Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan 2014 Volumes 1 and 2

Old Wardour Castle
A castle that I call the wonder of the West

(Sir John Harrington, 1596)
Conservation Management Plan

Volume 1: Report
Report No: 3176.04
Final Report
July 2014
Nexus Heritage
Commercial-in-Confidence
Nexus Heritage Controlled Document Commercial-in-Confidence
Report Number
3176.R 05
Report Status
Final report
Prepared by:
Gerry Wait and Keith Ray
Date: completed 26/04/2014
Checked by:
Anthony Martin and Gerry Wait
Date: 27/04/2014
Approved by:
Gerry Wait
Date: 28/04/2014
Revision Record
Revs 1 -3
Rev 1 for information, Revs 2-3 for consultation
Revision No.4
Completion of text; insertion of figures; completion of Volume 2, Appendices
Revision No.5
Alterations to text
English Heritage
29 Queen Square
Bristol
BS1 4ND
United Kingdom
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management

Plan
April 2014
Report
2
CONTENTS VOLUME 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5
2.
UNDERSTANDING THE ASSET .....................................................................................10
3.
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS .........................18
4.
MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL ..........................................................................................30
5.
GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ..................................................................................................31
6.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................35
7.
RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................44
7.
POLICIES .......................................................................................................................54
8.
ACTION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 577
9.
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 666
CONTENTS VOLUME 2
APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS .......................................................................... 69
ASSET OW1: THE TOWER KEEP ......................................................................................................... 71
ASSET OW2: THE ENCLOSURE WALL
74
ASSET OW3: THE PAVILION ................................................................................................................. 77

ASSETS OW4 OW6: THE TERRACE, GROTTO, STONE SEATS, AND STANDING STONES ...... 79
ASSET OW5: THE GROTTO
81
ASSETS OW6: STONE SEATS, ENTRANCE-WAY AND STANDING STONES
83
ASSETS OW7 OW10: THE STABLES ............................................................................................... 85

ASSET OW8 EXTERNAL TOWER, SW ANGLE OF PRECINCT WALLS
86
ASSET OW9 STRUCTURES WITHIN SOUTHERN LENGTH OF PRECINCT WALL
87
ASSET OW10 THE ACCESS AND SERVICE TUNNEL
89
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF CONSULTEES AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSES........................................ 90

APPENDIX 3: ACTION PLAN IN ORDER OF PRIORITY ...................................................................... 93
APPENDIX 4: INVENTORY OF ITEMS IN STORE (SUMMARY OF DATA FROM CAMERON
MOFFETT)
97
APPENDIX 5: INDEX TO EH DIGITAL ARCHIVE ON OLD WARDOUR CASTLE (GERRY

WAIT)
98
APPENDIX 6: LIST OF ASSETS FORMERLY IN THE ENVIRONS OF OLD WARDOUR, NOW LOST
(LUKE HUGHES)
104
3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

July 2014
Report
1
FIGURES
Report cover image: Old Wardour Castle tower keep (OW1) from the north-east
(Note: that the North tower is to the right of the entrance-way, the East tower to the left)
Figure 1 Location, south of Tisbury, Wiltshire (satellite image) ................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Old Wardour Castle and immediate environs: direct vertical image .......................................... 8
Figure 3 Access and topography (NB incorrectly located arrow is as given by GPS referencing) ........... 9
Figure 4 Old Wardour Castle, showing the extent of the current Guardianship area in red. .................... 9
Figure 5 Old Wardour Tower Keep as the visitor approaches it. .......................................................... 19
Figure 6 Engraving of 1732 by N & S Buck ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 7 The banqueting House viewed from the tower keep ................................................................. 21
Figure 8 Looking along the broader terrace to the Grotto ....................................................................... 22
Figure 9 The terraces, viewed from the top of the tower keep ................................................................ 22
Figure 10 The Grotto viewed along the axial approach from the tower keep .......................................... 23
Figure 11 The stone seats (standing stone out of sight to right) ............................................................. 23
Figure 12 C19th view of Old Wardour from the south ............................................................................. 29
Figure 13 Excavations in 1966 against the north face of the East Tower (MPBW; Luke Hughes) ......... 32
Figure 14 View from the south: compare Figure 12 (note openings at SE angle of precinct wall) ......... 34
Figure 15 Abstract from Andrews and Drury Atlas of Wiltshire (1751) (courtesy of L. Hughes) (NB
detached garden on hilltop above the castle to the E, already in existence by 1750, and therefore,
contra Cole, 2014, 7, unlikely to have been created as a temporary walled vegetable garden. ............. 35
Figure 16 Tower Keep: south-facing elevation (Luke Hughes) ............................................................... 37
Figure 17 Example of the views that guest chambers once offered....................................................... 37
Figure 18 Graffiti at Old Wardour ............................................................................................................ 41
Figure 19 Gaps/evidential value: was there a c.1578 re-fronting of the North and East towers? ......... 43
Figure 20 Repairs to the outer enclosure wall in 1992 (courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes); this illustrates the
danger of catastrophic collapse if not adequately monitored for movement. .......................................... 44
Figure 21 The first-floor Great Chamber from the north (showing the area of stonework badly affected
by water ingress following the insertion of a concrete floor) .................................................................... 45
Figure 22 Visitors view of the Castles tower keep over the under-appreciated precinct wall............... 46
Figure 23 View from the west in the 1960s, courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (note MPBW scaffolding for
repairs, and newly planted forestry, now maturing) ................................................................................. 49
Figure 24 (left: fissure in wall of Stables; right: tree-growth by point of 1990 failure of precinct wall) ... 50
Figure 25 North tower, showing location of staircase (proposed for viewpoint insertion) ...................... 60
Figure 26 East tower, second storey apartments (proposed for demountable displays) ...................... 60
Figure 27 The reception hut/shop, from the tower keep: courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (the structure
adds an unwelcome municipal feel to the site, not helped by the finger-post; a rationalised and more
sympathetic structure is needed) ............................................................................................................. 64
Figure 28 Parking overcrowding at entrance to site (courtesy Luke Hughes) (a full strategy for
rationalising parking is needed at the site, not least to improve the setting of the precinct wall) ............ 65
July 2014
Report
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire. It was
prepared between November 2013 and April 2014 by Nexus Heritage (sequentially Directors Dr.
Gerry Wait and then Dr. Keith Ray) for English Heritage, and was finalised in July 2014.
The purpose of this report is to consider the significance of the property, to identify gaps in
knowledge, and to specify (where possible) risks and opportunities for the buildings and
landscape. The aim also is to develop an action plan for future conservation and management
works that takes into account both necessary and desirable works, including those that may
improve the visitor experience.
Old Wardour Castle has an interesting place in English history, as a rare example of a design
with clear continental antecedents, built in its present hexagonal form originally by the Lovell
family when at the height of their influence on the periphery of the royal court of Richard II in the
late 14th century. It was subsequently remodelled into a fine fortified country residence on behalf
of the Cornish Arundell family around 1578, at least in part by the famed Elizabethan masonarchitect Robert Smythson who was working at the same time on Longleat House nearby.
Each of these major construction episodes was accompanied by the creation of a designed
landscape of gardens and parkland extending outwards from the main house and enhancing its
setting. However, a third major significance of the site concerns its role as the landscape
counterpoint to new Wardour Castle mansion from the 1760s, as a picturesque ruin within a
pleasure ground that included a number of architectural set-pieces and that was associated with
design and planting by the designer Richard Woods.
Key findings of the characterisation and assessment aspects of this study are that neither
structural/embellishment details of the tower keep nor the forms and function(s) of the
precinct/curtain wall are as well-understood or recorded as well as they might be; and that the
terraces within the latter wall on the north-eastern side of the castle could be of greater
significance to the overall understanding of the site than has hitherto been appreciated (with
possible origins as medieval gardens/prospect terraces).
Previous interventions and repairs to most of the buildings have mostly been done
sympathetically and with consideration for the historic fabric. However, some structural problems
are identified, that have not yet been fully addressed, and that may need some intervention in the
not too distant future especially in respect to the precinct wall of the late 16th century (founded
upon the late 14th century curtain wall).
The castle as visited today is authentic and easy to understand, with a more than acceptable
immediate setting and with a fine example of historic parkland and Wessex countryside as a
wider setting. However, more can and should be done to explain the role of the precinct/curtain
wall and early gardens; to achieve a more sympathetic treatment of the monument in respect to
its immediate environs; and to re-integrate the castle within its wider former parkland setting.
Interpretation and understanding could be enhanced by better use of some of the spaces within
the tower keep, notably two rooms on the ground floor which are nearly weatherproof and could
be improved, and two rooms in the south-east tower which could be partially-weatherproofed and
used for modest interpretive displays. There are a few other demountable structural additions
which might significantly improve a visitors appreciation, and changes to site office/shop that
would be highly beneficial. As is common to such sites, increased / improved site interpretation
panels could be installed, but at the risk of becoming increasingly intrusive and thereby detracting
from visitors overall appreciation of the castle.
Consultation included discussions with site staff and in-depth conversation with local residents
and adjacent landowners. The concerns of the latter in particular about utility services and site
management, and especially parking, and the relationship of the castle to the surrounding

July 2014
Report
3
parkland, are noted in (both volumes of) the report. Recommendations are made concerning the
wider landscape setting in terms of both conservation management and presentation.
Volume 1 of the Conservation Management Plan contains the principal sections of the report that
characterise and evaluate the site, and identify options for conservation and other actions.
Volume 2 contains Appendices, and in particular a Gazetteer of the major site components and
heritage assets.

July 2014
Report
4
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Old Wardour Castle. This first volume (of
two) provides an overview of the history and development of the site, notes gaps in knowledge,
describes past and present management regimes, has at its core a statement of significance,
and provides also an Action Plan to guide potential future approaches to the site.
A second volume comprises a Gazetteer that gives a more detailed account of the principal
individual heritage assets under English Heritage Guardianship at Old Wardour (presented as
Appendix 1), along with a series of further Appendices detailing consultees and providing
supplementary information. Each heritage asset described in this document has been given a
unique number (with the exception of parkland features) and this is used as a point of reference
throughout this document.
Site location and scope of work

Old Wardour Castle is located in the parish of Tisbury, in the south-west of the county of Wiltshire
(Ordnance Survey NGR ST 938 263). It is located 3 km to the south-southwest of the village of
Tisbury. The property is owned by The Hon. Richard Arundell (in succession to Lord Talbot of
Malahide), although the adjacent Old Wardour House and nearby Ark Farm are each separately
owned. The castle itself and the ruins of the Stables (the latter within the curtilage of Old Wardour
House) are in the care of English Heritage and the castle (but not the Stables) is open to the
public.
The location of the site and the current extent of English Heritage Guardianship are shown in
Figures 1-4.
The Conservation Management Plan will consider the Guardianship area of Old Wardour Castle,
but will where appropriate consider issues from a wider area as they affect the monument.
Aims and objectives

The Conservation Management Plan has three principal aims. They are:
to understand the heritage assets of Old Wardour Castle, in the context of both the history of
the site and local, regional and national planning policy and frameworks
to understand the significance of the asset as a whole
to highlight how and why the significance of the sites is vulnerable and to suggest ways in
which the management of the site can be enhanced in the future.
To consider the presentation and interpretation of Old Wardour Castle and make
recommendations where appropriate
The specific objectives for the Conservation Management Plan are to inform the:
management of the monument in order to continue to protect and sustain its significance
long term sustainability of the site
maintenance of the site to an exemplary conservation standard
management of current levels of public access and enjoyment and where appropriate
identify additional opportunities in line with current feasibility studies
explanatory interpretation of the site to the public in a way that enhances the visitor
experience without adversely impacting on its significance.

July 2014
Report
5
Methodology
This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by Gerry Wait and (then) by Keith Ray,
of Nexus Heritage. The process has been divided into several stages, which are reflected in the
structure of this document.
Understanding heritage assets/historical development of the site (Section 2 of

this Plan)
Background historical research (readily-available secondary sources) was carried out and site
visits made in order to understand the Heritage Assets of Old Wardour Castle, and how the site
has developed over time. The setting of the site within the wider landscape has also been
considered. No new measured survey work has been undertaken on either buildings or
landscapes. Originally it was intended to include the Gazetteer of Historic Environment assets
within this section, but instead there is simply a primary characterisation of the identified assets.
For ease of reference (and to more readily enable the transmission and storage of digital
documents), the Gazetteer has instead been presented as part of a separate Volume, as noted
above.
Management appraisal (Section 3 of this Plan)

Past and current management regimes on the site have been appraised in outline rather than in
detail, using information supplied by English Heritage. The results of this appraisal are presented
in Section 3.
Assessment of current state of knowledge, and identification of gaps in

knowledge (Section 4)
This has assessed the extent of current knowledge and research, and has identified a series of
questions and has specified areas of doubt based upon what is currently known.
Statement of significance (Section 5)

This section is organised into two parts:
The first part is a succinct headline statement that seeks to capture the essence of the
importance of Old Wardour Castle in its own right in the national setting.
The second part follows the scheme set out in the English Heritage Conservation Principles,
and expresses significance in terms of four key values, or sets of values. These are:
Evidential Value, Historical Value, Aesthetic Value and Community Value, and Old
Wardour Castle is formally assessed here in respect to each set in terms of the individual
site components and groups of site components.
The preparation of the Statement has involved professional analysis by the authors of this Plan
and both formal and informal consultation and discussion with English Heritage staff and other
stakeholders. A full list of consultees is presented in Volume 2, Appendix 2.
Assessment of risks and opportunities (Section 6)

This section provides, firstly, an overview (only) of risks, and of opportunities for enhanced
management of the site. Secondly, there is an asset-by-asset appraisal of issues, constraints and
opportunities.
Action Plan (Section 7)

This section identifies a series of possible options for conservation and management action. This
hopefully provides the basis for prioritising and carrying out management decisions concerning
the various different spheres of site conservation and visitor management. The Action Points are
July 2014
Report
6
itemised in a table, along with their recommended priority. A further final part of the Action Plan
explains the reasons for the various recommended actions and for their priority status.
References (Section 8)
The bibliography provided in this report is a select one. A considerable number of references to
both primary and secondary sources were encountered during Plan preparation, and it soon
became obvious that there would not be scope to provide an inclusive (let alone exhaustive) set
of references. It also became clear that the compilation of a comprehensive reference archive is
a worthwhile objective in its own right. While it may seem to be of peripheral interest, this is
nonetheless an important task.
Reporting
This has been undertaken in several stages, in order to enable the results from the various
consultation processes to be fed into it.
A first draft was prepared by Gerry Wait in January 2014, following research carried out between
October and December 2013, a field visit in November, and compilation in early 2014. This was
circulated for initial comment, and a second draft was prepared.
Before the production of a third draft, and following a meeting and agreement with English
Heritage, Keith Ray took over primary responsibility for the completion of the Plan. Following a
review meeting organised by Win Scutt, Assistant Properties Curator for the West Territory, in
Bristol in mid-March, two site-based consultation meetings were arranged in late March and in
early April 2014, and a further (penultimate, fourth) draft report was produced.
Following a final consultation meeting with English Heritage regional staff in Bristol, a series of
final-stage drafts was produced. Most of the document was finalised in the period 14th 20th
April, following receipt of further information and comments upon the fourth draft version. The
present, final, version (July 2014), arose from further consultation responses and minor editorial
corrections and suggestions (by Win Scutt) received in May and June 2014.
The report has been written with reference to the following key documents:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011-2015 (2011)
English Heritage National Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP) (2011)
English Heritage Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable
Management of the Historic Environment (2008)
Kate Clark, Informed Conservation, London: English Heritage (2003)

July 2014
Report
7
Figure 1 Location, south of Tisbury, Wiltshire (satellite image)
Figure 2 Old Wardour Castle and immediate environs: direct vertical image

July 2014
Report
8
Figure 3 Access and topography (NB incorrectly located arrow is as given by GPS referencing)
Figure 4 Old Wardour Castle, showing the extent of the Guardianship area in red.

July 2014
Report
9
2. UNDERSTANDING THE ASSET

This section comprises two parts. The first part describes the historical and archaeological
development of the site, in its local, regional and national setting. It identifies the persons and
events associated with the Castle through time, and what impact they had on the fabric. The
second part identifies each asset at Old Wardour Castle and provides an outline characterisation
either individually or in aggregate.
Outline historical development of the site

This is presented as a chronologically-framed narrative, drawn from existing secondary sources
and some previous survey work and other research. It is not intended to provide a full history;
rather it informs the management issues discussed in subsequent sections. The conventional
understanding of the chronological development of the site is described engagingly in the full
recent site guidebook (Girouard, 2012).
The place-name Wardour appears in a charter of 899-925AD as weard oran, and in Domesday
as Werdore. The name is a compound of Old English weard, watch and ora, slope (Gover et al.
1939 The Place-Names of Wiltshire).
There was a Domesday manor at Wardour, but so far, the site of the early settlement has eluded
discovery. 12th-13th century pottery has been found at the site, and the deer-park is recorded
from this era. A settlement appears to have existed and was occupied in the fourteenth century,
and possibly earlier, in a location just to the north of the recent New Wardour Castle.
However, the well-documented story of Old Wardour Castle effectively begins in the later 14th
century. The tenure of the Lovell family at Wardour, circa 1386 1485 represents the period of
major development here, with construction of a hexagonal tower keep with a pair of projecting
towers forming a prominent north-east facing front. This stood within a presumed concentric
hexagonal curtain wall, but little is certain about this latter structure including where its
gatehouse was located. Other details about this medieval Wardour Castle are also obscure, such
as the nature of presumably service buildings within or attached to the curtain wall; the nature of
any associated gardens; and of other facilities beyond the curtain wall.
From 1485-1547 the Castle was held by the Crown and was variously occupied, but it was then
granted to Sir Matthew Arundell whose descendants, despite two brief (but very dramatic)
periods of interregnum during and after the Civil War, held the Castle until the Second World War
and it is still owned by their successors. Sir Matthew was responsible for a major refurbishment
of the tower keep, a thorough rebuilding of the curtain wall, and quite probably the elaboration of
formal gardens in the outer ward.
In the period after 1660, when the property was restored to Henry Arundell, it remained as a ruin
and was no longer the preferred family seat. The buildings to the south of the curtain wall
became an occasional residence of the Arundell family, who gradually added to the
accommodation there, eventually resulting in the creation of what is today Old Wardour House.
Henry, 8th Lord Arundell, inherited the property in 1756, and immediately began drawing up plans
for the rebuilding and restoration of Old Wardour Castle; he followed his father in commissioning
designs for a landscape park to surround it. By 1764 he had decided, however, to build an
entirely new Wardour Castle on an eminence to the north-west with a much broader, southfacing, prospect than Old Wardour enjoys. The new house (begun in 1770), and its landscape,
were conceived on a grand scale, and within this landscape Old Wardour Castle was retained as
a key feature: a picturesque ruin (nonetheless in its own, at first formally-designed, leisure
ground), and a Gothic counterpoint to the new neo-Classical mansion.
July 2014
Report
10
The history of Wardour is well-researched and well-published at least in summary and in

accessible format in the present guidebook. Consequently, no attempt is made here to provide a
detailed historical account, and instead a brief tabular summary is presented. There are a few
aspects of the site which are poorly understood: in particular, the detailed configuration of the
outer ward either in the medieval period or in the late 16th century, and of the early curtain wall
and associated structures, is almost completely unknown. These and other less well understood
aspects are discussed further in Section 4, below.
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
1086
Wardour manor mentioned in

Domesday Book, held by nuns
of Wilton Abbey, of the King
No known remains
1386
Sold by Thomas Calston,

nephew and heir of Lawrence
th
St Martin, to John, 5 Lord
Lovell (linked to Richard II via
his marriage to Maud de
Holande)
No known remains, but excavations have

th
produced C12-13 ceramics; suggests
possibility of an earlier manorial site
beneath the present buildings, if not
necessarily a predecessor castle.
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
1393
th
John, 5 Lord Lovell granted

licence to crenellate Wardour.
Lord Lovell was married to an
heiress, whose cousins were
the half-brothers of King
Richard II; he was in direct
contact with the royal court
and, within two generations,
the Lovells were amongst the
wealthiest families in England.
John Lord Lovell was never in
the Kings inner circle like his
wifes cousins, but he
nonetheless benefitted from
the relationship in terms of
grants, perquisites and jobs.
These Royal connections led
to presence of royal mastermasons at Wardour.
th
William 7 Lord Lovell focuses

attention on Minster Lovell
1431-1442
During the fifteenth century
the Lovells took the
Lancastrian side in the Wars
of the Roses. As a result the
castle was confiscated in 1461
th
when Francis 9 Lord Lovell
July 2014
Builds the basic Castle as found, in

hexagonal plan.
Continental inspirations in
concentric/geometric form, e.g. Emperor
Frederick IIs Castel del Monte of 1246+ in
Italy, Bellever in Majorca (1310); also
Edward IIIs concentric circular
Queenborough Castle in Kent (1361-77)
and Chateau de Concressault in Cher (built
sometime in the 1380s).
Master Mason William Wynford (Windsor,
Winchester and Wells)
The tower keep of Old Wardour is a
hexagonal structure, approximately 40m in
overall diameter and may have copied a
French design. The symmetry of the overall
plan is broken by the two towers, surviving
to almost full height, which flank the
entrance on the north east side. Within the
keep is a central hexagonal courtyard,
which is little more than a light-well for the
rooms which surround it.
The surrounding wall stands at least in part
on top of an original Curtain Wall but this is
not immediately obvious; nor is it well
explained on site.
At least 1 large underground
Report
11
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
sided with Edward of York

became King Edward IV.
passage/tunnel extends to the southeast,

and a second almost certainly extended
west to drain into the Swan Pool to north of
the Pavilion.
In 1547 the castle was sold to

Sir Thomas Arundell.
The Arundell family
temporarily lost it in 1552 for
supporting the Duke of
Somerset (executed that year)
but they then recovered it in
1570.
Swan Pool probably is located on the site of

the medieval fishponds.
Phase 3:
1485 1547
Wardour held by the Crown or

others under the Crown
Little or no documented activity at Wardour
1547
Sir Thomas Arundell family

of Arundells of Lanherne and
Trerice in Cornwall. Married
Margaret, niece of Duke of
Norfolk. Later linked to Lord
Somerset, Protector during
minority of Edward VI, and this
led to his being attainted for
treason (with the loss of
Wardour) in 1552
Buys Wardour
1570
Sir Matthew Arundell buys

Wardour back from Earl of
Pembroke (of Wilton House)
who had held it briefly
1578 recovery of Wardour by Arundell

family marked by inscription on plaque
above entrance.
Phase 4:
Hexagonal plan this pleased the

Elizabethan fancy and Arundell set about
completely modernising the structure and
by doing so he in effect created the Old
Wardour Castle we see today.
The castle, which by the late sixteenth
century would have looked very oldfashioned, escaped being demolished and
rebuilt but was remodelled in an
architectural makeover more in keeping
with contemporary taste.
Specifically, among other things Arundell
substituted Tudor 3-light windows for the
external slits, added the new door at the
foot of the main staircase in the Courtyard,
remodelled the main north-east doorway
placing a bust of Our Lord over the Arundell
coat of arms, and re-fronted most
fireplaces. Robert Smythson, then building
Longleat for Sir John Thynne, was also

July 2014
Report
12
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
employed by Arundell to oversee the work
at Wardour.
The refurbishment, which provided
classically-inspired fronts to the main
entrance and also involved the replacement
of many of the windows, may be attributed
to Robert Smythson.
The bailey, or outer courtyard, is very large:
a maximum of 152m by 175m. The shape
reflects that of the keep and its towers. The
thin enclosing curtain wall survives for most
of the circuit, and retains the ground levels
which have built up within the bailey.
Soil levels within the bailey are known from
partial excavation to have been raised,
th
probably in the 18 century when the lake
was greatly increased in size, thereby
effectively sealing the medieval occupation
deposits beneath them. The wall belongs to
th
the 16 century alterations but is known
from partial excavation to be (at least in
part) on the line of the original curtain wall.
Sir Matthew died 1598.

