrance to the hall is in the middle of the south side. The inside of much of the keep was divided into living quarters, which included a hall and kitchen, seen now as wall footings and substructures, while the northern corner was devoted to a garden. The north east and north west towers are ruined down to basement level, but the south west and south east towers remain upstanding in part. The curtain wall stands to full height in some places and is ruinous elsewhere. An inner gate, barbican and ditch separate the hall from the outer court. The ditch to the east of the gate is partly infilled; in the 17th century it contained a garden. The outer court, lying to the south east of the hall, is formed by a curtain wall which abuts the hall and encloses an irregular area of c.3000 sq metres. In the outer court is a chapel, the Priest's House, and the site of the stables. The curtain wall around the outer court has a tower and two entrances in its circuit, a west gate and an east gate formerly with a tower. In the outer court the chapel of Saint Leonard (Listed Grade I) and the Priest's House (Listed Grade II*) are still intact. The chapel was the parish church which was originally outside the defences, but was included within the outer court as the castle chapel when the curtain was built. The Priest's House is east of the chapel and separated from it by a narrow courtyard, and was extended northward to form a long low building in the 17th century. There is one tower, the south tower, surviving in the curtain wall. This has an arch restored in modern times which is included in the scheduling. The main entrance to the outer court is by the east gate. The gatehouse has modern battlements, as does the curtain wall in this area. The modern battlements are included in the scheduling to preserve the uniformity of the building as it exists today. Originally there was a drawbridge, but the ditch here was backfilled and domestic buildings erected in 1610-20. Their foundations are visible to the west of the causeway. Beyond the curtain wall and the keep is the natural defence of a steep scarp on the north and east sides of the castle. On the west and south sides the castle is defended by a moat. From the reign of William II to that of Edward III, Farleigh was held by the Montfort family and was known as Farleigh Montfort. Their original manor house was on the site of the later castle. In 1369-70


the manor was bought by Sir Thomas de Hungerford, who had been Speaker in the House of Commons in 1377. It was Sir Thomas who fortified the manor house and built the hall in 1380-90. His son, Sir Walter Hungerford, also a Speaker in the House of Commons, became Lord Hungerford in 1426, and from this time Farleigh was known as Farleigh Hungerford. Lord Hungerford added the outer court in 1420-30 including the moat with two dams, only one of which survives, to control the flow of water. The castle remained in the Hungerford family almost continually until 1686. In 1701 it was described as being very ruinous. All the buildings of the inner court, except the south east and south west towers and parts of the curtain wall, were destroyed in the 18th century. Eventually in 1915 it was placed in state care. In 1973-76 excavations were carried out north of the chapel and on the ditch and curtain wall of the west side of the outer court. A number of features within the area are excluded from the scheduling; these are the chapel, which is still in occasional use, wooden fence posts, telegraph poles, signs, tarmac and gravel surfaces, the garage abutting the south east part of the curtain wall, the former ticket office and toilets and modern fixtures and fittings within the Priest's House, the ground beneath all these features, however, is included. MONUMENT NUMBER --------------- 28840 NAME ---- FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD CASTLE ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANCE ------------------------ An enclosure castle is a defended residence or stronghold, built mainly of stone, in which the principal or sole defence comprises the walls and towers bounding the site. Some form of keep may have stood within the enclosure but this was not significant in defensive terms and served mainly to provide accommodation. Larger sites might have more than one line of walling and there are normally mural towers and gatehouses. Outside the walls a ditch, either waterfilled or dry, crossed by bridges may be found. The first enclosure castles were constructed at the time of the Norman Conquest. However, they developed considerably in form during the 12th century when defensive experience gained during the Crusades was applied to their design. The majority of examples were constructed in the 13th century although a few were built as late as the 14th century. Some represent reconstructions of earlier medieval earthwork castles of the motte and bailey type, although others were new creations. They provided strongly defended residences for the king or leading families and occur in both urban and rural situations. Enclosure castles are widely dispersed throughout England, with a slight concentration in Kent and Sussex supporting a vulnerable coast, and a strong concentration along the Welsh border where some of the best examples were built under Edward I. They are rare nationally with only 126 recorded examples. Considerable diversity of form is exhibited with no two examples being exactly alike. With other castle types, they are major medieval monument types which, belonging to the highest levels of society, frequently acted as major administrative centres and formed the foci for developing settlement patterns. Castles generally provide an emotive and evocative link to the past and can provide a valuable educational resource, both with respect to medieval warfare and defence and with respect to wider aspects of medieval


society. All examples retaining significant remains of medieval date are considered to be nationally important. The enclosure castle known as Farleigh Hungerford Castle is a striking and well preserved example of its class and is much visited by the public. The castle's builder, Sir Thomas Hungerford, was a prominent figure in the late 14th century and subsequent members of the Hungerford family played leading parts in the history of the country. The castle is well documented throughout its history. Farleigh Hungerford Castle is known from excavation to contain archaeological information and environmental evidence relating to the castle and the landscape in which it was constructed.


