Hailes Abbey Conservation Management Plan

HAILES ABBEY GLOUCESTERSHIRE
HAILES ABBEY STANWAY GLOUCESTERSHIRE CONSERVATION STATEMENT for ENGLISH HERITAGE SOUTH WEST REGION
simon cartlidge | a r c h i t e c t
__________________________________________________________________________________
59 elton road bishopston bristol bs7 8dg
t 0117 907 7559
e simon@cartlidge.co.uk
CONSERVATION STATEMENT
HAILES ABBEY: CONSERVATION STATEMENT HAILES ABBEY: CONSERVATION STATEMENT
November 2006
simon cartlidge | a r c h i t e c t
hailes abbey | conservation statement
for
ENGLISH HERITAGE SOUTH WEST REGION
CONTENTS 01 SUMMARY
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Background Heritage Merit Statutory and non-statutory designations Vulnerability Summary of policies in the document Status of the Conservation Statement 01 01 01 01 01 01
04
CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Background The guardianship area Cistercian water management Claustral ranges and cloisters Abbey museum Ecology and landscape 27 27 27 28 28 28
02
BACKGROUND
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Introduction Circumstances of preparing this Report Consultation Limitations of the study Authorship 03 03 03 03 03
05
DEFINING ISSUES
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 Background Redefining the monument in 2006 Statutory and Non-Statutory Controls The condition of the monument and its repair Future maintenance options? Vulnerability - Flooding Earthwork and water engineering features Ecology and landscape Chestnut trees Access Archives, records and education Education The National Trust and Neighbours Financial constraints 29 29 29 31 32 38 39 40 40 42 43 43 43 43
03
UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 Summary Cistercian background Affiliation of Hailes Foundation of Hailes Early history of the abbey lands Phase I: Initial development of the site 1245-1251 Phase II: The new church 1271-1277 The years of uncertainty Phase III: Late C15 alterations The precinct and Cistercian water engineering Surrender of the abbey 1535-1539 After the surrender Post monastic occupiers 1540-1893 Post monastic adaptations The abbey as monument Excavations 1899-1900 and 1906-1909 The presented monument: Sir James Fowler 1927-1933 The National Trust 1937-1946 State Guardianship 1947-1984 English Heritage 1984-present 04 04 05 06 06 07 09 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 15 15 18 19 20 23
06
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES

6.1 6.2 Preface Conservation Policies 45 45 48 54 55 56 58
Appendix A: Ministry of Works 1946 Site Report to NT Appendix B: Restoration Work Completed: The Times 1929 Appendix C: List of persons consulted Bibliography Acknowledgements
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Background This Conservation Statement deals with the guardianship site (Figure 01) and wider historic environment of Hailes Abbey. The site is owned by the National Trust, but is managed as a historic monument by English Heritage on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. The outer areas of the guardianship site are grazed on licence to local farmer Mr Peter Eayrs, of North Farmcote Cottage. 1.2 Heritage Merit Hailes is significant as a historic environment centred on the C13 Abbey, which was built (unusually) on the site of an existing C10 earthwork. The Abbey was a late Cistercian foundation established with Royal Patronage in 1246. It was built rapidly, richly decorated and was later to become a centre for pilgrimage, after the presentation of an authenticated phial of the Holy Blood in 1270. Despite the survival of relatively little standing archaeology, C19 - C20 excavations exposed the complete footprint of the Abbey, revealing monastic buildings constructed in three principal phases. Following the dissolution, the west range of the abbey was converted to a country house, but fell into decline after the mid-C18 and became ruinous. The site retains much of its monastic context and all principal elements of its Cistercian water management system. Hailes is a quintessential monastic site and is highly valued as a place of peace and tranquillity, qualities derived from its architecture, landscape setting, and spiritual origins. 1.3 Statutory and non-statutory designations The Abbey is protected as a scheduled ancient monument and as a grade I listed building. The museum is registered with the Museum Libraries and Archives Council (no.1859), and is one of just two English Heritage registered museums in the south west region. The site is contained within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and is on the Cotswold Way National Trail (Long distance footpath). The site is habitat to lesser horseshoe bats and grass snakes, both protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. 1.4 Vulnerability The principal concern is the extent of masonry conservation required in relation to limited repair budgets. Following the loss of a dedicated labour force in the 1980s maintenance and repair has been intermittent, resulting in a loss of architectural detail and general degradation of masonry across the site. The site is subject to periodic flooding and an evaluation of the presentation of the site/museum are now both long overdue, but as the site attracts around less than 15 000 visitors annually it is not a priority for funding. . 1.5 Summary of policies in the document The policies in this document aim to reconcile the conservation of the site in relation to increasingly competitive demands for limited resources. Presentation techniques can be usefully reviewed to address long term conservation issues, whilst improving the interpretation of the site (and museum) for contemporary visitors. 1.6 Status of the Conservation Statement This statement follows a draft consultation document issued to English Heritage for comment and forms the basis of future decisions for the site (but should amended in the light of additional information and reviewed within a five year period).
page 01
Figure 01. Site Plan, Ministry of Works - 1948. The drawing is overlaid with the original deed of guardianship area (red line) dated 24 June 1948 and shows the boundary of Scheduled Ancient Monument 28850 - Hailes Abbey and ringwork (yellow line which excludes the parish church). The present deed of guardianship area was revised 08 August 2002 and reverted ownership of the grade II listed Custodians Cottage to the National Trust. The revised area is denoted by the dashed red line. NMRC Historic Plans Room 639/2. Originally traced from 1:2500 Ordnance Survey GLOU XX.4 Crown Copyright .
summary page 02
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Introduction Prior to the establishment of the Abbey the site housed a C10 castle (or fortified Manor House) of which very little is known. As an abbey, the site has had five major historical periods of use. 1246-1539: it was a Cistercian Abbey, where monks set themselves apart from society to praise God and supported themselves by working the land on the vast monastic estate (and also a major pilgrimage site from 1271). 1540-1729: after the Dissolution the west range became a country mansion for local gentry families. 1729-1757: was divided to form two farmhouses. 1757-1927: remained ruinous and was used as a farmyard, until excavated (1899-1906), later returning to fallow land. 1928-present: repaired as a visited monument, first by an individual, then the National Trust, before passing in to state guardianship. 2.2 Circumstances of preparing this report English Heritage commissioned this document at a time when a number of decisions were being made about the future conservation of the fabric of the monument, which would have significant effects on its presentation and interpretation. This statement seeks to provide an overview of all issues affecting the site and bring together an integrated conservation management approach. 2.3 Consultation This report has been produced following extensive consultation with a number of key stakeholders within English Heritage, but has not been sent out for external consultation. It is hoped that this document will be used as a starting point for an integrated exploration of the current issues affecting the site. 2.5 2.4 Limitations of the study The significance of Hailes Abbey lies in the complex evolution of the buildings, site, earthworks, owners and occupiers and their relationship with the natural environment. Particular problems have occurred in trying to track down documentary evidence to substantiate previously unfounded information about the development of the site, or to access information that would allow cross referencing of documents, thereby avoiding unnecessary anomalies or inaccuracies. (This has especially been the case in respect of works and excavations undertaken between 1947 and 1970). Within the limitations of this report it is hoped to provide a balanced and accurate understanding of the site and an objective appreciation of the significance of the monument. The policies and recommendations that follow deliver a prioritised, integrated management plan for the site. Authorship This document has been compiled by Simon Cartlidge, who takes full responsibility for any errors or omissions. I have been greatly assisted by numerous consultees within English Heritage, who have freely given of their time and knowledge. I would specifically like to thank Niall Morrissey (Technical Manager) for his continued support and encouragement throughout the project and Tony Musty (former English Heritage Regional Curator and archaeologist overseeing many of the 1971-1978 excavations), for providing valuable archive material, and an explanation of recent archaeological activities on site.
page 03
3.0 UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE

3.1 Summary The Cistercian Abbey of Hailes was founded in 1246 by Richard Earl of Cornwall, on land granted to him by his brother Henry III. Hailes was one of the last Cistercian houses to be established in England and was built rapidly, on a grand scale and richly embellished. After five years of building, the church was sufficiently complete to permit a grand service of dedication, attended by the King and Queen, most of the major barons of the realm, thirteen Bishops and well over 300 knights.1 Despite its auspicious start the abbey initially failed to prosper until, in 1270, Richards son Edmund presented the community with a phial of the Holy Blood. This relic would make the abbey one of the foremost pilgrimage sites in England, necessitating the rebuilding of the east end of the church to create a suitably impressive pilgrimage chapel.2 After the loss of its rich royal patrons the fabric of the abbey remained little changed until the late C15 when the cloister arcades were rebuilt and the west range was converted into a private residence for the Abbot. The dissolution saw the rapid destruction of all buildings associated with monastic life, but those parts that could be retained for other purposes were converted for domestic use. For almost two centuries the former abbots lodgings were converted to a country mansion, before declining into an agricultural use as a farmstead. By the mid-C19 Hailes Abbey was a dilapidated romantic ruin, only seldom visited by antiquarians. Towards the end of the C19 concerns about its condition led to its excavation and repair by the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. In 1928 Sir James Fowler, Warden of Beaulieu Abbey, took out a 5-year lease on the site, produced a guide book, launched a public appeal and carefully presented Hailes as a picturesque ruin. He did much to restore and publicise the site and constructed a new museum.3 In 1935 SPAB appealed for the site to be scheduled, which it was in the following year.4 In 1937 ownership passed to the National Trust., who engaged a full time custodian and spent modest sums on the sites repair guided by best practice advice sought from the Ministry of Works.5 A lack of concerted maintenance throughout the Second World War saw Fowlers picturesque planting scheme flourish, leaving delicate below ground archaeology to fracture between unchecked vegetative growth. A collapsed monastic drain exacerbated problems and led to frequent flooding of the site. The National Trust felt the scale of repairs necessary was beyond their limited means and, in June 1948, agreed for the site to be taken into state guardianship by the Office of Public Works.6 From 1954 work commenced on excavating and repairing the collapsed Cistercian culvert, followed by the consolidation of excavations to the east end of the church. By the late 1960s all cloister walls had been thoroughly dismantled, rebuilt and hard capped in cement mortars and, between 1969-73, the final vestiges of Fowlers ill-conceived planting scheme were removed from the nave and west range. More formal archaeological excavations were undertaken to the nave, frater and west range (1971-8), including a reduction in ground levels. Excavation and recording was followed by consolidation of exposed fabric, using cement-based mortars. The site retained a dedicated maintenance team until the late 1980s, since when ongoing repairs and maintenance have been sporadic. English Heritage have since 2000 been assessing more holistic repair methodologies, based on a palette of conservative repair techniques, including soft capping and reburial of fabric. 3.2 Cistercian Background The Cistercians emerged as a reforming branch of the Benedictine order under the leadership of Robert of Molesme (c.1027-1110). In 1098, he led the migration of twenty monks, dissatisfied with their manner of life and observance, to a place of solitude and austerity, described as, a place of horror, a vast wilderness. 7 Under the patronage of Count Odo of Burgundy they built Novum Monasterium at Cteaux, establishing an order of strict observance based upon the Rule of St Benedict - which structured a monks day around the three activities of worship, divine reading and manual work. The pattern of each day was determined by the sequence of services and the hours of daylight.
understanding the place page 4
The Cistercian way of life placed great emphasis on solitude and isolation and monasteries were often located far away from other settlements. Yet the most striking aspect of the reform of the White Monks was a return to the austerity of the time of St Benedict, most significantly including a return to manual labour. Driven by an ideal of individual poverty, monks were required to support themselves by working the land with their own hands. It was with these skills that the Cistercians would become renown for their revolutionary farming techniques and emerge as the most successful of all the monastic reform movements with well over 700 medieval monasteries and nunneries scattered throughout Europe. 8 The speed and extent of their expansion was quite remarkable and testament to the enormous appeal of the Cistercians. Their poverty and sanctity attracted donors and recruits, for people wanted to be involved with these monks, whose way of life guaranteed the surest way to heaven. The Cistercians were also an attractive financial proposition to founders, for it was less costly to establish a community of White Monks whose requirements were so simple.9 The success of the Cistercians in England can be judged from the fact that from the first foundation at Waverley in 1128 expansion was largely complete by c. 1150. The proliferation of new houses in England can largely be traced back to the three mother houses of Waverley, Rievaulx and Fountains (both of 1132) and by the close of the C12 we see the foundation of just five more houses in England, followed by a mid-C13 flourish of Royal Houses derived from Cteaux. By the time of the dissolution there were 76 Cistercian monasteries and 29 nunneries in England and Wales. 3.3 Affiliation of Hailes Hailes was one of the last Cistercian houses to be found in England, 118 years after the first arrival of the order at Waverley. It was a daughter house of Beaulieu in Hampshire, itself an immediate daughter of Cteaux in Burgundy, the monastery that originally gave its name to the Order of White Monks (Figure 02).
Figure 02. Families of Cistercian Abbeys in Britain. Map shows foundation of Beaulieu from Cteaux and subsequent daughter houses of Hailes, Netley, Newenham and St Mary Graces, London. Source: Robinson (Ed). 1998.
In 1203, King John (1166-1216) established a small community of monks at a temporary home in Faringdon, Berkshire (now Oxfordshire). Within a year the house was relocated to Beaulieu, the site of a royal hunting lodge in the New Forest. John was determined that the new foundation would be of the greatest significance and was set apart by being the only Cistercian Abbey in England occupied by monks sent directly from Cteaux. Beaulieu was to receive further royal endowments from King Henry III (1207-72) and the abbey went on to establish three further royal daughter-houses; Netley (1239), Hailes (1246), St Mary Graces (1350) and a non-royal daughter at Newenham, Devon (1247). 10 3.4 Foundation of Hailes Hailes was founded by Henry IIIs brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall (1209-1272) reputed, at that time, to be one of the wealthiest and most influential men in England.11 The foundation of the abbey is ascribed to a vow made at sea in October 1242 when caught in a storm off Scilly that if he should survive he would found a monastery by way of thanksgiving (Figure 03). Three years later Henry II granted, Gift to Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and his assigns of the Manor of Hailes with the advowson of the church there, so that he may found a House of Religion of whatever order he will. (At Woodstock 15 July 1245) 12 Richardss choice to found a Cistercian Abbey was no doubt coloured by his fathers foundation of Beaulieu. It is also recorded that on 17 June 1246 Richard was present, with his brother, at the dedication of Beaulieu Abbey by William de Raleigh, Bishop of Winchester. At this meeting the Abbot of Beaulieu consented to send twenty monks and ten brothers to found a new monastery.13 3.5 Early history of the abbey lands Archaeological evidence shows that the area around Hailes has been inhabited for thousands of years, with two Iron Age hillforts a Roman settlement at Milhampost and numerous Romano-British finds discovered within a very small radius.14 Heiles (meaning - healthy) is recorded in the Domesday book as the property of Lord of the Manor William Leuric,
William also holds in GRESTON Hundred HAILES. Osgot held it before 1066. 11 hides. In lordship 3 ploughs; 9 villagers and 11 smallholders with 8 ploughs. There were 12 slaves whom William freed. A mill at 10s; woodland 1 league long and wide. The value was 12; now 8. This manor pays tax.15 Baddeley notes that after Leurics death, or forfeiture, (c.1114), Hailes passed by grant of the crown to Ralph de Tancarville. At some point between 1138-50 Ralph de Wirecester fortified a small castle already existing at Hailes. It is claimed that he then built the current parish church and starved the monks [of Winchcombe] and seized their cattle until they would allow him to dedicate the church and commit burials.16 The history of the moated castle, or more likely fortified manor house 17 is scant, but it is thought to have survived for a relatively short period, since when Earl Richards son was born at Hailes in 1246 he was born at Grove Mill - inferring that the castle had already been demolished.
Figure 03. Matthew Paris Medieval illustration of Richard in the Storm. Source: Aldred 1993.
3.6
Phase 1: Initial development of the site 1245-1251 Cistercian statute dictated that new foundations were to be established not in towns or around fortified places or in villages, but in places far from the concourse of men.18 Nevertheless, the precinct of Hailes was built on the site of a former castle and bordered a secluded hamlet that it is thought to have displaced. 19 The site also bounded Winchcombes Abbey and was in near proximity to those at Tewkesbury, Gloucester, Deerhurst, Pershore and Malvern. On 14 June 1246 Prior Jordan, twenty monks and ten lay brothers left Beaulieu Abbey on a 110-mile (180 km) journey, staying en route at Harford, Romsey, Andover, Coxwell, Salperton.20 The Hailes chronicle records that on 23 June they set up their tents at Hailes Mill but seeing the roughness of the terrain [they wondered] how from such unpromising beginnings might grow a noble monastery. 21 Yet the location provided all amenities necessary for a Cistercian site, including adequate flat fertile land, sheltered woodland (and timber) at the base of a scarp slope (with stone) and within easy reach of good transportation and most importantly a good supply of water. Because of the need for water, sites adjoining rivers or streams are almost universal. Several especially characteristic locations can be recognised and Cleeve is placed among a group which also includes Buckland, Loxwell, Hailes and Stanley, where the abbey stands on a small river or stream near to the point where it leaves a relatively narrow, constricted valley to enter a broader plain. 22 Robinson comments that with Richards financial support the construction of the abbey church and monastic buildings was to proceed at close to breakneck speed.23 Richard wasted very little time in gathering together materials for the new building and as early as 1245 the King had ordered 40 oaks to be sent from the Forest of Dean, 60 more in 1246, followed by 5 specifically for the choir stalls in 1251. 24 Between the summer of 1245 and the arrival of the monks, Richards agents set about collecting freestone, lias, slates and tiles, together with more timber from the royal forests, ready for construction of the buildings under the supervision of Frater Johannis Cementarius [Brother John the Mason].25
After five and a half years of construction a fine church, adequate dormitory, dignified refectory and large spacious cloister walk with adjoining buildings 26 were sufficiently complete to allow a service of dedication to take place (7 November 1251). Matthew Paris records the dedication service and lavish festivities in his chronicle. The King and Queen were present, and almost all the nobles and prelates of England. There were thirteen Bishops, who all celebrated mass on the day of dedication, each at his own altar, and the Bishop of Lincoln (Robert Grossteste), solemnly chanted mass at the High Altar. This was on a Sunday, and the nobles feasted sumptuously in company with the Bishops and others Indeed were I to describe in full the grandeur of that solemn and festive meeting, I should be held to be exceeding the bounds of truth, 27 Detailed building records or accounts do not survive for the site but, Matthew Paris records that the Earl without hesitation told me that when all expenses were reckoned he had laid out ten thousand marks [6 700] in the building of that church28. Hailes was built at the period of Richardss greatest wealth and following the era when Cistercian buildings were no longer characterised by their simplicity and austerity. The result was a monastic complex that was built rapidly [Beaulieu took forty-two years] on a grand scale and ornately embellished. All buildings were constructed in locally quarried oolitic limestone, set against contrasting details in blue lias. The plan of the abbey (Figure 05) appears to have been little influenced by the mother house. In contrast to the apsidal arrangement at Beaulieu, the four bay presbytery at Hailes originally terminated with a flat east end. One detail almost certainly derived from Beaulieu is that of the night-stair to monks dormitory, which is accommodated in the thickness of the wall to the south transept. Elsewhere the plan followed the contemporary cruciform design. The eight bay nave had north and south aisles, with four bay transepts (both with three east chapels); and a crossing, which was likely to have had a low tower over. The cloister and monastic buildings were arranged to the south of the church, with the principal drain running diagonally beneath the south and west ranges of the cloister.29
Richard went on to endow the monastery with the Manor of Hailes, the advowson of the parish church and a sum of 1000 marks (670) to be spent on the erection of buildings or purchase of land. Yet despite such a promising start, the abbey quickly ran into financial difficulties. After the dedication service, the building campaign went on, with the construction of an infirmary and other essential buildings for the monks, and granges and accommodation for the lay brothers. These buildings often replicated existing functions, creating an additional financial burden. Following a visit by James, Abbot of Beaulieu in 1261 it was decreed that the number of monks and lay brothers should not be increased until the considerable debts were diminished and more prudent administration was implemented.30 Platt comments that in a predominately agricultural economy, the prosperity of religious houses ultimately depended on the success of their exploitation of the land however, One obvious source of funds likely to appeal to men of religion as being so clearly within their control, was the exploitation of the saints and their relics. 31
Figure 04. Reconstruction of the site from the south-east as it is may have appeared in the late C15. Source: Aldred, 1993. English Heritage/Terry Ball.
Figure 05. Plan of Abbey showing phasing of successive builds. Source: Coad 1993. English Heritage.
3.7
Phase II: The New Church 1271-1277 The fortunes of the community were to be revived when on 14 September 1270, Edmund (the second son of Richard), brought to Hailes a portion of the relic of the Holy Blood, which bore the guarantee of the Patriarch of Jerusalem (later Pope Urban IV). The gift was destined to make Hailes one of the most celebrated goals of pilgrimage in the country. 32 It is thought that the phial would have been presented in a temporary shrine, but the extension of the east end with its corona of five chapels was built directly as a result of the need to provide a setting fit for the Holy Blood. The inspiration for the new east end is likely to have been Henry IIIs rebuilding of east end of Westminster Abbey, although an earlier Cistercian construction of an apsidal ambulatory, with five radiating chapels can be found at Croxden Abbey in Staffordshire, dating to 1176.
The decision to rebuild the east end coincided with a serious fire [1271]. It is recorded that the burned portions of the Abbey, together with the new work [church] and completed shrine were re-dedicated on 27 December 1277 by Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester.33 The 3m x 2.6m (10 ft x 8ft 6in) foundations of the shrine still remain and were excavated in 1956 and again in 1971 (Figures 07 and 08).
Figure 07. Section through the Abbey Church, showing The Shrine of the Holy Blood and original east wall of 1246-51. [Originally produced for display in the museum]. Source: NMRC 639/66 EH 2006.
Figure 06. Conjectural drawing of the Shrine of the Holy Blood, after 1271. Source: Coad 1993. English Heritage/Terry Ball.
Figure 08. Detail plan of the New Church, denoting ambulatory Chevet chapel and the Shrine of the Holy Blood. Source: NMRC 639/97 EH 2006.
3.8
The years of uncertainty Minor building projects continued over the next few decades. A new infirmary and adjoining buildings were constructed in 1292 and Edward III issued a licence to crenalate some chambers newly constructed in the abbey in the same year. The last recorded building is the erection of an Ox-house in 1299. 1 Edmund would die in battle in 1300 and with his death would come an end the abbeys association with the Earls of Cornwall [The title reverted to the Crown] and their generous benefaction. The history of the next 150 years was one of financial insecurity, with no building activity. In 1412 it was reported that, Owing to the neglect by its late Abbot Henry, the Abbey is said to be in debt to the sum of 1000 marks; its buildings are ruinous, and the income barely amounts to 100 a year.2 In 1413 the Pope accepted a petition that the incomes were insufficient to support a community of twenty-two monks and granted eleven years and thirty-five days of penance to penitents who visited the abbey and contributed money for the maintenance of the fabric on Whit Sunday and Corpus Christi, and the seven days following each of these feasts.3 The condition of the internal and external building fabric was criticised following a visit by the abbots of Beaulieu and Waverley in 1442. This resulted in requests for papal indulgencies, which were granted by Pope Calixtus III (1458) and Pope Paul II (1468), to assist with the cost of rebuilding the abbey. Coad considers that these works most likely relate to the lavatory and elements of the refectory.4
Figure 09 . Reconstruction of half of a cloister vault bay - in the abbey museum. Source: Tony Musty.
3.9
Phase III: Late C15 alterations It appears that the offerings of pilgrims visiting the Holy Blood provided a vital fillip, marking a turning point in the abbeys fortunes. Towards the end of the C15, probably under the direction of Abbot Whytchurch (1464-79), the cloister arcades were rebuilt, (Figure 09) with fan vaulting, angel corbels and armorial bosses; and the west cloistral range was fully converted to private accommodation for the abbot.
Figure 10. 1908 Photograph showing late C15 west cloister arcade, following recording, stabilisation and repair by the BGAS. Source: Baddeley 1908.
3.10 The precinct and Cistercian water engineering The outer precinct is largely obscured by post medieval landscaping, particularly terracing to the south east of the site (Figure 46). The precinct appears to be defined by the outer boundary walls (black on Figure 11). The boundary runs from the north-west corner of the site [17], around the outer enclosures of the church [7 and 2], follows the deep drainage ditch [1], beyond the former fish pond [9] along the monastic leat [5] and returning at right angles back to the starting point. Musty confirms that the extent of the inner precinct has not accurately been identified, as only two small fragments have been identified.5
The Cistercian water management system is more extant, with water still running through the original main drain. The valley stream was culverted to feed the reredorter and mill leat, which runs along the south west boundary of the site. The system of ponds starts with a spring higher up the valley and then a header pond (outside the Guardianship area), which survived until adapted in the 1970s. The large triangular fishpond ([9] on Figure 11) immediately above the Abbey Fish Pond may also have originated as a monastic pond. 6
Figure 11 . Aerial photograph of landscape features of the Outer Precinct, overlaid with hydrological features, location of known walls and abbey footprint. Source: Musty 2003.
Figure 12. Cistercian water management around Hailes Abbey. Clean water is from the valley to the south east of the site and directed to the reredorter and mill leat through Cistercian culverts. Source: NMR639/51. EH 2006.
To the south of the Frater, the system of stew ponds and sluices survive as clear earthwork features [10] as does a large fishpond adjacent to the Infirmary Cloister [11]. A comprehensive understanding of the significance of the archaeological and hydrological components of the Cistercian water management system is emerging, following recent research (associated with proposals to alleviate the flood risk). Once complete, Graham Browns final report will provide authoritative analysis on the water and earthwork features, which encircle the site.7 3.11 Surrender of the abbey 1535-1539 In the Great Survey of 1535, the annual income of the abbey was assessed at 537 7s 8 d, 8 allowing Hailes to survive the first wave of closures under the 1536 Act of Suppression (which closed all houses with an annual income of less than 200). The recorded possessions of the monastery included the manors of, Hayles, Pinnockshire, Nether Swell, Wormington, Coscomb, Longborough; rents in the towns of Gloucester and Winchcombe; lands and rents in Didbrook, Challingworth and Farmcote in Gloucestershire; the manor of Rodourne in Wiltshire; pastures at Heathend in Worcestershire; and the rectories of Hagley in Suffolk, Northley in Oxfordshire, St Breage and St Paul in Cornwall, Rodbourne in Wiltshire, Hayles, Didbrook, Longborough and Toddington in Gloucestershire.9 On 24 December 1539, the abbot and twenty-one monks and ten corrodians and their servants finally surrendered the abbey. Dr London and his fellow commissioners reported to Cromwell that they found, the father and all his brethren very honest and comformable persons and the house clearly out of debt.. 10 The Commissioners of the Court for the Augmentation [of His Majestys Exchequer] decreed that, Houses and buyldyngs assigned to remayne undefaced. The late Abbotts lodgynge extending from ye Church to ye Frater southwood with Payntre, butter, Kitchen, larder, sellers and ye lodgynges over ye same.11
3.12 After the Surrender

