Chester Castle Conservation Plan Vol I

CHESTER CASTLE

Conservation Plan

September 2001

Chester Castle Conservation Plan

prepared for

English Heritage

by

Donald Insall Associates Ltd

in association with

Gifford

and

The Architectural History Practice

Chester Castle Conservation Plan i Donald Insall Associates

Issue II: September 2001

CHESTER CASTLE CONSERVATION PLAN

CONTENTS

VOLUME I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 BACKGROUND TO PLAN

1.1 Introduction

1.2 The Site

1.3 Historical Background

1.4 Purposes of plan

1.5 Methodology

1.6 Structure of the plan

2 UNDERSTANDING

2.1 Overview

2.2 Chronology – Summary

2.3 Outline of Previous Research and Studies

2.4 Geology and Ecology

2.4.1 Geology

2.4.2 Geomorphology

2.4.3 The Changing Course of the Dee

2.4.4 Ecology

2.5 A History of Chester Castle and its Site

2.5.1 The Pre Norman Site

2.5.2 The Norman Earls

2.5.3 The Welsh Wars

2.5.4 Hundred Years’ War

2.5.5 Richard II and Henry IV to the Wars of the Roses

2.5.6 Tudors and Stuarts

2.5.7 The Late 17th to Mid 18

th Centuries

2.5.8 The Late 18th, 19

th and 20

th Centuries

2.6 Special Historical Topics

2.6.1 Chester Castle Architecture and Comparisons

2.6.2 Wall paintings of the Chapel of St Mary de Castro

2.6.3 Summary of Thomas Harrison’s Life and Works

2.6.4 Chester Castle and the Picturesque in the 18th Century

2.6.5 Thomas Harrison’s Gaol

Chester Castle Conservation Plan ii Donald Insall Associates


2.7 Archaeology

2.7 Chester Castle Today

2.8.1 Plans and Photographs

2.8.2 Schedule of Structures and Spaces

2.8.3 Brief Description of Existing Structures and Spaces

2.8.4 Ownership and Management

2.8.5 Access, Interpretation and Appreciation

2.8.6 Visitor Numbers

2.8.7 Museum Collections

2.8.8 A Visitor’s Experience

2.8.9 Townscape

2.8.10 Current Planning Policies

3 SIGNIFICANCE

3.1 Methodology

3.2 Overview

2.8 Historical Associations

3.3.1 Crown Earldom and Shire Governance

3.3.2 Military Power

3.3.3 Judicial and Penal Authority

2.9 The Inner Bailey and Motte

3.4.1 Agricola Tower

3.4.2 Flag Tower

3.4.3 Half Moon Tower

3.4.4 Inner Bailey Curtain Walls

3.4.5 19th Century Regimental Buildings of the Inner Bailey

3.5 The Work of Thomas Harrison

3.6 The Castle’s Contribution to the Character of Chester

3.7 Archaeology

4 VULNERABILITY ISSUES

4.1 Overview

4.2 Condition

4.3 Use and Vacancy

4.4 Pressures for Change and New Development

4.5 Understanding and Appreciation

4.6 Ownership and Management

4.7 Accessibility and Townscape Linkages

4.8 Vulnerability Issues: Specific Buildings and Spaces

4.8.1 Inner Bailey: Structures

4.8.2 Inner Bailey: Courtyard and Raised Platform

4.8.3 Curtain Walls

4.8.4 Flag Tower

4.8.5 Half Moon Tower and Frobisher's House


4.8.7 Guard House and Cell Block

Chester Castle Conservation Plan iii Donald Insall Associates


4.8.8 Napier House

4.8.9 Harrison’s Buildings

4.8.10 Use of Harrison's Buildings

4.8.11 Outer Landscape, Gun Sheds and Other Buildings

4.8.12 The Gun Store and Officer Stables

4.8.13 The Squash Courts and Rifle Range

4.8.14 Landscaping, Drives and Car Parks

4.9 Summary of Key Vulnerability Issues

5 POLICIES

5.1 General Aims and Principles

5.2 General Policies

A: Understanding/Research

B: Setting/Landscape/Townscape

C: Ownership/Use/Strategic Management

D: Statutory Conservation

E: Conservation of the Fabric

F: Visitor access/Interpretation

G: Development Issues

H: Archaeology

5.3 Policy Guidelines for Individual Elements

Zone A: The Harrison Blocks

Zone B: The Inner Bailey

Zone C: Outer Landscape and Ancillary Buildings

5.4 Priorities

5.4.1 A Visitor Strategy

5.4.2 Car Parking and Servicing Strategy

APPENDIX

A Bibliography

B Full Chronology

C Ecology Report

D Study Plans (as per Gazetteer):

Plan G1 Gazetteer Reference (all periods)

Plan G2 Gazetteer Reference (existing buildings)

Plan G3 Phasing/Periods of Construction

Plan G4 Chester Castle Plan 1745

Plan G5 Chester Castle Plan 1745 overlaid on Existing Site Plan

Plan G6 Chester Castle Existing Building Plan/Period of Construction

Plan G7 Archaeology (Recent Investigations)

VOLUME II

Gazetteer

Chester Castle Conservation Plan 1 Donald Insall Associates


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

This conservation plan for Chester Castle was commissioned by English Heritage in June

2000 and undertaken by Donald Insall Associates, as lead consultants, in collaboration with

Gifford and Partners and the Architectural History Practice.

The purpose of the plan is to provide an understanding of the site, explain its significance, and

identify how that significance may be vulnerable and to set out policies for its management.

1.2 Significance

Today, the Castle complex is characterised by three distinctive parts. The internationally

important ‘Greek Revival’ buildings by Harrison, the much altered original medieval Inner

Bailey to the west and the outer landscape setting. The whole is nationally significant not just

because of the interest of the individual buildings, as they exist today but also for the

historical themes to which they give expression and for their townscape value.

1000 years of British history: The site has direct associations with and adds to the

understanding of many important aspects and events of national and local history, from

the time of William the Conqueror to the present day. These are reflected in its existing

fabric, its archaeology and its documentary records. It provides a rare example of a single

site continually used and adapted for the exercise of royal, civil, military and judicial

authority for 1000 years.

Medieval Religious Art: Religion was an important element of medieval life and the

wall paintings of the Agricola Tower are an extremely rare example of religious art of the

patronage of Henry III and although fragmentary are of high artistic quality.

The Work of Thomas Harrison: The ‘Greek Revival’ style was an important expression

of western thought and culture during the turn of the eighteenth century. Thomas

Harrison’s new Shire Hall, Court, Prison and Military buildings at Chester Castle from

that period provide an example of immense national and international importance. They

also show the influence of the “sublime” and “picturesque”.

Urban Character and Tourism: The Castle makes an important contribution to the

history and townscape of Chester, one of Europe’s best preserved historic towns and a

world tourist destination.

1.3 Vulnerability Issues

The significance of the site is vulnerable to a variety of current and potential threats.

Condition: The state of repair and maintenance of the Inner Bailey, which is in the

guardianship of English Heritage, is variable.

Use and vacancy: The decline in the use of Chester Castle as a military depot (it still

remains a Regimental Headquarters) has left two significant buildings (Colvin and Napier

House) vacant and with an uncertain future. New uses could bring pressure for change.

The intensive use of the parade ground for parking is detrimental to the setting of the

historic structures.

Understanding and appreciation: Chester Castle as an historical entity is largely

unappreciated and has low visitor numbers. This is not helped by the immediate

appearance of the Inner Bailey as being vacant and neglected.



Ownership and management: The site is divided between various ownerships and

management arrangements. With the disposal of further leaseholds this will become more

complicated.

Accessibility and linkages: The site is perceived as being remote from the city centre

and other tourist attractions. Pedestrian access to the Lower Bailey lies across a car park

and is poorly signposted and views of the castle from the west are screened by tree cover

within and adjacent to the Castle grounds.

1.4 Policies

The conservation plan polices are based on the conviction that the full significance of the

Inner Bailey and the Harrison buildings must be preserved and presented in such a manner

that they can be clearly appreciated and enjoyed by visitors.

General policies have been developed to provide the basis for future decision making and

address the issues under the following headings:

A Understanding and Research: Policies have been designed to insure that future

proposals for repair and development are based on a comprehensive understanding of the

Castle as an entity, its constituent parts and its historical associations.

B Setting, Landscape and Townscape: The setting of Chester Castle is important both for

the appreciation of the Castle itself and for its contribution to Chester's townscape.

Policies are proposed which will ensure that its setting is protected and appropriately

enhanced.

C Ownership, Use and Strategic Management: These crucial and interlinked issues need

to be addressed together. Owners and developers whilst having regard to the best interests

of their particular buildings and operations must also recognise the needs of other users

and Chester Castle as a complete entity. The key policies address the need for further

strategies: determine the extent to which the Castle is to be promoted as a visitor

attraction, and to establish an appropriate level of car parking.

D Statutory Considerations: Policies are designed to reinforce the protection and status of

the site, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and its Listed Buildings (graded I and

II).

E Conservation of the Fabric: Carefully planned maintenance is essential to the future

well being of individual structures and the whole site. Policies urge that repair regimes

must follow best practice guidelines because inappropriate maintenance techniques or

poor workmanship can damage sensitive historic buildings and accelerate rather than

prevent decay.

F Visitor Access and Interpretation Policies: The existence of Chester Castle is obscure

to many local people and visitors. Policies promote its potential as a visitor attraction and

the need for a clear visitor plan, without which the strategic context for making crucial

decisions about vacant buildings and structures is lacking.

G Development Issues: The scope for new building interventions or alterations without

damaging the integrity of the whole and its setting is extremely limited. However, policies

accept that some change to the historic structures and spaces may be necessary to

facilitate new uses or to secure the continued viability of established occupancy, which

will help conserve the site.



H Archaeology: The site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and included within in the

County Sites and Monument record. Policies emphasise the need to protect and record its

value as an archaeological site.