Sir Thomas Arundell (son of
Sir Matthew) was openly
Catholic and also fought well
as a soldier in wars against the
Turk in Hungary, fell out of
favour with Elizabeth I.
Regained favour under James
1 and in 1605 was created
Baron Wardour.
Died 1639 and succeeded by

his son, also Thomas, who
held Wardour until 1642.
1643
nd
Sir Thomas (2 Lord Arundell)

supported King Charles at
Oxford (where he later died).
His wife Blanche held Wardour
against a Parliamentarian
siege in May 1643.
The sixteenth-century
remodelling of the house had
reduced its ability to resist
attack and after a siege of
about a week, Lady Arundel
(her husband was away with
King Charles I at Oxford)

July 2014
No known works at Old Wardour. However,

service structures south of the curtain wall
could have been built at this time, and the
th
formal gardens recorded in the 18 century
th
were probably in existence by the early 17
century.
As virtual head of the English Catholics the
family was persecuted repeatedly for
recusancy and fell deeply into debt (Keen,
1967, 69) at this period, and this may
explain why there were no further
modifications to the structure both at this
time, or indeed subsequently.
Castle damaged in siege and then pillaged

by the Parliamentarian army which
captured and occupied the castle.
After the Civil War damage, in 1643 and
1644, no attempts were made to put the
castle back into a fit state for occupation. Its
ruined state and old fashioned appearance
th
meant it was never reoccupied. In the 18
century it became a scenic attraction in the
newly landscaped park, which surrounded a
new house.
Report
13
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
surrendered the castle to

Parliamentary forces.
1643 (December)
March 1644
rd
Sir Henry Arundell (3 Lord

Arundell) besieged castle. In
1644, the son of Lady
Arundell, recaptured the castle
but accidentally destroyed a
huge part of it.
Siege involved a large mine, created by

lead miners from Mendips, under the SW
side of the castle. Mine was accidentally
fired and this caused an explosion that
destroyed much of the castle. Second mine
resulted in surrender.
Despite the extensive damage caused to
the south west side of the keep during the
Civil War, the layout of rooms at both
ground and first floor level could still be
appreciated, including focal elements such
as the hall and apartments in North and
East towers.
1649
Execution of Charles I, and

Henry Arundell is attainted.
The castle was confiscated by
Parliament but was recovered
by the Arundells in 1660.
No works at Wardour Castle left as a ruin,

but with formal gardens retained or newly
laid out around it.
Under Charles II Henry

eventually became Lord Privy
Seal. Sir Henry rented
Breamore in Hants. He died in
1694.
Henry built the small house c. 1685, against

the south side of the Curtain Wall and his
younger son Henry lived there until 1721.
Phase 5:
From 1650 -
Old Wardour House was built beyond the

walls to the SW, fitted and used by Sir
Henry and then by Catholic priests and
estate bailiffs on an occasional basis. The
elder Henry was succeeded by Thomas,
who died in 1712 at Breamore.
The Stables were probably also built
around 1685, possibly on the site of earlier
stables cleared away during (or after) the
Civil War siege.
1732
Samuel and Nathaniel Buck

engraving
Castle had been prettified by formal

topiary gardens in surrounding grounds
Phase 6:
1756
th
Henry 8 Lord Arundell inherits

th
(his father the 7 Lord had
married well, back to the
Arundells in Cornwall and
through them the Panton
family heiress. Married heiress
Mary Conquest in 1763.

July 2014
Decided to build New Wardour, having

decided that restoring Old Wardour was not
feasible. Retains Old Wardour as a ruin as
a major feature in a new Parkland.
Building of New Wardour Castle was begun
under James Paine (a well know architect
to the Catholic gentry) 1770 and finished
Report
14
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
1776.
Two surveys of Old Wardour were carried
out under this Henry Arundell. One of them,
a plan of 1753 shows a bowling green on
the upper side of the castle and pleasure
garden (it is not clear whether this was in
use, or planned).
Also, against the South Curtain wall are
located several structures: the house &
stew court &c. with stables, granary and
dogkennel to the north and west.
th
1754
7 Lord Arundell had

commissioned a parkland plan
from Capability Brown but
died without starting works.
1764
Henry, 8 Lord commissioned

a parkland plan from Richard
Woods
1773
th
James Paine, building New

Wardour, is the likely designer
of the banqueting
house/pavilion at Old
Wardour, built c. 1773, that is,
between the various
commissions of Woods (1764)
and the apparent return of
Brown in 1774-5.
(James Paine inherited the
architectural practice of Daniel
Garrett in the 1750s. The latter
had built the Gothick
Banqueting House for another
Catholic family at Gibside Hall,
Northumberland, a building
that also still survives: inf, Luke
Hughes).
Browns park was never realised. Browns

plans survive.
Woods plan of 1764 survives. Woods main

contribution, apart from ensuring survival of
the ruins as picturesque ruins in a wider
designed parkland, was to lay out a series
of prospect walks from which the ruined Old
Wardour Castle could be admired.
Much of his wider plan was not
implemented, but he did extend the Swan
Pond (where an older rectangular fish
pond/lake had been). He also built an ice
house and gothic temple (neither survives).
A cold bath-house survives in part as the
relocated rusticated portico attached to Ark
Farm.
The Banqueting House/Pavilion is not in
Woods plans, but was built at about this
time (payments listed in the estate accounts
for 1773), replacing the older banqueting
house which is also shown on the Buck
print. The Gothic banqueting house is
rectangular in plan with canted ends. It has
also been speculated that the banqueting
house could have been built on the remains
of a gatehouse. On the south east angle of
the curtain wall, close to the pavilion and
sharing detail with it, is a (three-seater!)
privy, or `necessary house'.
Around the remains of the tower keep at
Old Wardour, Woods probably removed the
formal gardens and laid the lawns, The
cedars were probably planted at this time
(mentioned by Colt Hoare in 1829). To the
east he probably built the prospect terrace
and the rustic archway.
The present entrance into the bailey is

July 2014
Report
15
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
through an 18th century gateway, the
ragged piers of which are probably the work
of Josiah Lane, the builder of the grotto.
South of the bailey, outside the curtain wall,
lies the ruined shell of the stables built by
1686. The building has two gable walls,
each standing to first floor ceiling height,
linked on the southern side by a wall which
incorporates a series of wide arched
openings. The northern side of the building
is formed by the curtain wall.
In the early 18th century the castle ruins
were still surrounded by formal gardens.
After the construction of New Wardour
Castle between 1769 and 1776, the bailey
was laid out in the `picturesque' manner
and the grounds about it were landscaped
and planted.
The most prominent feature of the
landscaping within the bailey is a series of
terraces, facing the entrance to the keep
and running the full width of the bailey. An
English Heritage Ancient Monuments
Laboratory geophysical survey in the late
1990s recorded anomalies that would seem
to reflect garden features.
1773-1780
Capability Brown was

apparently brought back when
th
Henry (8 Lord) Arundell and
Woods fell out
1792
9 Lord Arundell inherits as

th
cousin of 8 Lord (and
th
husband of the 8 Lords
daughter) but is impoverished
th
by 8 Lords debts.
th

July 2014
A second Brown plan of 1773 may have

been implemented only in the area
immediately around New Wardour. The
breakfast parlour-house of 1753 is now a
banqueting-house and there are formal
gardens laid out within the Curtain/bailey
wall. Three terraces are shown behind the
castle (only one now remains)
Old Wardour Castle remains as a romantic
ruin, creeper clad, open to public and
popular as a tourist attraction.
The centrepiece of the lower terrace is an
elaborate stone, brick and plaster grotto
built in 1792 by Josiah Lane of Tisbury. To
the north of the grotto, close to the most
northerly point of the curtain wall, is a
miniature 'Avebury' stone circle, the stones
taken from a stone circle by Place Farm,
Tisbury andincorporating two rustic alcoves
which reuse decorative details from the
castle. Additional stone settings lie along
the rear of the terrace. Attribution to J Lane
has recently been questioned (by Prof T
Mowl see below) but marks the end of
construction at Old Wardour.
Report
16
Dates
Who
Events at Wardour
1936
15 Lord transferred the Old

Wardour castle into the
Guardianship of the State,
although retained ownership.
1946
John 16 Lord Arundell served

in WWII but died 1944
unmarried and childless - the
Barony of Wardour became
extinct.
th
th
Most of the Wardour Estate

was auctioned in 1946, with
the exception of Old Wardour
Castle
2014
Old Wardour owned by the

Hon. Richard Arundell,
successor to Lord Talbot of
Malahide (in turn successor to
Lord Arundell) and still in
Guardianship.
Surrounding parkland now
mostly returned into ownership
of the Arundell family, and
farmed by them or let to
tenants.

July 2014
Report
17
3. IDENTIFICATION
AND
HERITAGE ASSETS
CHARACTERISATION
OF
Identification
The Heritage Assets at Old Wardour Castle can, in the simplest terms, be identified as individual
visible structures (or groups of structures) and remains:
1. Tower keep (OW 1 below, and in Appendix 1)
2. The extended-hexagonal precinct (formerly curtain/bailey) wall and enclosed bailey
(OW2)
3. Banqueting House/Pavilion (OW3)
4. The elongated terrace(s), to the north-east within the garden (OW4)
5. Grotto (OW5)
6. Stone seats, entrance gateway and standing stones (OW6)
7. The Stables (OW7)
8. The external tower attached to the south-west corner of the precinct wall (OW8)
9. Structures incorporated into the southern stretch of the precinct wall (OW9)
10. The access and service tunnel (OW10)
It is important to list additional assets buried below-ground or existing out with the Guardianship,
either individually or in groups, to improve awareness of their information potential and their
fragility. As such, a further 10 assets or asset-groups are enumerated here and described below.
Old Wardour House, not including the ruined stable-block (OW11)
The medieval curtain wall and associated structures other than the gatehouse (OW12)
The medieval gatehouse, or site thereof (OW13)
The buried stone-lined drain (OW 14)
Renaissance modification of the medieval gatehouse, or replacement thereof (OW15)
The documented mine and other (unknown) Civil War siege-works (OW16)
Former formal garden features in the Guardianship area, of 16th-17th century origin
(OW17)
Picturesque landscape features, including terrace, grotto and stone seat (OW18)
Pre-medieval deposits and buried remains, if present (OW19)
Designed landscape and parkland features out with the Guardianship area (OW20)
The first 10 visible assets (above) at Old Wardour Castle are clearly capable of full
characterisation, whereas those not in Guardianship, or that are below-ground elements, can
only be described in outline. They have (at best) only been glimpsed in ground-penetrating
exercises in the past, or are inferred as present (or formerly present) either from documentary
evidence or from limited archaeological investigations of one kind or another. In Appendix 1,
therefore, it is only assets OW 1-10 that are formally assessed in the Gazetteer in Volume 2 of
July 2014
Report
18
this Plan; the remaining assets are described in outline below. Assets mentioned within OW20
represent only a surviving fraction of what was once present in the surrounding parkland (See
Appendix 6), and are more fully described in Cole, 1999 (see section 9, below).
Initial characterisation
The Heritage Assets at Old Wardour can be characterised as follows.
OW1 Tower Keep

This is the main surviving standing structure at the site, and is what is generally envisaged as
the castle when visitors think of the site. It comprises what was the central (and principal)
building within the curtain wall, and is ranged on several storeys, with the top-most largely
missing. This building housed a series of reception and domestic apartments, ranged around a
small courtyard serving simply as a light-well. The most distinctive feature of this building is its
hexagonal inner court, and its external hexagonal plan with a rectangle added to one side
(Girouard, 2012, 4).
Survival of the structure is generally better on the north-east facing side, which was the least
damaged side during the Civil War. It is often referred to as the keep, but it belongs to a
particular class of tower keep dating from the late 14th and early 15th century in which all the
accommodation was contained in one mass, unlike earlier castles where the rooms were
dispersed in separate towers set at intervals along the curtain wall, or in other buildings (Keen,
1967, 67).
Figure 5 Old Wardour Tower Keep as the visitor approaches it.

A more extended, though by no means exhaustive, description of this building is provided in the
first Gazetteer entry of this Plan (Volume 2, Appendix 1). One aspect (query) not mentioned there
(or in the guidebook) is where the medieval chapel serving the castle was located. Various
theories have arisen that suggest possible former locations for this chapel, such as the room on
the ground floor currently designated wine cellar (the chapel is inferred here by some on the
basis of its east-west orientation; however, it is highly unlikely that a domestic chapel would have
been located on the ground floor). It is more likely that a private chapel formed one of the familys
domestic chambers in the west apartments, and that the castle chapel was a free-standing
building located within the curtain wall, perhaps to the north of the tower keep.

July 2014
Report
19
OW2 The extended-hexagonal precinct (formerly curtain/bailey) wall and

enclosed bailey
The wall that encloses the outer court of the castle is, in plan, a close mirror of the tower keep. It
is not simply a boundary wall, but was (in origin at least) the curtain wall that surrounded the
bailey, or outer ward, of the castle: at least from the late 14th century. It was entirely rebuilt,
apparently as part of the refurbishment of the tower keep, c. 1578. The wall as visible above
ground today, seemingly of one build, has been shown during excavations by Laurence Keen in
1965 (and a watching brief in 1991) to have been founded upon the medieval curtain wall,
certainly along its south-western length (Keen, 1967, 71-2). As such, the wall that is visible today
is better described as a precinct wall rather than a curtain wall.
Just why the medieval curtain-wall was swept away to be replaced by a structure apparently of a
somewhat lighter build is uncertain. One possible explanation is that it resulted from a decision,
around 1578, to clear the outer court of service buildings and to plant a garden in the space
thereby created. Since the north-east facing part of the enclosure was still presumably the
ceremonial approach to the inner castle precincts (see OW 13 and OW 15, below), it is not
surprising to find ancillary service structures placed not only along the exterior of the southern
length of curtain wall, but formerly against the north-west facing and north-facing lengths also.
These several buildings constructed against, or integral with, this precinct wall in the late 16th
century, or added subsequently, include a brick-vaulted tunnel inserted into the southeasternmost angle of the curtain wall, with an architecturally-impressive Vanbrugh-style
entrance portico. The Buck engraving of 1732 shows another elongated gabled building, possibly
a barn, sited against the external face of the wall on the north-west facing length, and aligned
along it and possibly integral with it.
Figure 6 Engraving of 1732 by N & S Buck
The bailey of the castle is large (around 150m at maximum north-south extent by 175m eastwest). In the late medieval period it was probably largely devoted to domestic and service
functions of the castle (and possibly the site of the chapel), but it may also have contained the
domestic castle gardens. In the period from 1578 to c.1760, the space was largely or wholly
devoted to providing the formal gardens and walks within the precinct wall, and the immediate
setting for the refurbished tower keep. In the period thereafter it was heavily-planted with trees
and shrubs, and laid to lawn (possibly initially with some planted borders remaining) to dramatise

July 2014
Report
20
the romantic ruins in the Picturesque style: complete with the complementary new gateway,
stone seats, stone circle and Grotto (OW5, OW 6, below).
Richard Woods was probably responsible for the re-landscaping that is attested archaeologically,
whereby the ground-level within the outer ward/bailey, and against the inside of the precinct wall,
was raised. An instruction entered as a memorandum on 15th March 1766 described works
designed to level down the slops in the Castle Garden (Laird, 1999, 229-31). While the focus
has in the past been strongly upon how this action has potentially preserved earlier
archaeological deposits by sealing them, two more negative consequences need mention. The
first is that, because it is known that such deposits contain building rubble, it cannot be assumed
that the dumping and settling process has not in fact damaged those earlier deposits. Secondly,
the build-up of soil involved has apparently compromised the stability of parts of the precinct wall.
OW3 Banqueting House/Pavilion

This neo-Gothic two-storey building is located at the mid-point of the south-west facing side of
the precinct wall. It is accessed both at the raised intra-mural level within the line of the wall, and
at a lower level externally. It is an elongated rectangular rendered brick building oriented northsouth, with a pair of canted ends north and south, consciously mimicking the angular form of the
tower keep. It served also as a prospect building, overlooking the lake and parkland in one
direction, and well situated to view also the ruined tower keep in the other direction.
Figure 7
The banqueting house viewed from the tower keep
The banqueting house as seen today was probably designed by James Paine, and was built
almost certainly in the period 1772-3. It replaced an older dining room in the same location, and
some authorities have suggested that this was also the site of an original gatehouse. Its use as
an informal tea-room for visitors led to its being termed a Pavilion. The older dining building is
marked on an early 18th century map, but there is no evidence to support the notion that there
was ever a gatehouse here.
OW4 The elongated terrace(s) to the north-east within the garden

There is certainly one broad terrace, and there are traces of two other narrower terraces attached
uphill, at the furthest north-east end of the outer ward precinct. They were a feature of the
pleasure grounds laid out within the immediate precincts of the tower keep, apparently (and
according to 18th century plans) within the precinct wall. They are visible on the ground. The

July 2014
Report
21
lower terrace was apparently adapted as the platform for the construction for the Grotto (OW 5,
below).
The terraces conform closely to the plan of those shown as extant in this location on the survey
drawings of 1753 and 1773, and the lowest of the terraces is still, as shown on the 1753 plan
(Laird, 1999, Fig 135), the broadest. On that plan this broad terrace was identified as a Bowling
Green. As such, it is closely similar to the still-extant bowling green on the terrace above, and to
the east of, the main house at Trerice near Newquay in Cornwall, another Arundell property.
Figure 8
Looking along the broader terrace to the Grotto
The origin of the terraces may be medieval: as noted below (Section 4, Gaps in knowledge),
they may have parallels elsewhere, even in moderately close proximity in another Wiltshire
medieval castle. Their form may have been planned integrally with the north-east facing entrance
faade of the tower keep, and so could be one of the original features of the site.
Figure 9 The terraces, viewed from the top of the tower keep
OW5 Grotto
The Grotto comprises rough-cast, but quarried stone. It was built by Josiah Lane, of Tisbury, in
1792. Its apparent informality of construction is an artefact of its dilapidation in the later 20 th
century. Its structure instead possessed a definite symmetry, but it survives today in anything
nearing its complete form only on its southern flank (to the right when viewed, as intended, from
July 2014
Report
22
the west). Its presence here from 1792 must mean that the bowling green was abandoned at, or
by, the time of construction of the Grotto.
The exact appearance of the Grotto as originally built is uncertain. At its base there are extensive
traces of the former plaster frostwork that once covered the structure, and this plasterwork
(remains of which are also held in store at Atcham) indicates that the structure once had a very
different appearance to that which it has today.
Figure 10 The Grotto viewed along the axial approach from the tower keep
OW6 Stone seats, entrance gateway and standing stones

A pair of rustic stone recessed alcove seats is situated in the extreme northern limit of the castle
precinct, to the north of the Grotto. The seats were built by a local stonemason, Haydock, in
around 1770. They are built facing towards the north-east faade of the tower keep, but could
also have been intended to provide seated viewing for the bowling green on the lower terrace.
The simple entrance flanked by ragged piers may also be the work of Josiah Lane. Other stones
(one standing, others scattered about) located to the south of the seats were, according to the
accounts of visitors in the early 19th century, part of a once-elaborate setting that has been
referred to as a mini-Avebury, although not enough stones survive in their original position to
enable a reconstruction to be made of the original form of the setting. Some of these stones were
taken from a stone circle that stood near Place Farm, Tisbury. These may reflect the late 18th
century and early 19th century explosion of antiquarianism.
Figure 11 The stone seats (standing stone out of sight to right)

July 2014
Report
23
OW7 The Stables

The Stables is a stone-built ruin of the former stable-block, within the curtilage of Old Wardour
House. Built c. 1685, the former elongated rectangular building was aligned east-west, and its
north wall was formed by the exterior face of the southern-most length of the precinct wall. The
two (east and west) gable walls survive to first floor ceiling height, and these are linked on the
southern wall which incorporates a series of wide arched openings.
OW8 The external tower attached to the south-west corner of the precinct wall
the privy
This diminutive two-storey building projects southwards from the most south-westerly angle of
the precinct wall. This was described as a necessary house in the 19th century, and was
presumably originally designed as a privy. At the lower level it is accessed externally from a
doorway facing east. At the upper level, like the banqueting house, it was accessed from the
raised internal ground within the precinct wall. This access allowed for its main use, especially
when the banqueting house was being used in the 19th century as a tea pavilion. The threeseater privy itself survives intact as built.
OW9 Structures incorporated into the southern stretch of the precinct wall
A number of structures did once form, or do now form, an integral part of the precinct wall at the
lower level along the southern stretch of that wall. They may originally have been accessed from
within the outer court/ward of the castle. What is of interest about these structures is that two of
them feature simple barrel vaults in stone that, given their integral build with simple equilateral
pointed arches, appear nonetheless to be of medieval origin.
OW10 The access and service tunnel