OWNERS
Cistercians 1256-1539 dissolved The Crown 1538-1543 granted to Katherine Parr 1543-1547 passed to Thomas Lord Seymour of Sudeley 15471548 granted to William Parr, Marquis of Northampton 1548-1553 forfeited title The Crown 1553-1594 sold to Tracy Family 1603-1893
OCCUPIERS
Cistercians 1256-1539 Robert Acton 1539-1542 Richard Andrews 1542-1543 Richard Andrews 1544-1550
Henry Hodgkyns 1550-1561
William Hoby 1561-1603 ? Sir John Tracey 16301686 Dower House to Tracy family 16861729 2 farmhouses 1729-1757 Ruin 1757-1893 Toddington Orchard Co 1893- ? ? Sir J Fowler 1928c.1933 National Trust 1937-1946 The Ministry of Public Buildings and Works 1946-1974 The Department of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings 1974-1984 English Heritage 1984- present
transferred in lieu of debts Economic Assurance Co. 1893-1902 sold to The Andrews Family 1902-1937 gifted to National Trust 1937 - present transferred by deed of guardianship National Trust
Figure 13 . Sequence of Owners and Occupiers at Hailes Abbey.
Note: This section draws on a number of published and documentary sources, including the publications of St Clair Baddeley, Doreen Winkless, James Fowler, TBGAS and primary research at NA, National Trust HQ and NMRC.
3.13 Post-monastic occupiers 1540-1893 Following the departure of the monks and Commissioners, Robert Acton was appointed as first lessee and Constable of Hailes (keeper for the Crown, with specific responsibility for overseeing the sites demolition). He was assisted by Richard Andrews and his servants. Within less than two years an enquiry was held by the Commissioners of the Court of Augmentation into the spoils of the late dissolved monastery. The findings were [conveniently?] held to be inconclusive.12 A new lease was issued to Richard Andrews, a great dealer in monastic property who already held nine other monastic sites. His lease was cancelled in on 12 March 1543, but he obtained a new one on 26 March 1544 for forty-one years.
The first true residential occupier of the site (rather than a speculator) was John Hodgkyns, who obtained a twenty-one year lease from Andrews, which was renewed with Northampton on his accession as freeholder. Hogkyns daughter married William Hoby [of Leominster] who over his long life, of 103 years, renewed the lease on three occasions, finally receiving the leasehold of the site from Elizabeth I. The Crown subsequently sold the Hailes estate to the Tracy family, who retained ownership until the end of the nineteenth century. 3.14 Post monastic adaptations The south and west ranges were excavated (but not fully recorded) in the 1960s as part of a scheme to repair the Cistercian culvert. This partially destroyed areas of medieval and post medieval fill, creating severe limitations on archaeologists undertaking detailed surveys in 1972. Despite detailed recording of finds and extant fabric, a full written evaluation of the 1970s work has yet to be published.13
Figure 14. Kips view of the site in c.1712. The image shows the retention of the south and west claustral ranges, south west tower and formal gardens and extensive terracing to the south-east of the site. Source: Baddeley 1908.
Figure 15. Samuel and Nathaniel Bucks 1732 view of the mansion. The building is intact (and shows kitchen extensions beyond the Frater). It had been a Dower House for almost fifty years and had just been converted to rentable farm accommodation. Contrast with Figures 16 and 17 to see the extremely rapid deterioration of the fabric. Source: Baddeley 1908.
The post monastic mansion consisted of an L shaped building occupying the site of the former lay-brothers range (later abbots lodging), part of the frater and kitchens. However, the great barn, stables, ox and sheep houses and abbey gateway were also retained. An interim archaeological summary reports, it would appear that the post-monastic occupiers of the house made few structural alterations to the cloister ranges they occupied, it may be that the Frater was truncated before the dissolution the dismantling and rebuilding of the kitchen appears to have taken place before the dissolution. It had also been altered in the period of the farmyard use, which followed the demolition of the post-monastic house Of the first floor [west range] little can be said. Originally the lay brothers dormitory the whole floor must have undergone massive alteration in the C15. Thus started the process where by the first floor contained a suite of rooms appropriate to the increasing temporal power and wealth of the Abbot. The south west tower and bay were added to give suitable access to first floor rooms. 14
The buildings were occupied continually as mansion house by the Hobys throughout the C16 and the Tracys in the C17. From 1686 the house became the Dower House to the Tracy family, until it was eventually converted in 1729 to two farmsteads. After being let out to local agents and farmers for some years and its out-offices being demolished for their building materials, it became ruinous from unrepair until it was reduced to the state in which Rudder and Lysons knew it in the middle of the eighteenth century15 By 1757 it was in ruins.16 We are fortunate that several C18 images of the abbey complex survive, providing us with not only with an insight into the extent of retained fabric but also helping document the rapid decline of the buildings (Figures 14- 17 and annotated notes). Throughout the late C18 and early C19 the abbey remained untended and seldom visited, having played little [if any] part in the picturesque cult of ruins. By 1840 John Britton records the site with gardens and cloister are now part of a farm. 17
Figure 16 . Robins evocative 1748 watercolour of the house, while still in the latter stages of occupation as a farmhouse. The illustration shows some degree of dilapidation to boundary walls and missing roof coverings to the main house. Source: Musty 2003.
Figure 17. Lysons 1794 view of the building showing the buildings rapid decline following the decision of the Tracy estate to dismantle elements of fabric for the repair of other estate buildings. Source: Fowler 1928.
3.15 The abbey as monument The ruins of the Abbey are like the charms of a coy village beauty concealed in a wimple of natures manufacture18 ran the picturesque description of the abbey in The Strangers Guide to Cheltenham (1846), belying the fact that the site was so overgrown and forgotten that its precise location was difficult even for locals to ascertain.19 The earliest recorded visit by an antiquarian group was not until 1856. (Figure 18). In the same year the British Association visited the site and declared arch leading to the sacristy as fairly perfect.20 The British Archaeological Association visited in 1876, when the speaker expressed the wish that, the owner of the property would cause the ruins to be excavated and the foundations laid bare. This was to prompt more local interest in the site, under the direction of Mrs Dent of Sudeley Castle.21
3.16 Excavations: 1899-1900 and 1906-1909 Members of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society (BGAS) visited in 1886 (Figure 19), encouraged by Mrs Dent to arrest the unceasing destruction of Hailes Abbey. But by 1893 Lord Tracy had been declared bankrupt and the property has been transferred to temporary owners in lieu of debts, delaying the immediate prospect of remedial repairs or excavation of the site. In 1899 the Economic Assurance Company and their tenants, The Toddington Orchard Company, gave permission for the BGAS to examine the site and repair the broken arches22. The project was financed by the BGAS, under the supervision of Rev. Canon William Bazeley and Welbore St Clair Baddeley. The project ran over two full seasons and consisted of wall following excavation over all external walls and internal partitions, which on occasions passed right through archaeological levels to natural levels. 23
Figure 18. Visitors from a London Archaeological Society inspecting the West Cloisters from the Illustrated Times , 16 August 1856. Source: Winkless, 2001.
Figure 19. 1886 visit by the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. Showing the general condition of upstanding remains. Source: Tony Musty.
From the excavations of Baddeley, Bazeley and Brakspear we have the published accounts of their excavations, drawings and the unlabelled stones themselves. However, in their reports, the descriptions of the actual recovery of stonework are often minimal and the find locations are usually not given The bulk of the information relating to the mouldings is contained within Brakspears drawings, reproduced in his own account, and in Baddeleys Cotteswold Shrine. However the identification of individual mouldings is not usually substantiated in the text and, in a few instances, it is possible to demonstrate inaccuracy in the drawing of the profiles.27 By the excavation standards of the day the investigations were relatively comprehensive and successfully revealed the complete footprint of the primary monastic site. Emergency repairs were administered to masonry arches that staved off imminent collapses, but following the summer of 1909, and the intervention of the Great War, the site continued to lie fallow again for a number of years.
Figure 20. 1900 Photograph of Chapter House doorway, showing general condition of site when first excavated by BGAS. Source: TBGAS XX11 (1900).
We decided to clear the cloister walk and remove the soil which had built up at the bottom of the walls and arches. We felt this would help visitors to understand the plan and to add to their interest. We started work on 20 July with four labourers and a stonemason on July 20th [1899] Our mason restored the base of the five arches in the church side of the cloisters with dry stone walling. 24 The Economic Assurance Society contributed a sum of 50. 00 towards repairs to the ancient barn [northwest of the outer precinct] which was used as a museum for displaying the lapidary fragments from the excavations. In addition, trustees were appointed to protect the site and to oversee the running of the museum.25 The works were suspended in 1900 when Mr Hugh Andrews acquired the site, but were continued with his support between 1906-1908. The second excavation was undertaken by Baddeley, culminating in the private publication of his 1908 work A Cotteswold Shrine. 26 The works were at times assisted by Harold Brakspear, who produced the first definitive plan of the church in 1901 and complete plan of the church and cloister in 1906 (Figure 22).
Figure 21. 1908 Photograph of south east corner of cloister, with extensive ivy growth, self seeded trees and shrubs to wall heads. Source: Baddeley.
Figure 22 . Harold Brakspears definitive plan of the abbey buildings as published in 1906 Source: Archaeological Journal LXIII (1901) p261.
3.17 The presented monument: Sir James Fowler 19271933 In 1927 the site was visited by Sir James Fowler, Warden of Beaulieu Abbey, who was horrified that its few remnants of walls and arches were almost hidden in the great tangle of grass and bushes 28 (Figures 23 & 24). Fowler launched an appeal to clear, drain and level the site, cut down trees, remove ivy and mark the foundations of the church with gravel and to construct a new museum29. Well ahead of his time, he presented to the public an interpretation of a picturesque ruin, with low level planting designed to be indicative of the form of subterranean remains. Interpretation included extensive perimeter planting [1928] of floweringchestnuts, with cypresses in the nave to mark former column positions30 (Figures 26 & 27). However in future years the interpretive planting was allowed to grow unchecked, resulting in an explosion of roots that would extensively damage and fracture the fragile archaeology.
Following calls that the existing monastic exhibits should be relocated to Cheltenham; Fowler oversaw the construction of a new museum north of the abbey church, built in 1928 by Oakley of Winchcombe (Figure 25) and gathered together the dispersed collection of Hailes relics.31 Fowler did much to publicise the site, including the publication of A Brief History and Guide to Hayles Abbey: A Daughter House of Beaulieu (1928). He also convinced the Great Western Railway to build a Halt on the Honeybourne to Cheltenham railway, to serve the abbeys visitors. Fowler retained control of the site until he became ill in 1933. The current presentation of the site and museum collection owe much to Fowlers legacy and it is to his credit that the presentation the museum remained little changed until as recently as 1971. 32
Figure 23. 1927 photograph of the site showing the general condition of the fabric. Self-setting trees have established in the corner of the cloister, with extensive ivy growth and shrub growth to wall heads. Source: Musty.
Figure 24. 1927 photograph of the east cloister wall. Since 1908 (Figure 20) shrubs and woody growth had been allowed to colonise wall heads, leading to disruption of masonry over arches. Source: Musty.
3.18 The National Trust: 1937-1946 On 7 April 1937, the National Trust acquired the site of the Abbey, Museum and Cottages in memory of the late Mr and Mrs Hugh Andrews, from their nephews and nieces.33 The Andrews had retained a curator on site who was a dry stone waller and it was agreed that he should continue his engagement with the Trust. An early dialogue emerged between the National Trust and Ministry of Public Buildings and Works as regards the proper repair philosophy for the site [possibly anticipating the later decision to place the property into guardianship]. James Lees-Milne (first Historic Buildings Secretary of the National Trust) confirmed a repair budget of 100 per year for the first two years and convinced the Ministry of the need to second a fully skilled mason to train-up their curator. In autumn 1937, E Wilson, Master Mason, was transferred from Minster Lovell for a period of four weeks.34
On 31st July 1938 the National Trust wrote, You will remember the work which was done by your man at Hayles last year [removal of vegetation and hard capping cloister walls ?]. We have received a good deal of criticism from members of the public, much of it of course most uninformed. After very careful consideration of the financial and general position, the [Historic Buildings] Committee have felt that it was better for us not to go on with any more work of the kind for the moment, but rather to devout ourselves to cleaning up and improvement of amenities of the site generally. When this has been done, in about two years, we hope to arrange for an architect to report for the Trust on a programme of work to further sections of the cloister wall. In 1946 Lees-Milne contacted the Ministry again, requesting the services of an experienced architect in determining an appropriate repair strategy for the site, which had now suffered six years of wartime neglect.35
Figure 25. 1929 photograph of west cloister, with new museum to the rear. Fowler has provided a walkway through one of Baddeleys linear excavations to aid interpretation of the overlay of post-dissolution builds. Source: Musty.
Figure 26. 1946 Photograph of the site accompanying a fabric condition report. Dry stone walling to wall heads has been colonised by naturalised soft capping and evergreen hedges representing piers and columns. Source: Ministry of Works file: 14/1988 AA 71749/3A Part 1.
The April 1946 report (Appendix A) concluded that 2 300 2 500 should be spent immediately on urgent repairs to the structure, and that an additional 5 500 5 700 should be spent as soon as funds permit. By return, James Lees-Milne [NT] responded, The [Historic Buildings] Committee agreed that the Trust simply has not got the funds to spend all this on the property, and they decided that in the interests of Hayles Abbey, it was only proper now that the Trust should ask whether the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works would take it from the Trust under a Deed of Guardianship. From the conversations with you in the past, I have always supposed that the ministry might be pleased to take it over. We submit the proposition to you now.
3.19 State Guardianship 1847-1984 Preservation: a method involving the retention of the building or monument in a sound static condition, without any material addition thereto or subtraction therefrom, so that it can be handed down to futurity with all the evidences of its character and age unimpaired. Frank Baines. The Ministry of Works assumed guardianship of the site, museum and custodians cottage on 24 June 1948. 36 The monument was by now in a parlous condition, with regular flooding of the site, unstable masonry and a forest of overgrown trees and evergreen shrubs (Figures 26 & 27). 37 The repair philosophy and nature of interventions adopted at Hailes was guided by the Ministrys general approach of conserve as found, or what Andrew Saunders, Inspector for the site in the 1960s, described as a belief that a monument should be preserved without imaginative embellishment and restoration of what might have been. 38 Additional guidance would have been derived from the 1946 condition report (Appendix A). Monument repair projects were slow to gain momentum after the war. In 1954, in preparation for a major programme of repair, a temporary workers village consisting of two timber-framed bungalows was built, in the paddock on the opposite side of the lane to the abbey. Site works commenced soon after, running through to 1970, and consisted of clearance excavations and basic consolidation of fabric. The first major project was to un-block and rebuild the main Cistercian drain, running diagonally across the site. Few records survive of the archaeology encountered (or works undertaken), with the exception of Andrew Saunders 1961 notebook of the watching brief. Regrettably other large and important areas of excavation, (and re-excavation), were undertaken over the next fifteen years which passed-by largely unrecorded. The east end of the church was completely excavated in the 1960s and levels were reduced in the presbytery (Figure 28 & 29). It appears that the only recording work undertaken was the composite section produced for museum display (Figure 08). The cloister walls were largely disassembled, cleared of vegetation and comprehensively rebuilt with a hard capping. Walls with standing ashlar had core work cleaned back [of vegetation] and then made up with a capping of random stone rubble.