Policy Guidelines for Individual Elements: The general policies are followed by a series of

detailed 'Policy Guidelines’, which systematically focus on the component parts of the study

site.

Priorities: The study is concluded by highlighting those policies, which should be addressed

with particularly urgency. Key priorities are the need for a further study to determine the

extent to which the site should become a visitor attraction and to resolve concerns about the

intensity of car parking within the site. They are both necessary to inform decisions that will

have to be made about the future of the Inner Bailey and the two major vacant buildings,

Napier House and Colvin House.



SECTION 1 : BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN

1.1 Introduction

This conservation plan for Chester Castle was commissioned by English Heritage in June

2000. Donald Insall Associates, the lead consultants for the study, have been assisted by

Gifford and Partners Ltd in respect of archaeology and the Architectural History Practice.

During the preparation of the plan English Heritage have brought together a commission team

comprising all those bodies with a direct ownership or management interest in the Site.

The following organisations are parties to the plan and have been represented on the

commissioning team: English Heritage, Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council, The

Court Service, The Cheshire Regiment Museum.

The individuals who have represented these bodies and their various departments have

provided much valuable guidance and advice during the preparation of this document.

1.2 The site (see Figure 1, Site Location and Study Zone)

Chester Castle is located on the southern side of the City Centre within the medieval City

Walls and close to the River Dee.

The study area is centred on the Inner Bailey of Chester Castle part of which is in the

guardianship of English Heritage. The adjacent judicial and military buildings by Thomas

Harrison which replaced the Castle's Outer Bailey at the beginning of the 19th century are

included in respect that external envelope and spaces. Also included within the study area is

the area of landscaping and car parking to the west and south which provides the Castle's

immediate setting.

The site is an integral part of the City of Chester; by reputation one of Europe's best preserved

historic towns, and the Castle contributes to the city's townscape and history. The Castle's law

courts, museums, County Council facilities and car park are all important to the life of the

town. These inter-relationships both existing and potential have had to be included within the

scope of this study.

Figure 1 Chester Castle Location, Site and Zone Plans



I Location Plan (From EH publication, ‘Chester’ by P Carrington)

II Site Plan III Study Zones Zone A – The Harrison Blocks

Zone B – The Inner Bailey

Zone C – The Outer Landscape

(Individual buildings are identified on Plan

No2, Page 41.)



1.3 Historical background

Chester Castle dates from the later 11th Century when William the Conqueror constructed a

Motte and Bailey as an important fortification to protect the northern Welsh border and Dee

estuary. Throughout the 12th and 13

th century the early timber structures were replaced with

stone curtain walls and towers to enclose an Inner and Outer Bailey. The medieval castle

played an important role in the welsh campaigns of Edward 1st, the Baron's wars and the wars

of the Roses. The Agricola, Flag and Half Moon Towers of the Inner Bailey survive from the

early medieval period. The Castle has continued to provide the base for shire governance,

judicial authority and the military powers to the present time. At the end of the 18th century

the Outer Bailey was removed and replaced by a new Shire Hall and military buildings. A

central block and two wings enclosed a Parade ground all designed in Greek Revival style by

Thomas Harrison. These accommodated law courts, shire offices, a prison and military

functions. Throughout the 19th century the Inner Bailey continued to be adapted and added to

as a Regimental Headquarters and depot. (Individual buildings are identified on Plan No2,

Page 41.)

Today the study site is split between various ownership, leaseholders and guardianship. The

Inner Bailey no longer functions as a regimental depot and the leasehold disposal of two

substantial former military blocks (Napier and Colvin House) has given the preparation of the

plan a particular urgency. The Law Courts, Military Museum and Regimental Head Quarters

remain in active use and much of the open areas within the study area are used for public and

Council Office parking.

1.4 Purpose of the Plan

In common with other conservation plans the purpose of this study is to provide an

understanding of the site and its history, to explain its significance and how this is vulnerable

now or may become so in the future. The plan proposes policies to protect and manage the

significant aspects of the site as a whole and its principle elements. It provide within a single

document a comprehensive background of understanding and policies which will:

help in the preparation of long-term management plans for the site as a whole.

assist in making short-term action plans and day to day decisions.

provide a clear set of guiding principles against which any new development proposals or

new ways of using the site and its building can be tested and evaluated.

inform and contribute to proposals to reveal and assist in the appreciation of the

significance of the site.

assist in the preparation of initiatives for interpretation and education.

contribute to design and planning briefs for alterations to the existing fabric and possible

new development.

inform strategies and plans to improve accessibility to the site and enhance its potential to

contribute to the life of the community and the local economy.

Certain particular circumstances and concerns have led to the requirement for the plan at this

time. These include:

the termination of the military use of the Inner Bailey.

the marketing of the leasehold of two significant buildings formerly in military

occupation.



the perception that the Castle is largely an unrecognised and unexploited asset within the

City of Chester and that it has greater potential to contribute to its tourism economy.

the poor condition of certain important structures and spaces within the Inner Bailey.

1.5 Methodology

The key steps in the Conservation Plan process are:

Understanding the site.

Determining the significance of the site and its individual components in terms of

cultural, historical, ecological or other special interest.

Identifying issues and threats that could impact upon the site’s significance.

Devising policies to protect the site and its important aspects and enable it to be better

understood and appreciated.

In the case of Chester Castle, considerable emphasis has been placed on:

Gaining an understanding and appreciation of the long history of the site and how it has

changed and been adapted over time.

Its diverse linkage with the City.

The method of study has involved visits to the site by both the Client and the Consultant

teams to gain an overall appreciation of its main components, its general condition and

intensity of use. Desk based research has been undertaken mainly using secondary sources

and examining the limited primary sources where this has been possible. Previous condition

surveys of the English Heritage guardianship area within the Inner Bailey have been

supplemented by visual inspection of the exteriors of all the structures on the site. This has

enabled a provisional view to be taken on the overall condition of the fabric. At each of the

key stages in the process, (understanding, issues and policies) workshops have been held with

the commissioning team to share knowledge and discuss vulnerability and policy

development. The consultants have produced discussion papers and drafts for these sessions.

Comments and ideas from the commissioning team have been crucial to the process and the

final report.

1.6 Structure of the Plan

The Conservation Plan is presented in two documents. The main report with its key sections,

Understanding, Vulnerability, Issues and Policies, is supplemented by a gazetteer (Volume

II). This provides detailed information on each component of the existing fabric above ground

and also on the structures that have previously existed and of which archaeological evidence

may remain.

The key sections in the main document dealing with understanding, significance and

vulnerability issues each begin with a general introduction to the broad issues involved and

then proceed to discuss the topic in detail.

The Policy Section is in three distinct parts. The first provides general policy statements on:

Understanding and resources

Setting landscape and townscape

Ownership, use and strategic management



Statutory and local planning policies

Conservation of the fabric

Access and interpretation

Development issues

Archaeology

The second part provides “Policy Guidelines for Individual Elements” of the site and a final

section highlights the most urgent priorities.



SECTION 2: UNDERSTANDING

2.1 Overview

This section of the conservation plan provides an explanation of our understanding of Chester

Castle. It identifies the principle sources of information and previous studies that have

provided the basis for the study and summarises the key events in the castles long history and

the historical events with which they have been associated. This is followed by an historical

account describing when, how and why the first fortifications were constructed and how these

have been added to and adapted over time. Certain important aspects of the site that are

referred to in the main chronological account are further developed as “special historical

topics”. The Understanding section ends with an account of Chester Castle, as it is today and

how it is used and managed.

2.2 Chronological Summary 1

st Millennium:

c.74 A small auxiliary fort may have been established at Chester to oversee the

lead/silver mines in Flintshire.

c.79 The Roman legionary fortress of Deva was established at Chester by Legio II

Adiutrix Pia Fidelis.

c.88 Legio XX Valeria Victrix is stationed at Chester.

c.100 The defences are partially reconstructed in stone.

c.160 Legio XX return to Chester, reconstruction of barrack blocks and other

buildings in stone.

c.200 Some of the towers and gateways were rebuilt.

c.300 The north wall of the fortress was extensively repaired.

603 A synod of the British clergy may have been held at Chester.

616 The battle of Chester fought between the kingdoms of Powys and

Northumbria.

689 The founding of St John’s church at Chester.

893-4 A Danish army wintered at Chester.

907 A royal burgh is established at Chester by Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians.

970 A hoard of silver pennies was buried in a jar on Castle Esplanade.



11th

Century:

AD1070 Motte and Bailey Castle founded by William the Conqueror.

12th

Century:

1159-60 £102.7s.6d. spent on the work of the castle during the minority of Earl Hugh.

£20 spent on the rebuilding of the castle bridge.

13th

Century:

c.1210 The Agricola Tower is built as the bailey gatehouse with a first floor chapel,

decorated with wall paintings.

c.1230-40 The Agricola Tower chapel is given a second coat of wall paintings of very

high quality and focused on the Virgin Mary.

1237 The end of the independent earldom, the castle is taken over by the crown,

and remains the administrative centre of the palatinate.

1241-5 Henry III uses the castle as a base for his campaigns in Wales, and an ‘oriel’

is constructed before the doorway of the King’s chapel. The castle was used

as a goal from this time.

1245 The King’s apartments were repaired, the paintings in the Queen’s chamber

renewed and a bridge made from the castle into the orchard.

1246-8 Henry III builds a new chamber over a cellar at a cost of £220.

1247-51 Henry III replaces the wooden palisade round the outer bailey with a stone

wall.

1249-53 Henry III demolishes the hall in the outer bailey and builds a new Great Hall

at a cost of £350.

1251-67 Prince Edward uses the castle as a base for his campaigns against the Welsh.

1284-91 Edward I adds new chambers for the King and Queen, as well as a stable and

carries out repairs to the King’s houses at a cost of £1,400.

1292-3 Edward builds a new outer gatehouse at a cost of £318.

1299 Ten ceiling corbels in the King’s great chamber were coloured, and William

of Northampton adorned the lesser chapel near the great hall with a depiction

of the murder of Thomas Becket.