This is a stone-lined tunnel that extends south-eastwards from the cellar beneath the East tower
of the tower keep. Largely due to the fact that this connects directly with the castle kitchens, it is
presumed that this was built as a service tunnel. It is now blocked, to prevent access from the
tower keep ruins. If, as seems likely, it was medieval in origin, it would have emerged within
buildings that formerly existed against the interior of the curtain wall, within its south-eastern
angle. As and when these were removed to the exterior of the outer ward of the castle, the tunnel
could have been extended beyond the line of the curtain wall (there is an opening visible in the
right location today). Although it is clear what direction the tunnel extends in from the tower keep,
and it is certain that it extended some considerable distance outwards from this point, no sign of
it was traced in the geophysical survey (Linford, 1997, p.3) which may raise questions concerning
the usefulness of that survey.
OW11 Old Wardour House, excluding the stable-block

The impressive 18th century house that now lies parallel with the southern-most length of the
precinct wall was built during the period when the Arundell family, no longer in residence at
Wardour, nonetheless needed an occasional base, or wished to provide lodgings for visiting (or
hiding) Catholic priests, or for stewards/bailiffs of the estate, in the period before the building of
New Wardour Castle in the late 18th century. The exact development of the site and its buildings
is uncertain, and there may have been a building here in the medieval period (See OW2,
especially in the Gazetteer entry description). The Buck engraving of 1732 shows a building here,
against the external face of the southern length of precinct wall.
July 2014
Report
24
A modest dairying complex, with house and yard, is shown on the 18th century estate maps as
once existing a short distance to the south of Old Wardour House. The foundations of the
buildings of this complex are now buried, but have been observed in situ beneath the turf (L.
Hughes, pers comm).
OW12 The medieval curtain wall and associated structures other than the
gatehouse
The medieval curtain wall surrounded the outer ward of the late 14th century castle. Very little is
known about its original form, however, or even the exact disposition of its lengths of walling. It
appears to have been broader than the existing precinct wall (built in the late 16th century), but
nothing else is known about its character. So, for instance, it may have featured supporting or
projecting buttresses, and angle- or interval-towers. It is likely, on analogy with other
concentrically-organised castles developed for display in the late 14th century, such as Bodiam
and Raglan, that this outer wall would have been designed to mirror the flamboyant design
evident in the main focal structure. Nor is it clear whether any ditch existed beyond the curtain
wall: no trace has apparently been observed in the various recorded interventions.
The associated structures, about which nothing whatsoever is known, are likely to have
comprised a mix of lean-to, integral or free-standing structures in stone (and also in stone-andtimber) placed up against, or close to, the interior elevation of the wall. Such structures would
most likely have included ancillary kitchens, stores, workshops, wash-houses, armoury and
stables: as well as the castle chapel.
OW13 The medieval gatehouse, or site thereof

There was almost certainly a late medieval gatehouse contemporary with the tower keep. It is
highly likely that such a structure would have been modest in size but architecturally-elaborate. A
logical view would be that it was directly aligned with the outer door of the passage between the
twin north-east facing towers of the tower keep. As such, the most likely location would be just
over halfway between the outer door of the passage and the Grotto. However, a significant factor
to be considered here is the location and design of any gardens associated with the tower keep.
In the gaps in knowledge section below, the suggestion is made that these may have been
designed integrally with the form of that structure, and this has potentially important implications
for the site of the gatehouse.
OW14 The buried stone-lined drain(s)

Two stone-lined drains were mentioned in accounts of the first Civil War siege in 1643, along with
the access and service tunnel, since explosives were set off by the besieging Parliamentary
forces in the latter and in one of the former. A stone-built relieving arch (with an opening beneath
it) is visible at the base of the curtain wall close to the angle of its north-west facing and southwest facing lengths. This indicates the likelihood that one of these drains debouched into the
fishponds in this location, having descended from a point close to the western apartments,
downslope to this point. This is likely to be the same substantial drain that was observed in
approximately this location during the watching brief carried out by Jill Kerr in 1991, and
described as being a continuous barrel-vaulted channel built of mortared rubble, 1m high and
0.9m wide (Medieval Archaeology 35, 196). Another drain was revealed in the 1960s
excavations, leading south-westwards from the castle, its course possibly traced by an anomaly
in the 1997 geophysical survey.

July 2014
Report
25
OW15 Renaissance modification of the medieval gatehouse, or replacement

thereof
Modification of an existing gatehouse, or its demolition and replacement by a more contemporary
structure was common enough at minor castles as well as at manorial sites in the Renaissance
or early modern period throughout England and Wales, and beyond. An example is the elaborate
timbered gatehouse at Stokesay in Shropshire. Given the extent and nature of the 1578
remodelling at Wardour, including the near-total rebuilding of the medieval curtain wall, it is
practically inconceivable that Matthew Arundell would not have been similarly lavish with the
creation of a redesigned set-piece gatehouse. If such a structure was once present, its exact
location is unknown. It would have been a primary target of both sieges in the Civil War, and
would consequently have suffered considerable damage.
OW16 The documented mine and other (unknown) Civil War siege-works
Mendip miners under supervision of an engineer were brought in by Royalist forces under Henry,
3rd Lord Arundell, early in 1644, seeking to recapture the castle from the occupying troop of
Parliamentary cavalry under command of Edmund Ludlow. Arundells miners dug a shaft beneath
the curtain wall, which apparently extended up to the walls of the tower keep. It was packed with
explosives, which were ignited accidentally by a shot fired by one of Ludlows men. Ludlow
himself was awoken by the explosion, to find that a chunk of his bedroom wall (and much of the
west-facing external elevation of the castle) had been blown down by the force of the blast. The
breach in the curtain wall was then unsuccessfully stormed, and a further mine dug, causing the
occupants to surrender. The location of neither mine is known with any certainty, though again
the geophysical survey may provide clues. If negative anomalies (representing softer deposits)
provide a relevant indication, there may have been two further mines dug from the east towards,
and in one case up against, the East Tower. A diversion northwards in the more southerly of
these linear features (anomaly 23) may indicate that those directing the miners had some
particular knowledge of the castle (which, given Henry Arundells family ownership of the
property, would hardly be surprising): it heads towards the south-eastern side of the tower keep,
and then diverts northwards towards the front of the East Tower. The other mine in this area, if
this is indeed what is represented by the second linear anomaly (not numbered), heads more
directly towards the south-east (corner) angle of the East Tower, which it meets (Linford, 1997,
Plan C, refers).
OW17 Former formal garden features in the Guardianship area, of 16th-17th

century origin
That formal gardens were laid around the tower keep when the late 16th century refurbishments
took place is surely not to be doubted. The Buck engraving of 1732 presents a view of Old
Wardour Castle as seen from the east. It shows the precinct wall in the background, but the
former outer ward of the castle within this wall is shown laid out as a formal garden with walks,
low topiary hedges, and parterres on all sides of the ruin. These were presumably maintained at
that time as part of the environs of Old Wardour House. Subsequently, these gardens were
redefined but retained, albeit in a less formal manner: as is already apparent in James Canters
engraving of the late 1760s or early 1770s, from the opposite perspective (from the west)
although the drawing itself is informal in style. The survival of at least some of these features
(albeit buried) into the present day is surprising, but is clearly evident from the results of the
geophysical survey of 1997. Indeed, it is remarkable how closely several of the anomalies
recorded in the close vicinity of the North and East towers reflect details of the Buck drawing. So,
for example, what can be interpreted as light wall-lines extend at the perpendicular from the
corners of the towers: and indeed one of these walls was also revealed in Trench III of Keens
1966 excavation. Other anomalies appear to indicate the presence of narrow framing walls
July 2014
Report
26
surrounding the outer walls of the tower keep, exactly as shown in 1732, and providing an outer
boundary to a walkway around the very base of the tower keep walls.
The additional detail of the lost east garden revealed in the 1997 survey is remarkable. So, for
example, a projecting rectangular wall-line apparently framed the existing visible dais leading to
the main doorway of the tower keep. Beyond this, four symmetrically-placed elongated ovalshaped anomalies presumably representing planting beds extend outwards from a central feature
(a probable fountain). Long flanking walls framing this group are indicated to north and south of
this fountain compartment. Beyond these latter walls to north and south were discovered two
circular anomalies (diameter around 25m) that appear to mark the site of two symmetricallyplaced circular beds surrounded by concentric paths or broad-walks, each perhaps bounded by a
cutboard or low wall. These are sufficiently hard landscaping features to have been in existence
for some time before 1732. Although it would seem unlikely that they would have remained
unaltered from 1578, especially given the disruptions of the Civil War sieges, it may be that they
represent a restoration of the layout dating from that time, carried out in the period between 1660
and c.1680, following the restoration of the property to the Arundell family.
OW 18 Picturesque landscape features, in addition to terrace, grotto and stone

seat
The stone seats might have been intended when built to represent a Cove within the Avebury
standing stones composition. Most of the other Picturesque features within the former outer ward
of the castle (within the precinct wall) appear to have been planted features, such as the cedar
trees and other exotica, some of which remain today. The highly-contrived space that existed
immediately around the tower keep was a particular attraction, at least for early 19th century
visitors:
..on crossing a lawn, they see it partially filled with aged and spreading cedars
whose venerable appearance accords with that of the ivy-mantled towers and on the
other side of the Castle (that is, tower keep) is a similar lawn, but occupied by a
greater variety of trees and flowering shrubs (Rutter, 1822)
However, it is not impossible that other features, perhaps equivalent to the standing stones, were
present elsewhere, for instance at the southern end of the terrace on which the Grotto stands.
OW 19 Pre-medieval deposits and buried remains, if present

There is, according to the records held at the Wiltshire and Swindon Historic Environment Record
(Wiltshire County Council), an abundance of evidence relating to prehistoric activity in the area,
especially in the parkland to the west of Old Wardour Castle. The eminence upon which the
tower keep stands would presumably always have been a striking feature of the local landscape,
and as such could have acted as a magnet for settlement and ritual. The presence of springs in
the close environs would have been an added draw, but given the number of below-ground
interventions it is surprising that, especially, no Romano-British pottery has been reported.
OW 20 Designed landscape and parkland features out-with the Guardianship

area
The reader of this Conservation Management Plan is referred to the two reports assembled by
Dominic Cole and associates (Cole, 1993, 2014) for a full introductory characterisation of the
many designed landscape features for which evidence exists in the Wardour parkland in all
directions from the castle. In the meantime, it is strongly relevant here to point to the presence of
design features to the immediate east and to the immediate west of the castle.
July 2014
Report
27
To the west, the Swan Pond was developed in the 18th century as an extension of an existing
rectangular pond. The massive bund or dam along the western margin of this Pond served as a
prospect walk that appears to have been designed deliberately to facilitate what are today the
best views of the castle from the west. This Pond is turn was likely to have been created in the
16th century from original, and perhaps simpler, medieval fishponds (although the prior existence
of a lake complementing the extravagant late 14th century castle cannot be discounted). As part
of the creation of the pleasure grounds in the late 18th century, a Bath House, presumably fed at
least in part by water drawn from the Pond, was built to the north-west of the latter, tucked in
beneath the northern end of the bund. This had a neo-Classical faade with rusticated
stonework, now re-set within the east-facing elevation of Ark Farm, which is built out from the
remains of the bath-house itself.
To the east of the castle, on the west-facing slopes, the line of The Great Terrace (Cowell, 2009,
232) created as part of Woods landscaping scheme is closely traceable. This was built as a
prospect-walk leading out from the New Wardour mansion, across the landscape park and
continuing past the Old Wardour castle ruins towards the south-east corner of the park and the
park lodge. As followed from the south-east, it was designed to afford continuous views over Old
Wardour, with a gently curving line descending the hill-slopes known as The Hangings,
continuing on towards New Wardour around the flank of the west-facing slopes:
At a few yards beyond the Lodge we enter the Terrace, consisting of a level grass
walk, formed upon the side of a declivity, well clothed with shrubs and trees
(and) at intervals the transient views obtained of the park and its contents (including
the waters near the Castle, the remains of that ancient edifice partially shaded by
tress and covered in ivy) add new charms to its more general features of
majestic greatness and privacy (Rutter, 1822)
A carefully-contrived set-piece structure here indicates the way in which the designers sought to
manage the experience of viewing the old castle and its landscape. At the point where a track or
path ascending from the Old Wardour ruins becomes a hollow-way, the sides of the track were
cut back and lined in stone. Where the Great Terrace approached this sunken track, a massive
Rock Arch (or curving vaulted tunnel, also attributed to Josiah Lane) was created to carry that
terrace-way over the sunken track:
On the hill above to the east, a detached garden appears on the 18th century plans close to the
edge of the scarp. This has been assumed to have been a kitchen-garden built as an interim
measure, although its internal design suggests rather more formality, and in origin it was
conceivably the site of a medieval pleasaunce.

July 2014
Report
28
Figure 12
C19th view of Old Wardour from the south
(Courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes): (note Fonthill House on the horizon, prior to its demolition)

July 2014
Report
29
4. MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL
The site was taken into Guardianship by the then Ministry of Works in 1936. The area of
Guardianship included the Castle within its hexagonal surrounding wall, and was later extended
to include the ruined stables adjacent to Old Wardour House.
Old Wardour Castle has clearly been well conserved over much of the 78-year period 1936-2014.
During site visits in December 2013, January 2014, and March 2014 no obvious major structural
defects were observed and the site staff (Sally Hughes and Greg Bastin) confirmed that yearly
fabric inspections have been conducted, including at high level. Records are kept on site of any
rock-falls occasioned by winter frosts or rains, but there seem to have been few, testifying to a
generally good conservation condition of the standing fabric. There are, however, localised
conservation problems that were identified in the most recent condition survey (Caroe and
Partners, AMP survey 2008: see Risks, Section 6, below).
The insertion of concrete floors in various locations, and especially above the Lower Kitchen (in
the North-West tower), and on two floors in the East Lodgings (East tower), created water
ingress problems. These have only in recent years been addressed and further damage
prevented. Also, there is some continuing climatically-induced erosion of surface fabric,
particularly where once interior surfaces have subsequently been exposed, as for instance in the
stairway of the North tower. Moreover, the condition of the surviving lengths of the curtain wall
needs some re-assessment: there have in the past been some catastrophic failures of parts of
this wall, as in 1990 when an approximately 30m length immediately east of the Swan Pond and
north of the Banqueting House/Pavilion collapsed downslope westwards and had to be
underpinned with a new concrete foundation, and rebuilt (achieved in 1992).
The enclosure wall may not be in as reasonable condition as currently supposed: some lengths
bow outwards, and although a significant crack in the southern-most stretch has been patched,
movement has not necessarily been arrested; see also Caroe and Partners, AMP survey 2008,
and Risks, Section 6, below). The Banqueting House/Pavilion is apparently in reasonably good
condition. The Grotto, much of which has been removed or has decayed since its creation, is
also apparently stable, although in need of careful re-appraisal. The stone seating and decorative
rock assemblage at the far north end of the terrace are decayed and in part overgrown. The ruins
of the stables by Old Wardour House are in reasonably good condition, but the curtain wall to its
east is unstable and its access-ways and their portals are in need of (urgent) attention.
The surrounding lawns are well tended and simply maintained. The Grotto area was subject to
comprehensive planting in the later 1990s. However, it has since then lost some of its plants and
become somewhat overgrown: whilst this is not at all unsightly it does somewhat diminish its
character and value. Moreover, the flanking yews appear to require some attention, with
outgrown limbs vulnerable to windfall. The small stone-set viewing seats in the north corner are
likewise a little overgrown, and the growth of rhododendrons and laurels has robbed these seats
of their intended views of the Castle and more distant parkland. The planting of laurels, intended
apparently as a temporary screening device until other species such as box had grown up, has
been allowed to become permanent. Their continued existence needs some review, especially
where the root-growth and trunks have become a serious danger to undermining the fabric and
foundations of the curtain wall, and vegetation maintenance costs are considerable.
All the structures at Old Wardour Castle are, in principle, now subject to Periodic Condition
Surveys every 7 years. It is especially important that these are not limited to the tower keep
(OW1), however. Maintenance of the tower keep building is undertaken according to the
Schedule prepared in the most recent Asset Management Plan Survey (Caroe and Partners for
English Heritage, 2008).
The surrounding parkland and environs are broadly in good condition, although the close
environs to the east of the castle are badly in need of improved management and better
integration with its overall setting. The condition of both The Great Terrace and the Stone Arch
July 2014
Report
30
are a cause for alarm, since, once completely collapsed, it will be difficult to restore them. There
have been losses of particular features in the parkland over a number of years (see Volume 2,
Appendix 6), and others have been damaged by forestry and other operations. Meanwhile 20th
century planting has obscured the views from historic paths, and there is a perceived need,
especially from local stakeholders, for more integrated management, and where feasible,
restoration, of the wider landscape setting of the castle.
5. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE
The appraisal of the present state of knowledge of Old Wardour Castle, undertaken by Nexus
Heritage staff early in 2014, has identified a series of shortcomings in our collective
understanding of the archaeology and history of the property, and of the physical remains of the
heritage assets of greater and of lesser significance. There are a considerable number of gaps in
knowledge that could be identified here. However, given the limited scope of the present study,
there is a focus below only upon the four subjects, or themes, that are considered to be most
important to an improved understanding of the history and character of the castle. In practice,
each of these subjects represents a series of inter-related queries concerning sets of features.
The early history of the site, prior to the construction of the late 14th century
castle
This is in effect both an historical (in the sense of documentary) and an archaeological lacuna.
The early history of the area is hinted at, mostly, by surface archaeological finds. These include a
considerable number of flint and chert worked items and debitage, retrieved by Mike Felcey in
1989 from a number of locations mostly in ploughed, formerly parkland, fields to the west of Old
Wardour Castle and to the east of New Wardour Castle (for example, Wiltshire and Swindon
HER: MW12769 ST92NW051; MW12781 ST92NW110). These were identified as primarily of
Neolithic origin (blades and flakes; c.4000-2500BC), but also with a few Mesolithic items (c.90004000BC). A substantial group of similar items was also recovered in 1976 closer to Old Wardour
Castle, on the hilltop to the south-east (MW12772 ST92NW101, at ST 9430 2620; Devizes
Museum 1976.55). No items of similar date have been reported from the limited excavations on
the site of the castle itself.
A large sherd of Romano-British pottery was also recovered during field-walking in 1989 southwest of Island Pond in the parkland to the west of the castle (MW12797 ST92NW307), but
again, no similar finds were recovered in excavations at the site itself.
An Anglo-Saxon charter reference of c. 900 may be to Wardour, and there are references to its
manorial holding in the Domesday Survey (1086). There is circumstantial evidence from the
licence to crenellate of 1393 that a manorial site pre-existed the castle, and this makes perfect
sense in light of the 12th-13th century pottery that was retrieved both from archaeological
excavations undertaken in the 1960s and in a recent watching-brief work near the present site
entrance.
The exact form and/or structural detail of many parts of the late 14th century
castle are unknown
At first glance, this is hardly problematical since, surely, enough of the early structure is visible in
the tower keep at the centre of the complex? Such a view is misguided, for two reasons: firstly,
because close inspection of the standing fabric raises doubts as to whether the full extent of the
late 16th century remodelling of this building has so far been appreciated; and secondly, because
so much of the fabric of the late medieval castle beyond this central structure has been
demolished and the foundations concealed from view under later debris, below-ground. The
following are key questions:

July 2014
Report
31
In reference to the tower keep, there remains some doubt, for example, about the
implication to be drawn from the engraving of the east-facing elevation contained within the
survey undertaken on behalf of the Earl of Pembroke in 1566. This depicts narrow twin towers
flanking the two three-storey windows of the Great Hall, in some contrast to the elevation that is
visible today. Was this simply an error of depiction, or are the architectural features and some of
the detailing that are assumed to be of late medieval date, in fact of Renaissance origin?
Laurence Keen clearly had similar doubts, due to the evident extent of patching, especially of the
North (but also the East) tower, and the absence of the string courses and bottom plinth along
the north-east facing front of both towers, which he thought could have occurred if the two
towers flanking the entrance projected originally further forward (Keen 1967, 70).
Keen then tested this possibility through excavation in 1966 but, finding no foundations existing
beyond the current faade, came to the conclusion that the string courses and bottom plinth,
which occur on all the other sides of the castle, were removed by Robert Smythson to balance
the decorative improvements of re-fenestration and of the new entrance. The good masonry
points to this. This is quite plausible, as is the linked idea that the irregular facing of these
elevations was due to a patching-up of the fabric (perhaps by Capability Brown) following the
Civil War damage. However, there remain anomalies. Firstly, Keen noted that there was a
disjuncture between the depth of the external foundations (approx. 0.4m deep) at the north-east
front of the East tower of the tower keep (in his Trench III), and the interior face in the cellar here,
which was found to be at least 2m deep (Keen, 1967, 70). Moreover Saunders excavation of
1962 against the eastern end of the south-facing wall of the tower keep showed that this had an
external batter of finely-dressed stone extending to around 2.5m, and this is absent from the east
face of the North tower.
Figure 13 Excavations in 1966 against the north face of the East Tower (MPBW; Luke Hughes)
Nor does Keens explanation account for an apparent shallowness of the interior splays of the
original window openings in this elevation, for example as visible from the chambers on the
interior wall of the East Tower. There was insufficient time to permit further exploration of this
tentative observation on the visit of 3rd April 2014, but more intensive fabric investigation may be
July 2014
Report
32
able to resolve this query, as would further more closely-targeted geophysical survey and further
small-scale excavation at a point, or points, along the north-east facing parts of either tower.
In reference to the curtain/bailey wall, the exact form of the medieval curtain wall is
uncertain, as is the nature of any attached buildings. That the present wall is a 16th-century
rebuilding of the medieval wall has been suggested from the results of limited excavation against
its interior face, and from the watching brief carried out in 1991 when part of the precinct wall
collapsed. However, the form (especially the ground-plan, features such as towers, and the
superstructure) of the medieval wall, and even fully its extent, are uncertain. So, for example, it is
not certain that the 16th century wall is coincidental with the medieval circuit at any point on the
eastern side. There are structures beneath the southern-most length of the present precinct wall
that seemingly considerably ante-date the main period of construction of Old Wardour House
(that is, they are apparently of medieval origin), and their configuration raises the possibility that
they once formed part of a medieval gatehouse or service complex (Keen noted that these were
of a style that would place them in the early 16th century: 1967, 72).
Concerning the site of the gateway through this enceinte, the exact location where any
gatehouse stood is unknown, although there is a strong presumption that such a building would
have formed part of the 1393 design for the castle. If this had stood in alignment with the
entrance-passage into the tower keep, it is possibly odd that the 1997 geophysical survey
registered no trace of it. That this is of more than passing interest becomes evident when the
possible location of medieval gardens associated with the late 14th century castle is considered,
since there may have been significant design reasons why the gatehouse and gardens were
arranged in a particular configuration (see the discussion of medieval gardens, below).
Concerning structures built against, or within, the curtain wall, the geophysical
survey undertaken by AM staff in the 1990s raises some intriguing questions as to what form the
structures were that may have preceded the medieval castle, or that were contemporary with its
use before the Reformation. So, for example, a series of high-resistance anomalies located
towards the curtain wall to the east of the tower keep (Linford, 1997, Plan C, 5: features 2, 3 and
4) were thought possibly to be the walls of buried buildings. More survey investigation is needed
to pursue this possibility.
A number of details concerning lost features and finishes from the late 16 th
century refurbishment
There is apparently no full audit available of the work that might be attributed to Robert Smythson
at the site, and the full nature of the embellishments that can be inferred from the standing fabric
has never been researched (as far as can be understood from the documentation available to the
authors of this report). Indeed, there appears not ever to have been a full analytical and recording
study of the fabric of the building, such as was achieved in the 1980s and 1990s for structures
such as Clun Castle in Shropshire and Goodrich Castle in Herefordshire. This is particularly
regrettable given the importance attached to Smythsons work by architectural historians
including the author of the Wardour guidebook.
Such a survey would ideally need to be undertaken in tandem with a study of all the architectural
fragments either retained on site or held in store elsewhere. The black marble fragments from the
Smythson fireplace and over-mantel from the Great Hall, some of which were found as
(historically) thrown down the well in the centre of the inner courtyard, appear to be closely
similar to those from an equivalent feature also by Smythson at Longleat (Cameron Moffett,
message and detailed inventory). It is entirely plausible that such a study (which could be the
subject of an academic dissertation, if closely enough supervised by a professional competent to
do so) would not only enable the reconstruction of features from still-visible fireplaces etc., but
might also enable some idea to be gained of features that belonged to the missing western
apartments.