Figure 27. 1950 aerial photograph of the site viewed from the east. Cypresses, planted in the nave by Fowler, 1928, are now well-established and causing root damage to adjacent archaeology. Source: Knowles & St Joseph.
In the 1970s the mix was nine to one, sand/cement for bedding and four, two, one, sand/cement/lime for final capping. The capping was washed and brushed back on the second day to rebate the pointing and form a water path Detail work was repaired with Aceme, a two-part epoxy stone glue and delta bar [brass alloy] pinning as required. As works progressed around the monument the site was slowly cleared of Fowlers interpretative planting scheme. The final section to be removed in 1970 was the area of the nave where the cypresses had caused extensive damage to column bases. By 1971 the workforce of masons/labourers had reduced from a high of ten to just two. This was sufficient to fulfil the essential maintenance requirements of the Ministrys hard capped walling, but little else. 39 Between 1971-8 a formal archaeological excavation programme began under the supervision of Tony Musty, later to become museum curator. During this period the nave/west range/frater were re-excavated and reexamined and recorded to a high degree of detail (Figure 31), although the findings have never been formally published or written-up.
Figure 28 . c.1966 Aerial view from the south east (compare with Figure 27). Image shows ongoing excavation of the church, recent construction of the car park, clearance of many trees and completed repair to the standing archaeology of the cloisters. Source: Musty.
Figure 29 . The only known image of mid 1960s excavations to the presbytery. Source: Tony Musty from Doreen Winkless.
Figure 30. 1972 Photograph showing excavation of the lay brothers range, viewed from the north east. Source: Musty.
The museum was extended in 1975 (Figure 32) to provide new facilities for the display of lapidary fragments and to improve reception and ticketing facilities (replacing an small timber ticket kiosk near the entrance gate). The museum was re-presented in the following year by Tony Musty, since when the presentation and building services have remained little changed. A comprehensive rectified photographic survey was completed of all the upstanding archaeology in 1976, together with a topographical survey of the site. In 1981 this was followed by a Geophysical Survey, confirming the presence of the infirmary complex to the eastern boundary of the monastic site. The works completed between 1956-1984 reveal the rigorous and systematic methodology adopted in the presentation of Ministry sites, in the immediate post-war period, but also highlight the minimal levels of recording undertaken, against what must have appeared to be a logical prescriptive approach to repair and presentation of the monument.
Figure 31 . Detailed stone-by-stone record drawing of 1972 excavations within lay brothers range. The level of recording has been vital to relocating loose stones in recent repairs (see also Figure 38). Source: Musty 2001.
Figure 32 . 1975 Isometric drawing of proposed extension to the museum, with new entrance canopy and ticketing area. Source: NMRC 639/117 EH.
3.20 English Heritage 1984-present The National Heritage Act 1983 introduced a duty to promote the publics enjoyment of, and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments and historic buildings, in addition to the old primary duty of preservation. This translated into subtle changes in the character of site management, a more measured approach its conservation and most significantly for Hailes, the loss of the sites direct labour team. English Heritage brought with it an appreciation of a monuments context and an acknowledgement that the character of a site was much more than the prescriptive presentation approach adopted in the era of Frank Baines and Sir Charles Peers.40 Multi-disciplinary teams were introduced to formulate site plans, addressing the overlapping issues of presentation, conservation, marketing, landscape, ecology and maintenance. Another key departure was an appreciation of those particular details that make a site special 41 and the acceptance of a unified approach to the conservation of the built and natural environments. This is best exemplified by Wigmore Castle (Figure 33), taken into guardianship in 1995, where it was recognised that the sites public appeal lay in its conservation as a picturesque ruin. At Hailes this would translate as an opportunity for the site team to investigate the possibility of adopting alternative more sustainable presentation techniques. The Directly Employed Labour [DEL] team left the site in 1984, to be replaced by a remote, more general conservation workforce working from Gloucester Blackfriars. From this time, the historic cycle of microrepairs traditionally associated with maintaining the integrity of the brittle cement capped walls would come to an end, resulting in an exponential repair problem that would take ten years to become fully evident. By necessity English Heritage came to rely on an increasing number of external contractors and specialists, who were often unfamiliar with the specific conservation needs of such monuments and who often charged disproportionately high rates for specialist minor maintenance works. As repair budgets became increasingly squeezed, it was generally this type of small-scale remedial repair work that became neglected.
By the early 1990s the hard capping was becoming seriously degraded, affecting the visual presentation of the site and leading to public criticism of site maintenance. Such concerns led to experiments in the use of softer lime based mortar mixes, but the persistent dampness of the site caused curing problems leading to frost damage in new mortars.42
Figure 33. Masonry repairs at Wigmore Castle, Herefordshire 2002. The site was taken into guardianship and repaired as a naturalised ruin, complete with a soft capping of indigenous flora. Source: Simon Cartlidge.
In 1999, a research project between English Heritage and Oxford University assessed the effects of soft capping low-level walls. The trials measured the
efficiency of various soils in absorbing rainfall and insulating properties as a thermal blanket (preventing freezing and frost damage to wall heads). The works were found to be reasonably successful technically and were published, in English Heritage Research Transactions: Stone, 2002. 43 The visual and aesthetic appeal of the soft cappings was mixed, diminished by problems associated with sourcing a geologically appropriate stone that was dimensionally compatible with adjacent bed heights (Figure 34). In 2000, English Heritages Conservation Engineering team outlined draft proposals for a flood alleviation scheme to cope with the periodic flooding of the cloisters (last witnessed in 1995 - Figure 45). The scheme was based on the assumption that floodwater approaching from the south east could be intercepted by large storage tanks (formed by reducing silt levels in the former fish ponds) and successfully transmitted to the reredorter drain, via a new culvert constructed at the outfall of the pond. The scheme was put on hold until 2005 see 5.6.
The 2000 condition survey highlighted the backlog of repairs necessary to prevent the further loss of historic fabric on site. A series of radical presentation proposals were outlined by external consultants, which were seriously challenged by the site team. This led to calls for the production of a detailed Conservation Statement for the site and a strategic evaluation of anticipated repair needs prior to the implementation of any major repair proposals.
Figure 34. Low-level soft capping trials to refectory walls. Source: Viles 2002. The low lying wall in the middle background shows the newly sourced Grange Hill stone, which although an ideal petrological match could only be sourced in excessively deep bed heights. Source: Heather Viles
Figure 35. Area of degraded hard capped walling in 1999, prior to the addition of soft capping as shown in Figure 34. Source: Chris Wood 2002.
References
4 1
Robinson, 122 2 Platt, 78 3 Tony Musty, pers comm. 4 Letter AR Powys to Ministry of Works, 19 July 1935 (SPAB Archive) 5 NA WORK 14/1988: File AA 71749/3A Part 1 6 Ibid 7 From Exordium Cistercii (Origins of Cteaux) in Robinson, 8 8 Bond, 15 9 Cistercians in Yorkshire, Cistercians in Britain: http://cistercians.shef.ac.uk/cistercian_life/the_cistercians/britain/index.php 10 Robinson, 68 11 Winkless in Sudeley et al, 19 12 Ann. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 337 in VCH Gloucestershire Vol II, 96 13 Ibid 14 Baddeley, 2-7 15 Translation from Aldred, 6 16 Baddeley, 2-7 17 Tony Musty pers comm 18 Robinson, 122 19 Winkless, 9 20 Winkless, 8 21 Robinson, 122 22 Bond 23 Robinson, 122 24 Winkless, 21, in Sudeley, Winkless et al. 25 Baddeley, 27 26 Hailes Chronicle in Robinson, 122 27 Matthew Paris Chronicle in Baddeley, 33 28 Ibid 29 Robinson, 123 30 Coad, 18 31 Platt, 75 32 Robinson, 124 33 Winkless, 18 in Sudeley, Winkless et al 1 Winkless, 19 2 Id. Feb. 1413, Lateran Registra, Vol. 165 in Baddeley, 97 3 Coad, 21
Ibid Musty, (2003) and Tony Musty pers comm 6 Musty (2003), 7-8 7 At time of writing [June 2006] only outline summaries were available. 8 Aldred, 12 9 Valor Eccles. (Rec. Com.), ii, 456, in VCH Gloucestershire Vol II, 99 10 Baddeley, 121 11 Augm. Office Bk. 494, p.67 in Fowler, 66 12 04 January 1542. Baddeley, 125 13 Tony Musty pers comm 14 Tony Musty, Hailes Abbey Above and Below the Turf 15 Baddeley, 158 16 Aldred, 13 17 Winkless, 67 18 Winkless, 25 in Sudeley and Winkless et al 19 Winkless, 68 20 TBGAS XX1, 1899, p263 21 Winkless, 68 22 TBGAS XX1, 1899, p263 23 Musty (2003), 9 24 Bazeley, 262 25 Winkless, 68 26 Private publication of 350 copies, describing Baddeleys excavations of the site in 1899-1900 and 1906-1908 27 Lea, 9 28 The Times 30 March 1929 29 Hayles Abbey Preservation Fund, An Appeal by Sir James K Fowler, 1928 30 Knowles & St Joseph, 124 31 Winkless, 68 32 Tony Musty pers comm 33 EH site terrier 34 James Lees-Milnes letter of 16 September 1938 in NA WORK 14/1988: File AA 71749/3A Part 1 35 James Lees-Milnes letter of 01 January 1946 in NA WORK 14/1988: File AA 71749/3A Part 1 36 EH File : LEG 002387 Hailes Abbey, Deed of Variation 37 Charles Clouting report from NA WORK 14/1988 38 Saunders, xix in Apted, Gilyard-Beer and Saunders
5
39 40
Tony Musty pers comm For details of Ministry of Works presentation of sites see Thompson, 1984 and Report of the IAM for the year ending 31 March 1913: Appendix III General Instructions to Foremen in charge of the works of preservation 41 Chitty, 52 42 See Glover, 1997 and Hanna, S 1990 43 Viles et al, 59-73
4.0 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 Background The identification of cultural significance is assessed on the basis of guidance contained in James Semple Kerrs The Conservation Plan (2000) and the Heritage Lottery Funds Conservation Management Plans (2005). The assessment is tailored to the analysis of documentary, physical and contextual evidence, rather than seeking the universal application of standardised criteria.1 4.2 The guardianship site The monument and setting of Hailes Abbey are culturally significant as: An extensive medieval development, including buildings, earthworks, watercourses and enclosures, all designed to support a community living a life of religious observance, under a systematic discipline of austerity, prayer and manual labour One of the last Cistercian houses to be found in England, when the order had waived various doctrines against building ornamentation A Royal foundation, established by the wealthiest man of his day, making Hailes (at that stage) the most prosperous Cistercian house in England As the only Cistercian pilgrimage site in England, requiring a radical rebuilding of the east end of the church to form a chevet chapel only thirty years after the abbeys original construction Monastic communities were inextricably woven into the fabric of mediaeval society and conducted major land improvements in the vicinity of the abbey. Cistercians made major contributions to many aspects of medieval life (eg. agriculture, commerce) The site of a C10 defensive castle (or Fortified Manor House) whose ringwork is partially incorporated into the inner precinct of the abbey 4.3 A significant medieval survival, retaining the footprint of the whole monastic site, Cistercian water management features and postmedieval earthworks For the extremely high quality of salvaged decorative features (in the museum) including C13-C16 encaustic floor tiles, remnants of a C13 stone effigy and medieval stone bosses A site demonstrating the evolution of public monument presentation, from picturesque ruin to state managed machine. An archaeological site that established its own museum from the time of its first excavation A place of tranquillity, seclusion and serenity derived from its setting and monastic origins A diverse ecological habitat supporting a range of flora and fauna (with the potential for further enhancement) Cistercian water management The surviving elements of the Cistercian water management system are culturally significant as: A demonstration of medieval skill and ingenuity An example of a carefully selected site, providing a reliable water supply, power for a nearby mill and adjacent to a broad area of flat fertile land The reredorter drain is a notable survival from the first phase of building, which still runs over 750 years after its original construction A substantially complete installation, including fish ponds and man made watercourses, only slightly modified by the post monastic landscape An area of emerging understanding, that could provide an insight into Cistercian hydrological technology that can be translated to other monastic sites
page 27
4.4
Claustral range and cloisters The claustral ranges and cloister garth are culturally significant as: Physical boundaries, defining the margins of the spiritual and secular life in the abbey The core of a much larger monastic estate, demonstrating the immense scale of the buildings and wealth of the community An expressive and well preserved ruin, retaining the complete midC13 footprint of a conventional Cistercian plan, within a well preserved earthwork precinct The only Cistercian house to subscribe to the cult of relics, resulting in the construction of an ambulatory pilgrimage chapel (chevet) to house the Blood of Hailes A Cistercian house that was prosperous enough to largely rebuild the east end of the church only thirty years after its original construction. A working example of a reredorter drainage system An example of a C20 documented archaeological site, describing the excavation The triple arched chapter house doorway is one of the most notable features of the site A site which has been subject to relatively little alteration since its foundation, especially the Chevet chapel, west end of the church and east range A site that was occupied as a mansion house for over two-hundred years after the Dissolution, revealing much archaeological information about its post-monastic occupiers A site demonstrating a well documented approach to the C20 idea of archaeological excavation, recording, consolidation, repair and presentation as a visited ruin Intrusive elements Loss of architectural features (decorative stonework/mouldings) due to water run off and frost damage Loose and degrading stonework at low levels, especially in the west range where ground levels have been greatly reduced Faded and outdated interpretation panels around the site, on a visitor route that is inaccessible to the infirmed and disabled General feeling that the site is slightly neglected
4.5
Abbey museum The abbey museum and its exhibits are culturally significant as: An early (1900) archaeological museum, displaying finds from the 1899-1900 excavations, rebuilt as the current (purpose built) museum in 1928 An integral element of the presentation of the site A showcase for the high quality decorative fabric of the abbey C13 Chertsey tiles, Medieval Stone Vault Bosses, Medieval Effigy One of English Heritages two registered museums in the south west Intrusive elements Museum displays look outdated and tired Museum is in need of redecoration and would benefit from improved lighting of the interior/exhibits
4.6
Ecology and landscape The ecology and landscape of are culturally significant: For its diversity of habitat, including managed lawns, damp grassland, rough grassland, meadows, improved pasture, mature trees, veteran trees, standing and running water which support a diverse flora and fauna including various bat species and grass snakes As demonstrations of the evolving landscape of the site, tempered by human intervention and management over 750 years Aesthetically and spiritually, as the woodland setting reinforces the isolation and tranquillity of the monument and it monastic origins Intrusive elements Gaps in tree belt caused by Chestnut bleeding canker, leading to opening out of the site and reduction in sense of isolation Physical damage to low level walling caused by grounds maintenance
Kerr, 13
cultural significance page 28
5.0 DEFINING ISSUES