14th

Century:

1301 The chapel in the Agricola Tower is converted into a treasury.

1310 The shire hall was removed to a new position just outside the main gate of the

outer bailey.

1327 Castle in the custody of Thomas of Warwick, and orders issued for its

provisioning and repair.



1328 The justice of Chester’s deputy had a hall, chamber and new kitchen in the

inner bailey.

1337 100 yards of wall had to be rebuilt, and repairs were undertaken on the

constable’s hall and other buildings of the inner ward as well as the bridges

leading to the two gatehouses.

1347 Gonkes Chapel, Damory Tower, the Great Chapel, the Great Hall and several

other chambers were all in disrepair.

1353-5 £170 spent on the repair of the inner bailey wall.

1355 A new exchequer was built within the castle.

15th

Century:

1401 The exchequer is moved to a building adjoining the shire hall, just outside the

castle.

16th

Century:

1511 £272 was spent on repairs to the great hall, gatehouses and shire hall.

1536 The castle became a base for the County justices.

1577-82 The Great Hall is rebuilt at a cost of £650, to house the shire court. The

parliament chamber to the south was also reconditioned to house the

exchequer court.

1579-81 The castle provided supplies and lodgings for soldiers before they embarked

for Ireland, during the revolt.

17th

Century:

1627-8 The Earl’s representatives reluctantly paid for repairs, including a new bridge

into the castle.

1642-6 The castle was a royalist headquarters during the siege of Chester, with a

garrison commanded by a military governor. It escaped physical damage and

in 1646 surrendered with all its arms, ordnance and ammunition intact.

1646-59 The castle was a supply base for parliamentary troops in Ireland, with a

garrison under a military governor.

1660-2 Governor and garrison removed from the castle. Much of the outer gatehouse

fell down, and John Shaw the county surveyor estimated cost of repairs at

£860. A garden was created in the inner bailey for the judges to walk in at the

Assize.

1662-4 Just over £546 was spent on repairs to the castle.

1687 James II visited the castle and heard mass. At this time the castle was

garrisoned by 8 companies of soldiers from Ireland and a newly appointed

furbisher. The castle received a new armoury and Frobisher's shop.



1689 Peter Shakerley was replaced as governor by Sir John Morgan, who requested

two new companies of 100 men. A gun platform was built.

1690 The castle was used in the transport of soldiers to Ireland to repress the

Jacobites. The roof of the exchequer court and protonotary’s office were

repaired.

1691 Repairs to the armoury included 62 yards of brick walling, also the Flag

Tower and Half-moon Tower were re-roofed.

1696-8 The castle received a mint for William III’s recoinage. This was staffed by a

comptroller (the astronomer Edmond Halley), a warden, master, assayer and

5 other officials. It issued half-crowns, shillings and sixpences.

18th

Century:

1745 Castle under threat of attack by the Jacobites. George Earl of Cholmondeley

put Chester in a state of defence, repairing the castle’s defences and adding

raised batteries in the inner and outer wards and a raised platform with a

parapet south-east of the great hall. The military architect Alexander de

Lavaux was engaged to draw up a plan to strengthen the fortifications, but the

work was never carried out.

1760-86 A large portion of the curtain wall of the inner bailey behind the armoury fell

down. Repair work included the reconstruction of Lord Cholmondeley’s

battery.

1785 Quarter sessions ordered the rebuilding of the goal, and this was awarded to

Thomas Harrison. Captain G French ascended in Lunardi’s balloon from the

castle yard.

1788 Harrison demolished the exchequer and constables house, then built the

prison and southern parts of the main block.

1789 A passage with a new gateway was opened into the upper ward, and consent

was given for the outer gatehouse to be removed and replaced by a new arch

and guardrooms.

1791 The exchequer, grand jury room, protonotary’s office and prisoners’ wards

had all been finished.

1794-9 The main block including the shire hall, portico and prison chapel were

finished.

19th

Century:

1804 The inner gatehouse, Square Tower and part of the curtain wall of the inner

bailey were demolished and a new armoury block was erected in their place.

1806-10 Another block housing the barracks, provost cells and exchequer court was

erected on the north side of the outer ward. A ditch faced with a stone wall

was constructed round the castle yard.

1810 An extra mural magazine was constructed adjacent to the upper bailey wall.

1811-13 A new Doric gateway (propylaea) was constructed.



1818 The Agricola Tower is refaced in sandstone.

1830 The extra mural magazine was taken down and the chapel of the Agricola

Tower was used as the magazine.

1831-6 Demolition of the officers’ barracks and judges’ lodgings in the south east

range of the inner ward, to make way for a new armoury and Napier House.

Harrison’s ‘B’ block converted into accommodation for officers and judges.

1846 The guardroom in the upper bailey was constructed.

1873 The open ball alley was converted into straw sheds.

1875-7 Harrison’s main block in the lower ward was altered to include a new Nisi

Prius Court, designed by T M Lockwood.

1877 The prison was transferred to the crown.

1878 The guardroom cells in the upper bailey were constructed.

1882 The castle became the depot for the 22nd

(Cheshire) Regiment.

1884 The prison was closed to civil prisoners.

1891 Protonotary’s office converted to a council chamber for the new county

council

1892 The exchequer court was transferred to the War Department, and the site of

the prison became a drill ground for the local volunteer artillery.

20th

Century:

1900-02 The prison buildings were demolished.

1921 The Agricola Tower chapel ceased to be used as the magazine. The miniature

rifle range was constructed. The fire engine shed in front of the Agricola

Tower was taken down.

1922 Harrison’s barrack block was restored. The site of the well in the upper bailey

was uncovered and the water “found to be of excellent quality”, subsequently

recovered with a York stone slab. 21 lime trees along the southeast side of

the rifle range were planted.

1923 A conservation programme was undertaken on the wall paintings in the

Chapel of the Agricola Tower by the Office of Works.

1939-57 The site of the prison was used to build the new county hall.

1958 RHQ Cheshire Regiment took over ‘A’ block on the formation of Infantry

Brigade Depots.

1972 Part of ‘A’ block was made into the regimental museum.

1979-82 Excavation and building recording in the inner bailey, directed by Peter

Hough for the Department of the Environment.



1992-3 Investigation and conservation of wall paintings in the Chapel of the Agricola

Tower, undertaken for English Heritage by the Courtauld Institute.

1997 Colvin House ceased to function as the Garrison Officers’ Mess.

1999 The HQ for the Army Medical Services TA left Napier House.

2.3 Outline of Previous Research Studies

There have been many attempts since the late 19th century to chart the history and

development of Chester Castle, and these works are fully listed in the Bibliography

(Appendix A). The most pertinent texts are indicated below.

Historical

The first historical studies of the castle were undertaken at the turn of the nineteenth century

first by Ormerod in 1882, followed by articles written by Morris and Cox in the 1890’s. F.

Simpson had another attempt at the history of the castle in 1925, and a survey of the historical

documents pertaining to the King’s works at Chester Castle was undertaken by Colvin and

others in 1963. The most recent and comprehensive study on the history of the castle can be

found in the forthcoming volume on the Chester Victoria County History, written by Alan

Thacker.

Archaeological

The only serious archaeological investigations at the castle were undertaken by Peter Hough

between 1979-82, on behalf of the Department of the Environment. Small scale watching

brief and evaluation work has also been undertaken by Chester City Council Archaeological

Service on two occasions.

Art-historical

The castle has been a subject for artistic studies since the early eighteenth century, especially

artists such as Moses Griffith.

Conservation

A detailed programme of conservation was undertaken on the wall paintings of the Agricola

Tower chapel in 1990.

The latest research carried out was the Chester Castle Condition Survey November 1998 by

Buttress Fuller Alsop Williams for English Heritage (Quinquennial Inspection Report). This

examined the current condition problems in detail and commented upon the recent repairs to

the fabric.

Planning and Economic Development

A Study of the Chester Castle area was undertaken in 1995 by Drivers Jonas for Chester City

Council



2.4 Geology and Ecology

2.4.1 Geology

In terms of solid geology, Chester is situated in the faulted structural basin of the Cheshire

lowland, which is floored by a considerable thickness of Permo-Triassic sediments. These

sediments are surrounded and underlain by folded, faulted and denuded strata of

Carboniferous and Silurian age. Within Chester itself, and underlying the Castle Site, the

Permo-Triassic sediments consist of Kinnerton Sandstones and the Chester Pebble Beds. The

Kinnerton Sandstones form the lower part of the Sherwood Sandstone Group, which were

formally known as Bunter Sandstone. Succeeding the Kinnerton Sandstones are the Chester

Pebble Beds, which reach a maximum thickness of 300m in the area around Chester castle

and produce a sandstone characterised by the presence of rounded quartzite pebbles of

varying diameter (Harris and Thacker 1987, 11). In the area of Chester these sandstones form

part of the Mid-Cheshire ridge, an area ideal for the placing of a settlement.

2.4.2 Geomorphology

The drift geology of the Chester castle site has been determined by the glaciations of the

Devensian and more recently by the sedimentation regimes of the River Dee. During the

Devensian maximum ice sheets flowing from the mountains of Wales are estimated to have

reached a thickness of c. 450m in the Chester area. The movement and thawing of these ice

sheets deposited till, or boulder clay, with some glacial sand and gravel. In the area of Chester

castle, these glacial deposits have been eroded by the changing course of the River Dee,

which has scoured channels and deposited alluvial material. Changing sea levels during the

Holocene period have resulted in these alluvial deposits containing material of a marine,

estuarine and riverine nature (Harris and Thacker, 1987, 25).

2.4.3 The Changing Course of the Dee

Chester Castle’s location, in relation to the River Dee has changed over the last millennium.