July 2014
Report
33
The exact character of formal gardens surrounding the medieval castle or the
Elizabethan house
If a medieval garden existed close by the castle, it was probably restricted in area at a particular
location within the curtain wall. Such gardens, closely walled about and separated from the
service areas of the complex have been excavated in recent years, as for instance at
Haverfordwest Priory in Pembrokeshire. The possibility has been briefly noted above, that a
detached garden, or pleasaunce, once existed on the hilltop above the castle. This is certainly
plausible given the otherwise eccentric location of that feature overlooking the castle on the edge
of the scarp: and it may not be coincidental that it was placed as if deliberately to overlook the
principal faade of the tower keep, which faced north-eastwards. Again, this view would have
been framed by the deer park to the west.
Be that as it may, another possible location for a medieval garden or walks is provided by a
relatively recent re-reading of the evidence for Ludgershall Castle, some 30 miles to the northeast of Old Wardour on the north-eastern flank of Salisbury Plain. This suggests that the northeast sector (of the outer ward of the castle) is a wide, flat-topped terrace a walk or raised
garden that complements the residential apartments and was linked architecturally with them
(Wilson-North, 2003, 30). This should at least raise the possibility that the broad bowling green
terrace at Old Wardour could have had its origins as early as 1393, and its presence could be
explained in specific reference to the projecting towers and entrance-way of the tower keep, with
which it could have been integrally designed. This is a radical suggestion that should be
researched further, even though it would imply that the original entrance was not symmetricallyplaced but, was, rather, located broadly where the present site entrance is located.
By the same token, the arrangement of the late 16th century gardens is far from certain. As noted
above, it seems inherently unlikely that gardens designed and laid out as early as 1578 would
have remained unaltered across the intervening 150 years to the date of the Buck print in 1732,
especially given the likely impact of the Civil War sieges, and the aftermath. Although it seems
most likely, therefore, that the formal gardens as shown then date from the period between 1660
and c.1680, following the restoration of the property to the Arundell family under Charles II, it is
not clear, and perhaps needs to be established from purposive archaeological investigation,
which elements are to be dated from that time, and which could have been adapted from the
original, Renaissance, design.
Figure 14 View from the south: compare Figure 12 (note openings at SE angle of precinct wall)

July 2014
Report
34
Figure 15 Abstract from Andrews and Drury Atlas of Wiltshire (1751) (courtesy of L. Hughes)
(NB detached garden on hilltop above the castle to the E, already in existence by 1750, and
therefore, contra Cole, 2014, 7, unlikely to have been created as a temporary walled vegetable
garden.
6. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
This Statement of Significance is set out in two parts. Firstly, there is a succinct general
statement of the importance of Old Wardour Castle, especially in terms of castle design and
landscape, in its own right and in the national setting. Secondly, there is a detailed appraisal of
the significance of Old Wardour in the terms set out by English Heritage in the document
Conservation Principles (2008). This considers what the heritage value of a site such as this is,
and who values it, and for what reasons. The four categories of value, evidential value,
historical value, aesthetic value, and communal value provide the parameters within which
such an assessment has been made and is presented here.
General statement of significance

Old Wardour Castle is, in the language of the layperson who visits (sometimes apparently quite
by accident) this historic monument in the care of the State, a hidden gem that is remarkably
beautiful in its form and setting: the very epitome of what, in many peoples minds, a romantic
ruined castle should be.
And yet Old Wardour is also an exemplary microcosm of the evolution of elite culture and taste,
and the changing aesthetic of landscape, across four centuries of the history of the English
countryside. It records, in its fabric and environs, how both cultural borrowing from Europe and
home-spun creativity placed those who first built it (and then those who refurbished and
reinvented it, and then those who re-defined its landscape setting) in the vanguard of stylistic
innovation. In this way, this always-secluded castle has a paradoxical remoteness yet centrality
within the national story.
In 1393, John, Lord Lovell, set out to build a castle that took its inspiration in part from King
Edward IIIs Queenborough Castle of 1361-77 with its concentric circular plan, and in part from
continental precursors such as Castel del Monte west of Bari, in the Apulia region of Italy. Its
hexagon within a hexagon within a hexagon plan is unique in Britain, but finds a direct parallel
July 2014
Report
35
with, and perhaps was inspired by, the Chateau de Concressault (Department de Cher, France)
which, redesigned by Jean, Duc de Berry, in the mid-14th century is also hexagonal in plan (and
was destroyed, ironically, by the English during the Hundred Years War in the early 15th century,
and never rebuilt).
The importance of display and architectural effect at late medieval Wardour, a fortified house
rather than defensible castle (particularly in the age of artillery), is marked by the grandeur of its
state rooms and apartments ranged over the five storeys of the central tower keep. This effect
was formerly reinforced by the lavishness of its interiors (as illustrated by inference in the
illustrations within the Lovell Lectionary of 1400-1410). Its renown was assured by the place held
by the Lovells, through marriage, on the periphery of the court of Richard II in the closing years of
the 14th century.
Two centuries on, that renown was given new life. A volume, The Metamorphosis of Ajax,
produced by Sir John Harrington in 1596, contains an account of a discussion held in 1592 at
a castle, that I call the wonder of the West; so seated without, as England in few
places affords more pleasures; so furnished within, as China nor the West Indies
scarce allows more plenty.
An annotation by Harrington in a copy of the book indicates that the castle concerned was
Wardour, and that those involved in the meeting included Sir Matthew Arundell (who had
commissioned the refurbishment of the castle in around 1578), as well as the latters wife, his son
Thomas, the latters wife and her brother the Earl of Southampton; and the discussion, he
testifies in the book, led to the construction at this castle of one of Britains first, experimental,
water-closets, utilising one of the fine late 14th century vertical garderobe drains (that nonetheless
regularly became blocked and foul-smelling).
Not only does this description of the late 16th century castle indicate the richness of furnishings
within the castle, but it bears witness also to the carefully-staged aesthetic beauty of its setting.
Given that it is likely that Harrington, godson of Elizabeth I, was no stranger to the aesthetics and
facilities of late Elizabethan mansions and palaces royal and otherwise, and was probably
therefore a connoisseur of their accoutrements within and without, this is high praise indeed: and
the statement establishes, if informally, the nature of its standing among the elite of that age.
This marks also the significance of the structure at the height of its development.
However, the importance of Old Wardour Castle is reflected also in the verve and originality of its
initial late medieval design, and in the striking way in which, as a ruin, it was incorporated into a
particularly striking and affective Picturesque landscape of the mid-late 18th century.
Old Wardour is therefore hugely significant historically and structurally, both in the English
national story (through its courtly elite and advanced design associations) and also in reference
to this layering of extraordinary, successive, structures and designed landscapes:
Late medieval distinctive concentric tower keep and curtain-walled castle set within an
extensive hunting park
Late Elizabethan Renaissance family-residence-cum-pocket-palace, in a fully-designed

gardens and parkland setting
Eighteenth-century Gothick ruin set in a Picturesque landscape park as counterpoint to a

massive neo-classical mansion
Old Wardour Castle is described in its Schedule of Ancient Monuments entry as:
A fine example of a tower keep castle, constructed in the 14th century less for
defence than for luxury and ostentation. Its form, unique in England, clearly takes
inspiration from France. It is argued by some to have been designed by William
Wynford, one of Englands finest architects.

July 2014
Report
36
This description certainly captures the character of the castle as a structure in design terms, but it
does not do (nor is it intended to do) justice to the historical associations of the castle, or the
importance of its setting (which is detached in the Registered Parks and Gardens entry, which
itself necessarily focuses upon the third designed landscape pertaining to the castle, when the
structure was a ruin). In reference to the setting, there is a question also, whether it was the deerpark that was more important than the castle, and whether the latter was simply a hunting lodge.
This point was raised by Beric Morley (1981), and was highlighted more recently by Liddiard
(2005, 62; 105), given that the castle had over 20 rooms for guests, and that the park was so
large. In practice, the castle served as both a favoured residence and as a hunting lodge, and
extensive and well-appointed guest accommodation was intended to enable it to accommodate
guests with large retinues.
No doubt part of the draw of Wardour, in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, especially for the
courtly elite, was the proximity of such a large park for hunting as well as the aesthetic pleasure
of the prospects that took in the possibility of the chase. Chris Taylor (2000), for example, noted
that the location of the guest apartments at Old Wardour Castle in the western towers was hardly
likely to have been accidental: the view from the relevant chambers taking in, as it did, the finest
views of the Park to be had anywhere within the tower keep.
Figure 16 : Tower Keep: south-facing elevation (Luke Hughes)
Figure 17 Example of the views that guest chambers once offered.

July 2014
Report
37
While Old Wardour is a fine example of its type, it is not typical, but rather it is idiosyncratic if not
unique. Like Kenilworth it represents in its late medieval grandeur the height of a particular
structural and contextual aesthetic, and like Kenilworth also, the Elizabethan palace created out
of the medieval extravaganza was itself replete with dazzling contemporary architectural
embellishments, installed with no expense spared.

July 2014
Report
38
Formal assessment of significance

This second part of the Statement of Significance has been prepared in the context of the English
Heritage document Conservation Principles (2008). This part of the Statement therefore
considers two main aspects:
What is the heritage value of the place? This looks at temporal and spatial aspects of the site,
relating them to the narrative presented above, and then considers the relative importance of the
heritage values which have been identified both in terms of the fabric of the site itself, and its
historical associations, its linked collections and objects, its immediate landscape setting and
context, and its broader association with other related sites; and
Who values the place, and why they do so? This includes heritage professionals (including
historians, archaeologists, conservation professionals, curators and site staff), other interested
professionals (such as nature conservation bodies, rights of way partnerships and local authority
bodies), interested non-professionals, casual visitors, and local people. This information is in part
derived from the consultation process, and in particular from conversations with both site-based
English Heritage staff and local stakeholders.
The four principal parameters of value to be considered are:
Evidential value. This is derived from the potential of the place to yield evidence about past
human activity. Evidential value in this case focuses upon the particularly rich historical
resource associated with Old Wardour.
Historical value. This is derived from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of
life can be connected through a place to the present. Historical value at Old Wardour is
primarily associative. This stems from the place concerned being where something
momentous happened (that) can increase and intensify understanding through linking
historical accounts of events with the place where they happened (English Heritage 2008,
28).
Aesthetic value. This is derived from the ways in which people draw sensory and
intellectual stimulation from a place. The aesthetic value of Old Wardour lies in the design
value of its buildings and immediate environs, and their broader setting and in the interplay
between these three elements.
Communal value. This is derived from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to
it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal value at Old
Wardour is an important consideration due to the sites significant role at a genuinely pivotal
moment in English mediaeval history, and its continuing resonances in national history
thereafter.
Although this Statement of Significance deals with the site as a whole, reference should also be
made to the Gazetteer, in which the significance of some of the key individual Heritage Assets is
assessed.
Evidential value
Evidential value derives from the physical or genetic lines that have been inherited from the past
(English Heritage 2008, 28). There is very considerable evidential value at Old Wardour, deriving
both from the buildings and the landscape.
The tower keep (OW1) dates originally from around 1390 to about 1415 or thereabouts. There
were then significant additions and alterations in the period 1547-1640. This second period,
under the Arundell family, is largely legible as an overlay to the highly unusual medieval
hexagonal castle and transformed it into an Elizabethan country home. The evidential value of
both phases is very high, providing excellent insights into the thinking behind the design of later
medieval castle residences and Elizabethan manors, and into life within their walls.

July 2014
Report
39
The precinct wall (OW2, OW9) as visible today dates to the 16th century remodelling and
therefore so too does the tower that houses the slightly unusual 2-3 seater privy built into the
southern angle (OW8). This feature of the site is judged to have considerable, if subsidiary,
evidential value. The building of the precinct wall was followed, probably in the 18 th century, by a
raising and levelling of the internal precinct (the former outer ward of the 14th century castle), thus
effectively burying earlier features and remains, which may now survive in relatively good
archaeological condition.
The Banqueting House/Pavilion (OW3), of the late 18th century, is an example of the addition of
an ornate building for dining in parks, and is typical of the period.
The terraces on the north-eastern side of the castle precinct (OW4), may be of 16th century date,
or even of medieval origin. If this is the case, their evidential value is extremely high. The Grotto
(OW5), the Stone seats and stone circle (OW6) are broadly of the period 1765-1800 and are
typical of park and garden designs and treatments of that period. Although the Grotto has lost
some of its fabric and its planted character and the seats have lost some of their intended view,
they nonetheless individually and as a group retain very high evidential value, as capturing the
design and aesthetic principles affecting how the setting of a medieval ruin should be
experienced. This high evidential value is also true of the Stables (OW7).
Old Wardour House (OW11) is privately-owned (under separate ownership to the castle and
surrounding landscape), and lies outside the Guardianship monument, but is integral with the
historic complex.
As noted above, there are many heritage assets that are not visible, and that are not (yet) located
with any accuracy, at Old Wardour (OW12 19). They include the Domesday manor, any
medieval buildings (and associated deposits) that preceded the late 14th century castle, the late
medieval curtain wall, the mine of the Civil War that brought down 1/5 of the Castle (and other
Civil War siege works), and the early formal gardens. As buried archaeological remains these
would have considerable evidential value and their potential to be affected by various site works
should be borne in mind.
Historical value
Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of
life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or
associative (English Heritage 2008, 28).
Old Wardour has a particularly high historical value through association with the Lovell and
Arundell families and their aristocratic and royal connections, through its role in events in the Civil
War, and also due to its role in the history of rural parkland and the aesthetics of landscape. Its
capacity to illustrate these associations along with other aspects of the history of the wider
locality strengthens this value.
The links with the Lovell and Arundell families which were of the first importance in England
during their respective periods of influence - makes their seat at Old Wardour of the highest
historical significance, in particular in respect to the politics of lavish display so richly illustrated at
the site.
The Castle building (keep/tower house: OW1; curtain/bailey/precinct wall, OW2/OW9; and
possibly also the terraces, OW4) represent the highest historical value because of the way in
which as an ensemble they exemplify the links of the Lovell and Arundell families with the Court
and aristocratic fashion at key points in English history. The role of the castle in two Civil War
sieges was an important one and adds a layer of historical value to the ruined remains. The later
features, including the Banqueting House/Pavilion, terraces Grotto, and Stone Seats also have
significant historical value in relation to experimentation in landscape design and the history of
gardening (OW3, 4, 5, 6, 8).

July 2014
Report
40
The historical value of the complex in relation to the medieval period is therefore of the highest
order, followed by the Elizabethan period remains. The Civil War period was equally important
historically, and for the effect that it had on the historic fabric especially of OW1, but is most
evident in the absence of that part of the Castle destroyed in the siege works. The parkland
remains of the later periods, at least as surviving within the Guardianship area, are also of great
intrinsic interest.
Aesthetic value
Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation
from a place (English Heritage 2008, 30). Aesthetic value might be the result of intended design,
or it may have come about more or less fortuitously as a result of the evolution of a place over
time. Old Wardour as a whole has an extremely high aesthetic value.
The EH Brief provides the following summary: Old Wardour Castle is a fine example of a tower
keep castle, constructed in the 14th century less for defence than for luxury and ostentation. The
site is presented as a romantic ruin.
Old Wardour is an outstanding example of the apogee of 14th-15th century small castle design
and construction by the Lovell family. The aesthetic value is then enhanced by the overlay of
(broadly) Elizabethan period refinement added by the Arundell family, and attributed to Robert
Smythson.
The loss of a substantial portion of the castle during the civil war left a ruin, but for the most part
the medieval and Elizabethan works are still legible and are reasonably readily appreciated by a
visitor. The picturesque ruin was then deliberately carried forward in the parkland designs and
maintenance of Woods and Brown, resulting today in the conserved castle remains and in the
surrounding parkland which provides the setting.
Other aesthetic qualities, such as several extensive areas of early graffiti, are lesser contributors
to aesthetic value (Figure 18).
Figure 18 Graffiti at Old Wardour

The Grotto (OW5) is described by Prof Tim Mowl (2004, 110) as a very tortured Grotto still
standing in the grounds of the Old Castle, is probably that which Woods intended to site near a
drive in the middle of (new) Park. As usual in Wiltshire the grotto is attributed to the Lanes of
Tisbury, but it seems too emaciated and linear to be in their style.

July 2014
Report
41
Mowl then turns to The Banqueting House on the outer wall of the Old Castle which looks as if
an estate worker had designed it by improvising around a trained architects drawing for an
octagonal pavilion. It has a clumsy charm and commands a vista of pleasant landscape
improvisations (Mowl, 2004, 110).
The sunken green lane, behind the Grotto, is another device of Woods parkland scheme for New
Wardour, and while still accessible to pedestrians it has now lost all of its intended views as the
surrounding woodland has grown up.
Old Wardour Castle should have been a focal point from New Wardour but in fact is barely
visible, lost in the background of hills and trees.
To modern eyes, the castle complex is outstandingly aesthetic. This explains why the castle
featured in the 1991 Hollywood film Robin Hood Prince of Thieves as the castle of Loxley. This
connection is potentially detrimental (though by 2014 is diminishing) in that it may confuse the
true story of the castle with all the drama and romance that the story entails with another
narrative with no historical veracity.
Communal value
Communal value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it and is
therefore perhaps the most subjective of the four values discussed here (English Heritage 2008,
31). Communal value may be commemorative, symbolic, social or spiritual.
The EH Brief provides the following summary: Old Wardour has been important to both the
families who owned the castle and the local community for many centuries and contributes to
local cultural life through the many events that EH currently manages. The site and the
landscape in which it sits are used by many local residents both for dog walking and as a general
recreation area.
It is a little difficult to judge communal value at Old Wardour Castle. The nearest proxies available
would seem to be the popularity of the site with school visits and the very high attendance
achieved for themed open days. The views of visitors are assessed in a limited way in Section 6,
below. The use of the Castle and Banqueting House/Pavilion as settings for weddings (25-40 per
annum) is also strongly indicative of a communal value ascribed to the place. The site staff
suggest that local residents routinely use the site, but perhaps more for informal dog walks than
as an historical destination.
Communal value is probably the weakest of the four main values at Old Wardour, although future
careful surveys of visitors and local people could produce some considerable surprises for
instance in the case of the former, the degree to which a visit to this castle contributes to the
sense of antiquity and history to be experienced in the English countryside and amongst its
ruined monuments; and for the latter the degree to which the presence of the castle affects
perceptions of living in local places such as Tisbury and Chilmark. The graffiti around the
entrance to the castle itself is a reminder of previous visitors and draws upon a collective
memory.

July 2014
Report
42
Figure 19 Gaps/evidential value: was there a c.1578 re-fronting of the North and East towers?

July 2014
Report
43
7. RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The purpose of this section is to identify potential threats, challenges and opportunities to the
future management of Old Wardour Castle, and associated landscape features.
Overview of conservation issues

A number of issues in reference to specific locations were raised during the most recent Asset
Management Plan Survey (Caroe and Partners for English Heritage, 2008), some of which also
raised health and safety concerns. The concerns expressed covered a number of recurrent
themes, such as ease of access to wall-fabric and inadequacy of safety railings in the tower keep
(OW1), as well as stability of the high work.
Although the principal standing structure, the tower keep (OW1) probably requires little in terms
of immediate conservation action, the condition of the curtain/precinct wall should be properly
assessed. For the most part, the Guardianship monument has been effectively conserved and, at
the most basic level, the tower keep requires only continued good-practice conservation
monitoring and running works to remain in good condition. This is also true of the Banqueting
Hall/Pavilion (OW3).
However, the good condition of the curtain/precinct wall (OW2) is less certain. There are doubts
in particular about the structural stability of the three west-facing lengths and the south-east
corner, especially in regard to questions of drainage and the existence and condition of substructures (OW9, see below). This entire structure would, therefore, merit a full and careful
survey, and where necessary, remedial works.
Moreover, there are concerns about the condition either of the external tower on the southwestern angle of the curtain wall (OW8) and the ruins of the Stables (OW7). The Grotto (OW5),
though apparently stable, is in need of a dedicated condition assessment, as are, in particular the
remains of the stone circle (and indeed whether further stones can be located).
Figure 20 Repairs to the outer enclosure wall in 1992 (courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes); this
illustrates the danger of catastrophic collapse if not adequately monitored for movement.
July 2014
Report
44
Figure 21 The first-floor Great Chamber from the north (showing the area of stonework badly
affected by water ingress following the insertion of a concrete floor)
Assessment of the visitor experience

Introduction and critique
Visitors are initially drawn to the site for its historical associations, and for the beauty of its
setting. Closer familiarity may lead to an appreciation of the exceptional character of the
architecture of the tower keep. However, the Castle and surrounding landscape also provide an
attractive amenity for picnics, walks and for other experiences that may not be framed by the
historical context.
A major problem with how the site is presented to the public today concerns the degree to which
the adapted-hexagonal tower keep is perceived as comprising the entirety of the castle.
Meanwhile, the equally remarkable (but largely hidden from immediate view, due to vegetation)
adapted-hexagonal curtain/bailey/precinct wall surrounding the tower keep is perceived simply as
a boundary to the site, past which wall entry to the castle itself is gained. This is a
misrepresentation of the castle as a whole that is unintentionally perpetuated even by the current
guidebook, which at its opening page suggests that The present entrance by the ticket office and
shop gives access to the open space around the castle through the massive outer wall, which
surrounds and echoes the plan of the castle (a hexagon with a rectangle added to one side). It
only later says that the wall is part of the original design, but does not explain its role as the
bailey wall, or, more properly the curtain wall surrounding the former bailey: which was then
rebuilt as an only partly-defensive precinct wall.