5.1 Background This chapter draws upon the guidance contained in the Heritage Lottery Funds Conservation Management Plan Checklist (September 2004) and focuses on vulnerability of significance. It also appraises recent studies of the site and building including issues such as fabric conservation, flooding and interpretation. 5.2 Redefining the monument in 2006 Hailes Abbey has been presented as a public monument through most of the C20, initially as a picturesque ruin and in the post-war period as a classic Ministry of Works site. More recent years have seen the refinement of the physical and intellectual management of the site, but radical changes still remain to be addressed if the condition of the fabric and integrity of the historic site are [even] to remain static. The historic environment of Hailes encompasses the archaeology of the inner precinct, C20 museum and collection, Cistercian and post medieval earthworks (including extensive water features) and ecological diversity, on a site that has been managed for over 750 years. This conservation statement aims to provide the context for the sustainable and proper management of the site, addressing priorities for action within the context of competing demands for restricted funding. 5.3 Statutory and Non-Statutory Controls Scheduled Ancient Monument The whole of the guardianship area (see Figure 01) is contained within the boundary of scheduled ancient monument 28850, Hailes Abbey and Earthwork. However, the schedule description specifically excludes a number of features, including the museum, the church [grade I], the churchyard and Hailes Abbey Cottages [grade II]. All work within the scheduled area is subject to Class VI consent (Works executed by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England), under the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1984. Listed Building The monastic fabric is protected in its entirety as a grade I listed building, although scheduling takes precedence over listing. Protected Species The site is noted for the presence of several species of bats (particularly Lesser Horseshoe Bats) and Grass Snakes, both notifiable species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is an offence to undertake work which may affect or disturb these species and if any such work is proposed the EH Regional Landscape Manager and English Nature should be consulted and consent shall be obtained from English Nature before any works are undertaken and the timing [seasonally] of such works. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The whole of the scheduled area is contained within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (designated in 1966). The designation brings with it a duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty of the AONB and to increase the [public] understanding & enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB. Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 The recently adopted Local Plan (31 March 2006) reiterates the main tenets of PPG 15 & 16, but has a number of policies specifically relevant to Hailes Abbey, Scheduled Ancient Monuments Policy: CON24 (Amended) Development which would adversely affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or other site of national archaeological importance or its setting will not be permitted.
page 29
Management and Interpretation of Archaeological Sites: CON 28 The proper management and sympathetic management of important archaeological sites will be encouraged, including where appropriate the provision of suitable on site interpretive displays. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB): LND1 The extent of the area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (The Cotswolds) is shown on the proposals map. In the assessment of proposals for development within the AONB, overriding priority will be accorded to the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. Development proposals should not adversely affect the quality of the natural environment or its visual attractiveness. The Borough Council will also have regard to the needs of agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and to the economic and social well being of local communities. Smallscale development may be acceptable within the AONB where it is essential to meet local community needs and where it would be within or adjacent to existing towns and villages and in sympathy with the landscape character of the area. The Boroughs principal tourism policy is also of particular note. Tourism Policy General: TOR1 The Borough will support proposals for tourism related development provided that, where appropriate: 1. The priority is given to the re-use of existing buildings in accordance with council policy 2. There is good access including access for walkers, cyclists and those with special needs 3. The proposal supports the local plans wider objectives, particularly in relation to conservation, transport, recreation, economic development, the environment and nature conservation 4. The siting, design and scale is in keeping with the landscape and wherever practicable seeks to enhance it 5. The proposal aims to interpret the physical and historic heritage of the area 6. A proposal that would attract substantial numbers of visitors should be accessible by public transport as well as car And subject to there being no unacceptable impact on the safety or satisfactory operation of the highway network.
Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10). Policy EN 3: The Historic Environment Local authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies and proposals should: afford the highest level of protection to historic and archaeological areas, sites and monuments of international, national and regional importance; indicate that new development should preserve or enhance historic buildings and conservation areas and important archaeological features and their settings, having regard to the advice in PPG15 and PPG16; indicate that policies and programmes should work towards rescuing buildings and monuments at risk; encourage the restoration and appropriate re-use of buildings of historic and architectural value and take a particularly active role in bringing about their restoration where this would help bring about urban regeneration; take account of the landscape context and setting of buildings and settlements; of building materials; and of the patterns of fields, hedgerows and walls that distinguish one area from another. Disability Discrimination Act The Disability Discrimination Act (1995), and the stated working aim of the disability Rights Commission is to enable disabled people to participate fully in our society. This aim extends to the enjoyment of all English Heritage properties, where reasonably possible. Jane Topliss completed an access audit of the site in October 2001, which identified a number of issues concerning car parking, toilet facilities and ramps most elements have since been addressed. Probably the key issue still outstanding, is the route followed by the existing audio tour along a grass path around the perimeter of the inner precinct [which is impassable for wheelchair users]. Health and Safety requirements A risk assessment of the site carried out by English Heritage in 2003 identified a number of areas of concern. These relate to the need for additional guardrails around the culverts, localised trip hazards and potential risk to persons climbing the low level walls of the monument. All issues have been suitably addressed and all Health and Safety matters are subject to ongoing review.
defining issues page 30
5.4
The condition of the monument and its repair. Preservation practice since the early part of this century [C20] has been to freeze ancient structures at the moment they are taken into care. Efforts have been invested in finding the best way to stave off the inevitable process of decay. In practice, intervention to preserve itself introduces changes and physical disruption of the fabric.1 In 1947 the Ministry of Works inherited an (effectively) abandoned site that had previously undergone significant work to present it to the public as a picturesque ruin. The repair interventions of 1956-1978 tackled the clearance and subsequent repair of the ruin in characteristic Ministry of Works style, removing all vegetation, dismantling wall heads and rebedding and re-building masonry with dense cement based mortars. The result was a traditional hard capped medieval guardianship site, petrified and framed by neatly mown lawns and hedges.2 In hindsight we are left with a legacy of maintenance, predicated by irreversible repair techniques. In 1984 the dedicated DEL team at Hailes were disbanded, but a lack of maintenance budgets meant cyclical remedial repairs had to be abandoned. In the summary of his 2000 Condition Report3, Richard Glover comments, 1. The abbey has suffered from a period of little maintenance and the intermittent capital works which have been instigated, have not been sufficient to keep pace with the rate of deterioration. 2. The ruins suffer from typical problems associated with the conservation of ruined walls, which were never intended to have the wall tops left exposed, including the break down of hard capping (rough racking) and deterioration of exposed architectural masonry. 3. In addition the site is subject to severe frost action, which is causing serious loss to the stone and mortar. Recent attempts at traditional conservation have suffered worse here than at other sites. Having created such a highly curated object [the monument] we are now in a position where the actions required to keep the fabric in a stable condition are beyond the limited resources available to the site keepers. Monuments are a finite resource and we must adopt a new approach to the management of the site without delay.
Figure 36. Soft capping to south cloister range, undertaken in 2005. Areas of walling have been adapted (in hydraulic lime mortar) to make a wider base for turf caps, but also shows difficulty of providing any soft of cap for exposed raking masonry of rough racked walls. Source: Cartlidge 2006.
5.5
Future maintenance options? continue maintenance regime based on ongoing repair of eroded or damaged elements understanding that these will need constant and in some cases progressively more frequent repair. consider use of temporary roofs or soft capping arrangements to intercept water before it hits masonry- reducing maintenance load research and test new materials and reversible sacrificial materials rebury some of the most fragile elements of fabric, provide increased drainage and interpret reduces cycle of deterioration and is most likely to preserve architectural, cultural and archaeological integrity remove some elements of fabric from maintenance programme and accept some degree of benign neglect All of the above provide valid alternatives approaches, tailored to specific fabric conservation problems/repair liabilities. If English Heritage wishes to view their sites as exemplars, the only exception should be that of benign neglect which is happening by default at present. A holistic examination of the site is required, looking at the ramifications for the conservation of fabric, visitor presentation and interpretation and long-term site budgets. Historic remedial repair Hard Capping The last in-house mason left site in 1991 since when any remedial works have been let to external contractors. Due to the intensive, nature of hard capping repairs the rates for such works are high, resulting in few contracts being let. Prompted by extensive dislocation of fabric, recent repairs have been concentrated on the Lay Brothers range (Figures 37 and 38) which was first excavated and recorded in 1972. Existing maintenance budgets can only tackle very small projects, resulting in an increasing backlog of repairs and loss of historic fabric Will need to be continued in some locations, but could be reduced in scale to a manageable proportion of the site, if considered in line with other techniques
Figure 37. Extensive areas of loose walling in the Lay Brothers range. This area was initially excavated in 1972 but is now subject to dislocation of stones from frost damge/foot traffic - requiring periodic re-bedding, or consideration of reburial. Source: Cartlidge 2006.
Figure 38. Area of low level walling to the lay brothers range, recently reconstructed in-situ from 1972 record drawings. [Note internal corner of wall corresponds with position number 1 on Figure 31]. Source: Cartlidge 2006.
Soft Capping The rate of erosion of the architectural stonework to the east cloister wall was causing increasing concern, such that by 2000 proposals were considered for the localised dismantling and rebuilding of elements of the cloister. [Elsewhere on the site frost damage was resulting in accelerated degradation of ashlar and rubble stone - Figure 43]. The site team raised serious concerns about such an intervention, leading to calls for soft capping trials. It was suggested that a soft cap would have the effect of intercepting run-off and provide some degree of thermal insulation to the wall head. All works were designed to be reversible if any effects were found to be detrimental to the historic fabric. Hailes had been a test site for the soft capping of low walls in the late 1990s (Viles et al 2002). The results had been favourable, although not conclusive. In association with EHs Building Conservation Research Team it was agreed to set up further trials on the 4m (13 ft) high wall to the east cloister. Using monitoring equipment it was proposed to assess the extent of water percolation and wall temperature, beneath the earth capping for a variety of soil thicknesses. Historic photographs of the east cloister wall were found, showing the extent of Ministry rebuilding between 1956-1970. It was agreed to even out the worst undulations of the C20 wall head, to provide a relatively level substrate for the new soft cap (Figure 39). In autumn 2003 the east cloister wall was covered with scaffold and sheeting to prevent the risk of further frost damage. In March 2004 approximately 450mm (18 in) of cement bedded walling was removed from the wall head, with localised areas of walling rebuilt in hydraulic lime to provide a level base. Soil thicknesses of between 100-200mm (4-8 in) were added to the wall head, encapsulated by upturned grass turfs filled with poor quality soil. The research is ongoing, but the initial success in reducing run-off and providing a method of preventing water entering the wall head has prompted a second phase of soft capping to the south range in 2005. soft capping has proved to be most effective technically/aesthetically not a solution for every location, but can be used where walls are relatively level over a reasonable area , technique is fully reversible and can be applied directly over degraded hard capped walls
. Figure 39. 2003 photograph of wall head to east cloister. Removal of stones from rough racking reveals a bedding of dense cement based mortar or grout). Tiny fissures in cement are admitting water into core of wall and concentrated run-off results in localised damage to architectural masonry. Source: Cartlidge.
Figure 40. Undulating soft capping to the east cloister wall. Low-level areas retain hard capping and will require ongoing monitoring. The image also shows frost boxes used to protect the base of the columns from damage over the winter months. Source: Cartlidge 2006.
Figure 41. Soft capping to south cloister, executed in 2005. Works have been combined with new tile capping around perimeter of hood mould to ensure efficient run off from remaining hard capped areas. Source: Cartlidge 2006.
Sacrificial materials Mortar trials in the late 1990s addressed the decay of soft oolitic limestone between dense cement mortars. Softer sacrificial lime putty mixes were adopted for mortar repairs, but the extreme dampness and tendency for the site to frost resulted in the damage of new limework as it failed to successfully carbonate over the first winter (Failure of lime putty techniques led to the first experiments into low-level soft capping). More recent hydraulic lime mortars have been slightly more successful on the site, but have still been prone to localised failure. Prompted by isolated damage to masonry caused by frost damage, it is conceivable that an applied sacrificial thrown roughcast render or lime shelter coat could be applied, that would prevent damage to historic fabric. No trials have been implemented at this stage, but this technique would be useful in areas such as that shown in Figure 42. The use of sacrificial materials brings with it a maintenance liability, which also often looks unappealing aesthetically - if they are doing their job successfully (eg: damp limewash/salt laden renders on a damp wall). sacrificial materials can help prolong the life of historic fabric, whilst limiting the need for more extensive interventions brings with it an ongoing maintenance liability although technically successful, can often be aesthetically unattractive could be considered in specific locations, but not suitable everywhere Reburial Excavated structures carry few of the historical values that are attached to the picturesque ruin, and their fragility often means that they are unsuitable for active forms of presentation. Their visual value lies in material evidence and art-historical and social interest, rather than their aesthetic or architectural qualities.4 The traditional standing monument had been weathered over a number of years (if not centuries) and although still fragile had been reduced to a state where it had reached equilibrium with the environment. By their nature they were usually reduced to a fairly robust skeleton. In comparison recently excavated structures are much more vulnerable to damage as they have not been subjected to the ravages of the weather or mechanical action.5
Figure 42. Spalling of soft oolitic limestone caused by frost damage. Localised concentrated run-off, water ingress through hard capped wall head and dense cementitious pointing all contribute to the decay. Source: Cartlidge 2005
At Hailes the high conservation cost of excavating previously buried fabric is best exemplified by the lay brothers range, which although only originally unearthed in 1972, has suffered from extensive deterioration in recent years. The range survived the dissolution and was converted to a mansion in C18-C19 and contains some of the most interesting overlaid archaeology on site, yet primary fabric is being lost at an alarming rate. Ashlar, rubble stones and moulded stones have all been dislocated by frost damage and visitor traffic and the smaller stones of soft oolitic limestone (bedded in cement mortars) are progressively disintegrating to form gravel. Emergency repairs were undertaken to some of the worst affected areas in 2005, but there is a real need for more extensive conservation work. Faced with the prospect of recurring remedial repair and continuing fabric loss, it appears that the only satisfactory method of preservation is to protect by careful reburial. Although this approach may seem radical, particularly in the context of presenting the site, it needs to be measured against the inevitable loss of archaeological value in the future (requiring the replacement of authentic material and gradual deterioration) against real current benefits in returns of knowledge, education, tourism or amenity. Experience of reburial in the UK is limited, but faced with similar issues has been successfully implemented on heritage sites in New Mexico by the [American] National Park Service in collaboration with the Getty Conservation Institute.6 Reburial is often problematic for those concerned with the interpretation and presentation of a site, as it is generally perceived as a loss of access. However, it is possible to explain the rational and behind the approach and its long-term benefits to the site and future generations. It should be possible to form and outline of the walls distinctly, but clearly in an area of such complex stratigraphy detailed interpretation of the plan will be impossible, although it might be possible to retain a modern variation on Fowlers walkway through the site (Figure 25). The presentation and interpretation of this area is complicated, requiring full evaluation and interpretation of the 1972 excavation reports before any backfilling is commenced. This information is not only critical for the interpretation and presentation, but also for the benefit of future guardians of the site and to alert the public to the fact that documentary studies and photographs are available for inspection.
Figure 43. Lay brothers range under repair in autumn 1995. Extensive areas of dislocated masonry have prompted localised re-bedding repairs to the worst affected areas. Ongoing remedial works in this area are inevitable under the current presentation regime. Source: Cartlidge 2005.
Technical and aesthetic decisions will need to be agreed in relation to which areas will be backfilled, to what depths and respective finished ground levels. Consideration should also be given to the introduction of below ground drainage (above existing archaeological levels) to ensure efficient ground water flow and the merits of ground stabilisation or root barriers using various geosynthetics.7 reburial should only be considered as a last resort, due to the perceived loss of amenity presentation and interpretation are critical to the success of reburial and must be supported by comprehensive archaeological recording
Holistic appraisal of the site
SEE SEPARATE SHEET AS FILE:- pag e 3 7 .pdf
5.6
Vulnerability - Flooding The site has historically been subject to periodic flooding, the earliest recorded incident being in 1337 when a fish pond burst its sluice and emptied itself and its mud upon the abbey.8 In recent years the frequency of flooding appears to have increased, with major floods in 1975 and 1995 affecting the whole of the cloister garth (Figure 45) and saturating the base of the medieval monastic walling. The abbey is located at the mouth of a small steep sided valley at the foot of the Cotswold escarpment. The Cistercians diverted water from a stream to feed fish ponds within the outer precinct, supply clean water to the reredorter and to feed a leat to a nearby mill (Figures 11 & 12). Recent maintenance of the watercourses has been limited, with rebuilding of the culvert to the reredorter in 1956 and periodic clearing of the leat. (and 1960s and 1970s re-profiling). The fishponds were subject to no maintenance during the C20 and are now largely silted up. EHs Conservation Engineering team appraised the site flooding problems in 2000, outlining a preliminary scheme to reduce silt levels in fish ponds to provide temporary holding ponds in periods of peak water flow. The project also saw the construction of new weirs linking the ponds with the southeast end of the reredorter drain to increase peak water flow. The scheme was subject to much additional investigation and was put on hold whilst awaiting additional funding. In 2004 the project became active again. A hydrological engineer was appointed to assess the flood risk at Hailes and identify appropriate remedial repair options to alleviate flooding frequency, based on 100year flood events.9 The channel capacities of all watercourses in the catchment area were assessed, in comparison with predicted peak flows, demonstrating that the primary and secondary drainage systems through the site had a limited discharge capacity. A series of remediation options were provided, including; the installation of wider stream channels; installation of a network of land drains; the creation of new overflow routes to the existing fish ponds which could provide controlled discharge under flood conditions. All had archaeological implications, but the idea of utilising the fishponds was chosen, subject to mitigation of the approach adopted.
Archaeological concerns focussed on the reduction of silt levels (beyond the strata of the medieval fishponds) and adaptation of post-medieval earthworks to the east of the site without sufficient and understanding of their evolution and significance. Further research was also prompted by a series of ongoing leaks from the earth dam beneath the large triangular pond to the east of the precinct. A full geophysical survey of the monastic site was undertaken to assess objects of archaeological interest, but principally [in the context of flood risk] to identify any below ground breaches in the southeast dam wall and to estimate the depth of silt within the former fish pond. Resistivity pseudosections were produced across the length of the dam identifying some possible construction weaknesses, whilst sections through the fish pond demonstrated that sediment levels lay to a depth of 1.6m (5 ft). 10 The fish pond was subsequently cored drilled [in twenty locations] to assess the subsurface sediment of the pond and thereby the maximum possible depth of any excavation.11
Figure 45. Major flooding of cloisters in 1975. Source: Musty.