As has been shown by Tooley (1978), changing sea level has had a great effect on the course

and width of the Dee. During the Early Medieval period Chester Castle would have been

found within a bend in the river, at a point where the river narrows to something like its

current width, with an area of marsh immediately to the west of the Castle. Falling sea levels

during the Medieval period had the effect of drying out and increasing the area previously

covered by marsh and reducing the width of the River Dee to the west (Ward 1996, 9, figure

2.4). The width of the Dee to the west of the castle was reduced even further when the New

Cut was excavated in the 1730's and the river diverted into a man-made channel from the

Chester to Connah’s Quay.

2.4.4 Ecology

In order to determine whether any aspects of the site as it exists today are of any ecological

value a special survey was commissioned as part of the conservation plan study. The report is

included at Appendix C.

The report indicates that the site contains nothing of particular ecological significance. The

soft landscaped areas are dominated by close mown grass and limited areas of shrubs. These

spaces are not being managed to encourage the development or diversity of local species of

flora or fauna but as “ornamental landscape”.

The only area where self seeded wild flora has been allowed to develop is on the semi derelict

raised platform within the Inner Bailey, which is of limited interest.



2.5 A History of Chester Castle 2.5.1 The Pre Norman Site

Prehistoric

Nothing certain can be stated about the site of the castle prior to the erection of the Norman

motte and bailey in 1070. However, to the west of the castle on the site of the Benedictine

Nunnery (Police Headquarters building) a partially finished polished stone axe head of Early

Bronze Age type was found during excavations in 1964 (SMR record no.3024). Furthermore,

to the north of the castle during extension work to the Grosvenor museum in 1893 a decorated

stone spindle whorl of prehistoric type was found (SMR record no.3023). These objects

belong to a period in prehistory noted for monument building (most notably the standing

stones of Stonehenge and Avebury), and the single standing stone, known by the medieval

period as the Gloverstone, may indicate the site of a prehistoric stone monument of similar

type.

A quick glance at the topographic location of the site would suggest that it has merits as an

easily exploited defensive position, being sited on an outcrop of sandstone bedrock protruding

into the Dee Estuary. As such it would not be implausible to see the site having been

exploited as a promontory fort in the late Iron Age. Similarly, during the pre-Flavian phase of

activity at Chester (prior to the construction of the Roman legionary fortress) the site would

have been a likely place to put an auxiliary fort, especially if occupying an earlier native Iron

Age fortification, as has been seen at other sites in Britain such as Hod Hill in Dorset.

Roman

Later Roman activity on the site is evidenced by stray finds indicative of occupation.

However, the nature of this activity remains enigmatic. Looking at the proposed layout in the

southern extramural area of the legionary fortress (Mason, 1980, 86) the site of the castle is

adjacent to a possible mansio, and would appear to have been in a rather sparsely populated

area of the Roman extramural settlement, with buildings positioned on sites overlooking the

river and not along the main road. The nature of these buildings would seem to be comparable

with those encountered to the west of the fortress, suggesting that a mixture of privately owned

high status residences and official establishments should be anticipated (Mason, 1980, 85). To

the west of the castle (in the area of the Police Headquarters building) part of an opus signinum

floor was uncovered during construction work in 1914, implying a high status building on the

site (SMR record no.3001/0/25) (see Figure 2, Roman Chester).



Figure 2: Roman Chester (From EH publication, Chester by P Carrington).

Post-Roman

The post-Roman situation in Chester is poorly understood but evidence from Lower Bridge

Street would suggest that between c.AD 400-850 the area to the south of the fortress was

probably down to cultivation or ploughland, being formally divided into parcels of land 12

metres wide by a series of north-south aligned ditches (Mason, 1985, 2). Between c.AD 850-

907 the area seems to have been prone to periods of ephemeral short lived occupation

evidenced on Lower Bridge Street by hearths and a timber building (ibid).

Anglo-Saxon

It has been convincingly argued that the rebuilding of Chester and its foundation as a burh in

AD 907 (by Æthelflaed ‘Lady of the Mercians’), would have involved the extension of the

northern and eastern lines of the Roman fortress defences to the banks of the River Dee

(Ward, 1994, 119-121). This would have brought the site of the castle within the defended

Mercian settlement, possibly for two reasons: firstly from a military stance it would have

converted the defended area of the burh of Chester into a promontory site; and secondly

would have offered an incentive to settlement expansion further west, from the intensively

occupied area of Lower Bridge Street, that had been in evidence since the ninth century

(Ward, 1994, 121). However, it has been suggested that the south western area of the burh

including the site of the castle was never actually developed at this time, evidenced by the fact

that after the Norman conquest the land was given away in piecemeal fashion to the various

religious houses (ibid).



2.5.2 The Norman Earls

The motte and bailey castle

According to Orderic Vitalis (Forester, 1853) the first Norman Castle was built by William

the Conqueror in AD 1070 when he brought his army to Chester to put down a rebellion. The

castle site was defended by natural falls on the south and west, and by an artificial elevation

on the north (Husain, 1973, 101), and the earliest fortification would have been confined to

the area of the later medieval Inner Bailey. The presence of the artificial mound on which the

original Norman motte may have stood was confirmed by excavations conducted by Peter

Hough in 1982. The stratigraphy suggested that beneath the stone foundations to the defences

of the west range of the Inner Bailey (believed to have been constructed c.1246), was a

steeply sloping clay deposit believed to be the top of the motte (Ellis, 1996, 33). Parallels for

this clay deposit have been seen at other motte and bailey sites such as Durham Castle, where

during the building of a stone keep on the original earthen motte, it was necessary to encase

the mound in a thick stabilising layer of clay (Kenyon, 1990, 11). During 1995 an

archaeological watching brief associated with the laying of new services in the Inner Bailey,

produced a significant amount of redeposited Roman material which may have made up the

fabric of the artificial mound, possibly representing up-cast from the original motte and bailey

ditch (S Ward pers. comm.). Furthermore, the stone Flag Tower in the Inner Bailey has been

suggested to be the location of the original Norman keep (Cox, 1895, 239-276), possibly

having been rebuilt in stone in 1159/60 when a sum of £102, 7s and 6d was spent ‘on the

work of the castle’ (Colvin et al, 1962, 607-612).

The castle became the palace of a Norman earldom until 1237 for which very little

documentation survives, with the exception of the minorities of Hugh II (1153-81) and Ranulf

III (1181-1232) when the castle came into the hands of the king. During these minorities a

sum of £102. 7s. 6d was spent on the castle, and a further £20 on the castle bridge (Husain,

1973, 101). The location of this bridge may have been in front of the building known as the

Agricola Tower, thought to be of late 12th century construction. Examination of this building

has led to the conclusion that it had originally functioned as a gatehouse, with evidence for a

gateway in the north wall, which was blocked up during the 13th century (SMR reference

3007/1/7). On the grounds of the castle’s developing plan and the technical innovations of

13th century castle architecture, the square angle towers of the Inner Bailey (including the

building known as the guard tower) were probably erected at the same time as the Agricola

tower. Although no direct evidence exists to support this, the sum of £375 spent on `the work

of the city (of Chester)` between 1161-2 may have included work done to the castle, or

alternatively the £40 spent between 1181-7 may have accounted for some of these additions

(Allen Brown et al, 1963, 607).

When precisely the Inner Bailey gatehouse was built is a matter of conjecture. However,

twin towered gatehouses (usually with rounded gate towers) were an innovation of the 13th

century (Kenyon, 1990, 63). For a historical context it is worth noting that Earl Ranulf III of

Chester (1181-1232), on returning to England from the crusades in 1220, embarked upon a

series of building programmes including the castles of Beeston and Bolingbroke, each of

which were furnished with twin drum towered gateways and `D` shaped mural towers (ibid,

67). It may therefore be reasonable to suggest that Ranulf also furnished Chester Castle with a

new gatehouse and mural tower (the half moon tower) at this time. Ranulf`s revamp of

Chester castle may be supported by a recent study of the wall paintings surviving in the first

floor chapel of the Agricola Tower, which suggests two phases of decoration can be

discerned, the earlier of which may be dated to the time of Earl Ranulf III (Cather et al, 2000,

183).

At some point after it ceased to be the main entrance to the Inner Bailey the Agricola Tower

had a hall added to its southern side, which had a solar at the southern end and chamber

above. A kitchen larder and butteries were also accommodated at the northern end of the hall,



with steps providing access to the bailey ditch via a stone arch (SMR, record number

3007/1/6). These additions may have been undertaken as part of Ranulf III’s improvements,

although work undertaken by Henry III is equally possible.

Military

During the early Norman Earldom the military strength of Cheshire was limited to a small

feudal force called upon to defend the County against Welsh attack. This force was recruited

through the system of knight service, for which the evidence suggests only eighty knights in

the County of Cheshire. Ranulf III’s Great Charter (1215-16) recognized two classes of

troops: the heavily armed knights; and the lightly armed freeholders – the latter probably

including archers. The Earls barons were also relieved from various other military

obligations: they could not be compelled to serve beyond the eastern limit of the county

(beyond the Lyme); and when no danger threatened they were not compelled to provide castle

guard at Chester, until the event of imminent invasion or siege. The Earl was able to

strengthen his limited military resources by the institution of ‘dowry’ whereby law breakers

would be given a place of sanctuary/asylum in return for military service.

A growing alliance between Ranulf III and Llewelyn the Great probably prompted Henry III

to annex the earldom of Chester to the crown in 1237, and from this point onwards the earl of

Chester was usually the heir to the throne of England. Henry III and Edward I used the castle

at Chester as a base for their campaigns in North Wales, with large armies passing through the

city from as early as 1241. It is recorded that during Edward I’s reign the castle was used as a

supply depot, holding corn transported from Ireland, Staffordshire and Shropshire in 1277.

2.5.3 The Welsh Wars

Following the annexation of the earldom by the king in 1237 the timber elements of the castle

began to be rebuilt in stone, signifying its considered importance. The first reference

regarding this comes from an order by Henry III in 1246, instructing his justiciary John de

Gray, to remove “the wooden fence of the bailey around our castle of Chester, and that you

cause the said bailey to be enclosed with a stone wall” (Allen Brown et al, 1963, 607-612).