APPENDIX 7: List description - Castle

Building Details: Building Name: FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD CASTLE Parish: NORTON ST PHILIP District: MENDIP County: SOMERSET Postcode:

Details: LBS Number: 267186 Grade: I Date Listed: 16/11/1984 Date of Last Amendment: 16/11/1984 Date Delisted: NGR: ST8005957646

Listing Text: ST85NW NORTON ST. PHILIP CP FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD 2/239 Farleigh Hungerford Castle - GV I Castle. Site of early C14 Manor House for Montfort family, fortified 1370-1380 for Sir Thomas de Hungerford, barbican added c1420-30 for Sir Walter Hungerford, described as "very ruinous" by 1701. Coursed rough faced Doulting stone. Displayed foundations of Manor House with Hall and domestic range, rectangular Inner Court enclosed by partly surviving curtain walls on 4-sides with circular tower at each angle. Inner Gate; at middle of south side remains of 2 round fronted towers with paved passage. Defensive ditches on west and south, once spanned by drawbridge to Inner Gate. To the south, the Barbican enclosing the Outer Court and Chapel of St. Leonard (qv) partly surviving curtain walls and south and south-west towers with defensive ditches on all 3 sides. Main entrance by East Gate, once with drawbridge, now a causeway, ditch filled and domestic buildings erected c1610-20, only displayed foundations survive. 2-storey Gate house pointed arch set in square headed recess to receive drawbridge above; holes to receive drawbridge chains and, centrally the sickle badge of the Hungerfords; relieving arch


then 2-light stone mullioned window with dripmould surmounted by family coat of arms of the Hungerfords. West gate; mostly demolished, north jamb of archway survives. Scheduled Ancient Monument (Somerset County No.4) (Department of the Environment, Farleigh Hungerford Castle, 1979) Listing NGR: ST8005957646


APPENDIX 8: List description – chapel, perimeter walls and gateway

Building Details: Building Name: CHAPEL OF ST LEONARD, PERIMETER WALL AND GATEWAY FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD CASTLE Parish: NORTON ST PHILIP District: MENDIP County: SOMERSET Postcode:

Details: LBS Number: 267187 Grade: I Date Listed: 16/11/1984 Date of Last Amendment: 16/11/1984 Date Delisted: NGR: ST8012757623

Listing Text: ST85NW NORTON ST. PHILIP CP FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD 2/240 Chapel of St. Leonard, perimeter wall and gateway Farleigh Hungerford Castle - GV I Chapel, originally the Parish Church, now monument. Mid C14, with late C14, mid C15, early C16 and mid C19 additions and alterations. Random rubble Doulting stone with ashlar quoins. Stone slate gabled roof with copings. West Porch; Nave and Chancel plain rectangular with diagonally set buttresses at corners; projecting Chantry Chapel of St. Anne at north-east corner with Crypt beneath. West Porch; entered through 4-centred moulded arch, with Hungerford badge of sickles and sheath over, wagon roof, plaster ceiling now removed with moulded ribs and principals, carved and painted bosses. West door, moulded