A parallel topographic survey and documentary research exercise has culminated in a detailed description and interpretation of the extant earthworks surrounding the site. The interim report issued in March 2006 (to be superseded by a comprehensive analysis of the wider site) provided a meticulous record of the overlaid topography (Figure 46) and a written analysis comparing the rare survival of a 1587 map of the estate, discovered in the National Archive (NA: PRO MF/1/57) and Kips engraving of the site c.1712 (Figure 14) against extant features. An agreement on the final design for the flood alleviation works is still being assessed, awaiting further investigations into the viability of linking the storage ponds with the existing culvert. If these works are consented, the addition of water to the ponds will provide an additional amenity for visitors and increase the diversity of habitats on the site (see 5.8). The overall success of the flood alleviation scheme still relies on the efficient operation of the leat, which flows to the south west of the site and lies beyond the boundary of the guardianship area. Despite any riparian obligations to maintain the condition of this watercourse, it would be prudent for English Heritage to enter into early discussions with the owner about the periodic maintenance of this channel. 5.7 Earthwork and water engineering features The wealth of historical and archaeological data that has been collated in recent months in relation to earthworks could significantly increase the potential for interpreting the context of the whole abbey site. The survey drawing (Figure 46) includes not only the palimpsest of medieval and post-monastic features, but also the remains of spoil heaps from the various archaeological campaigns over the C20, providing a fascinating insight into the past analysis and current presentation of the site. The eastern precinct could (with the west range) help demonstrate the continuing use of the site in the post monastic period and provide a mechanism for exploring the nature and monumental scale of engineering works undertaken by the Cistercians to provide water and drainage to monastic sites.
Figure 46. Detail from Hailes Abbey Earthworks Survey. Plan shows extensive post-medieval terracing, remnants of Cistercian fish ponds and spoil heaps from archaeological excavations in the C20. Source: English Heritage 2006.
5.8
Ecology and landscape. Hailes Abbey is an extensive site and provides a variety of habitats of general nature conservation interest, including ponds and running water. The site was last surveyed by the National Trust in 1985 and by English Heritage in 1992 and consists of areas of coarse grassland, lawn, grazing, rough damp grassland, mature trees, streams and silted-up ponds all set within the context of intensively managed orchards and permanent pasture. 12 The site is habitat to a number of protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, including a number of bat species - particularly Lesser Horseshoe bats ( Rhinolophus hipposideros), which hibernate in the reredorter culvert, and Grass Snakes ( Natrix natrix ), which inhabit areas of long damp grassland. Mature trees are scattered throughout the guardianship area, help define the character of the site and reinforce the tranquility of the monument (see also 5.9 Chestnut Trees). The site also retains several significant veteran English Oaks and an ancient Ash tree and every effort should be made to protect them and encourage the ecological diversity of their invertebrate populations in line with English Nature recommendations.13 The existing grounds maintenance regime allows for shortly mown grass in the immediate vicinity of the monument, with medium and long grass retention to banks and the perimeter of the site. This allows the development of herb rich turf and richer species mix. Concerns have been raised (and should be investigated) about the use of strimmers immediately adjacent to the monument, where this is thought to have defaced masonry (Figure 47). Current threats to ecology are limited, but it should be possible to increase the number of habitats on site by refinement of current management regimes. One area of the site that has not been fully investigated is the ecological interest of the watercourses that run along the boundary of the site, which could be addressed in relation to the potential for ecological benefits following the re-use of the former fish ponds, especially for insect populations associated with the resident bats. 5.9
Figure 47. Physical damage to vertical ashlar walling associated with the use of rotary strimmers to cut grass adjacent to the monument. Source: Musty 2000.
Chestnut trees Since 2000 it has been reported that a number of the Horse Chestnut trees laid out on the site by Fowler in 1928 are suffering from chestnut bleeding canker (Phytophthora cactorum and P. citricola). Although only a few trees have been affected at this stage, it is anticipated that all trees will eventually contract the disease, ultimately requiring them to be felled.
Reports of the disease have risen greatly in recent years and although the reasons are unknown it may be related to the increased occurrence of mild winters and wet springs. Trees of all ages are susceptible to the disease, but it is particularly prevalent in larger mature trees. Initial symptoms are characterized by red/yellow/black liquid oozing from bark or branches, whilst trees affected for some years may show signs of crown thinning. Control measures have not been developed and it is thought that although the disease is likely to be dispersed by airborne spores, they can also remain in the soil for long periods of time risking infection for new planting. The mature trees that surround the site have defined the character of Hailes for almost 100 years and their removal would compromise the character and setting of the ancient monument and physically raise the level of the water table on a site that is already subject to frost damage and masonry problems associated with damp. It could take between twenty to thirty years for the disease to affect all trees on site, but an agreed programme of succession planting must be agreed now if the monument is to retain its romantic and tranquil setting. The existing planting to the perimeter of the site is in areas not previously excavated and may contain sensitive archaeological deposits that could contribute to a better understanding of the site. A scheme for succession planting needs to carefully evaluate the impact of new planting on buried archaeology, discussing the use of shallow rooted species and planting in ground which has previously been excavated, or covered by spoil heaps. Strategies that have been discussed with the landscape team include the planting of London Plane trees (Platanus x Hispanic) as found, in isolation, elsewhere on the site, or to consider new planting which is tolerant to exiting site conditions. One suggestion is to harvest acorns from the existing ancient English Oak (Quercus robur) which is located at the perimeter of the fishponds to the south east of the site and arrange for them to be grown on into semi mature trees that could be introduced to the site in 5-7 years time, allowing them time to acclimatize to the dampness of the site before they become too mature.
Figure 48. Veteran Ash tree adjacent to silted-up fish pond to the south east of the site. Source: Cartlidge 2005.
5.10 Access The site is open seasonally to visitors between 1st April and 30 th October and last year attracted around 17 000 visitors. Most visitors arrive to site by car, although the abbey is also adjacent to the Cotswold Way long distance footpath [running from Bath to Chipping Camden]. The main car park is across the road to the north east of the site, with an overflow car park to the south east of the museum. It is anticipated that planning permission will be sought to make the overflow car park into the main car park. This will alleviate safety problems associated with crossing the road (often frequented by large agricultural machinery), increase security of parked vehicles and assist the curators observation of visitors entering the property and restrict usage for those just using the car park as a base for walks. Visitors presently enter the site adjacent to the glazed museum extension and purchase tickets from either the ticket window at the south east corner of the museum, or from inside the museum/shop. Tours are selfguiding, but visitors are offered a free audio tour of the site on entry. Visitors are also invited to visit the museum [and shop], but often leave site without seeing the exhibition and interpretation material. Access to the site is restricted to the inner precinct, namely the claustral buildings, cloister and neighbouring ranges. The adjacent outer fields of the guardianship area (to the south, east and west) are grazed by a local farmer and presently act as a backdrop/buffer zone to the monument. Access for wheelchair users is difficult beyond the immediate area of the church and cloisters, following the recent introduction of a gently graded access ramp from the museum to the north side of the nave. The recommended visitor route follows a circuitous path around the perimeter of the site over grassy paths and is not suitable for wheelchairs or those with walking difficulties. Hailes is secluded and quiet site, a sense reinforced by the belt of trees that lines the perimeter of the site. The isolation and tranquility of the monument should not be underplayed and is noted as a defining feature for many of Hailes returning visitors.
Intellectual access to the site has remained little changed since Jonathan Coad wrote the last guidebook in 1970. Although the presentation of the guide was extensively revised in 1982 its content and interpretation remain much as before. Recent physical and documentary investigations have added greatly to our knowledge of the site, prompting review of previous assumptions about the development of the site. The guide is now dated, inaccurate and ready for renewal. Academic publication of the excavations on site is limited to Baddeleys Cotteswold Shrine of 1906, despite extensive archaeological investigations between 1956-1978 by predecessors of English Heritage. It has been said for a number of years that an assessment of the C20 history of the site should be collated, but to little avail. In the late 1990s the museum curator assembled a video presentation of more recent site archives known as Virtual Hailes. This has proved to be very popular with visitors, but is often not utilized because of problems with the video recorder equipment. Hailes is fortunate to have a museum on site (one of only two such English Heritage sites in the south west region). The museum collection is based on the initial museum finds of 1899 and was greatly supplemented by acquisitions by Fowler around 1928. The current exhibition dates largely from the mid-1970s when the presentation was overhauled in response to the construction of the new extension, designed to house the lapidary fragments. The museum is registered with Museum Libraries and Archives South West and will seek accreditation under the new scheme in 2008. The registration and accreditation scheme sets out agreed minimum standards for museum performance in key areas of work, ranging from the development and management of collections, to provision of visitor facilities and services.14 The museum currently lacks a disaster emergency plan and staff management and development plan both principal requirements of the new accreditation scheme. The re-presentation of the museum is now well overdue, but needs to be considered in the context of the wider interpretation of the site. The fabric conservation needs of the monument are likely to dictate the reburial of some areas of the site, whilst recent discoveries prompt a careful re-evaluation of the guidebook, graphics panels [on site] and museum displays.
5.11 Archives, records and publications For a site that has been so extensively excavated, repaired and managed by English Heritage (and its predecessors) since 1956, relatively few records remain of material directly relevant to the ongoing management of the site. It is imperative that the significant excavations of the 1950s and 1960s should be published (where records survive) as a precursor to our contemporary understanding and management of the site. Problems also exist in sourcing material that has been produced, often because it is has become mislaid, is housed in a variety of disparate locations or is on loan to in-house or external consultants. This makes it difficult to reconcile inconsistencies or discover if information is missing. It is essential that an integrated archive for the guardianship site is collated and made available to all who have a management responsibility for the site. Without such a mechanism it is difficult, if not impossible, to make informed decisions about the future of the site, without the benefit of knowledge derived from its previous management. 5.12 Education The site is not part of the Discovery Visits Scheme [encouraging educational visits to English Heritage sites], as it provides no specific facilities for education groups, having lost its dedicated accommodation in the former excavation huts several years ago. There is a site information sheet, which is updated every year for issue to interested teachers/group leaders as well as a dedicated handbook for teachers, written in 1993. 15 The site is not as well used for education purposes as it could be, but due to the sites lack of proximity to local population centres this is hardly surprising. Consideration should be given to exploiting the detailed information contained on the Virtual Hailes presentation to a wider audience, as this is the only analysis of the findings of the C20 excavations available to visitors.
5.13 The National Trust and Neighbours Hailes Abbey is owned by the National Trust and is currently managed by English Heritage on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. In 2002 the Trust successfully sought a reversion of the original deed of guardianship and now retain management of the former custodians cottage. The outer enclosures of the guardianship area are grazed (on license) by a local farmer. Neighbouring owners include Hayles Fruit Farm, who operate intensively managed orchards, a produce shop and tea room (much used by abbey visitors) and a camp site immediately adjacent to the east boundary of the guardianship area. To the north of the site (over the road and adjacent to the car park) is the ancient parish church of Hailes. The undedicated church predates the abbey and probably served as a capella ante portas (gatehouse chapel).16 The Parochial Church Council [PCC] have a good working relationship with English Heritage and are currently investigating the possibility of constructing a new visitor facility adjacent to (or possibly on) the guardianship site. 5.14 Financial constraints This is a relentless issue for English Heritage in the management of its sites, particularly those such as Hailes who derive a large number of visitors from members of the National Trust who pay no admission charge and generally make few purchases from the shop.17 Sites with low revenues often feel they are unfairly competing with larger income generating sites, where financial returns are more easily accommodated. A recent English Heritage management paper commented that, Many of our sites were placed in guardianship by definition, as a place of last resort and refuge, since they were being inadequately maintained. We should not be surprised therefore if such sites prove to be particularly difficult or expensive to maintain in comparison with other properties.18 It is hoped that the production of this document will provide a reasoned justification for additional capital works in relation to conservation of the monument and that it will help provide a mechanism for prioritising between the competing interests for funding across the English Heritage estate.
References
1 2
Conservation approach of the MoW described in Chitty, 52 Davies, 50 3 Glover (2000), 6 4 Chitty, 53 5 Chitty, 53 6 See Ford et a l 2004 and Rivera et al 2004. 7 Kavazanjian, 377-393 8 Folio 22b., Harl. 3725 in Baddeley, 93 9 SLR Consulting 2005 10 Elks 2006 11 Swindle & Green 2006 12 See Alexander 1985 and Fitgerald 1992 13 English Nature, 2000 14 What is the Museum Accredition Scheme? http://www.mlasouthwest.org.uk/index.php?ID+646 15 Hailes Abbey: A handbook for teachers Aldred 1993 16 For history of the parish church see Sudeley et al 17 Site custodians, pers comm 18 English Heritage Planning and Development Management Meeting, 27 March 2003.
LEGEND ! ! ! ! . soft wall capping . hard wall capping . reburial . paved wall heads
Figure 44. Plan of archaeological remains, showing inital suggested areas for reburial, hard and soft wall capping and existing paving. Source: Base map prepared from Craven Ploughman Topographical Survey of Hailes Abbey, 1976. Englsih Heritage NMRC 2006.
hailes abbey | conservation statement defining issues page 37
6.0 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES

6.1 Preface 6.2 Understand the site Significance should guide decisions Do as much as is necessary to retain and enhance significance (and as little as possible to detract from it) Keep thorough records and refer to them Undertake all tasks in a logical order and prioritise P5 There should be a defined cyclical maintenance budget for the site, covering the monument (including museum) and the grounds. The objective of maintenance shall be to preserve the fabric of the abbey in a stable condition, by prioritising repairs in relation to ring-fenced repair budgets. The condition of the fabric and rate of deterioration should be monitored, especially in relation to fabric loss, or remedial works undertaken to arrest decay. Inspection should identify regular maintenance items (drainage/localised mortar failures) and more significant repairs (defective walling/dislocated masonry). Adopt a standardised inspection strategy and maintain records. Repair strategy P7 Prior to commencement of any additional conservation repairs, undertake a strategic appraisal to address: existing repair liabilities (and severity of fabric loss) recommended repair techniques their effect on the presentation and interpretation of the site residual maintenance liabilities
P6
Conservation Policies Overarching vision P1 All stakeholders will adopt a holistic approach to the conservation of the abbey site that integrates the management and use of the monument and its standing/excavated/subterranean archaeology, the museum and collections, archives, Cistercian water engineering features, landscape and ecology.
Adoption of this conservation statement P2 The future conservation and management of the site should be undertaken in accordance with the guiding principles above and in recognition of the defined significance of the building and site. This Conservation Statement shall be reviewed within five years, and periodically updated as other relevant material comes to light. P8
Once complete, the assessment should help provide a reasoned justification for additional capital funding. Where appropriate, repairs to fabric shall seek to retain the archaeological evidence of lost features and past changes to the building. Any proposals for reburial must be widely consulted before implementation and supplemented by additional interpretation for visitors explaining the long term conservation benefits of such actions
P3
Sustainable interventions P4 The long-term impacts of any interventions on site shall be viewed in the context of the continuing guardianship of the site (in its broadest terms). Prompt maintenance is the key to the long-term well being of the historic estate. P9
page 45
P10
Repairs to historic fabric should always be accompanied by an appropriate level of recording, to ensure that knowledge exists in the future of what interventions have taken place.
Cistercian water engineering P15 Information collated in response to the flood alleviation scheme shall be analysed to assist the future understanding of the water features on site and as a guide to future works. (See also P10). The design of any flood alleviation scheme shall be guided (and mitigated) by archaeological and contextual analysis of monastic and post medieval landscape features. Consider assessment of the significance of existing habitats adjacent to watercourses and their potential for encouraging ecological diversity.
Improve understanding and awareness P11 Further research shall be pursued on documentary sources: in relation to the 1899-1978 excavations of the site with particular reference to the post-mediaeval history of the west range and frater in response to recent landscape studies and survey connected with flood alleviation works The outcome of additional research will help inform the future management and presentation of the site and should be used to enhance interpretation (including site panels, museum exhibits and a substantially revised guidebook). P12 Use the information from earlier and recent excavations to produce a new synthesis document for future presentation initiatives, including information on the landscape context in the medieval and post-medieval periods. In the interim period, seek ways to make the Virtual Hailes presentation more accessible to a wider audience P16
P17
Physical Access P18 Steps shall be taken to improve access for disabled visitors, with particular reference to the route of the existing audio tour - which follows a grassed perimeter path. Need for greater access to surrounding fields of the guardianship area to provide an appropriate setting for the appreciation of the monument in its wider context. Seek planning permission for the relocation of the main car park to the site of the existing overflow car park. The new car park shall be provided with dedicated disabled parking spaces and improved visibility from existing CCTV camera.
P19
P13
P20
Setting P14 English Heritage will take whatever steps are necessary to secure the setting of the site, through the statutory planning system and in liaison with adjoining owners. Note: This is particularly significant in relation to Hayles Fruit Farm, who manage the adjacent caravan site.
Ecology and landscape P21 P22 Priority shall be to adopt sympathetic and integrated management practices that maintain and enhance ecological diversity of the site Investigate and implement a succession-planting scheme to replace diseased Chestnut trees before significant gaps start to appear in perimeter tree belts.
conservation and management policies page 46
Museum P23 P24 Emergency disaster plan should be produced as a matter of urgency.
P30
Existing deficiencies in the analysis and publication of detailed excavations and surveys should be remedied as a pre-requisite for the future understanding and management of the site. Consideration should be given to publishing a synthesis document for the general public (and site staff) to allow dissemination of the known history and archaeology of the site. This would greatly assist the day-to-day running of the site and inform the decision making process for inspectors and site staff.
P31 Implement formal procedures for staff management/development and establish a forward plan, well in advance of the requirements of Museum Libraries and Archives Council Accreditation scheme in 2008 Update internal environment and presentation of the museum, in light of new research and understanding of the site. Encourage visitors to enter museum [and shop] by integrating site and museum interpretation. Displays should highlight conservation work and approaches adopted (particularly possible reburial).
P25 P26
Marketing P27 Opportunities to collaborate on marketing ventures with other organisations who have similar interests, or site owners with related sites, should be investigated and future marketing targeted at the special interest/sustainable tourism sector of the market.
Partnerships P28 Develop partnerships with the other stakeholders with an interest in the site. These include the appropriate arms of the district council including the tourism service and the planning department, Gloucestershire County Council, The National Trust, Hailes Parish Council, Hayles Fruit Farm and (possibly) the Gloucestershire and Warwickshire Railway.
Archives, Records and Publication P29 All drawn, written and photographic records shall be brought together and archived to an agreed format and stored in an easily retrievable location.
conservation and management policies page 47
APPENDIX A
June 1946 report by Ministry of Works Architect, Charles Clouting, on behalf of the National Trust Historic Buildings Committee. HAYLES ABBEY An inspection of Hayles Abbey was made on 24th April when the site was beginning to dry out after the very serious flooding during March. I was informed by the custodian that water had stood to a depth of 3ft. in the Cloisters, and that even the Chancel had been covered to a depth of several inches. This was exceptional, but I gathered that almost any heavy storm is apt to cause flooding through the Reredorter drain, and until this periodical flooding can be prevented, there is little prospect of having a properly kept site. Another major detraction is the forest of 60 odd Chestnut trees, which overshadow the whole excavated site, and the mistaken attempt to indicate the plan of the Church by means of evergreen hedges, (Cupressus Lawsoniana), and shrubs (Thuja Occidentalis) representing piers and columns. The Chestnut trees, now nearing 40ft. in height, have quite outgrown any useful purpose for which they may have been planted, and the evergreens must be doing untold harm to the foundations that exist below the present surface. Recent gales have started the good work of destroying some of these Forestry exhibits, but much felling and careful grubbing of roots remains to be done before the Abbey Ruins can be properly displayed and delineated on the site in a suitable manner. The general works that are recommended are as follows: vi) i) ii) Provide an adequate outlet for the floodwater after clearing the Rear Dorter drain. Fell and grub the roots of at least 45 Chestnut trees. At some period prior to 1937 the practice of dry building on the lines of original walling was indulged in, the Chapter House and West wall of South Transept are outstanding examples. This dry building is now falling and masking evidence of original building. It should be carefully removed. iii) Cut down and very carefully grub the roots of evergreen hedges and shrubs. (The former might be replanted on line of boundary fence?). Excavate down to true levels over the whole area of Abbey Church and claustral Buildings Note: The base of the pier at foot of Night Stair in South Transept exists at a level 2 feet below the present nave level. This being the case, there is some hope that other bases may remain in situ, and that much of the original building for a foot or so above floor levels still exist. Mr. W. St.Clair Badderley stated in 1937 that the foundations of practically the whole Abbey exist in good condition. v) All foundations, walling and Column bases exposed during these General Works on site must be very carefully cleared of earth and roots, then consolidated with lias lime mortar. If they stand above finished levels, careful rough racking and pointing will be necessary, where they exist only below floor levels, a scheme for marking out in different materials to represent period of building must be devised.
iv)
page 48
Through lack of labour, and because of the heavy costs upon the above six General (or Preliminary) Works, it may be necessary to postpone some of them for the time being. Numbers i, ii and iii should, however, be completed as soon as possible. Numbers iv, v and vi could at present be restricted to the driving of some carefully selected trenches, from these a more accurate knowledge could be obtained of how much original work remains. Upon the evidence obtained a scheme for the final lay out of the Site could be devised and the work apportioned over a period of years at a rate of expenditure to fit the circumstances. In devising the new layout, or in fat as soon as the removal of trees and hedges will allow, such obvious inconsistencies as pathways on the lines of the North Transept Chapels should be done away with. From Brakespears Plan [Brakspear, 1906] there seems to be evidence of a North Transept doorway, and if a gravel path is necessary, it should at least be in line with the doorway. But are these gravel paths necessary at all? Grass is much easier to keep in order without them and traffic seems light enough to regulate by the occasional erection of hoop irons. There now remains to be described the preservation of exposed walls of Cloister. These have presumably had little or no treatment since the Abbey site was taken into your Custody in 1937. South Wall of Church forming North Wall of Cloisters. This is of particular importance, it being the only portion of the Abbey Church which remains standing above present ground levels. Ivy and vegetation must be thoroughly removed, decayed mortar and roots raked and washed out. the whole of the masonry (except two modern patches which can be left dry bedded) to be thoroughly consolidated with hydraulic lime mortar, grade and mixed with a sand similar to that of the original mortar. The wall top will probably require rebedding to make it waterproof, but care must be taken in rebedding each stone in its original position, and the finished skyline to have a broken appearance as at present.
The fragment of tracery placed on ground near doorway leading from Church to Cloister, together with other fragments of carving and tracery exhibited about the site should be collected, and displayed away from the ruins, for instance, along the South external wall of Museum. They do not belong to their present positions and are somewhat misleading. West Wall of South Transept forming East Wall of Cloister. This is almost composed entirely of dry walling, which was probably collected o the site when excavations were in progress some 40 years ago. Partial collapse has recently occurred, and as it has no historic or structural use, it should be removed. Original foundations and possibly one or two courses of ashlar may still exist, these should be very carefully cleaned. prepared and consolidated. Continuing along this East Cloister wall from North to South, the doorway from Book Cupboard to Cloister requires ivy roots and vegetation to be carefully removed, and the whole waterproofed with sound hydraulic lime mortar. Chapter House. The wall adjoining Cloister is of particular importance. The loose masonry which does not belong here to be removed, remainder thoroughly cleaned and consolidated by grouting, and carefully pointed with lime mortar. Very little of the North, East or South walls of Chapter House now exist above present ground level. What does remain is confused by rubble heaped more or less on the lines of these walls. Existing ground level, particularly at East end, is well above original floor line. Surplus soil and rubble should all be removed, and all original fragments of walls, flooring and bases of vaulting shafts should all be very carefully exposed and preserved. Parlour. Similar conditions as to Chapter House exist here. The necessary work is all upon similar lines.
appendix A page 49
Lower Storey of Dorter Range. Completion of excavation to an average depth of about 46 is required here, after which all original masonry must be carefully treated for preservation. Tree roots, rabbits, etc. appear to have almost obliterated the Southern end of the Dorter Range, together with Reredorter drain, but every effort should be made to clear and consolidate everything in this area that remains in situ. The flooding of recent months has done considerable damage in this area, and at the time of my visit had not been cleared sufficiently to give a clear picture of this area, but as mentioned under General Work at the beginning of this report, the clearing and discharge of this Reredortor drain clear of your site is considered essential for the proper upkeep of the Abbey Site. South Wall of Cloister. The Day Stair. Clear masonry of roots and vegetation and consolidate masonry as before described. Warming House. Excavations require to be completed in this area, and masonry consolidated all as described elsewhere. Frater. Completion of Excavation is also required here, and it seems a pity that the whole length of this important building cannot be included within the fenced area. It may be found that, with the clearance of chestnut trees, Reredorter drain and Frater, an extremely interesting area can be developed here. The masonry is all in need of treatment as before described. It is probable that the area of Kitchens and the Western Range has been confused, if not destroyed, by the 16th Century House that was built in this immediate neighbourhood, and of which the 16th Centur fragment of Cloister Archade [Arcade] is said to belong. However, if it is possible to trace the sub-vault of Western Range the whole picture would be greatly enhanced. Cloisters. The existence of a paved area and moulded 16th Century base to the Cloister Archade some 26 ins. below the present turf level is a curious point that would bear some explanation in the guide book.