This reference has led to some confusion regarding whether it pertains to the inner or Outer

Bailey of the castle, however if we accept that the construction of the Outer Bailey was not

undertaken until Henry III gained possession of the castle (Simpson, 1925, 80), then the work

of 1246 must pertain to the Inner Bailey curtain wall.

The other references to early maintenance work at the castle pertain to the rebuilding of the

bridge to the keep, which fell down in 1238 and cost £4, 3s, 9d to replace. A second bridge

leading from the castle into an orchard (presumably beyond the Inner Bailey) was ordered in

1245, and may have been located in front of the arch by the Agricola Tower referred to as

giving access from the kitchens to the Inner Bailey ditch, via a stone staircase (SMR record

number 3007/1/6). It has been argued that at this time Henry III had the chapel walls in the

Agricola Tower repainted, and it is documented that the paintings in the queens chamber were

ordered to be renewed by Henry in 1245 (Cather et al, 2000, 184). The following year Henry

III ordered the construction of a new first floor chamber standing on a cellar (costing £219,

13s, 0.5d), which maybe equated with the solar and chamber attached to the hall of the Inner

Bailey mentioned above.

In 1251 Henry III commanded Alan de la Zouch to cause the wall of the outer ward to the

castle at Chester, and the new hall (the Great Hall) of the king, which are begun, to be

finished. However, this work was still ongoing when the castle was captured by Simon de

Montfort in 1264, who appointed Lucas de Taney as his justiciary until the following year

when prince Edward besieged and subsequently recovered the castle (Simpson, 1925, 94).

The building at the southern end of the Great Hall (later used to house the Exchequer court)



was apparently of early 13th century character, and may have originally functioned as a chapel

(Allen Brown et al, 1963, 608).

In 1254 Chester was given to Prince Edward until he succeeded to the throne in 1272, after

which time the accounts for the castle were normally recorded by the chamberlains of

Chester. From this time the castle was used as a base for Edward I’s conquest of Wales,

leading to additional requirements from the king for accommodation for himself and his

household, stables for his horses, and adequate fortifications for his security (Allen brown et

al, 1963, 609). These works included the rebuilding of the Outer gateway and the erection of

new domestic buildings for the king and queen. The work was started by William of Perton in

1284, and details of this work submitted by Thomas of Perton’s executors in 1286 include the

purchase of “ boards to make the alter of the chapel”, and “glazing of the queen’s chapel”.

After his death the work was continued by Reginald de Grey (justiciary of Chester), who in

1291 had spent £863, 13s, 3d on “repairing the buildings of the king’s castle of Chester,

constructing a chamber for the king and another for the queen consort, together with other

chambers and necessary buildings, and also a certain chapel and stable” (Allen Brown, 1963,

610). These new chambers together with the queen’s chapel appear to have stood in the Outer

Bailey, to the north and east of the Great Hall, the chapel being identified as the `mass house`

indicated within the Garderobe Tower on later plans of the castle. In 1298-9 remedial works

had to be undertaken on these chambers to prevent them from falling down, suggesting that

their original construction was somewhat floored.

The new outer gatehouse was built in 1292-3 at a cost of £318, 18s, 8d, the former entrance

whose place it took was blocked up, and work began on the new gateway consisting of a

simple arch with one portcullis and a brattice. However, before it was finished the king gave

orders for a twin-towered gatehouse to be built instead, consisting of two drum towers with a

vaulted passageway defended by two portcullises. This gatehouse was also furnished with a

prison and several other chambers.

Military

During Edward I’s campaigns against the Welsh, sizeable contingents of Cheshire troops

were drafted into his campaigning army:

1277 The army included 1000 Cheshire foot soldiers including both archers and spearmen,

with a further 620 men from Cheshire held in reserve. In addition there was a picked

corps of 100 archers from the Macclesfield hundred.

1282 The Justice of Chester (Reginald de Grey) was ordered to muster 2000 Cheshire men

at Chester.

1287 The worth of the Cheshire soldiers is demonstrated by them being called upon by the

King to fight in South Wales, quelling the uprising of Rhys.

1294-5 Cheshire provided 1300 soldiers for the campaign in North Wales, and in May 1200

Cheshire footmen were sent to South Wales.

1298 Edward I had Cheshire bowmen in his army at the battle of Falkirk in Scotland.

1308 400 Cheshire men were summoned for Edward II’s expedition to Scotland.

These events demonstrate that the Cheshire Bowman was developing into a battle hardened

veteran highly desired by the king as the backbone to any campaigning army that may have

been raised. This was a trend to be repeated by later monarchs in their campaigns in France.



Figure 3: Chester Castle in the later Middle Ages (From EH publication, Chester by P Carrington).

Garrisons

1237-8 there was a guard of 3 knights and 30 sergeants at Beeston castle, and probably more

at Chester.

During the military campaigns against the Welsh 1277-95, the building of 10 new castles in

Wales and 4 new ‘lordship’ castles in England took place. Chester was of the greatest

importance as a base for the military campaign and as the centre for the co-ordination of

personnel, provisions, and building materials in a castle building programme of enormous

scale.

The Pipe Roll for 1270-4 records the payment of 100s to John Arneway, a well known

Chester merchant, for cloth taken for use of the sergeants in Chester castle. In 1275-6

provision was made for men-at-arms in the Marches and at Chester and Beeston castles.

2.5.4 The Hundred Years War

When Edward of Caernarfon was made Prince of Wales and earl of Chester in 1301 he

commissioned a picture of the martyrdom of St Thomas to be painted in the lesser chapel next

to the Great Hall. The following year the roof of the great chapel was recovered in lead, while



the chapel in the Inner Bailey (probably in the Agricola Tower) was adapted in order to serve

as a repository for the prince’s treasure. In 1310-11 a further £200 were spent on the work of

the outer gate by the justiciary (but no details of the work are recorded), and the shire court

was moved from its place in the great hall to a building outside the castle near the main gate,

acquired for the purpose. Once Edward II (1307-1327) became king, Edward of Windsor was

created Earl of Chester in 1312 and the administration was left in the hands of officials during

his minority. The main improvement during this subsequent period was the provision of a

new kitchen in the Inner Bailey for the justiciary’s deputy in 1328, with the addition of the

little buttery and kitchen for the comptroller in 1346-7.

In 1337 the castle was surveyed by the justiciary and four members of the prince’s council,

who reported that 20 perches (c.100m) of the castle wall were being rebuilt (at a cost of

£250), but that only the foundation was begun and not yet half finished (SC 12/22/96). This

work is unlikely to have been associated with the Inner Bailey as £170 was spent on the repair

of the Inner Bailey wall between 1353-5, which suggests that it was the Outer Bailey wall that

was being rebuilt. Interestingly, the distance of 100m is roughly the length of the Outer Bailey

curtain wall, along its western side between the Great Gateway and the Inner Bailey ditch (if

you exclude the areas occupied by the flanking towers), and as the reference suggests that

even foundations had to be created, it may be reasonable to assume that the earlier wall was

either of timber or insubstantial stone construction.

There is no detailed evidence for the evolution of the various towers associated with the Outer

Bailey, however Gowestower is mentioned during the reign of Edward I (and is believed to be

the western tower of the outer gatehouse), Damaries Tower is mentioned in 1328, and the

Chapel Tower (thought to be the Garderobe tower on the 1745 plan by Lavaux) is referred to

in 1347-8 (Allen Brown, 1963, 611). The outer gatehouse tower (known as Gowestower) was

still functioning as a prison in 1399 as Sir Piers Legh of Lyme was housed there prior to his

execution by the Duke of Lancaster.

Military

Under Edward III and the Black Prince soldiering as a possible career became a reality, and

the archers of Cheshire were issued with a distinctive uniform. During the 1330s levied

archers from Cheshire were given a short coat of cloth and a hood, both of wool, and green on

the right side and white on the left. There is no record of a badge. It was the task of the

Chamberlain of Chester to buy the cloth have the coats and hoods made up and have them

delivered to the men. Once when the men were arrayed at short notice they received their

livery in London. This is the only known example of 14th century English livery. The rates of

pay for these men were 2 s. per day for a leader, 1 s. per day for a squire and 6 d. per day for

an archer.

During the campaign that culminated with the battle of Poitiers in 1356 it is recorded that 300

of the best and most skilful archers in Cheshire were to serve with the Black Prince, this

number was subsequently revised to 600 archers 500 of whom were to come from Cheshire.

Amongst these men the following leaders or captains are named: Macclesfield Hundred, Sir

John Hyde and Robert Legh; Eddisbury Hundred, Robert Brown; Wirral and Broxton

Hundreds, Hamo de Mascy and Hugh Golbourne; and Nantwich Hundred, Sir John Griffyn.

Furthermore, in 1356 six Cheshire men were sent back to England by the Prince probably as

invalids, and a seventh Cheshire man William Jodrell had written leave to return home

stamped with the Prince’s seal. This is the oldest surviving example of an English Military

Pass, now held at the John Rylands Library.

In June 1359 the Prince was rallying an army to take to France (the Reims campaign 1359-

60). He summoned 300 archers from Chester to assemble at Sandwich, but later in June this

number was increased to 400.



By 1415 Henry V was Earl of Chester and on 28 May Gilbert, Lord Talbot (Justice of

Chester), William Troutbeck (Chamberlain of Chester) and John de Legh of Booths (Sheriff

of Chester) were ordered to raise men-at-arms and archers in the Shire. At the battle of

Agincourt (25 October) it is recorded that William Troutbeck had 50 men-at-arms and 650

archers in his retinue. Furthermore, at least 8 Cheshire archers were serving with Thomas Earl

of Arundel at the battle including: Morgan Filkin, Henry Houghton, John Kelsall, Richard

Malpas, William Massey, John Millington, James de Shocklach and John de Sutton.

In 1417 William Troutbeck raised 439 Cheshire archers for a second campaign in France, for

which the muster roll still exists (printed in the Cheshire Sheaf N.S. vol.6 1906).