July 2014
Report
45
Figure 22 Visitors view of the Castles tower keep over the under-appreciated precinct wall.
Visitor responses: a rapid assessment

For the purpose of capturing something of the public response to visiting the castle, a rapid study
was made of the 56 TripAdvisor reviews of Old Wardour Castle posted between February 2010
and early April 2014. There are obvious pitfalls to such an approach, not least lack of
representivity, but it is the best information available. The majority of correspondents to such
websites are, for example, likely to be people who are satisfied by the experience and want to
recommend it to others. This is borne out by the figures: of the 56 posts, 31 rated the attraction
as excellent, and 21 very good. The figures may bear out the on-site record of places of origin
of visitors. The overwhelming majority (28) were from southern or central England, with only 3
from the north. 9 people gave their home location as USA/Canada, 5 Europe, and 4 Australia/NZ.
There were some definite trends in reaction to the castle: an adjective frequently used to
describe the place was magical, and it was referred to also often as a hidden gem, romantic,
photogenic, even in one case as majestic; as having stunning views, a wonderful setting, and
lovely grounds and as often having been found by accident. Several visitors combined it with a
visit to nearby Stonehenge, and appreciated the fact that it could be taken in (walked around,
understood and enjoyed) in a relatively short time even as little as an hour (though several
people expressed the view that it was so engaging that they spent 3 hours there).
Visitors were very positive about the lack of crowds, that entry was not expensive, that picnics in
the grounds were allowed, and that the castle appealed to all ages. Several people commented
specifically on the helpfulness and friendliness of the site staff, and more than 20 commented
upon how informative the audio tour was. More than 20 also commented upon how accessible
the castle is, in respect to the number of spaces that can be freely explored, and a similar
number remarked upon how much their children enjoyed making this exploration (with lots of
places to hide).
Apart from the narrowness of the roads, which several overseas visitors found charming and the
scenery beautiful, but which vexed especially the English visitors, there were remarkably few
negative comments. Very few people (only 2 in fact) were disappointed by the scale or nature of
the ruins. Only one person warned that it could be slippy underfoot in wet weather, only one
other commented that the site was not disabled-friendly, one that they found the parking area
small (in August), and another that there was no information about the grotto (presumably other
than provided in the guidebook). Several people did comment negatively about the lack of
refreshments available, and presumably would welcome some sort of caf on site. One
significant comment was that there could be more written information for youngsters and
July 2014
Report
46
another person said that the castle itself could do with information above the first floor
(presumably meaning from the first floor upwards).
Regarding the visitor experience overall, some individual comments are worth recording more
fully:
Old Wardour Castle was definitely one of the highlights of our visit to the UK (Canadian
visitor)
Great introduction (to castles) for our little people (NZ visitor)
One of the best places wed been that afforded a real visual of how things used to be
(USA visitor)
Although this ruin was a fortress, it looked more like a palace (German visitor, in
translation, 2013)
Enough mystery to keep the kids hooked (USA visitor)
On a hill in the middle of the English countryside with views over a small lake in an eerie
silence (Italian visitor, in translation, 2012)
While of course such testimony is highly anecdotal, there are sufficient recurring themes to
provide the basis for further exploration of what the site means to people from a wide variety of
perspectives.
The visitor experience: information provision

The visitor experience at Old Wardour today revolves around three principal historical periods:
the original late 14th-early 15th century tower keep, the Elizabethan refurbishments, and the
dramatic Civil War sieges and partial / accidental-destruction. A lesser theme of the later Arundell
recovery and creation of New Wardour is also told, which brings the history of the site up to the
present day.
Historical interpretation is at present (2014) provided through five principal channels:
A guidebook, recently revised and updated (Girouard, 2012), which provides an in-depth
history of ownership and events affecting the property, and a room-by-room and structure-by
structure guide, amply illustrated, including an illustrative cutaway reconstruction of the
castle c. 1400.
An audio-tour, obtainable from the ticket office
Formal guided tours of the site
Interpretation panels (Two on the lawn around the keep, one in the internal courtyard, one in
the hall at first-floor level and a set of panels in the Pavilion)
Informal contact with staff and volunteers within the rooms of the Castle, and to a lesser
extent in the grounds.
Arguably, this approach is in need of some revision, in part in light of the new guidebook. So, for
example, the status of the late medieval castle as a structure expressing the height of court
fashion (owing to the, albeit indirect, familial connections of the Lovells to the person of Richard
II) needs emphasising. The building complex was luxurious by the standards of the day, and
approximates a small-scale palace reflecting the position of John, Lord Lovell, as one of the
leading figures in southern England at the time.
Another potentially important possible adjustment would be to emphasise the transformations
that took place successively in the designed landscape. This would not just be as visible today
(belonging principally to the Picturesque landscaping and additions), but also the successively
earlier designed environs: the formal gardens likely to have been associated with the late 16th

July 2014
Report
47
century refurbishment, and the gardens, fishponds/lake and parkland associated with the
medieval castle.
Potential threats and opportunities for principal individual assets

The tower keep (OW1)
Conservation Issues
The fabric of the Tower keep was severely compromised by the Civil War sieges, but thereafter
neglect worked in its favour and the basic structure that emerged from the War remains largely
intact, thus preserving the medieval core and the later refinements. Since being taken into
Guardianship in 1936 the structure has been conserved reasonably well, with a series of
successful interventions (such as stabilising rods for stairway treads and structures), and less
well thought through insertions (concrete floors which caused structural weakening because no
gradient was included; problems since addressed to improve run-off). It is now apparently
structurally stable, although some concerns remain (for example, the condition of the stair in the
North tower).
The latest Asset Management Plan review (Caroe and Partners for English Heritage, 2008) noted
minor issues such as growth of vegetation and build-up of moss and algae in several locations on
the building: and these have been relatively east to address (though they represent ongoing
maintenance issues). More seriously, some concerns were expressed about a rotten lintel
bearing over one of the openings in the North tower (Photo 470-001/P11 refers), and doubts
were raised over the stability of the high work, especially at the highest level of the East tower
and the adjacent parapet southwards (470-001/P30a and b, P31, P43, refer). Significant past
movement was evident in masonry joints above and to one side of the high blind window
between the East tower and the high corner turret (P30a), and some concern was voiced over
the long-term stability of freestanding masonry, for instance in the kitchen and courtyard areas
(P43). It is not clear to what extent these problems have been addressed since 2008, but the
condition of the upper stair at the west end of the Great Hall, which also gave some cause for
concern in reference to excessive water penetration and the condition of treads (though it was
noted that this should not be publicly accessible; P71), has manifestly not been addressed and
its condition has deteriorated further since 2008.
From a safety and conservation perspective, the condition of publicly accessed stair treads was
found to be poor in several places (for example, P67, P68). On a further safety dimension,
evidence of easy access to wall fabric (for inadvisable climbing on the walls that had clearly
occurred: P2, P3) and lack of edge protection (entrance passage dais) or gaps in railings were
also noted (P39d; P46, P49).
There is active monitoring of stonework condition. This has included, in 2013, a comprehensive
study by Gales Building Conservation of South Petherton, Somerset. This is a particularly useful
study, since it identifies, as overlay annotations on elevation photographs, areas of fabric that
may need careful monitoring and potential active intervention in future years. The fabric concerns
noted above should be addressed via the Periodic Condition Survey (formerly Asset
Management Plan) that should take place once every 7 years.

July 2014
Report
48
Figure 23
View from the west in the 1960s, courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (note MPBW
scaffolding for repairs, and newly planted forestry, now maturing)
Constraints
A significant constraint is the degree to which it is required or desirable to maintain the status quo
in terms of what is visible. Clearly, the fabric of the castle cannot and will not be compromised.
The appearance and presentation of the site, and in effect the setting of the main feature, the
ruined keep, also must not be adversely affected.
Opportunities
However, there is scope to adapt the use of roofed structures, and to provide improved access to
the building and its internal spaces. These are discussed at greater length in the Action Plan
proposals (Section 8, below).
Enhancing Visitor Experiences
From an interpretation point of view, it is worth noting that the guided tour, as presently delivered,
is in places at variance with the audio and written guide. Moreover, it does not take account of
the latest research, and contains some factual errors. Whilst guided tours may suit an older
demographic, this approach can be less popular with younger adults and families.
The Store in the castle (to R of the front entrance on the ground floor) is a nearly
weatherproof space and might be useful for more than storage of chairs, for example as a
space for schools.
(Note that surveys for bats may be required, and there are issues with ingress of water from
above and as run-off from the courtyard).
The cellar beneath the East tower elicits many visitor comments and might be usefully given
visitor access.
The rooms on the first and second floors of the East tower could be made slightly more
weatherproof (there would be structural concerns arising from making them fullyweatherproof: for instance condensation) and used for out-door standard information panels
and (even for) wall-mounted display of architectural or other fragments; and limited sturdycabinet based displays of artefacts
There is scope to use the castle keep more effectively as the backdrop for events, including
performance events
July 2014
Report
49
The North tower has no access above first-floor level but has the potential to provide
spectacular views out over Lake and Wardour Park to New Wardour beyond. This is the best
single viewpoint of the wider setting and improved access could thus enhance the visitor
experience.
(Note that a fabric assessment and risk assessment would need to be made, to ensure that
health and safety issues were taken full account of. The insurance implications would also
need to be carefully assessed.
The precinct/curtain wall (OW2, OW9)

Conservation issues
These have been noted in brief above. The issues involve concerns about:
its overall structural stability, and the stability and condition of specific lengths: for instance
along the north-west facing stretch, where former buildings once stood that were built
against, or integrally with, the wall;
the existence of hidden chambers within the walls, especially where, as noted below for the
westernmost wall length, these are not known as well as those along the southern wall
length, and where missing stones may cause a deterioration in wall condition
the outwards pressure exerted by the volume of soil deposited against the inner face of the
precinct wall in the late 18th century, and especially in light of recent climatic conditions
(including heavy rainfall) the potential ponding of water within these deposits;
the impact of continuing growth of trees and other vegetation (especially laurels) and their
root-systems in undermining the rear elevation of the wall, and continuing to overgrow the
wall at various points
decay/potential collapse of at least some of the structures included within the southern-most
length of wall (OW9)
Figure 24 (left: fissure in wall of Stables; right: tree-growth by point of 1990 failure of precinct
wall)
The latest Asset Management Plan review (Caroe and Partners for English Heritage, 2008) noted
problems with drainage at the western angle (Photo 470-004/P7), with stones missing where
internal chambers exist that have not been mapped or surveyed (in the same area: P7), damp
July 2014
Report
50
and wet recesses along the wall face behind the northern end of the Banqueting Hall/Pavilion
(OW3), and in various places a considerable overgrowing of vegetation. This was regarded as
particularly serious along the lengths to the south of the present entrance (P15). Although this
was dealt with by cutting back of vegetation, such operations do not provide a long-term solution
where total eradication of the offending vegetation (especially laurels) would do so.
The 2008 AMP survey also focused upon the condition of the southernmost length and structures
integral with it. Missing copings and water penetration into the wall core-work were a particular
concern (P5).
As regards the management of the bailey/outer ward of the castle itself, there were no apparent
issues at the time of visits in late 2013 and early 20014, apart from vegetation management
discussed above. However, the 2008 AMP survey (Caroe and Partners for English Heritage,
2008) noted badger damage both to the western area beyond the (lost) west apartments of the
tower keep, and outside the curtain wall to the north-west of the site entrance (Photos 470-010/
P4 and P6), and mole damage is also likely in lawned areas.
The condition of paths was also raised as an issue for health and safety and visitor management,
if not for conservation as such. An example given was the loss of surfacing and spreading
edges to paths around the inner perimeter of the wall (P10).
Constraints
The wall needs to continue to define, and to make secure, the enclosure around the tower keep.
Any conservation interventions, and especially the addressing of concerns about vegetative
impact, need to be undertaken in such away as not to cause unanticipated consequences in
respect to other conservation (or site security, or insurance) issues.
The wall serves a secondary purpose of restricting unauthorised entry. It is understood from the
site staff that unauthorised entry can be achieved relatively easily in a few points (e.g. behind the
entry, near the stone seating, and along the NW salient) but that at least in recent years has
occasioned little trouble (e.g. little or no graffiti). This is related to the issue below of restoring the
intended visitor sight-lines from the stone seating to the keep and the wider landscape, which
would have the effect of making such access to the interior even easier than at present.
Opportunities
The curtain/precinct wall should be regarded as an integral part of the castle, rather than an
incidental boundary or retaining structure.
A fuller awareness for the visitor of the place of the curtain/precinct wall in the history of the site
would produce a significant enhancement of the experience of visiting the castle, not least
because there would be a more realistic appreciation of its real former size. The removal of
vegetation and the provision of an interpretation panel to the right (west) of the current entrance
would help considerably in this regard.
The Banqueting House/Pavilion (OW3)

Conservation Issues
The Banqueting House/Pavilion appears structurally sound and weatherproof. However, a
number of structural issues were raised in the 2008 AMP survey, and it is not clear whether any
of these have been addressed since then. These issues include:
subsidence affecting the cellar steps, and damage to stonework (470-002/P11 refers)
horizontal fracture above the relieving arch in the south elevation (P12)

July 2014
Report
51
vertical fracture in the render (?and brickwork) above the west window (P2)
loose stone above the cellar window in the north elevation (P9)
damp penetration, plaster damage and timber rot in the interior of the cellar (P6, P7)
Another conservation issue raised by site staff is the absence of lighting (an issue which recurs in
respect to the tower keep as it is of great importance for visitor amenity and site management).
However, simply in terms of conservation, the provision of lighting in a style appropriate to the
period of the building, and possibly some form of background heating, would improve the
conservation performance of the building.
Use of the basement space to store a seldom-used (and monstrously large) disabled access
ramp seems ill-advised. The basement might be better used to store the chairs used for
weddings, and at the same time provide a better store for shop items; other simpler solutions
could be devised for DDA compliance.
Constraints
The structure is a Listed Building.
Opportunities
The structure offers little scope for future development.
Sympathetic internal lighting for Pavilion- would make the space far more useful and versatile,
and interior far more authentic and attractive for events. This would greatly enhance the visitor
experience.
The Grotto (OW4)

Conservation Issues
The vegetation that had largely engulfed the structure at the time of the 2008 AMP survey (Caroe
and Partners, 2008, photos 470-005/P1, P3, refer) has been cut back, and the structure appears
to be in fair condition. However, the northern (largely collapsed) end of the Grotto is still suffering
root damage, especially from holly trees.
The condition of the yew trees that flank the Grotto on the leading edge of the lower terrace
appear to be unstable due to out-growth of early pollarding. These yews are now no longer
ornamental, in the sense of embellishing and framing the Grotto without dominating it. They also
pose a danger if they lose limbs during storms, both to visitors and to the fabric of the Grotto and
(earthworks of) the terrace.
Constraints
The structure is listed. Improved management would need to address in a more comprehensive
way than hitherto, problems caused by vegetation overgrowth.
Opportunities
The possibility of re-thinking the management of this structure should include whether it is
possible to return it to something approaching its original form. If this is not practicable physically,
consideration might be given to doing it virtually.
The Grotto has lost its intended planting (presuming that it is assumed that this was known), and
even the 1997 re-planting by English Heritage has now been significantly eroded and the Grotto
would benefit greatly by being re-planted in line with the 1997 scheme, or being re-thought
entirely.
July 2014
Report
52
Likewise, the woodland and terraces are also becoming overgrown and have lost the designed
wildness that was intended at the setting for the Grotto. Pruning and replanting would also
improve the woodland fringe.
The Gardens (especially terraces) (OW4)

Conservation Issues
The principal conservation issues here concern the management of drainage both surface runoff and drainage through the underlying deposits. The problems of build-up of water against the
precinct wall were discussed under OW2, above.
The question of surface run-off is connected also to paths maintenance.
The main conservation issue regarding the terrace concerns the relative weight or importance
accorded to the earlier versus the later phases of garden development. Arguably, the condition of
the terraces as an earlier garden feature than the Grotto has received no attention previously,
and like the condition and presentation of the Grotto, this is something that may need some rethinking.
Constraints
There are cost constraints to making significant changes in the way that the gardens are
presented. At present they are neutral both visually and in terms of visitor experience.
Opportunities
The gardens (effectively the large level or gently sloping lawn) are subject to a regular
maintenance regime, and are in good order. The plain grassed surrounds provide a good
contrast setting to the monolithic mass of the castle keep.
Interpretation in the gardens is principally through fixed signage, supplemented by the
guidebook. The few interpretation panels are in generally good condition, but they are in a variety
of different styles and consideration should be given to renewing them in the short- to mediumterm.

July 2014
Report
53
7. POLICIES
This Conservation Plan should be reviewed after 5 years, in 2019. Set out below is a brief
Statement of Philosophy, followed by Policy Objectives, General Policies (which apply to the site
as a whole) and Specific Policies (which apply to either specific elements or sites within the
Guardianship Monument or to particular aspects of the Monument).
This Plan has outlined current understanding of the Monument, and has identified a series of
issues and opportunities. In this section of the Plan a management framework is established to
promote this understanding for the benefit of visitors alongside the conservation of the significant
elements of the Monument. This approach is in accordance with the English Heritage duties for
the care and the promotion of the site.
Philosophy
The most basic philosophic tenet of this plan is that the management of the Monument should
maximise visitors enjoyment, appreciation and understanding, commensurate with the long-term
conservation of the most significant aspects of the Monument as defined in previous sections.
This fundamental premise still pertains. From this tenet several consequences flow:
Visitor understanding of the site depends on presentation facilities and upon a factual
knowledge of the site, which in turn requires further historical and archaeological
investigations
Visitor appreciation and enjoyment of the Monument derives from both the presentation
facilities and the conservation of the romantic, tucked-away and hidden gem character of
the site
Visitor appreciation, enjoyment and understanding are fundamental to maintaining and

increasing visitor numbers although the needs and views of the residents in the immediate
and further environs are also an important consideration
The management of the Monument cannot be undertaken in isolation, but rather (in the current
jargon) in partnership with a range of other stakeholders. These have not always, and perhaps
not yet fully, been defined thus far. So, for instance, although the needs and views of the
immediate neighbours (and owners) of the site have been canvassed and heard in the
preparation of this Plan, there has been no attempt to consult with visitors (including schools
sending visits from within, say a 25-mile radius), or with other local residents (in particular, of
nearby Tisbury).
Policy Objectives
The main policy positions should address the following objectives:
1.
Long-term conservation of the most significant aspects of the Monument as defined in this
Plan.
2.
Maximise visitor enjoyment and appreciation of the immediate environs of the castle and the
wider designed landscape by minimising intrusive and non-beneficial change.
3.
Maximise visitors understanding of the Monument through appropriate preservation,

supported by further primary archaeological and historical investigations, research and
publications.
4.
Develop an education strategy, in partnership with local organisations and with purposedesigned facilities on site, to maximise the potential for Old Wardour to serve as an
educational resource for a wide-range of subjects and topics.

July 2014
Report
54
5.
Maximise the potential improvements to visitor facilities on-site, limited as they are by site
conditions and context. Working in partnership with local residents and stakeholders will be
the key to success.
6.
Provide the factual basis to understanding the site, whilst recognising the importance of
accommodating alternative interpretations and beliefs.
7.
Maximise the opportunities and minimise the problems associated with existing
infrastructure, and in particular consider the options for improving the location and
organisation of parking.
General Policies
One of the most basic policies in most conservation and management plans is a do nothing
approach. This is appropriate for the majority of the area within the precinct wall at Old Wardour.
The policies and actions presented below are, essentially, exceptions to this rule of do nothing.
Unless a specific site area is mentioned below, the conservation policy is effectively do nothing.
The policies have developed out of the preceding sections. Where elements of significance have
been identified and are vulnerable to a threat, policies have been devised to retain or enhance
significant elements. Policies are usually framed as a general strategy, in order that the
professional judgement of English Heritage staff is brought to bear to determine practicability and
detailed methodology.
Research and Understanding

It is important that proposals to safeguard the structures and promote the appreciation of the
Monument are based on a comprehensive understanding of its constituent parts and historical
associations. Existing knowledge has been collected and synthesised in this Conservation Plan,
but gaps in current understanding remain and should be addressed. In order to inform
management and presentation strategies in the future, detailed archaeological and historical
investigations should be undertaken on a very limited scale both in reference to the fabric of the
tower keep and also within the outer ward of the castle, between the tower keep and the precinct
wall. The latter itself merits an urgent detailed structural and recording survey, and limited
associated archaeological excavation.
Landscape and Setting

English Heritage will act to preserve the particular and unique qualities of the site at Old Wardour
Castle, and in particular its fine setting, while working to improve the management of the
immediate environs within the Guardianship area, and working with partners to improve both the
appearance and experience of the close environs. This could and should, in particular, involve a
partnership approach to the re-integration of the castle with those elements of the designed
landscape, especially towards the prospect terrace to the east of the site. The parlous state of
the Stone Arch and its stone-lined approach-way needs to be addressed, and a plan for the
opening up of prospects towards the castle from the east needs to be prepared, using the
community-sponsored Wardour Park Strategic Masterplan as a starting-point for discussion.
Access: Interpretation, Presentation and Education

English Heritage will continue to sustain a critically reviewed process of information gathering,
interpretation and presentation. Presentation of the site will be through the media of accessible
publications; displays and reconstructions based on accurate, factually based narrative accounts
of the history of the place.
English Heritage recognises that Old Wardour Castle offers a limited, but tangible, range of
educational opportunities. There could be some benefit in further developing the role of education
at the site. English Heritage will consider how best to expand intellectual and physical access.