Site. Present wooded condition and periodical flooding has ruined the turf over much of this area, and the rough grael paths were in a hopeless condition at the time of my visit. This is in spite of every effort by the Caretaker. As work described in this report proceeds, area by area could be made good with turf or grass seed and the whole site made so that a lawn mower may be used. It is estimated that to put the site and ruins into a thoroughly sound and tidy condition a sum approaching 8, 000 should be spent thereon. Items i to iii under General Works and the preservation of masonry now exposed is estimated at between 2,300 and 2,500. Signed. Chas. E. Clouting. June, 1947.
[The following photographs accompanied the report].
No 1. Entrance to Cloister from the Nave.
appendix A page 50
No 2. West side of Cloister. remains of Cloister Arcade at S. End
No 4. East side of Cloister. Entrance to Books Chapter House, Parlour, and sub-vault of Monks Dorter.
No 3. South side of Cloister. Lavatory and Entrance to Monks Frater.
No 5. Chapter house and Books.
appendix A page 51
No 6. North side of Cloister Recesses.
No 8. Warming House. Doorway to Cloister.
No 7. Monks Frater. Doorway to Cloister.
Report and photographs from: NA WORKS 14/1988: File AA 71749/3A Part 1
appendix A page 52
Recommendations Remove all growths from the wall heads. Take up and [?] the stones of the upper courses and rebed in mortar. Remove all the growths from the core and from the ashlar joints. Consolidate the masonry by filling the joints with lime mortar or with cement grout as may be found necessary. Take up and re-bed the stones on the tops of the low lying walls.
(2) Desirable Works. Excavate surplus soil to expose foundations of Church and Abbey Buildings. Consolidate masonry of exposed foundations and line out missing walls Level ground and returf the site. 1,500 2,500 800 4,800
The planting of trees and hedges on the tops of low lying foundations is not recommended as the roots will ultimately cause the destruction of the masonry. It is suggested, therefore, that the trees and hedges already planted should be removed. After the consolidation of all the visible masonry been completed excavations could be undertaken to expose foundation walls of the Church and Abbey Buildings. The masonry, where it exists above the correct floor levels, should be consolidated. Where it has disappeared it should be lined out with stone. The whole of the site should eventually be turfed over at the correct floor levels. Estimate The estimated cost of carrying out the foregoing recommendations is:(1) Necessary Works. Consolidation of masonry of cloister arcade Removal of vegetation and consolidation of masonry of the remainder of the standing walls. Consolidation of masonry of exposed foundations. 130 850 200 1, 180
hailes abbey | conservation statement appendix A page 53
Note: subsequent sections of the report are missing from files, but in a letter 16 July 1947 from James Lees Milne, Secretary of National Trust Historic Buildings Committee to Dr FJE Raby, Ministry of Works, confirms that:. We at last have had our report from Clouting The gist of Cloutings report is that 2,300-2,500 should be spent immediately on urgent repairs to the structure, and that 5,5005,700 in addition should be spent as soon as conditions permit, making a total of 8,000 In any case, the [Historic Buildings] Committee agreed that the Trust simply does had not got the funds to spend all this on the property, and they decided that in the interests of Hayles Abbey, it was only proper now that the Trust should ask whether the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works would take it from the Trust under a Deed of Guardianship. From the conversations with you in the past , I have always supposed that the ministry might be pleased to take it over. We submit the proposition to you now.
APPENDIX B
RESTORATION WORK COMPLETED: Article and photograph from The Times, Saturday 30 March 1929. Source: SPAB Archive.
page 54
APPENDIX C
List of Persons Consulted during the course of this study. Project Coordination Niall Morrissey, Technical Manager Archaeology Mel Barge, Assistant Inspector of Ancient Monuments Lucy Bourne, Assistant Inspector of Monuments Francis Kelly, Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Buildings Phil McMahon, Assistant Inspector of Monuments Glyn Coppack, Inspector of Ancient Monuments East of England Rob Iles, Inspector of Historic Monuments Nick Molyneux, Historic Buildings Inspector Tony Musty, (Former) Regional Curator Ecology and Landscape Kim Auston, Regional Landscape Architect Chris Bally. Regional Landscape Manager Alan Cathersides, Senior Landscape Manager John Thompson, Consultant Ecologist Masonry Conservation Colin Burns, Consultant Master Mason Richard Glover, Richard Glover Associates Bill Martin, (Acting) Director of Research and Standards John Stewart, Senior Architectural Conservator, BCRT Heather Viles, Reader in Geomorphology, Oxford University Chris Wood, (Acting) Head of Conservation and Research Team (BCRT) Properties Presentation Beth Cavanagh, Visitor Operations Manager Diane Herrod, Regional Marketing Manager Tim Johnston, Regional Director West Midlands Loraine Knowles, Regional Director of Visitor Operations - West Chris Smith, Territorial Director - West Education Amanda Feather, Regional Education Officer Hydrology John Anker, Conservation Engineer Keith Weston, Senior Conservation Engineer Archives and Research Jo Beech, Historic Plans Rooms Officer NMRC John Jurica, Assistant Editor, VCH Gloucestershire Tony Musty, (Former) Regional Curator Iain Shaw, Records Manager, National Trust, Swindon Matthew Slocombe, Assistant Secretary, SPAB Carole Owen, Estates Office Manager Disabled Access & Health and Safety Gary Stone, Facilities Manager Jane Toplis, Jane Toplis Associates: Access Consultants
Note: The above are all members of the English Heritage South West Regional Team, unless denoted otherwise.
page 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldred, D 1993. Hailes Abbey: A Handbook for Teachers. London: EH. Apted MR, Gilyard-Beer R & Saunders AD (Eds) 1977. Ancient Monuments and their Interpretation: Essays presented to AJ Taylor. London: Phillimore. Channer, J 2001. Wigmore Castle. SPAB News Vol 22, No 4 2001 pp 21-25. Baines, F 1913. General Instructions to Foremen in Charge of the Works of Preservation - Report of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments. London: HMSO. Bazeley, Rev W 1899 The Abbey of St Mary, Hayles. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. TGBAS XXII 1899 pp257-271 Brakspear, H 1901a. Journal 58 pp350-357 The Church of Hayles Abbey. Archaeological Coppack, G 2002. Conserved in the gentle hands of nature. Context 73 , March 2002 pp17-19. Davies, DR 1985. The Management of Guardianship Monuments. ASCHB Transactions Vol 10 , 1985 pp 49-53. Dellheim, C 1982. The Face of the Past: The preservation of the medieval inheritance in Victorian England. Cambridge: University Press. English Heritage 2004. Flooding and Historic Buildings: . London: EH English Nature 2004. Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough: EN English Nature 2000. Veteran Trees: A guide to risk and responsibility. Peterborough: English Nature. Fidler, J 2002. Staving off decay: Encouraging building maintenance. Conservation Bulletin 43 pp40- 43. London: English Heritage. Ford, D, Demas, M et al 2004. Chaco Canyon reburial programme. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites Vol. 6 (2004) pp 377-393. London: James & James Fowler, JK (1928) A Brief History and Guide to Hayles Abbey: A Daughter House of Beaulieu. London: Heineman. Gilbert, O 1996. Rooted in Stone: The natural flora of urban walls. Peterborough: English Nature Kavazanjian, E 2004. The use of geosynthetics for archaeological site reburial. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites Vol. 6 (2004) pp 377-393. London: James & James Knowles, D & St Joseph, JKS (1952). Cambridge: University Press. Monastic Sites from the Air.
Brakspear, H 1901b. The Architecture of Hayles Abbey. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. TGBAS XXIV 1901 pp126-135 Chitty, G 1987. A Prospect of Ruins. ASCHB Transactions Vol 12 , 1987 pp43-60. Coad, JG 1993. English Heritage. Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire (2nd Edition). London:
Coppack, G 1990. English Heritage Book of Abbeys and Priories. London: Batsford/English Heritage. Coppack, G 1999. Setting and Structure: The Conservation of Wigmore Castle in Chitty, G & Baker, D (Eds.) Managing Historic Sites and Buildings: Reconciling Presentation and Preservation. London: Routledge.
page 56
National Trust 2001. Wildlife and Buildings: Technical Guidance for Architects. Builders, Building Managers and Others. Cirencester: NT. Platt, C 1984. The Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England. New York: Fordham University Press Rivera, AB, et al, 2004. Partial reburial of West Ruin at Aztec Ruins National Monument. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites Vol. 6 (2004) pp 285-294 London: James & James St Clair Baddeley, W. Richard, Earl of Cornwall and Henry of Almaine. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Arcaeological Society. TGBAS XXII 1899 pp 86-114. St Clair Baddeley, W. The Holy Blood of Hayles. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Arcaeological Society. TGBAS XXIII 1900 pp 276-284. Stanford, C 2001. Dore Abbey. SPAB News Vol 22 no 4 pp30-31. Sudeley, Lord, et al 1990. History of Hailes Abbey and the Parish Church. Gloucestershire. Thomas, R & Wells, D 1999. Nature Conservation and Historic Properties: An Integrated Approach in Grenville (Ed). Managing the Historic Rural Landscape. London: Routledge. Thompson, MW 1981. Ruins: Their Preservation and Display. London: British Museum. Timms, S 2002. Caring for our other urban populations. Context 73 March 2002 pp23-25. Viles, H et al, 2002. Soft wall capping experiments in Fidler, J (Ed). English Heritage Research Transactions Vol 2: Stone. London: James Waterfield, G (Ed.) 2004. Opening Doors: Learning in the Historic Environment. Teddington: Attingham Trust. Webber, J 2005. Forest Research: Phytophthora Bleeding Canker of Horse Chestnut. Farnham: Forrestry Commission.
Winkless, D 1990. Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire. Spredden Press. Woodland Trust 2004. Ancient Tree Guides No 1: Trees and Farming . Grantham: Woodland Trust. Unpublished Reports Brown, G et al 2006. Interim Report of the Earthworks at Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire. Swindon: English Heritage. Elks, D 2006. Geophysical Survey Report: Hailes Abbey. Severn: Stratascan. Upton-on-
Fitzgerald, R 1992. Botanical Interest of English Heritage Sites in southwest England. London: English Heritage. GB Geotechnics 2003. Hailes Abbey: Construction Arrangement & Condition of Cloister Arches. GBG: Cambridge. Glover, R 1997. A report on the condition and recommendations for the fabric of the monumnet. Petersfield: Richard Glover Associates Glover, R 2000. Condition Survey for Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire. Petersfield: Richard Glover Associates Glover, R & Lewin, J 2000. A draft proposal for the conservation and management of Hailes Abbey. Petersfield: Richard Glover Associates. Hanna S, 1990. Conservation Reports: Hailes Abbey. London: EH, BCRT Alexander, K 1985. Biological Survey: Hailes Abbey. Cirencester: NT. SLR Consulting Limited 2005. Flood risk assessment and options appraisal to reduce the risk of flooding at Hailes Abbey. Bradford on Avon: SLR Swindle GE & Green CP 2006. A Reconstruction of the sub-surface sedimentary architecture of a possible fishpond at Hailes Abbey, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire. London: ArchaeoScape. Topliss, J 2001. Disability Access Audit for Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire Bath: Jane Topliss Associates.
bibliography page 57
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The production of this report has been reliant upon the assistance, advice and support of a wide range of individuals. I would like to personally thank Niall Morrissey for his encouragement, patience and commitment to progressing the project and to Tony Musty for his critical insight, extensive background information and the provision of numerous historic photographs of the abbey. Within English Heritage the project has been guided by the extensive knowledge and assistance of; John Anker, Kim Auston, Chris Bally, Mel Barge, Jo Beach, Rhod Bevan, Graham Brown, Beth Cavanagh, Alan Cathersides, Glyn Coppack, Amanda Feather, John Fidler, David Heath, Rob Iles, Tim Johnston, Francis Kelly, Loraine Knowles, Tony Leech, Phil McMahon, Bill Martin, Nick Molyneux, Carole Owen, Chris Smith, John Stewart, Alan Strickland, Gary Stone, Keith Weston and Chris Wood. Additional historical information has been provided by John Jurica, Assistant Editor, VCH Gloucestershire; Matthew Slocombe, Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings; Iain Shaw, Records Manager, National Trust, Swindon. Technical assistance has been provided by Colin Burns, Master Mason and by John Thompson, Consultant Ecologist. I would also like to thank the staff of; The National Archives, Kew; Public Reading Rooms of the National Monuments Record Centre in Swindon and Bristol City Library and Reference Library. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those mentioned above and to anyone omitted from the list who assisted me in any way.
page 58

Hailes Abbey Conservation Management Plan

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Hailes Abbey Conservation Management Plan

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HAILES ABBEY GLOUCESTERSHIRE

59 elton road bishopston bristol bs7 8dg

t 0117 907 7559

HAILES ABBEY GLOUCESTERSHIRE

HAILES ABBEY GLOUCESTERSHIRE

ENGLISH HERITAGE SOUTH WEST REGION

UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

3.0 UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 4

understanding the place page 6

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 7

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 9

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 11

3.12 After the Surrender

Henry Hodgkyns 1550-1561

Figure 13 . Sequence of Owners and Occupiers at Hailes Abbey.

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 12

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 13

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 14

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 15

understanding the place page 16

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 17

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 18

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 22

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 24

understanding the place page 25

hailes abbey | conservation statement

understanding the place page 26

4.0 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

5.0 DEFINING ISSUES

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

defining issues page 31

hailes abbey | conservation statement

defining issues page 34

Holistic appraisal of the site

SEE SEPARATE SHEET AS FILE:- pag e 3 7 .pdf

hailes abbey | conservation statement

defining issues page 37

Figure 45. Major flooding of cloisters in 1975. Source: Musty.

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement

hailes abbey | conservation statement