The Prison

The dungeon and prison of the castle are believed to have been in Goghestower at the Great

gateway of the Outer Bailey. During the reign of Edward I the Plea Roll contains details of a

prisoner John son of Warin le Grovenour, who was charged with slaying Richard de Pulford

in Budworth with a longbow. In court he behaved as a mute and was condemned to prison

and the punishment of ‘ad dietam’, which consisted of the daily diet on alternate days of three

morsels of the worst bread and three draughts of standing water nearest to the prison door.

John survived the first application of this punishment and later obtained his acquittal through

a technical plea. Another prisoner was subjected to this punishment for remaining mute

during his trail for burglary, and in 1310 Adam son of John of the Woodhouses was

committed to the punishment for burning his own house and carrying away the goods, he was

later reported as dead ad dietam.

During the reign of Edward III there is reference to a Roger de Ridelegh attempting to escape

from the prison by removing some of the stones. John Sumerill (the deputy constable of the

castle) was indicted for striking a prisoner, John le Parker, and for putting him in the stocks

with irons, from which punishment he later died. The punishment of loading a prisoner with

weights or pressing him to death was also introduced at this time.

The Recognisance Rolls of 1397-8 furnish a list of fetters and other appurtenances delivered

by William de Venables (Constable of the castle of Chester) to Thomas le Woodeward, his

deputy.

Figure 4 Chester in the Middle Ages (from EH publication, Chester by P Carrington)



2.5.5 Richard II and Henry IV to the Wars of the Roses

In 1401 the exchequer was moved outside of the castle to a building erected for its

accommodation at one end of the new shire hall (established in 1310-11), just beyond the

outer gatehouse. Apart from this very little apparently happened to the castle during the

fifteenth century, with the only costs incurred being associated with general maintenance and

repair. Several of the castle towers are first mentioned during the fifteenth century period but

are assumed to have existed prior to this, they include: Bolde Tower referred to in 1428-9;

Brownes Tower (located in the Inner Bailey) referred to in 1444-5; and Maysham’s Tower

(located in the Outer Bailey, to the southeast of the 1310 shire hall) referred to in 1441 and

1447-8. The castles importance as a prison and centre for legal administration was still

however demonstrated by the fact that in 1459 the Earl of Salisbury’s sons were imprisoned

there after the Battle of Bloreheath (Harl. Mss. 2111).

Military

In 1397 Richard II created the title Prince of Cheshire, which he awarded to himself. His

personal bodyguard was known to have been made up of Cheshire bowmen who were

described as being intolerably arrogant, insolent ruffians who lived on far too intimate terms

with king. This bodyguard was divided into watches commanded by the following men:

Ranulf of Davenport, John of Legh, Richard of Cholmondeley, Adam of Bostock, Thomas of

Beeston, Thomas Halford.

The guard itself comprised a long list of Cheshire men including: John of Aldersey, David of

Alpraham, Robert of Anderton, William of Warburton, Henry of Wettenhall, John of

Winnington, William Wych.

In 1399 Richard II granted 3000 gold marks to the people of Chester who had suffered as a

result of the battle of Radcot Bridge (1387) ie widows and dependents of soldiers killed

during the battle. This was distributed by Robert de Legh (Sheriff of Chester) at the

Exchequer court in the castle. Later that year Henry Duke of Lancaster occupied Chester

castle while Richard II was on campaign with his army in Ireland, this culminated with Henry

seizing Peter Legh of Lyme (chief forester of Delamere, and brother of the sheriff) and having

him beheaded for his staunch loyalty to Richard II, and his head was placed above the east

gate. Richard was captured by Henry and imprisoned at Chester castle with some of his loyal

supporters such as Janico d’Artois and James Darteys, who refused to lay aside Richard's

badge of the white hart. Richard was later taken back to London and imprisoned in the Tower.

On January 10 1400, 28 Chester men assembled in the market place and having donned the

badge of the white hart, proceeded to the castle to demand its surrender. They then marched to

the east gate and removed the head of Peter de Legh, after this they issued a call to arms in the

name of Richard II and having been swelled in numbers returned to the castle to lay siege for

several days, but this was unsuccessful.

Later in this year Owen Glyndwr led Welsh raids on the English border towns, which

necessitated Henry IV to order provisions to be stored at Chester castle by the Sheriff for a

campaign into North Wales. This included the provision of 20 archers to escort the provisions

from Chester to Denbigh.

In 1403 Cheshire men were fighting on both sides at the battle of Shrewsbury, fought between

Henry IV and Henry Percy (Hotspur). After the battle a quarter of the body of Henry Percy,

along with the bodies of Sir Richard Venables (Lord of Kinderton) and Richard de Vernon (of

Shipbrook) were sent to Chester to be hung from the gates ‘so long as they will last’.

In 1406 in response to rebellion in Wales orders were issued to raise the following troops

from Cheshire: Broxton hundred, 2 lances and 30 archers; Northwich hundred, 4 lances and



40 archers; Nantwich hundred, 4 lances and 40 archers; Macclesfield hundred, 4 lances and

50 archers; Bucklow hundred, 6 lances and 60 archers. (NB a lance is a unit of 3-4

spearmen.)

In 1450 Thomas Stanley was made Justice of Cheshire by Edward IV, and his brother

William was made Chamberlain. At the battle of Bosworth (1485), Thomas Stanley had a

retinue of 3000 Cheshire men dressed in red coats and wearing the badge of the hart’s head.

In 1459 The Fitton contingent that fought at the battle of Bloreheath included 68 men from

Gawsworth, the list for which is held at PRO Chester.

2.5.6 The Tudors and Stewarts

During this period the shire court and the exchequer were moved back into the Outer Bailey

of the castle, and in the ministers accounts for 1579-81 are listed the costs of re-edifying the

parliament house within the castle, to be converted into the exchequer, with a gallery, and also

the construction of a shire hall (Simpson, 1925, 96). A seventeenth century sketch plan of the

castle attributed to Randle Holmes (Harl. MSS. 445) suggests that these buildings are almost

certainly the ones illustrated in Moses Griffith’s watercolour of the Outer Bailey (probably

painted prior to the work started in 1785), which shows them to be of stone construction. At

this time the old shire hall was taken down and moved to Northgate Street where it was used

as a granary in the corn market (Harl. MSS. 2125).

The castle was garrisoned during the Civil War, during which time the chapel on the first

floor of the Agricola Tower was converted into a magazine.

Prison

After the siege of Chester, Sir Timothy Fetherstonehaugh was imprisoned at Chester Castle

from where he wrote a farewell letter to his wife, before his execution on 22 October 1651.

Figure 4a. Chester Castle in the 16th

Century (from EH publication, Chester by P Carrington).



2.5.7 The Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

During repairs undertaken on the shire court buildings in 1660 a garden was created in the

Inner Bailey ‘for the judges to walk in at the Assize’. This garden may be shown on a castle

survey of 1682-4, and details of its formal layout as a knot garden can be seen on Lavaux’s

plan of 1741.

During the last two decades of the seventeenth century additions were made to the area of the

Inner Bailey between the guards’ tower and the Half-Moon tower, which included a new

armoury, stores, a storekeepers house and a carpenters workshop. This area was subject to

detailed survey and small-scale excavation by Peter Hough between 1979-82, which

demonstrated a complicated sequence of developments between 1686 and 1769 (Ellis, 1996).

The armoury was named on a map of 1769 as an ordnance storehouse.

The armoury was built in 1686-7 to house a `considerable magazine of arms, powder,

ammunition, and other habiliments of war`, and was to be serviced by a storekeeper's or

Furbisher, later corrupted to Frobisher (Ellis, 1996, 15). In 1691 repairs were undertaken on

the armoury, which included 62 yards of brick walling, and re-roofing of the Flag Tower and

Half-moon Tower.

Between 1696-8 Chester castle housed one of the Royal mints used for the recoinage of the

realm by William III, the comptroller for which was the scientist and antiquarian Edmund

Halley. An inventory of the equipment issued to Chester for fitting out the mint still exists,

and the order to undertake the preparations was issued to the Governor Colonel Kirby in

1696, the location for this was to be in the Inner Bailey, utilising the Frobisher’s shop. This

building is still standing although the upper storey was much altered during the nineteenth

century. An account made after the mint had ceased production in 1698-9, records the taking

down of the mint ovens and chimneys, and the building of a new forge and chimney in the

Frobisher’s shop for the repair of weapons. This account also refers to restoration work done

to the Frobisher’s shop, including a pair of stairs and floorboards at first floor level, which

had served as the marking room for the mint.

A report compiled in 1745 on the condition of Chester castle suggested that the defences were

in a poor state of repair. Only 2 of the 18 pieces of artillery were thought to be fit for use, and

the walls were not thought to be strong enough to support cannon fire, noting that a few shot

would lay the place open. To this end two new batteries were added to the castle, the first was

in the Inner Bailey adjacent to the sally port steps, and the second was in the Outer Bailey on

the eastern side of the outer gatehouse.

The Jacobite cause was finally and brutally crushed at Culloden, and although there were

suggestions for up grading the defences at Chester Castle, in the absence of any real threat,

these were not carried out. Little appears to have been done to the Castle until the early 1780s

when the scheme for the new gaol, involving the demolition of the Outer Bailey, was first

mooted.



2.5.8 The late Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

Figure 5 Chester Castle from within the Outer Bailey in the 18th

century before rebuilding.

Demolition of the Outer Bailey and rebuilding by Thomas Harrison

The architectural history of Chester Castle from the mid-1780s is dominated by the work of

Thomas Harrison. His completed scheme comprised a central block with two flanking wings

built over the former medieval Outer Bailey and extending beyond over land in the

Gloverstone area. The completed complex occupied a considerably greater area than the

medieval castle, with the Barracks being some 220 feet and the Propylaea some 80 feet

beyond the curtain wall (Ockrim, 1988, p. 73). (See Figure 6).