July 2014
Report
55
Visitor Facilities and Access

English Heritage will maximise the use of the existing visitor facilities at the castle entrance site
and will aspire to reducing the low, but decidedly negative, impact of the present ticket
kiosk/shop. In time, it would be preferable to modernise this structure, replacing it with a more
modern, open glass and timber structure that could serve as a more welcoming and informative
space.
English Heritage will work to broaden access to the many facets of the monument at Old
Wardour. Access means both physical access to as much of the site as feasible, and also
intellectual access to the historical and cultural aspects. In particular, this means a fuller re-telling
of the story of the three landscapes at the site, the late medieval, the Renaissance/Elizabethan
and the Picturesque/Romantic.
Conservation and Intervention

The visible structures, buried remains and the setting all contribute to telling the story of the site.
Yet it is not necessarily desirable for all elements of the site to be preserved exactly as they have
come down to the present generation as a formal Ministry of Public Buildings and Works
property however subsequently re-packaged. If it is the case that change can be
encompassed, upon what basis, and to what extent, can such change (the removal, alteration, or
replacement) of any extent fabric, or the revealing of features as yet buried or otherwise
incidentally concealed, be considered and justified? It must be true that certain aspects of the
the story are less important than others. The key test for any element must be the weight of its
historic and cultural significance or conversely the extent to which it may detract from or
obscure other elements of greater significance.
This Conservation Plan has considered the recognition of key elements and assets of Old
Wardour Castle and its close environs, and has to some degree weighed their relative
importance.

July 2014
Report
56
8. ACTION PLAN
This Action Plan sets out a series of objectives for the future management of the site. These are
specific actions, drawing on discussion in Sections 3, 4 and 5 above.
This list of specific actions is arranged numerically, and the Action Plan objectives are prioritised
as HIGH (within 1-2 years), MEDIUM (within 2-5 years) and LOW (in 5 years or more) priorities.
A second list, which is arranged in order of priority, is provided in Appendix 3.
This Conservation Management Plan, and the recommendations made within it, should be
reviewed in five years time.
These are identified and assessed in tabular form here:

Actions
1. Conservation action to
address concerns about
fabric
2. Develop action strategy for
vegetation management for
conservation
health and safety
improvements, especially
in respect to steps and
railings in tower keep
4. Develop archive and
documentation strategy,
and implement
5. Develop anti-vandalism
strategy
6. Convert covered storage
spaces/ basements in
OW1
7. Weather-proofing and
conversion of rooms in
south-east tower for
displays
8. Remove obstructions/
rethink DDA aspects;
9. Provision of DDAcompliant buggy-transport
on limited route within-site,
upon request
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW1, OW2, and

OW3
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, OW2, and

OW9
HIGH
LOW
OW1
LOW
LOW
All
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, 3
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3

July 2014
Report
57
Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
10. Improved chair storage and

accessibility
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
11. Develop Pavilion lighting

solution
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW3
12. Standing fabric recording

and analytical survey
MEDIUM
LOW
OW1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
OW12, 13, 14, 15,

16, and 18
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, 2, 12, 13,

and 17
LOW/MEDIUM
OW4, 5, 6, and 18
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 4, OW5
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
OW4, OW5
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
LOW-MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
13. Further geophysical survey

(esp Ground Penetrating
Radar)
14. Closely-targetted keyhole
archaeological excavation
(to follow on from

items 9 and 10)
15. Improved access to/better
understanding and
interpretation of
Picturesque landscape
design features, including
planting
16. Restoration of Grotto and
stone circle
17. Recovery of ornamental
and structural stonework
from pile in grounds, and
restoration of same
18. Rationalisation of
display/interpretation
panels
19. Creation of app for
tablets/i-phones: both
limited commentary, and
digital reconstructions that
peel away later
landscaping to indicate,
successively, the earlier
appearance of the site
20. Improved intra-site signage

21. Opening up of views within
the site through improved
HIGH
(NB this refers
only
to
the
Guradianship
area)

July 2014
Report
58
Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10
MEDIUM
LOW/MEDIUM
OW 1-10
LOW
MEDIUM
OW20
Requires
colaborative
project, lengthy,
but high value
retrun
Will
inevitably
require
partnership
funding
HIGH
LOW
vegetation management
22. Visitor reception and shop
improvements: develop
plans for same
23. Review of special events
24. Conservation and opening
up of landscape areas
beyond Guardianship site,
especially immediate
environs to east.
25 A working group should be

established to try to
develop a strategy for the
point-by-point resolution of
issues around the provision
of services to/from the
Guardianship site, and to
act as a formal conduit for
the resolution of problems
as they arise.
Road
access,
signage
and
parking
are
particular
issues needing to be
resolved,
and
the
immediate setting of the
castle, should be the
subject
of
particular
attention

July 2014
All
Report
59
Figure 25 North tower, showing location of staircase (proposed for viewpoint insertion)
Figure 26 East tower, second storey apartments (proposed for demountable displays)

July 2014
Report
60
Detailed discussion of proposals

Without repeating the assessments made in Section 6, above, the purpose of this part of the Plan
is to clarify what is being proposed, the reasons behind each proposal, and the reason for the
priority assessment given. It begins with a requested brief statement concerning a vision for the
Castle in the years to come.
An overarching vision for Old Wardour Castle, looking forward to 2025

Is that it should remain a romantic ruin, that visitors might stumble upon on their journeys, as
noted in the visitor experience assessment, above. However, it is essential that it should
become better-integrated with its surrounding landscape, and should be seen less in isolation
from it. The case for the importance of the castle in architectural, historical and setting terms, so
eloquently set out in the new guidebook, should be made easier to comprehend on the ground.
The status of the Grade II* Registered Park is such that a working group should be established to
develop a strategy to better-integrate the castle and its immediate landscape. As such, the
findings and recommendations of this document and those of the Strategic Master Plan for the
Wardour landscape need to be addressed in tandem.
Devise and implement conservation action to address concerns about fabric

Action Point 1 (AP1), above. This should address those points raised in Section 6 of this Plan. It
is a high priority to address the concerns raised, to prevent further deterioration of fabric, for
instance in the North Tower.
Develop action strategy (and programme) for vegetation management for

conservation
AP2. The recommendation here is not only that a strategy is developed, but a programme of
action is defined, to address questions concerning the impact of vegetation, especially upon
OW2. This also raises the question of the need for a full biodiversity/ecological strategy for the
site, to include fauna (for example, the development of clear and specific protocols for bat
management). The wildlife and habitat significance of the castle and other structures needs to be
more fully assessed, and the need for specific actions appreciated. For example, Bat Surveys
need to be undertaken before any work is carried out on buildings, structures or trees. A Licence
might be needed before any changes to heating or lighting in the Pavilion are enacted.
Develop action strategy for health and safety improvements, especially in

respect to steps and railings in tower keep
AP3. Such an Action Strategy should address the observations made in the AMP survey of 2008
(see section 6, above), with particular regard to the condition and placement of railings, to access
onto walls, and the condition of the treads of stone stairways. This should be given a high priority
for public safety, reputational and insurance reasons.
Develop archive and documentation strategy

AP 4. Although given low priority, this is nonetheless important: it should be regarded as
necessary to good management of the site. The primary requirement is to extend the listing of
key technical documents for the site, as appearing below, in summary only, as Appendix 5. This
extended listing should be a fully annotated, analytical specification of all extant documents
according to type and purpose, and the extent of information contained in them.
A desideratum is the drawing together of a full historical archive for the castle, with all references
and illustrations that have been generated (both primary and secondary) brought together in a
unified listing. It has sensibly been suggested (by Mr. Luke Hughes) that this could be
undertaken by a graduate student as part of a taught Masters degree in history, local history,
and/or historic conservation (for instance as taught at UWE, Bristol).
July 2014
Report
61
Develop anti-vandalism strategy

AP 5. The integration of CCTV, site monitoring during opening hours and security out of hours
needs to be addressed here. Few concerns were raised by local residents, but it was observed
both at Old Wardour and in Bristol that vandalism goes in cycles. Notices should perhaps appear
on site to discourage graffiti (some recent examples clearly in Chinese!).
Convert covered storage spaces/ basements in tower keep, and improve

access to these spaces
AP 6. There are ideas, but at present there is no certainty, as to what such spaces could be used
for, apart from to provide viewing access, and to rationalise storage. Two specific proposals have
been made by site-based staff, and are discussed here.
The decayed stone stairway in the North Tower could have wooden steps inserted above the
broken fabric, in part to prevent further deterioration, and a wooden viewing platform could then
inserted at second floor level. This would provide spectacular views out over Lake and Wardour
Park to New Wardour beyond. This is the best single viewpoint of the wider setting and such
provision could considerably enhance the visitor experience.
The cellar could be opened up for visitors. This would need new 2-stage stairs of wood, but is
perfectly feasible, and need not be expensive to achieve. A further improvement would be to
insert a gate in the access tunnel, perhaps 2 to 3m into its course, and beyond that a spotlight.
Weather-proofing and conversion of rooms in south-east tower for displays

AP 7. This could probably be achieved relatively cheaply with minimal intrusion into the historic
fabric for fixings. It would help to make the rooms feel occupied, even if done minimally. Aspects
of the story could be shown to greater effect, and some of the objects at present in store or
buried on site could be displayed. This was suggested by the authors of this report because there
is so little non-guidebook information available at the site: no objects on display and few images
relating specifically to the history and features of the Tower Keep.
Remove obstructions/ rethink DDA aspects

AP 8. Measures need to be devised to improve physical access, and this needs to be subject to
new specialist asessment via an Access Audit. The latter would for instance need to include
further assessment of the disabled toilet, since at present it appears that drainage limits its
flexibility. The ramp stored in the basement of the Pavilion has been used only once in 2013. It
uses up valuable space and takes a long time (and two staff members) to erect. These aspects
are given high priority since they are DDA matters and are recurrent concerns of site staff.
DDA-compliant buggy-transport on limited route within-site, upon request

AP 9. It has been suggested by site staff that provision of an electric or petrol buggy (golf-cart)
would enable physically less mobile visitors to be transported to/within the site. A trailer attached
to this buggy would help to move chairs from the Pavilion basement to the Tower Keep, since
doing this by hand (as at present) is inefficient.
Improved chair storage and accessibility

AP 10. This relates to AP 8, above, but also is something that would improve operational
efficiency, especially for events. Pavilion basement space should be used to store chairs for use
in the Pavilion or in the Tower Keep.
Develop Pavilion lighting solution

AP 11. Suggested as needed by site staff, this would improve the feel of the principal room
here, and would provide a better setting for ceremonies. Sympathetic internal lighting for Pavilion
would make the space far more useful and versatile, and the interior far more authentic and
attractive for hires. It would greatly enhance the visitor experience.
July 2014
Report
62
Standing fabric recording and analytical survey

AP 12. It is not certain to what level analytical site/earthwork survey has been conducted in the
past; nor to what level fabric recording has occurred. There is a particular and pressing need to
conduct a full study of OW2, the precinct/curtain wall, to investigate and answer questions
about the presence and functions of integral features (such as partially-demolished attached
buildings) and sub-structures (such as cellars and tunnels), and to better undertsand how the
structures and spaces concerned were used in the past.
Further geophysical survey (esp Ground Penetrating Radar)

AP 13. The results of the limited 1997 and 2005 surveys need to be followed up, especially in
respect to structures buried under the lawns, including the traces of formal gardens. Such
updated survey could enhance current understanding of the former close environs of OW1.
Closely-targetted keyhole archaeological excavation

AP 14. Such minimal investigation is needed for conservation purposes (understanding substructures associated with OW2, for example), and for ground-truthing of geophysical survey
results. Also to locate the gatehouse, understand the location and form of ancillary structures
within the bailey, and to clarify the formal garden, planting and landscape features.
Improved access to/better understanding and interpretation of picturesque

landscape design features, including planting
AP 15. Some simple vegetation management could enhance views within, and out from, the site.
Arguably, documentary evidence could also be assembled to enable a better idea to be gained of
how the pleasure gardens were designed and used from 1780s onwards.
Restoration of Grotto and stone circle

AP 16. This would be a complex enterprise, but would restore the Grotto to a key feature, to be
experienced as originally intended. At present, it is in a way, simply another ruin.
Recovery of ornamental and structural stonework from pile in grounds, and

restoration of same.
AP 17. This needs to be done for recording/inventory purposes, but could provide a further
resource for displays (as suggested by curatorial advisers within English Heritage).
Rationalisation of display/interpretation panels

AP 18. This would depend upon the results of further investigation, and decisions about the best
ways to present the site interpretatively, and as a visitor experience. This is given high priority
since some panels are now out of step with the new guidebook.
Creation of app for tablets/i-phones: both limited commentary, and digital

reconstructions that peel away later landscaping to indicate, successively,
the earlier appearance of the site
AP 19. It has been suggested by historic landscape staff at Bristol that this would be especially
useful also for enhanced appreciation of the designed landscape.
Improved intra-site signage

AP 20. Site-based staff suggest that some of this signage is confusiing to visitors, and needs rethinking.
Opening up of views within the site through improved vegetation management

AP 21. This needs to be linked to vegetation management for conservation, but would involve
also a rethinking of the environs not only of the stone seats but also the setting of the Grotto. A
July 2014
Report
63
clear and simple action would be to reinstate the terraces at back of shop, and cut back the
laurels and rhododendrons, to restore (in part) the view of the Castle from the seating area as
originally intended. This would greatly enhance the visitor experience in this part of the site.
Figure 27 The reception hut/shop, from the tower keep: courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (the
structure adds an unwelcome municipal feel to the site, not helped by the finger-post; a
rationalised and more sympathetic structure is needed)
Develop plans for the visitor reception and shop improvements:

AP 22. The views of staff are that:
Larger retail space is needed: lack of space leads to lack of stock leading to loss of sales.
Cramped space as currently provided deters entry.
The views of residents are that:
The entrance-building is large and unsightly, and distinctly old-fashioned and out-of-keeping
with the site.
The conclusion of the authors of this report are that the existing building (and its yard) is trying to
accomplish a variety of functions that need to be rationalised in terms of use of space and interrelation of those functions. There is need for investment in a structure that is more suited to its
setting and better-designed. This would require significant investment, but would have definite
benefits not only operationally, but also commercially. It could be achieved simply, with a light
timber and glass structure in which entry, ticket, information, monitoring, shop and refreshment;
as well as office and site maintenance functions, retail and information functions could be
accommodated more efficiently within the footprint of the current building plus its compound.
July 2014
Report
64
Review of special events

AP 23. This could include:
historical costume pageants related to the site (this could have been an original feature of
the staging of the site in both 1578+, and subsequently)
new-generation son-et-lumiere events;
open-air theatre performances;
music concerts including chamber-music recitals in the pavilion;
antiques roadshows
pop-up opera performances, for example in/around the grotto
art exhibitions
charity sports events along Public Rights of Way starting from/ending at the property
American Maryland Society annual visitors and supporters more could be made of
Conservation and opening up of landscape areas beyond Guardianship site,

especially immediate environs to east.
AP 24. The most pressing aspect of this, is the opening up of views from, and the provision of
access to, the Great Terrace. It represents the best scope for a dedicated project for the site, and
would transform the setting. It would need to be integrated with plans for the
relocation/rationalisation of parking, and for improved presentation of the Grotto and its environs.
Figure 28 Parking overcrowding at entrance to site (courtesy Luke Hughes) (a full strategy for
rationalising parking is needed at the site, not least to improve the setting of the precinct wall)
Working group to resolve site neighbour, utilities and landscape park issues
AP 24. The issues concerend fall into three groups, and could be tackled independently or
sequentially. The first set, regarding services to the site and waste from it, need to be tackled
point by point with a determination from all parties to reach agreement in a finite time-span. The
second set, regarding events protocols and parking (above) require a formalisation of the former,
and a clear strategy for improving immediate site environs and intial access from the lane. This
could include provision of a less visually intrusive car-park further up the lane. The third will
require a joint working party to seek to absorb the implications of the present Plan for the
management of the wider landscape, and reciprocally, the findings of the Wardour Park Strategic
Masterplan (4th draft) for the management of Old Wardour Castle and its immediate environs.
July 2014
Report
65
9. REFERENCES
Caroe and Partners, Architects, 2008 English Heritage AMP Survey, Old Wardour Castle
(12.2008)
Clark, K. 2003 Informed Conservation. London, English Heritage
Cole, D. 1993 (Dominic Cole and Land Use Consutants), Wardour Park Historic Landscape
Survey and Management Plan.
2014: (Dominic Cole Landscape Architects and LUC), Wardour Park Strategic Masterplan, 4th
draft.
Cowell, F. 2009 Richard Woods (1715 1793): Master of the Pleasure Garden. Boydell
Press.
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012 National Planning Policy
Framework, London, HMSO.
Everson, P. 2003 Medieval Gardens and Designed Landscapes in R. Wilson-North, The Lie
of the the Land: Aspects of the Archaeology and History of the Designed Landscape in
the South west of England. Exeter, The Mint Press.
English Heritage, 2011 Corporate Plan 2011-2015, London, English Heritage.
2012: The National Heritage Protection Plan Action Plan 2011-15: English Heritage
Revision 1: September 2012 March 2015, London, English Heritage.
2008: Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of
the Historic Environment. London, English Heritage.
Girouard, M. 1966 Robert Smythson and the Architecture of the Elizabethan country
house.Yale UP
1991: Wardour Old Castle, Wiltshire. Country Life, 185, 44-9
2009: Elizabethan Architecture: Its Rise and Fall, 1540 - 1640. Yale UP
2012: Old Wardour Castle. London, English Heritage.
Goodall, J., 2005 Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, Country Life 199, 94-5.
Gover, J.E.B, Mawer, A., & Stenton, F.M. 1939 The Place-Names of Wiltshire English PlaceName Society, Cambridge Universsity Press
Keen, L. 1967 Excavations at Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Archaeological and
Natural History Magazine, 62, 67-78.
Laird, M. 1999 The Flowering of the Landscape Garden: English Pleasure Grounds 17201800. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania UP.
Liddiard, R. 2005 Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500.
Macclesfield, Windgather.
Linford, N. 1998 Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire, Report on Geophysical Survey, 1997.
English Heritage AM Lab Report 5/98. (Contains references to Central Archaeology
Service interim reports, 1997, on evaluation trenches at Old Wardour in the 1990s by
S. Reilly).
Morley, B. 1981 Aspects of Fourteenth-Century Castle Design in A. Detsicas, (ed)
Collectanea Historica: Essays in Memory of Stuart Rigold. Maidstone, Kent
Archaeological Society, 104-13.

July 2014
Report
66
Mowl, T., 2004 Historic Gardens of Wiltshire. Stroud, History Press.

Rutter, J. 1822 Historical and Descriptive Sketch of Wardour Castle.
Taylor, C. 2000 Medieval Ornamental Landscapes, Landscapes, 1.1, 38-55.
Williamson, B., 1997 Lord Arundells Park at Wardour.
2011: The Arundells of Wardour: From Cornwall to Colditz.

July 2014
Report
67
Old Wardour Castle
Conservation Management Plan

Volume 2: Appendices
Report No: 3176.04
Final Report
July 2014

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS

The aim of this Gazetteer is to provide a simplified listing of the principal Heritage Assets at Old
Wardour Castle and environs.
The locations of all Heritage Assets are shown in Figure 1, below. Each Heritage Asset (apart
from OW1, the Tower Keep, for which the description is longer) has a single-page entry in this
Gazetteer, which provides the following information.
Asset number
Type of Asset
Official designation and number (for example Listed Building number and grade, or
Scheduled Ancient Monument number)
Summary description, drawn from official listing and HER inscriptions, from the site Guide,
and also from field-based observations (made on 15, 25 and 28 February 2013 and 18
March 2014 - GW; and 26 March and 3 April 2014 - KR )
Photographs
Interpretation
A brief statement of significance (mostly, this has already been supplied in Volume 1)
An assessment of importance / significance using the standard criteria for Scheduled

Ancient Monuments; these are rated subjectively through tick boxes with notes if
required. The criteria considered are:
o Survival / Condition: how well does the asset survive, both above and below
ground?
o Fragility / Vulnerability: what are the threats to the asset, and how serious are
they?
o Rarity: how rare is this type of asset, both regionally and nationally? Is it important
as a good example of the commonplace and most typical?
o Group Value: is the asset associated with other assets of the same period, or is it
part of a sequence of sites which has developed through time?
o Diversity: are there variations in the type of asset specific to its region and period?
o Potential: what potential does the asset have to teach us about the past? Can we
predict if it is likely to contain as yet undiscovered archaeological evidence? Is
there potential to improve interpretation and understanding for the public?
o Amenity value: is it already accessible to the public, or does it enhance the visitor
experience?