pointed arch with 3-light perpendicular tracery window in pointed arch with dripmould over, probably mid C14. Nave and Chancel; 5-bays, 'A'-frame trusses with stop moulded chamfers on ties and collars, moulded plates. 5-windows, blocked before 1852. East window, 3-light elementary panel tracery under a depressed arch, from West door 5-steps lead down to Chapel flag-stone floor, at their foot a grave slab of a Chaplain, c1480 and to the east on 2-step podium, the Font; late C12, perhaps a survival from the earliest Church. On the east wall, wall paintings c1440, St. George slaying the dragon, conventional patterning and the Hungerford Arms, added in C16. On the south wall, wall painting of a knight, now almost disappeared. Pulpit; made up from pieces carved c1600. Piscina; ogee-headed c1440, brought from parish church 1874. Alter slab; probably original, rests against east wall. Chantry Chapel; added 1380-1390 for Sir Thomas Hungerford as burial place for himself and his family, entered from Chancel under a wide, near semi-circular moulded arch. Low pitched roof, roof timbers and walls richly decorated 1645-48, traces still survive. Black and white marble floor also 1645-48. Stained glass of Chantry chapel windows and in east window of Chancel, Flemish or Dutch C17 and C18, introduced in Mid C19. Tombs; under arch to Chantry Chapel, Sir Thomas Hungerford, 1398 and Joan Hussey, his wife 1412. 5 elongated quatrefoils with shields, recumbent effigies of Sir Thomas mailed, head resting on helm, feet on lion, his lady in cloak and mantle, head upon cushion, feet on 2 dogs, enclosed by iron grille, re-erected c1820-1840, incorporates C17 fragments. In south east corner of Chancel, Sir Walter Hungerford 1596, and his son Edward 1583, richly coloured, flat top with incised epitaph. In north east corner of Chantry Chapel, Sir Edward Hungerford 1607 and Jane has wife, richly coloured flat top with incised epitaph and once lead filled, similar to Sir Water tomb. In north west corner of Chantry Chapel Mary 1613, sister to Sir Edward Hungerford, with bronze epitaph plate on wall over. In centre of Chantry Chapel, Sir Edward Hungerford 1698 and Margaret Holliday, his wife, black and white marble, richly carved with white marble effigies, Sir Edward in full armour feet on helm and his lady in a cloak, their heads on pillows and cushions, Latin epitaph. Beneath Chantry Chapel, entered from outside on north side of House, down flight of steps, a barrel vaulted Crypt, containing lead coffins, 6 adult and 2 infant. Perimeter retaining wall, C19, random rubble Doulting stone, battlemented, incorporates C16 gateway with 4-centred arch chamfered stone surround with Hungerford badge over and C19 coped gable with cross finial. Vertical boarded and studded gate. Scheduled


Ancient Monument (Somerset County No 4). (Department of the Environment, Farleigh Hungerford Castle, 1979). Listing NGR: ST8012757623


APPENDIX 9: List description- Priests’ House and adjoining range

Building Details: Building Name: THE PRIEST HOUSE AND ADJOINING RANGE, FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD CASTLE Parish: NORTON ST PHILIP District: MENDIP County: SOMERSET Postcode:

Details: LBS Number: 267188 Grade: II* Date Listed: 16/11/1984 Date of Last Amendment: 16/11/1984 Date Delisted: NGR: ST8014857622

Listing Text: ST85NW NORTON ST. PHILIP CP FARLEIGH HUNGERFORD 2/241 The Priest House and adjoining range, Farleigh Hungerford Castle - GV II* House, then farmhouse, now monument. By 1430, extended northwards C17, restored C19, extensive repairs being completed at time of survey (December 1983). Random rubble, sole coursed Doulting stone. Stone slate gabled roof with coping and finial on south gable, ashlar stone chimney stack with tabling and moulded cap marks line of north gable. Abuts east curtain wall of Barbican (qv), east elevation rises from defensive bank, with cornice and embattled parapet. 2-storey, 3-bay originally 2 window elevation with entrance through moulded doorway in north gable, now incorporated into C17 extension. 2-light, C16 moulded stone mullioned windows with casements. 2-chamfered, pointed arch door openings, probably C17 with C20 vertical boarded and studded doors. Interior; probably


2 rooms on each floor, with lobbies connected by winding staircase in south west corner now replaced by C20 stairs. Ground floor; central hall and small room once divided by wooden partitions. First floor; of 4 bays supported on 3 stop chamfered cross beams, central beam with arched sprockets, evidence of painted decoration survives. Medieval fireplace in east wall of Hall, in north wall a C16 fireplace under flat, keyed, chamfered arch with timber relieving beam overt to right under an elliptical arch, a latrine shaft, south east window retains gudgeons and slots for wooden shutters. First Floor; barrel vaulted plaster ceiling, with 2 curve braced, collar trusses exposed, moulded rib piece and exposed plates, evidence of wooden partitions. Built for Sir Walter Hungerford to house 2 Chantry priests, separated from Chantry Chapel by narrow paved courtyard. Abutting north gable, C17 extension, random rubble Doulting stone, stone slate gabled roof with 2 ashlar stone chimney stacks with tabling and moulded caps 2-storey, 3-window elevation, entrance on right through chamfered stone framed door. 2-light, hollow chamfered stone mullioned windows. Interior undergoing extensive repair, not available for inspection at time of survey (December 1983). Scheduled Ancient Monument (Somerset County No 4). Listing NGR: ST8014857622


APPENDIX 10: Tithe Map, 1838


APPENDIX 11: First edition O.S. Map, 1880s


APPENDIX 12: 1903 O.S. Map

conservation statement for farleigh hungerford castle, somerset, uk

Documents

management issues

management history

hungerford family

key issues

site hospitality

levels of significance

site development

site gazetteer