Figure 6 The rebuilding by Thomas Harrison which replaced the

Outer Bailey (from early 20th

Century post card)

The central block consisted of the Shire Hall, with accommodation for male debtors on the

north (right) and female debtors on the south (left). Immediately behind was the Gaoler’s

House, below which was the Chapel; this overlooked the felons’ yard and felons’ wards

which were built on the river level, a drop of some twenty six feet. A drawing/engraving

(Hore, 1984, Fig. 24) shows the gaol river façade wings to have been heavily rusticated in the

manner of George Dance’s Newgate Gaol, London, which was begun in 1769. Harrison also

employed rustication on the wings flanking the Shire Hall. To the left of the central block,



was the Barracks, (“A” Block, now housing the Museum of the Cheshire Regiment), and to

the right was the Armoury, (“B” Block, now known as Colvin House). The large court formed

by these three ranges is entered by way of a Propylaea of the Greek Doric order with

pedimented lodges on each side. The scheme has been described as ‘one of the most powerful

monuments of the Greek Revival in the whole of England.’ (Pevsner, 1971, p. 157)

The decision to rebuild the Outer Bailey was taken in 1784, and in February 1786 Thomas

Harrison was awarded the first premium, the second going to William Cole, who was

subsequently to be closely involved with the building work. Construction of the central block

began in 1788 and was substantially completed by 1802. Plans for the Armoury were under

consideration by 1804, and the plans for the Barracks were approved in 1806 (Ockrim, 1983,

pp. 59-66). Work on the final phase, the Propylaea, or Grand Entrance, began in 1811

(Simpson, 1925, p. 108) and was completed by 1815 (Ockrim, 1988, p.72).

The Nineteenth Century

During the Napoleonic War a new armoury was built in the Castle ditch abutting the south

wall, and reached by a staircase [which exited by way of the Sally Port.] This armoury is

shown as a proposed building on a plan of 1804 (PRO MPH 1/1162), but the building appears

to have been completed by the time of the 1806 Ordnance Report (PRO WO 55/2300). It was

demolished during the construction of Napier House in the 1830s (Simpson, 1925, p. 76).

The nineteenth century also saw considerable changes in the Inner Bailey. Harrison was

responsible for refacing Agricola’s Tower (Pevsner, 1971, p. 157), which was used by the

Army as a powder store. In 1817 a fire broke out in the west wing of the Gaol, causing

considerable damage, and documents in the Public Record Office reflect the deep concern

expressed by local residents about the risk of an explosion, culminating in July 1819 with a

petition to Lord Sidmouth (PRO WO 44/55). At this time there was a proposal to demolish

the Officers’ Quarters and Judges’ Lodgings, but it was not proceeded with then because the

Board of Ordnance strongly objected to ‘the levelling of so ancient and venerable a structure’

(PRO WO 44/55). By 1830, however, this range was considered too far gone to repair and

was demolished (Simpson, 1925, p. 75). The 1841 Ordnance report shows the site being used

for an Artillery Gun Shed and a soldiers’ ablution block (PRO WO 55/2741), and in 1893 an

officers’ stable was built there.

Following the demolition of the Officers’ Quarters and Judges’ Lodging, Harrison’s

Armoury, now Colvin House, was converted for use by them and a new armoury, now Napier

House, was built under the supervision of Captain Kitson, Royal Engineers (Simpson, 1925,

p. 76). The total cost of these two projects was some £7,000 (PRO WO 55/1886). The work

included the removal of a twelve gun battery on the south wall. The ground floor of Napier

House was used as an armoury and the two upper floors as additional soldiers’

accommodation. It had originally been intended to construct this new armoury entirely in

brick, but in 1832 the Dee Bridge Commissioners requested that red stone be used to match

the Castle and City walls. The Army agreed, subject to reimbursement of the additional £250

cost.

In the years immediately following the end of the Napoleonic Wars, there was concern on the

part of Lord Liverpool’s government that the economic recession might result in serious civil

unrest. In July 1819 troops opened fire on peaceful demonstrators in Manchester, an incident

known as the Peterloo massacre. This prompted concern that mobs might attack military

establishments throughout the country, and there is much correspondence in the latter half of

1819 concerning the security of Chester castle (PRO WO 4455). Plans were drawn up in

February 1820 to build an elegant classical guard house in the centre of the Inner Bailey at a

cost of £418 (PRO WO 44/55 and plan and elevation by Captain George Gipps, PRO MPH

1/1162), and to build a new battery to protect the entrance Inner Bailey (PRO MPH 1/1162).

Interestingly, this latter plan is annotated with a reference to Thomas Harrison, evidencing his



continued involvement with building activities at Chester Castle. An earlier proposal by

Gipps of November 1819 involved building a new guard house over the entrance to the Inner

Bailey, and blocking up the front entrance to the Armoury (PRO MPH 1/1162). In the event

none of these schemes appears to have been executed.

Although no attempt was made on the Castle in the 1820s, in 1867 a real threat arose when

the Fenian brotherhood planned an assault on the Castle and its Armoury, where it was

believed some 35,000 stand of arms, together with swords, ammunition and powder were

stored. Fortunately, detectives in Liverpool got wind of the plot, and prompt action was taken

by the authorities in Chester, as well as the despatch by special train of 574 men of the Scots

Fusilier Guards from London. The conspirators made no attempt to take on the reinforced

garrison, but nevertheless many arrests were made and quantities of discarded arms and

ammunition were subsequently found in the suburbs (Simpson, 1925, pp. 111-115).

In 1877, all local prisons were taken over by the government; Chester Gaol remained in use

until 1884 when the civilian prisoners were moved to Knutsford; the military prisoners were

transferred to Kendall in the following year (Simpson, 1925, pp. 117-118). The site of the

felons’ prison was converted into a drill ground with an entrance for guns at the west end of

Shipgate Street, and some of the former cells were used for offices and stores (Simpson, 1925,

p. 118).

The Twentieth Century

The Regimental Museum was initially housed in the ground floor of Agricola’s Tower,

opening in the early 1920s. It moved to its present location in “A Block” in 1968, opening to

the public soon after. The chapel of St Mary de Castro was reconverted and became the

private chapel of the Cheshire Regiment in 1922.

During the Second World War huts for temporary accommodation of soldiers were erected in

various places, and vegetable plots were laid out in the Castle ditch (CRO 758/2).

During the 1930s plans were made for a new County Hall, to be built on the site of Harrison’s

gaol. Work was interrupted by the Second World War and the new building was not officially

opened until 1957. The County Architect, E Mainwaring Parkes was responsible for the

design (Pevsner, 1971, p. 158). In the 1960s it was decided to create an inner ring road, which

involved constructing a roundabout at the junction of Grosvenor Street, Nicholas Street, and

Castle Street. The site of the Militia Building was purchased and, after clearance, a new

County Police Headquarters was built to the design of the County Architect, Edgar Taberner.

The building was completed in 1967, and was awarded a Civic Trust prize in 1969 (Hore,

1984, p. 38).

Externally the Harrison ensemble facing the Parade Ground has remained remarkably intact,

but there have been changes internally in the Assize Court block following the erection of

ancillary Court buildings in the former prison yards, completed in 1993. Colvin House

(Gazetteer No. 44) and Napier House (Gazetteer No. 49) have, however, been vacated by the

Ministry of Defence and an alternative use is being sought for them by the Crown Estate

Commissioners.



2.6 Special Historical Topics

2.6.1 Chester Castle’s Architecture and Comparisons

This section examines the architecture of Chester Castle and makes comparisons with other

examples of castle sites.

Chester Castle is in many respects an extremely rare site in that it has remained a military

base and centre for judicial administration for the best part of a thousand years. For the

majority of this time it has also been in the exclusive ownership of the Crown. Comparable

sites in the country are limited to a small number of well known and prestigious landmarks

such as Carlisle Castle.

These circumstances have led to a continuous need for development and change, as opposed

to simple maintenance, much of which can be historically documented. From the historical

perspective two notable periods of rebuilding can be identified: The rebuilding in stone of the

towers and curtain wall in the Inner Bailey, probably attributable to Earl Ranulf III; the

building of the Outer Bailey and improvements to some of the buildings in the Inner Bailey

during the reigns of Henry III and Edward I; and the remodelling and major rebuilding of the

castle by Thomas Harrison.

Ranulf III

The only surviving element of the castle attributable to the work of Earl Ranulf III is the

Agricola Tower, which was probably intended to function as the gatehouse to the Bailey. The

first floor seems to have been designed as a chapel from the outset, the capitals and vaulting

of which are closely related to those in a chapel in the east transept of Chester abbey (now the

Cathedral), and may even be by the same mason. Much of the remaining work that Ranulf

may have been responsible for in the Inner Bailey may be conjectured from the early

eighteenth century plans prepared by Lavaux and others. The Agricola Tower seems to have

ceased to function as a gatehouse during the early thirteenth century, at which point the

northern gateway was apparently blocked up. This may provide the context for the subsequent

‘D’ shaped twin-towered gatehouse of the Inner Bailey. Historically it is known that on his

return from the crusades in 1220, Ranulf embarked upon several castle building programmes

at sites including Beeston and Bolingboke. Each of these castles were furnished with twin

drum towered gatehouses and ‘D’ shaped mural towers, like the Half-Moon tower at Chester.

In the case of Beeston castle it was sited on a crag, with a shear drop to its rear, very much

like the site at Chester. Furthermore, the arrangement of the mural towers and gatehouse

buildings at Beeston can be seen to have been influenced by the layout at Chester, on the

north-eastern side of the Inner Bailey defensive circuit. It could be argued that Ranulf’s

castles of the 1220’s were inspired by his experiences in Europe and the Holy Land, and

involved state of the art castle building technology. There is little evidence to suggest that his

defensive improvements of the Inner Bailey at Chester were ever substantially altered until

mid 18th century and the time of Harrison, other than occasional periods of repair.