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
69
Figure 1
Plan showing location of Assets
OW6
OW2
OW5
OW1
OW4
OW3
OW10
OW8
OW9

July 2014
OW7
Volume 2 Appendices
70
Asset OW1: Tower Keep
Asset number: OW1

Type of Asset: standing structure, partly re-roofed in concrete
Statutory Protection: Listed Building Grade I; Scheduled Ancient Monument (26706)
HER number: MW12841 ST92NW600
Description:
The tower keep at Old Wardour Castle comprises a four-storey (surviving), originally five-storey,
stone structure with (formerly) timber floors and roofs, and (formerly mostly) glazed casements.
It was designed in plan as a hexagonal structure with central concentric open courtyard
functioning primarily as a light-well for the apartments. One side of the hexagon projected
north-eastwards to form a rectangular entrance block with a broad faade framed by twin
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
71
towers, and the central part of which was recessed to reveal two of the windows of the great
hall set laterally over the entrance-passage. These latter structures are substantially intact.
The accommodation consisted of a series of suites of rooms in the sides and angles of the
hexagon, and in the twin towers. On the north-east side, at ground level, the elongated
entrance-passage features an external doorway, a passage and an internal doorway. It is
flanked by a porters lodge on one side and a store-room on the other. Above these was the
Great Hall, ranged over three storeys, and occupying the focal place of the entire structure. The
north gable and roof of this Hall are missing. The location of the Screen at the south end of the
Hall is evident in the bare fabric of the interior stonework here, as are structural details of the
late 16th century refurbishment. The drastic reconfiguration of fireplaces, doorways, door-heads
and other openings (apart from the tall Perpendicular windows in the east and west elevations)
is very apparent.
The East tower flanks the entrance-passage and Great Hall to the east, forming the left-hand
side of the faade, as viewed from the north-east. A vaulted cellar at ground-floor level is
surmounted by the former buttery and servery, and, on the two floors above this, are the East
tower lodgings, now with concrete floors. The North tower flanks the entrance-passage and
Great Hall to the west, forming the right-hand side of the faade, as viewed from the north-east.
A vaulted cellar at ground-floor level supports a lobby for the west end of the Great Hall at firstfloor level. Above this, the North tower lodgings are now without floors. The North tower stair
was substantially rebuilt and widened as part of the 16th century alterations, but is now ruinous.
To the west of the lobby at the north end of the Hall stood the Great Chamber, above a groundfloor wine-cellar. This Chamber rose two storeys, and was later modified into the Great Parlour,
a kind of family common-room, in the late 16th century. The only substantially-intact element of
this room is the interior wall of the south-facing elevation. It was the focus for the family
apartments that continued westwards with a Withdrawing parlour, and a suite of family rooms
and bed-chambers. These apartments bore the brunt of the Civil War explosion, and are reduced
to foundation-level on their external side (that forms the west-facing part of the hexagon).
To the west of the East tower, the remains of the kitchen, with extraordinary fireplace flues rising
almost the entire height of the original structure, are very much the key feature. (NB that the
location of the Lower Kitchen and Wine Cellar are transposed in the illustrative locational figure
on page 9 of the Guidebook). The apartments along the western ranges are only fully traceable
along the wall lining the central courtyard. From these remains it is evident that each set of
apartments was (or could be) self-contained, with a single entrance accessed at ground-floor
level from the courtyard.
Another particular feature of the tower keep at Old Wardour is the presence of a sophisticated
network of latrines emplaced within (and not projecting from) the fabric of the walls.
Interpretation:
A multi-phase hexagonal tower keep: of unusual design and with some exquisite detailing.
Statement of significance:
The primary significance of the tower keep is that it provides the main feature at the castle that
exemplifies and illustrates both the innovatory design of the hexagonal castle of 1393, and the
subsequent modifications of 1578.
The significance of the castle and its landscape overall are set out in full in Volume 1.
Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic, and Communal value are all high, especially if the latter is
focused upon the visual impact on visitors.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
72
Criteria
Value
Notes
Survival / Condition
High
The north-east facing elevation is largely intact up to (but not

including) the uppermost storey. The flanking towers of this
elevation are also reasonably well-preserved. However, although
parts of northern and southern ranges (especially outer walls)
survive well, the building as a whole is ruinous, especially in its
western ranges. Fabric condition is therefore variable.
Fragility / Vulnerability
Med
Some compromise to structure resulted from insertion of

concrete floors; however, generally in fair condition and now
stable. Some exfoliation on interior (now open) stonework.
Rarity
High
On basis of design and history, and some detailing
Group Value
High
At the centre of a group that extends into surrounding parkland,

the tower keep has rarity value in respect to the late medieval
th
period and castles more generally; in respect to the late 16
century as an example of Elizabethan style, a classicising of
th
inherited Gothic architecture; in respect to the 18 century
Picturesque, in a group of such ruins (Old Scotney Castle in Kent
is another example) deliberately set within parkland as a key
feature retained and embellished by planting to Romanticise the
setting of a newer mansion.
Diversity
Med
Two major phases of building
Potential
High
Considerable potential to uncover/investigate questions

identified in gaps in knowledge, especially regarding former
gateways; potential also to enhance access and interpretation
for visitors, to create displays/facilities (especially in East tower)
and to improve setting of the monument as a whole.
Amenity value
High
Access to the building is relatively unregulated, and this aspect

is particularly highly valued by visitors.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
73
Asset OW2: The extended-hexagonal precinct (formerly curtain/bailey)

wall and enclosed bailey
Asset number: OW2

Type of Asset: standing building/below-ground remains
Statutory Protection: Listed Building Grade I; Scheduled Ancient Monument (26706)
Description:
The precinct wall at Old Wardour Castle (described in the site Guide as the Outer wall) is
apparently built, at least in part, on the foundations of the medieval curtain wall, which appears
likely to have been a broader, more military-style structure than its successor.
There are clear indications along the northern half of the north-west facing length of the wall
(part of which collapsed in 1990) that there were once further buildings here, aligned along the
line of the wall. The northernmost of the two apparently rectangular structures was attached to
the wall, while the more southerly building of the two appears to have been integral with the
fabric of the wall. As such, these buildings were likely to have been of 16th century date,
although they could have pre-dated this phase. They could have been demolished either during
the Civil War siege or subsequently: in the case of the formerly integral building, the curtain wall
has been patched with rubble; in the other case, what is now the external wall was once an
internal wall of the eastern side of the building. As noted in Volume 1, above, these buildings
may have been built to replace service buildings that formerly stood within the curtain/bailey
wall. An important opportunity to investigate and record the form of the wall, and the medieval
foundations upon which it was based, appears to have been lost in 1990-92 when part of the
north-west facing length collapsed and was rebuilt: only a watching-brief was carried out to
record the foundations of the wall, when a full excavation could have recovered much more
information by following up on the results of Keens key-hole excavations in the same location.
The precinct wall comprises seven unequal lengths of walling, each of which mirrors its
corresponding wall of the tower keep. In those lengths that have not been subsequently
modified, the external wall-face rises through a plinth to a pseudo wall-walk crowned with
traces of decorative castellation (evident for example on the north-west facing length). The
extent to which the precinct wall extended to the north-east is uncertain. The walls that,
flanking the north-east faade of the tower keep, extend towards the foot of the hill to the northeast of the castle, are poorly-preserved for around half of both their lengths. A wall aligned
north-west to south-east may once have connected these two framing walls, or alternatively
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
74
they could have been linked by a part-wall and railings, or by a planted (eg box) hedge. This
linking feature need not have been placed at the extremity of these walls, and is more likely to
have been placed at a point close to the base of the present terrace.
The bailey itself comprises (a) the original ground-level within the bailey wall, and the
foundations of structures (presumed mostly service buildings) and associated deposits built
integrally with or adjacent to the wall, and later features such as formal gardens; and (b) rubble
and other deposits brought in or levelled out to raise the levels to the present lawned areas,
especially to the south-west and west of the tower keep. These latter deposits have shown to
vary in depth between 0.4m and 2m, with the deepest deposits recorded to the west.
Interpretation:
1) Precinct wall, defining an inner enclosure providing gardens/setting for the tower keep.
2) Formerly, curtain wall (or, bailey wall) surrounding the outer ward of the late medieval
castle
This wall is fundamental to an understanding of what the castle ensemble at Old Wardour was
providing and exhibiting at various stages in the history of the site. Described here as
surrounding the outer ward, in the context of a tower-keep this could be described as an inner
ward; however, there is no trace of any further enclosure beyond this wall, so outer ward is
preferred here.
Not only in terms of understanding (its exact form in the earlier period is unknown; the nature
of buildings integral with it or beyond in in the post-medieval period is poorly-understood), of
conservation management (its condition and problems appear not to have been closely
assessed), and interpretive terms (the visitor is given almost no information about it), this asset
seems to the authors of this report to be remarkably poorly-appreciated and neglected. It is not
its form or features that are important in their own right, so much as its considerable
significance in the history of the site, and as an integral major element of the whole castle.
After the refurbishments of 1578, the bailey itself had no functions other than ornamental and
recreational. However, this would have been among the busiest areas of the medieval castle,
and the effect of the raising of ground levels in especially the western half of the contained area
in the period 1766-c.1770 was to seal the remains of the earlier period of occupation of this part
of the site under between 1m and 2m of rubble derived from the tidying up of the western
elevation of the tower keep.
Evidential value and historical value is high. Aesthetic value is medium. Communal value should
be higher.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
Variable. The earlier structure appears to survive only at

foundation-level; some lengths of the visible wall lean outwards
considerably (as shown also in archaeological excavations).
Much of the castellation and upper parts of the wall have been
lost. Several lengths (eg north-facing lengths) are ivy-grown or
have laurel or trees growing close behind them. It is likely that
water is being impounded behind the wall at various places.
Cracks are evident in some locations. The south-east facing
length appears to require attention. The south-facing length
contains various structures that have been inserted into (or even
beneath) it, and the condition of these (eg brick-lined vault)

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
75
needs careful appraisal. One part of the north-west facing length

has been entirely rebuilt and re-founded.
Med
Variable, but further collapses cannot be rules out. The wall is

vulnerable to pressure from deposits built up against it,
particularly in the past 250 years. Its stability has potentially
been compromised in various locations by inadvisable planting
and possibly also by lack of appropriate management of
vegetation.
Rarity
Med
Extremely rare in terms of hexagonal plan. Relatively rare as a

total rebuild of a medieval curtain wall, rather than patching or
elaboration of same.
Group Value
High
The precinct wall is a key component of the Old Wardour Castle

complex. It frames the entire Guardianship area, and played a
key role as a container for the service buildings in the medieval
th
building; as a container for the 16 century and later gardens;
and as the location of the later service buildings ranged around
its outer face.
Diversity
High
Although only two principal phases of building, contains also a

variety of other features and has others attached: as above
(description), but also OW3, OW7, OW8, OW9.
Potential
High
Information potential from a campaign of investigation and

recording: clues as to both the disposition of buildings within the
medieval curtain wall, and later buildings integral with but mostly
external to the later precinct wall.
Visitor experience/information potential when more information
is available, and more effort is made to explain the structure, and
have it appear as more than simply incidental to the tower keep.
Amenity value
Low
Currently low, but medium to high if more information is

supplied, and if it were to become possible to view some parts of
the exterior.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
76
Asset OW3: The Banqueting House/Pavilion
Asset number: OW3

Type of Asset: standing building
Statutory Protection: Listed Building II*; Scheduled Ancient Monument (26706)
Description:
A rectangular brick and rendered building with canted ends, set lengthwise (oriented northsouth) along the west-facing length of the curtain/precinct wall, upon which it is set centrally,
and symmetrically. Built as a two-storey structure, with access from the exterior of the precinct
wall at the lower level, and from the interior of the same at the higher level.
Gothic architectural detailing with Gothic castellation, centrally-placed (upper floor) ogeeheaded doorway with decorative moulding, ogee-headed openings, plain castellation, external
decorative buttresses crowned with pinnacles.
Interpretation:
1) A banqueting house, dated to 1773, and traditionally ascribed to James Paine; thought
to have replaced an earlier banqueting house of late 16th or 17th century date
2) A pavilion, used as a tea-room for visitors, for instance in the Victorian period, who had
come to admire the medieval ruins and later pleasure grounds
Excellent example of this kind of building providing a key part of the setting of the castle.
Evidential value is high; historical value is medium, given the limited length of site history that
its presence represents. Aesthetic value is high, in respect to both its setting and the elegance
of its style of construction; and communal value is high (probably higher now, with its use as a
wedding venue, than when the site has been in state care previously: although for 19 th century
visitors its communal value as a tea-room and place of resort would also have been high).
Criteria
Value
Notes
High
Good survival, adequate condition (though needs some directed

attention to problems identified in AMP survey)

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
77
Med
In and of itself, the structure appears to be sound. However, little

is known of its foundations and structural relationship to the
precinct wall (OW2) and therefore its vulnerability to potential
movement in the latter is uncertain.
Rarity
Med
As a survival of its type in relatively good condition, and

especially among those publicly accessible (that at Gibside is
another example) it is moderately rare.
Group Value
High
A key component of the group of structures at Old Wardour: it

provides evidential and aesthetic value to the setting of the tower
keep (OW1)
Diversity
Low
It has been suggested that the lower fabric external to the

precinct wall provides indications of the earlier build.
Potential
Med
Current use as a wedding venue, and for limited displays on the

history of the designed landscape, inhibits further potential
Amenity value
High
The only fully-roofed structure at the site that provides a clear

sense of how it was originally used

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
78
Asset OW4: The terraces within the garden
Asset number: OW4

Type of Asset: earthwork
Statutory Protection: Listed Building (n/a); Scheduled Ancient Monument (26706)
Description:
A set of 110m long, narrow terraces running the breadth of the north-eastern side of the outer
ward of the castle, linking together the flanking walls of the late 16 th century precinct wall. The
terraces form a tiered parallel group, ascending the lowest part of the slope to the north-east of
the castle, and providing a near-prospect of the north-east facing entrance faade.
The lowest terrace is 8m broad from front to back, and is the broadest of the three terraces. It is
turfed on either side of the Grotto, and provides a setting for the latter.
The two (narrower, apparently 4m broad) terraces above this are less well-preserved, but were
an integral part of the group. They are now submerged within the planted shrubbery, are barely
discernible, and have had no role in the ensemble since the construction of the Grotto in the late
18th century.
Interpretation:
A series of three ascending garden/prospect terraces, overlooking the tower keep, castle
bailey/later formal gardens and deer-park/designed parkland beyond, and, sequentially back in
time:
1) The location for the Grotto, that was placed centrally on the lowest/broadest of the
terraces; the base for the Grotto was cut back from the rear side of the lowest terrace,
into the centre of the upper two terraces;
2) Before this, the lowest of the terraces was marked on the plan of 1753 as bowling
green, and may have had a particular relationship to the stone seats (OW6)
3) Before this, the terraces are likely to have provided prospect walks with a view towards
the north-eastern faade of the tower keep following the refurbishment of the castle in
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
79
1578, although the narrower upper terraces may have been planted as elongated
borders.
4) Before this, it is just possible that the broadest terrace formed a raised level prospect
walk and the upper terraces a garden from 1393, with this medieval garden terracing
facing directly onto the north-eastern faade of the castle, and providing views of the
deer-park beyond.
If the latter interpretations (3 and 4) are upheld, these terraces are transformed from being seen
as of incidental significance within the site, to being one of the more enduring and significant
features of the site, and an addition to the understanding of the aesthetics of castle design in
the medieval period.
Although medieval gardens are being recognised at many castle sites, the importance of the Old
Wardour garden (if such it is) is that it was designed integrally with one of the most striking
architectural features of the tower keep: the north-east facing entrance faade.
Evidential value is high; historical value is high. Aesthetic value is currently low, since it serves
merely as the setting for the Grotto. Communal value is low, given that visitors will have no
sense of its importance in site history.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
Beyond the limits of the Grotto, the terraces are relatively wellpreserved, but have inevitably not been managed as if they had
any particular significance within the site.
Med
The grown-out yew trees on either side of the grotto could be

vulnerable to wind-blow, and this could cause localised damage;
the upper terraces are vulnerable to unsympathetic management
of the shrubbery which partly ranges over them.
Rarity
High
Both in terms of the relationship to the medieval castle (and in

particular its plan-form); and to their design; and to the
continuity (and evolution) of use.
Group Value
High
To be better appreciated as a key component of the design of the

th
site, probably from its (late 14 century) inception
Diversity
High
The terraces form an interesting and unusual grouping
Potential
High
Considerable potential in terms of information gain from further

study and recording (relating the visible earthworks, for instance,
to the high-resistance anomalies recorded in 1997 just below the
terraces); in terms of improved management, perhaps at the
ends, away from the Grotto; and of visitor interpretation, where it
might be possible to indicate former permutations of this part of
the gardens
Amenity value
Med
Currently low, and largely unexplained and unexplored; could be

high if more was explained about their possible role on the site

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
80
Asset OW5: The Grotto
Asset number: OW5

Statutory Protection: Listed Building n/a; Scheduled Ancient Monument (26706)
Description:
Designed in 1792 by Josiah Lane of Tisbury, an assembly of (occasionally massive) quarried
stones of tufa limestone placed together ornamentally to provide a set-piece structure within a
romantic garden surrounding a medieval ruined structure (the tower keep). The structure as a
whole is around 25m in north-south extent, and extends back from close to the front of the
lower level terrace for around 8m. It is placed, and was constructed symmetrically, with a
central seat with alcove behind, placed at the top of a flight of stone steps with 9 treads, and
flanking towers descending from a height of 4m at its apex, north and south to 2m in height.
The steps are aligned precisely with the entrance passage to the tower keep, such that the seat
with alcove behind encourages contemplation thence, of the way across the lawn, through
doorways and passage, and into the ruined central court of the keep..
The apparent informality of the structure is deceptive, and its composition is legible best on the
southern side of the central seat. Here, a series of cave-like vertical fissures and alcoves have
been created by arranging monoliths or composite pillars of stone bonded together with gaps
between, that can be accessed or peered into. A string-course of flat slabs, ascending up
towards the apex of the structure, has then been laid across the top of both the pillars and the
gaps, and this has provided the foundation for a second storey to the structure which
comprises fewer alcoves and greater masses of stonework.
That its present appearance is a denuded version of the original is evident from traces of
plasterwork close to ground level. This indicates, as do the pieces of the same material retrieved
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
81
from site and stored at Atcham, that at least the faade of the structure was encrusted with
plaster frostwork, designed to give the structure a wholly confected appearance. Whether this
was originally further embellished by being painted is uncertain.
Interpretation:
An ornamental grotto. Such structures were created to provide a naturalistic counterpoint to
architecturally-elaborate and finely constructed buildings, and were a fashionably essential
component both for the garden environs of great houses and for contrived walks in the wider
designed parkland landscapes surrounding them.
The importance of the Grotto is as a key component and focal point of the romantic/Gothick
garden. Evidential value is high, historical value medium, aesthetic value is medium (would be
higher if restored); communal value is medium.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
Enough survives to gain some idea of what it is, and its role
within the site; however, much of its fabric and finishes have
been lost or degraded
High
Appears to be stable, but subject to further degradation from

erosion, water penetration, vegetation growth
Rarity
Med
Others examples exist, some in worse condition, a few better
Group Value
High
A key component of the permutation of the site as a romantic

ruin set in leisure grounds
Diversity
Low
Single-phase structure
Potential
Med
Considerable potential to be restored to its original appearance,

and if made sound, to encourage visitors to penetrate its spaces
Amenity value
Med
At present, it is probably not sound (and therefore safe) enough

to encourage use in the way that it was designed to be used
not only as an eye-catcher and backdrop feature, but also as a
place to explore by entering caves/fissures.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
82
Asset OW6: Stone seats, entrance-way and standing stones
Asset number: OW6

Type of Asset: standing structures
Description:
Stone seats: roughcast stone/rubble niche-like recessed structures, with stone slab seating
Entrance way: simple gate between ragged piers assembled from rough-cast stones in the
same manner as the Grotto stones
Standing stones: group of scattered stones, at least one standing as in original configuration,
once making up a coherent group, now not so clearly defined: remains of a stone setting/circle
feature reputed to be made at least in part from stones taken from a stone circle near Place
Farm, Tisbury (Colt Hoare 1812, 251).
Interpretation:
Ornamental embellishments, probably the remains of a wider conception and assemblage.
Comprising additions to the pleasure grounds, as points of interest within the setting of the
romantic (and formerly ivy-grown) ruins of the tower keep.
Key structures within the latest permutation of the site. Good examples of their type, if now but
a shadow of their previous state.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
The Stone seats survive in something approaching their original

condition. While the entrance-way was probably always simple
in form, only the ragged piers are in their original condition (gate
itself was probably more elaborate than today). Stones are
mostly fallen or displaced.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
83
Med
Could be subject to further degradation, even if currently

apparently stable
Rarity
Med
Good examples of their type, but other groups elsewhere

probably survive in better condition
Group Value
High
Proviode a good indication of the former appearance of the site

as a particular kind of pleasure grounds.
Diversity
Med
Several different components
Potential
High
Considerable potential to restore as a group, especially if

vegetation management improves
Amenity value
Low
Currently low, but could be improved

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
84
Asset OW7: The Stables
Asset number: OW7

Type of Asset: standing structure/unroofed ruins of building
Description:
Gable walls almost to full height; side wall south: arches from open front to stables; rear wall
part of the precinct wall around the tower keep.
Interpretation:
Remains of the stables of c.1685
Within the site, one of the clearest remains of the service buildings that would originally have
been sited within the bailey, and that were removed to the exterior following the redesign of the
castle c.1578.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
Enough survives to provide an impression of the original form;

there are some concerns about the stability of parts of the
structure (inf owner: Luke Hughes)
Med
Could be subject to further degradation of fabric
Rarity
Low
Presumably there are many better-preserved examples
Group Value
High
As part of the group of historic buildings at Old Wardour
Diversity
Low
Apparently of a single build, perhaps incorporating earlier

structures, and perhaps also some later modification
Potential
Low
Not within that part of the site that is publicly accessible
Amenity value
Low
No public access

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
85
Asset OW8: external tower, SW angle of precinct wall
Asset number: OW8

Description:
Two-storey structure, comprising one single room accessed from within precinct wall, with
cellar/store room under, accessed externally.
Interpretation:
A necessary house, designed for use by visitors to the environs of the tower keep
Part of the group of structures associated with the immediate environs of the castle
Criteria
Value
Notes
High
Complete C17th structure, apparently in good condition
Med
Some minor problems noted during AMP survey and on visit in

2014; lower floor could be assessed further
Rarity
High
Unusual survival of such a feature, with privy still intact
Group Value
High
An essential component of the romantic C18th/19

grounds
Diversity
Low
Single-phase simple structure
Potential
Low
The intrinsic value of the feature is readily appreciated by the

visitor; there is little scope for enhancement
Amenity value
Med
A feature of interest in respect to the later use of the site,

interpretive link to the earlier history of water-closets as
exemplified at old Wardour and to the elaborate medieval
garderobe system within the tower keep, could be made more of.

July 2014
th
pleasure
Volume 2 Appendices
86
Asset OW9: structures within southern length of precinct wall
Asset number: OW9

Description:
A series of poorly-understood (?and recorded) structures embedded within or inserted into the
medieval curtain wall and later precinct wall (OW2, above).
Comprises: (a) two simple stone-vaulted cellars aligned north-south beneath the upper levels of
the precinct wall; linked by simple single-point arches; exact configuration in respect to
adjacent features uncertain. (b) simple brick barrel-vaulted structure inserted into the precinct
wall at ground-level by the south-eastern angle, and extending parallel with the stables (OW7)
within the thickness of the precinct wall. With an elaborate Vanbrugh-style opening. (c) other
structures embedded within this stretch of walling, for example opening to east of latter
opening: is this part of the access tunnel (OW10)?
Interpretation:
1) Appears to be a group of cellars presumed for storage; however, query (this report)
whether these features could have been part of the former entrance into/through the
medieval curtain wall and later precinct wall.
2) Barrel-vaulted brick-lined tunnel alleged to have been inserted to support the rear of the
precinct wall at a point where it had suffered pressure from deposits placed within it (inf
L. Hughes). Current assessment is that this is doubtful, given the elaborate entrance.
Suggest instead that this was integral with the creation of the stables and the
development of Old Wardour House, and was designed to provide service access to the
latter.
3) The exact disposition, let alone the function, of other cavities, cellars or other features
embedded within the precinct wall at this location is uncertain.
(a) Could be highly significant if part of former entrance. The cellars are of intrinsic interest
anyway, and all these features are of interest in relation to the service history of the
site.
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
Although some of these structures are complete in and of

themselves, they are nonetheless poorly-understood parts of the
wider complex. They are of variable condition.
Med
They are subject to further decay, water ingress and fabric

deterioration

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
87
Rarity
Med
Difficult to assess
Group Value
High
Service structures are a key component of the site overall
Diversity
High
Numerous phases of building are represented by the various

structures
Potential
Low
No public access
Amenity value
Low
No public access

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
88
Asset OW10: the access and service tunnel
Asset number: OW10

Description:
Stone-lined underground tunnel, extending south-eastwards from the tower keep.
Interpretation:
Service tunnel from ancillary service buildings, possibly original to the 14th century castle;
possibly inserted as part of the refurbishment of 1578.
A feature that would have been common to many such structures; indicative here of the early
elaboration of display, and concern to hide service functions (?).
Criteria
Value
Notes
Med
In good condition close to the cellar of the tower keep, from

which access to it was gained from within that building. In other
parts, some collapse of the structure has been registered
Med
Could be subject to further collapse
Rarity
Med
Uncertain
elsewhere
Group Value
High
An integral part of the castle
Diversity
Med
More than one phase of building?
Potential
Med
Considerable interest in opening up this part of the castle (cellar)

to regular public access, to enable this feature to be inspected
more closely
Amenity value
Low
Access down the tunnel is now blocked
how

July 2014
well-documented
are
similar
structures
Volume 2 Appendices
89
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF CONSULTEES, AND SUMMARY RESULTS

OF CONSULTATION
List of consultees who were met with face-to-face, in order of meeting:
1) Sally Hughes and Greg Bastin (EH on-site curators; GW, Old Wardour, November 2013)
2) Hon. Richard Arundell, Luke Hughes, and Martin Thomas (Guardianship site owner,
neighbouring land-owners, residents, and informal landscape park plan consortium
members; KR, Old Wardour, 25/3/14)
3) Sally Hughes, Greg Bastin and Luke Hughes (owner of Old Wardour House) (KR, Ark
Farm, Old Wardour, 3/4/14)
4) Elizabeth Allison (Estates Surveyor, EH West Territory), Sophie White (Head of Marketing,
EH West Territory), and Andrew Wyngard (Technical Manager, B&CE, South West Region)
(KR, Bristol, 8/4/14)
Several face-to-face meetings were held also with the commissioning team (respectively
Territory Curator and Deputy Territory Curator) Heather Sebire and Win Scutt.
In addition the following inernal consultees at English Heritage (mostly based at West Territory
Office, Queen Square, Bristol) were sent copies of the 3rd draft version of the Plan report for
comment:
1) Kim Auston, Heritage at Risk Landscape Architect
2) Steven Brindle, Senior Properties Historian (Bristol)
3) Francis Kelly, Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas
4) Paul McGleish, Area Manager, West-South
5) Philip McMahon, Inspector of Ancient Monuments
6) Jacqueline Martinez, Assistant Inspector of Historic Buildings
7) Cameron Moffett, Collections Curator (Atcham)
8) Alex Page, Historic Properties Director, West Territory
9) Stephanie Robbins, Education Coordinator
10) Jenifer White
11) Jon Watkins
12) Heather Sebire
13) Win Scutt
14) Caroline Power
Responses with comments were received from Francis Kelly (summary) and from Cameron
Moffett (see Appendix 4 for summary of the 153-page Inventory that was attached to her
response). Following the further allowance of time beyond the deadline for comment of one
month following submission of the final draft text, additional comments were received, including
several from the gardens team at Bristol. Where feasible, further amendments arising from
these comments were made, prior to printing of copies of the CMP, in July 2014.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
90
Summary of consultation responses, and, where appropriate, consequent inclusion of action

points:
A full report on the content of the consultations would normally be prepared. Resource
limitations have prevented the formulation of such a report. The main points arising are
therefore bullet-pointed below:
From the consultation with local stakeholders and residents:
Concerns were expressed that there has been little long-term resolution of a number of
issues to do with site management and control of visitor numbers
Particular issues are around parking arrangements, and in the past from noise of events.
There is a concern to find a way of re-thinking parking to avoid overcrowding at busy
times in summer; also concerns about access road blockage particularly for emergency
vehicles at busy times
There is a tension (which EH also has to balance) between the promotional use of the
site as a tourist resource and visitor attraction, and the need to conserve the historic
fabric and (if possible to enhance) the setting.
Ongoing concerns about the supply of services (water, electricity), and drainage
General agreement that the present location of the foul drainage facility is inadequate
Strong feelings about the special character of the place, and especially the parkland, have
given rise to the commissioning of the Wardour Park Strategic Masterplan, and there is a
strong feeling that English Heritage should facilitate the better integration/re-integration
of the Guardianship site with the immediate and wider parkland environment.
However, there are doubts as to English Heritage commitment to resolve the issues
concerned
From consultation with English Heritage site staff
Site staff wish to be more efficient operationally, and there are some ongoing issues
regarding (eg) chairs for events, disabled access, etc that need resolving
Ongoing concern that visitor facilities, ticket-office, shop etc need rethinking, and better
provision (lots of visitor feedback on cramped entrance conditions, especially at the
entrance to the shop
Wish to see better on-site signage etc, and more interpretation beside the guidebook
available to visitors
Want to see better use of roofed spaces within the tower keep, and improved
opportunities for using it as a viewing platform out into the countryside
From consultation with (mostly) Bristol-based staff
The site is difficult to manage and promote, because it is neither a self-guided site nor a
major attraction, and because access is so difficult
There is a positive attitude towards collaborative working, and the curatorial officers are a
key conduit between the regulatory/conservation staff and the site promotion/visitor
amenity staff
The conservation issues (fabric etc) are not seen to be important, compared with those
faced at other Guardianship sites
July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
91
The resource of materials in care (architectural and other items especially the
catacleuse fireplace surround - on site and at Atcham) could be made better use of, and
be better-deployed/displayed on site
The parkland issues are too difficult to resolve; this has been tried (HLS) but failed; there
is no mileage in trying this again (this view was conveyed at second-hand, and may not
represent the more optimistic approach of EH staff more generally)
Overall conclusions from consultation exercise

These have given rise to the action points, along the following lines:
A working group should be established to try to develop a strategy for the point-by-point
resolution of issues around the provision of services to/from the Guardianship site, and to
act as a formal conduit for the resolution of problems as they arise
We were impressed by the commitment and enthusiasm of the local

residents/stakeholders to see the setting issues progressed. This seems like an
opportunity not to be missed, and there should be scope to promote both the castle and its
landscape as a significant historic resource, with an important place in the history of the
nation.
Road access, signage and parking are particular issues needing to be resolved, and the
immediate setting of the castle, should be the subject of particular attention.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
92
APPENDIX 3: ACTION PLAN IN ORDER OF PRIORITY

This Appendix lists the Action Plan points set out in Section 6 in order of priority.
High: within 1-2 years

Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW1, OW2, and

OW3
HIGH
LOW
OW1
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
10 Improved chair storage and

accessibility
HIGH
LOW
OW1, 3
15 Improved access to/better

understanding and
interpretation of Picturesque
landscape design features,
including planting
HIGH
LOW/MEDIUM
OW4, 5, 6, and 18
18 Rationalisation of
display/interpretation
panels
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
20 Improved intra-site signage
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
21. Opening up of views within

the site through improved
vegetation management
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
22. Visitor reception and shop

improvements: develop
plans for same
HIGH
MEDIUM
OW 1-10
HIGH
LOW
All
1. Conservation action to
address concerns about
fabric
health and safety
improvements, especially in
respect to steps and railings
in tower keep
8. Remove obstructions/
rethink DDA aspects;
9 Provision of DDA-compliant
buggy-transport on limited
route within-site, upon
request
25 A working group should be

established to try to
develop a strategy for the
(NB this refers

only
to
the
Guradianship
area)

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
93
Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
point-by-point resolution
of issues around the
provision
of
services
to/from the Guardianship
site, and to act as a formal
conduit for the resolution
of problems as they arise.
Road access, signage and
parking
are
particular
issues needing to be
resolved,
and
the
immediate setting of the
castle, should be the
subject
of
particular
attention

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
94
Medium: within 2-5 years

Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, OW2, and

OW9
5. Develop anti-vandalism
strategy
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, 3
6. Convert covered storage

spaces/ basements in OW1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1
11. Develop Pavilion lighting

solution
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW3
12. Standing fabric recording

and analytical survey
MEDIUM
LOW
OW1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10
14. Closely-targetted keyhole

archaeological excavation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW1, 2, 12, 13,

and 17
16. Restoration of Grotto and

stone circle
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 4, OW5
20 Improved intra-site signage
HIGH
LOW
OW 1-10
23. Review of special events
MEDIUM
LOW/MEDIUM
OW 1-10

vegetation management for
conservation
7. Weather-proofing and
conversion of rooms in
south-east tower for
displays
(to follow on from

items 9 and 10)

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
95
Low: in 5 years or more

Actions
Priority
Cost
Assets
LOW
LOW
All
13.
Further
geophysical
survey
(esp
Ground
Penetrating Radar)
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
OW12, 13, 14, 15,

16, and 18
17. Recovery of ornamental

and structural stonework from
pile
in
grounds,
and
restoration of same
LOW-MEDIUM
LOW
OW4, OW5
19 Creation of app for

tablets/i-phones: both limited
commentary,
and
digital
reconstructions that peel
away later landscaping to
indicate, successively, the
earlier appearance of the site
LOW-MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OW 1-10; 12-20
24 Conservation and opening

up of landscape areas beyond
Guardianship site, especially
immediate environs to east.
LOW
MEDIUM
OW20
Requires
colaborative
project, lengthy,
but high value
retrun
Will
inevitably
require
partnership
funding
4. Develop archive and

documentation strategy,
and implement

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
96
APPENDIX 4: Inventory of items in store (summary of data from

Cameron Moffett)
This Appendix provides a summary by the authors of this report of/headline statement arising
from the catalogue of artefacts, architectural fragments and other materials either held in store
at Atcham, or on site, as provided by Cameron Moffett early in April 2014. That list (made
available as a separate document but not included here) represents what has been catalogued
so far. Supplementary information from Cameron Moffett indicated for instance that more
survives on site, but has not been examined closely. The summary below is drawn from
headline notes supplied in an email
The catacleuse (marble) fireplace surround, from the Great Hall. A drawing exists of this
feature, as recorded from early documentation before the Cicil War. Chunks of it were found
down the well in the 1960s. These are now the principal surviving fragments held in store.
The cost of conserving these fragments is prohibitive. But a drawing could be made of the
surviving fragments, and these matched against the historic drawings to create a modern
reconstruction.
There are substantial amounts of plaster frostwork detached from the Grotto. These could
be restored to site, were the original appearance to be reconstructed; or they could be
displayed as an educational resource on site.
There are quite a few classical urns (in fragments) from the site, and fragments of statuary:
all assumed to belong to the romantic presentation of ruins in the pleasure grounds.
However, this large group of items does need sifting and assessment, to better establish
what belongs with what.
Relatedly, there is a large DEL (directly employed labour) heap of stonework on site, derived
from the various patchings and tidying-up operations on the site, historically since 1936.
Some pieces protruding from this heap look interesting, and potentially important. They
need to be assessed more carefully. Perhaps the heap needs closer examination (dare we
suggest, excavation?); it will become invisible if left much longer.
There are a few oddments that could be used in displays, such as a cameo brooch,
presumably found when the ruins were initially tidied up.
The remainder of the collection comprises excavation finds from Laurence Keens
excavations, and presumably also that of Andrew Saunders. Such finds could be assessed
for their potential to be used as part of on-site displays.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
97
APPENDIX 5: INDEX TO EH DIGITAL ARCHIVE ON OLD

WARDOUR CASTLE
(Gerry Wait)
Index to EH Digital Archive on Old Wardour Castle (supplied on CD)

Folder
File Name
Document title / description
hsqe
Brief-Old_Wardour_Castle-2008
Periodic Condition Survey and Report

Brief for Old Wardour Castle 2006
hsqe
Report-Old_Wardour_Castle-14
SW England-1991
Botanical Interest of English Heritage

Sites
hsqe
SW England-1992
Botanical Interest South West
hsqe
Inspection Report Vol 1-1995
Report on the inspection of the site and

buildings. Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire
for English Heritage Historic Properties
South West
Hsqe
Report on the inspection of the site &

buildings at Old Wardour Castle, Wilts for
English Heritage Historic Properties South
West volume II CASTLE
hsqe

West volume III
hsqe
Inspection report Appendix A1995

West - Consultants Report
hsqe
Inspection report Appendix B1995

West Appendix B Historical/Background
material
hsqe
Inspection report Appendix C1995

English heritage Historic Properties South
West
Appendix C - Drawings
hsqe
Inspection report Appendix C-

July 2014

Volume 2 Appendices
98
hsqe
hsqe
hsqe
1995
English heritage Historic Properties South

West Appendix D - Photographs
Botanical Survey SW England1992
Botanical Interest of English Heritage

sites in south West England Part 2 Avon,
Berks, Glos, Oxon, Wilts
Report-Old Wardour
Access Audit-2001
Castle-
Report-Old Wardour
Action Points-2007
Castle-
Old Wardour Castle Site Team Meeting

11th July 2007 Action Points
Report-Old Wardour CastleArchaeological Assessment
Photos 194 pages
Report-Old Wardour CastleArchaeological Report-2006
Old Wardour Castle
hsqe
Report-Old Wardour
Asbestos Survey-2004
South West Region Asbestos Survey

Report Old Wardour Castle
hsqe
Report Old Wardour Castle

Building Maintenance Schedule
Castle-
Archaeological Watching Brief
Old Wardour Castle

Monument Number: 470
Sheet 1/5
Hsqe
Report-Old Wardour CastleDecember Action Points-2007
Old Wardour Castle

Site Team Meeting
th
Thursday 6 December 2007

Action Points
hsqe
Report-Old Wardour CastleExamination of Mortar Sample
Sandberg report 16350C Examination of a

mortar sample.
Hsqe
Report-Old Wardour Castle-GM

Schedule
Historic
Buildings
Commission
hsqe
Report-Old WardourCastle-M&E
Schedule
Mechanical
&
Electrical
Maintenance/Response Contract Ref No
202
&
Monuments
Old Wardour Castle site Information Asset

Register Schedule of Works
hsqe
Report-Old Wardour CastleNovember Action Points-2008
Old Wardour Castle

Interim Site Team Meeting
Tuesday 25 November 2008
Action Points

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
99
hsqe
Report-Old Wardour Castle-Old

Wardour Action Points-2008
Old Wardour Castle

Site Team Meeting
th
Friday 16 May 2008

Action Points
hsqe
Report-Old Wardour Castle-Old

Wardour Castle
hsqe
SSoS-Old Wardour Castle-2008
Old Wardour Castle Report
Asset Management Plan (AMP) Project

Summary Statement of Significance
Report No: SSoS-470
Old Wardour Castle
hsqe
Wildlife Statement-Old Wardour

Castle-1998
Wildlife Statement
Plans
Old Wardour Castle-Annexe5

Drawings-2009
Ground Floor/First Floor/Third floor/East

Elevation/Courtyard
Elevation/Kitchen
Internal/Banqueting
House
West/Banqueting House North/Banqueting
House South/Bailey Paths surfaces &
Planting.
Plans
Old Wardour Castle-Courtyard

Elevations 2
Courtyard South West, North West &

North Elevations
Plans
Old Wardour Castle-Courtyard

Elevations
North East South East Elevation
Plans
Castle Drainage and Sewage for

New Toilets
Drainage and Water Supply to new toilets.
Plans
Old Wardour Castle-Electrical

Plan
Pavilion Basement (not to scale)
Plans
Elevations 2
July 1993. Elevation 1 1a 2 3 4 4a
Plans
Elevations 3
July 92 Elevation 1 2 3 4
Plans
Elevations 4
Plans
Elevations 5
Plans
Elevations of Collapsed Wall

ends
Elevations of Collapsed Wall Ends
Plans
Castle Elevations
Elevations 2 3 4

July 2014
For Old Wardour Castle
Volume 2 Appendices
100
Plans
Exhibition Lighting 1984
Electrical Services Exhibition Lighting
Plans
Exterior Elevations NE
Exterior North East Face
Plans
Exterior Elevations NW
Exterior North West Face
Plans
Exterior Elevations SW
Exterior South West Face
Plans
FirstFloor Plan
First Floor
Plans
Gothic Pavilion Elevations and

Section 1968
Gothic Pavilion Elevations and Section

1968
Plans
Gothic Pavilion Section 1968
Gothic Pavilion Section 1968
Plans
Gothic pavilion South

Elevation
Gothic pavilion South West Elevation
Plans
Gothic Pavilion Plan 1968
Gothic Pavilion Plan 1968
Plans
Gothic
Pavilion
Protection
Gothic Pavilion
14/2/1992
Plans
Gothic Pavilion New Toilets

Plan Section and Elevation
SE Elevation. Plan. Location AA BB CC
Plans
Ground Floor Plan
Ground Floor Plan June 92
Plans
Maintenance Extent Plans
Maintenance Extent Plans 27 Nov 07

Ordnance Survey
Plans
North East and North West Wall Elevations
North East & North West Face. Sept 97
Plans
Record of Survey 2
May 1989
Plans
Record of Survey 3
May 1989
Plans
Record of Survey
May 1989
Plans
Second Floor Plan
June 1992
Plans
Site Plan
March 1967
Plans
South East and South West

Wall Elevations
September 1997
Plans
Third Floor Plan
June 1992
Plans
Tree survey 1988
September 1988
Plans
West Elevations
May 1985
West
Lightning

July 2014
Lightning
Protection
Volume 2 Appendices
101
Plans
Withdrawing Parlour Faces
Parlour South Elevation North face. May

1985
Surveys
Caroe Survey Old Wardour

Castle-2009-Annexe6-Photos
Dec 2008
Surveys
Condition Old Wardour Castle2008
Old Wardour Castle

Site number: 470
Periodic Condition Survey Report Dec
2008
Surveys
Condition Old Wardour CastleBat Survey-2009
Old Wardour Castle
Surveys
Condition-Old Wardour CastleCondition Survey-1995
Report on the inspection of the site and

buildings at Old Wardour Castle, Wilt for
West-Vol 1- March 1995
Surveys
Condition-Old Wardour CastlePeriodic Condition Survey
Old Wardour Periodic Condition Survey

Report No. 470/2008 Dec 2008
Surveys
Old Wardour
201378980
Land use Consultants 1993
Surveys
Old Wardour LUC
Texts
Castle
LUC
Bat Survey Oct 2008
Historic
Landscape
Survey
Management Plan May 1993
and
2014 01 21 15 27 10
Historic
Landscape
Management Plan 1993
and
2014 01 21 17 05 16
Archaeological assessment of the route of

a proposed service trench from the ticket
office area to the treatment tank west of the
Gothic pavilion. October 2004
2014 01 21 17 09 40
Summary of the archaeological source

material Jane Harcourt
2014 01 21 17 14 20
Wiltshire County Council Sites and

monuments Record
2014 01 21 17 15 26
NMR Report
2014 01 21 17 16 20
NMR Activity Report
2014 01 21 17 17 11
Excavations at Old Wardour Castle -
2014 01 21 17 19 32
Excavations 1983 George Smith
2014 01 21 17 21 34
Watching brief on tree planting pits within

July 2014
Survey
Volume 2 Appendices
102
bailey Dec 1989.

2014 01 21 17 25 04
Texts
2014 01 21 17 25 53
Medieval Archaeology 35 Nov 1990
2014 01 21 17 27 22
Watching Brief
2014 01 21 17 28 17
A preliminary archaeological assessment.
2014 01 21 17 34 55
Ticket Office and Grotto Summary of

Archaeological Evaluation. Sept 1997
2014 01 21 17 38 58
September 2000 Watching Brief
2014 01 21 17 40 12
Report on geophysical survey 1997
2014 01 21 17 41 20
Wardour Castle by Lt. Col. H.F. Cheetle.

CME OBE
2014 01 21 17 42 01
Country Life Feb 1991 by Mark Girouard
2014 01 21 17 43 11
Country Life 21 Feb 1991
2014 01 21 17 44 15
Handwritten document. Site plan of the

deed 11.3.1936.
2014 01 21 17 42 19
Addendum
to
the
archaeological
assessment of proposed drainage, water
and electricity supply between the ticket
office/shop and the gothic Pavilion. Various
documents and dates.

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
103
APPENDIX 6: FEATURES LOST IN THE ENVIRONS

This Appendix is as provided by Mr. Luke Hughes of Old Wardour House

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
104

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
105

July 2014
Volume 2 Appendices
106

Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan 2014 Volumes 1 and 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan 2014 Volumes 1 and 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Old Wardour Castle

A castle that I call the wonder of the West

Conservation Management Plan

Nexus Heritage Controlled Document Commercial-in-Confidence

Gerry Wait and Keith Ray

Date: completed 26/04/2014

Anthony Martin and Gerry Wait

Rev 1 for information, Revs 2-3 for consultation

Completion of text; insertion of figures; completion of Volume 2, Appendices

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management

UNDERSTANDING THE ASSET .....................................................................................10

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS .........................18

MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL ..........................................................................................30

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ..................................................................................................31

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................35

RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................44

ACTION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 577

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 666

ASSET OW3: THE PAVILION ................................................................................................................. 77

ASSETS OW6: STONE SEATS, ENTRANCE-WAY AND STANDING STONES

ASSETS OW7 OW10: THE STABLES ............................................................................................... 85

ASSET OW9 STRUCTURES WITHIN SOUTHERN LENGTH OF PRECINCT WALL

ASSET OW10 THE ACCESS AND SERVICE TUNNEL

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF CONSULTEES AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSES........................................ 90

APPENDIX 5: INDEX TO EH DIGITAL ARCHIVE ON OLD WARDOUR CASTLE (GERRY

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

Site location and scope of work

Aims and objectives

to understand the significance of the asset as a whole

long term sustainability of the site

maintenance of the site to an exemplary conservation standard

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

Understanding heritage assets/historical development of the site (Section 2 of

Management appraisal (Section 3 of this Plan)

Assessment of current state of knowledge, and identification of gaps in

Statement of significance (Section 5)

Assessment of risks and opportunities (Section 6)

Action Plan (Section 7)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011-2015 (2011)

English Heritage National Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP) (2011)

Kate Clark, Informed Conservation, London: English Heritage (2003)

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

Figure 1 Location, south of Tisbury, Wiltshire (satellite image)

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan

2. UNDERSTANDING THE ASSET

Outline historical development of the site

The history of Wardour is well-researched and well-published at least in summary and in

Wardour manor mentioned in

Sold by Thomas Calston,

No known remains, but excavations have

John, 5 Lord Lovell granted

William 7 Lord Lovell focuses

Builds the basic Castle as found, in

sided with Edward of York

passage/tunnel extends to the southeast,

In 1547 the castle was sold to

Swan Pool probably is located on the site of

Wardour held by the Crown or

Little or no documented activity at Wardour