Henry III and Edward I

The work of Henry III and Edward I (both as Prince and King) can be far more accurately

chronicled. The defensive circuit of the Outer Bailey was almost certainly established by

Henry III after 1237, but this would appear to have been an earth and timber rampart,

probably hastily constructed to house troops and the royal entourage during successive

campaigns in North Wales. A more substantial rebuild appears to have been attempted

between 1246-53 when the King’s and Queen’s chambers in the Inner Bailey were revamped,

a Great Hall was erected in the Outer Bailey and the defences of the Outer Bailey were

ordered to be rebuilt in stone. The high quality wall paintings in the Agricola Tower are

attributed to Henry III’s improvements, a fact made even more likely by his reputation as a



patron of wall painting at other royal residences such as Winchester Castle in 1233 and

Clarendon Palace in 1249.

Prince Edward was granted control of Chester Castle between 1254-72 and probably oversaw

the completion of the building programmes initiated by his father, certainly during this time

the castle was used as a base for continued campaigns against the Welsh. After becoming

King in 1272 Edward I continued to use Chester Castle as his base of operations against the

Welsh, however, his only improvement to its structural appearance during this time was the

addition of the Outer Bailey gatehouse in 1292-3.

It might be expected that comparisons for this phase of Chester Castle must be sought

amongst the imposing English castles of North Wales. However, a fundamental problem with

this line of enquiry stems from the fact that none of Henry and Edward’s buildings at Chester

remain upstanding, and again we rely on early eighteenth century plans and watercolours of

the castle for information on their appearance and layout. It should also be remembered that

the improvements to Chester Castle were largely a product of Henry III’s reign, therefore

Edward I’s castles in North Wales like Rhuddlan, Conwy and Caernarfon are not surprisingly

more technologically advanced than Chester. Added to this most of Edwards' castles were

built from scratch, and were not constrained by earlier monarchs castle building programmes.

Thus, it would seem that Henry III’s castles at Dyserth and Deganwy are the most fitting

parallels for Chester, especially in the case of Dyserth, which was ordered to have its bailey

defences repaired in the same year as those of Chester’s Outer Bailey. Chester Castle’s

prominence as a border fortress may also lead to comparisons at other sites in the Welsh

Marches, and in particular the castles of Ludlow and Hereford seem to be of similar design.

The elaborate wall paintings of the Agricola Tower chapel, for which a detailed study has

already been undertaken, are the only remaining testament to the work of Henry. Although

Henry III was an almost obsessive patron of the arts, almost nothing survives of his wall

paintings other than fragments from Clarendon Palace and Winchester Castle. From

documentation pertaining to Henry III’s wall paintings and other imagery it is apparent that

St. Edward was one of his favourite subjects, but that representations of the Virgin were the

most commonly ordered subjects of all. This tallies well with the paintings at Chester Castle,

making them the major surviving painting of Henry III’s patronage.

Thomas Harrison

The ensemble Harrison created is a unique blending of neo-classicism and medieval

architecture. His work is artistically of the highest order, and the intelligent positioning of

buildings results in a number of almost self-contained spaces. There is the open Parade

Ground, flanked on three sides by impressive civic structures, entered through the Propylaea,

and defined by the ditch and railings; then, passing through a neo-classical gateway is the

Inner Bailey. In Harrison’s time, walking into the Inner Bailey would have been to step back

from the turn of the nineteenth century to the middle ages, with Agricola’s Tower (refaced by

Harrison), the adjoining hall range (subsequently demolished), then the Flag Tower, Half

Moon Tower, and the range of buildings including the former Mint. Similarly treated is St

Mary’s Church; it is visible from the Propylaea, but is not in any way obtrusive, and yet the

medieval character of the churchyard and the immediate vicinity has been preserved (see

photograph 6, plate 2 and photograph 35, plate 11).

There are a small number of other sites where redundant medieval castles were converted into

barracks in the early nineteenth century, Stirling and Edinburgh in Scotland, and Carlisle and

Dover in England, are rare examples. However, the pattern was to retain the curtain wall, and,

as at Carlisle, where new buildings were necessary, these were inward facing barrack blocks

placed round a parade ground. At Chester, however, the Armoury and Barrack Block are only

components in the much larger scheme, and, although the curtain wall of the Upper Bailey

was retained, new barrack accommodation was built some distance from the Castle. No other



examples have been located where Shire Courts, Shire government and military use have all

been retained on the same site since the early medieval period.

2.6.2 The Wall Paintings in the Chapel of St Mary de Castro, Agricola’s Tower

The chapel of St Mary de Castro can be dated architecturally to the late 12th or early 13

th

century, namely the time of earl Ranulf III (1187-132). The chapel is a parallelogram in

shape, measuring 19 feet 4 inches in length and averaging in breadth 16 feet 6 inches. The

height to the apex of the groining is 16 feet 6 inches (Simpson, 1925, p. 78).

The chapel had been used as a military store and magazine for a very long period, and was

returned to original use as the chapel of the Cheshire Regiment in 1922. During its period as a

storeroom the walls had been whitewashed and racks etc had been attached, all causing

damage to the plaster on which the wall and ceiling paintings had been executed. The

paintings are at present indistinct, but apparently were more clearly defined in 1810, when a

local artist, John Musgrove, made a sketch (Simpson, 1925, p. 79), and in 1817 two

engravings, published in Hanshall’s History of Cheshire, indicate significant areas of

painting.

Conservation work, in collaboration with the Courtauld Institute of Art, was carried out over

the period 1992-4, which included a full art historical study, technical analysis, uncovering of

the paintings and minor repairs, as well as graphic and photographic documentation. During

August 1995 the Ancient Monuments Laboratory carried out an audit, concluding that at that

time the condition was “fair”.

Figure 7 Wall painting (from EH publication, Chester by P Carrington)

The most complete and best-preserved fragment is the Visitation in the southern quadrant of

the eastern bay (ill. in Cather et al, 2000, Col. Pl. 1A). It shows Elizabeth holding her right

hand under the Virgin’s chin, and is contained within a trefoil frame. Other narrative scenes

have been positively identified, including the Adoration of the Magi, and it is considered

likely that the vault was decorated with a programme devoted to the Infancy of Christ (Cather,

2000, p. 172). The use of frames surrounded by foliage has an English parallel in the Holy

Sepulchre Chapel, Winchester Cathedral of c1220 (Cather, 200, p. 172).

The fragmentary condition of the paintings makes it difficult to identify positively most of the

remaining scenes, but it has been suggested that the Miracles of the Virgin is one of the

themes, since some of the figures could be identified as the priest Theophilus and the

repentant thief Ebbo, possibly shown being saved from death on the gallows by the

intercession of the Virgin.



A fragment on the east wall shows the head and shoulders of a figure wearing a straw hat

(Cather, 2000, Col. Pl. IIIB) and this might be St John, disguised as a beggar, an element in

the story of St Edward and the Ring. This in turn might suggest that this wall cycle was

devoted to St Edward, a saint for whom Henry III felt particular empathy (Cather, 2000, p.

181).

Henry III frequently had his chapels and palaces repainted, instances being Winchester, 1233,

Clarendon Palace, where the chapel was repainted, and Chester Castle, where the Queen’s

chamber was redecorated in 1245. Cather records that:

[Henry’s] first recorded visit to Chester was in 1241, en route to Rhuddlan to

campaign against the prince of Gwynedd, and in that year the construction of an

‘oriel’ is documented before the door of the king’s chapel. This may well have been

the time at which the chapel itself was decorated (Cather, 2000, p. 184).

The paintings are of extreme importance, irrespective of the patronage, because of their age

and the exceptionally high quality of their execution. If the conclusion reached by Cather,

Park and Pender is correct, namely that the paintings were probably executed for Henry III,

then they shed valuable light on the artistic tastes of the king, and are an addition to the very

few surviving examples of his royal patronage.

Cather and colleagues do not suggest a foreign artist, and indeed compare the treatment of the

vault programme and certain of the assumed subjects with other English work. It would be

quite wrong to assume that there were no competent painters in England in the first half of 13

C. There were leading schools of painting at Canterbury, Winchester and St Albans, and

known painters such as Matthew Paris and William of Westminster produced work of the

highest quality.

Cather and colleagues note that the technique employed may have been true fresco (p. 183),

which was unusual for English work of that time, most of which was painted onto dry plaster

(secco). In contrast, Italian painters worked on wet plaster, causing a chemical change, which

resulted in much better preservation.

The paintings can be classed as being of national significance, and a very rare surviving

example. However, what survives is not as extensive as at Winchester Cathedral (Chapels of

Holy Sepulchre, c1225, and Guardian Angels, c1250), and the visual impact on the viewer is

limited because of the condition and fragmentary nature of the remains.

2.6.3 A Summary of Thomas Harrison’s Life and Works (Colvin, 1995, pp. 466-470, unless otherwise noted)

Thomas Harrison (1744-1829) was born in Richmond, Yorkshire, and the son of a joiner. He

travelled to Italy in 1769 at the expense of Sir Lawrence Dundas of Aske. In 1773 he

competed for the annual architectural prize of the Academy of St Luke, which carried with it

rights to membership of that prestigious body. He was, however, unsuccessful, and believing

that he had been discriminated against, appealed directly to Pope Clement, the academy’s

patron, who eventually exercised his prerogative and sanctioned Harrison’s membership.

He returned to England in 1776, and exhibited two drawings at the Royal Academy in the

following year. By 1779 he had moved back to the north of England, finally settling in

Chester in 1795. An early and important commission was for a new bridge over the River

Lune at Lancaster, which was completed in 1788. This was the first bridge to be built in

England with a level road surface from bank to bank, although the technique had been

employed in France for some time. He was responsible for further bridges at Derby, Kendal,

Warrington and Cranage, as well as his largest commission as a bridge builder, the Grosvenor



Bridge at Chester, which was begun in 1827. At the time of its construction, the 200 feet span

made it the largest stone arch in the world.

Although Harrison executed designs for country houses, most notably Broomhall for Lord

Elgin, his reputation is founded on his civic architecture. In 1788 he was awarded the

commission to reconstruct Lancaster Castle, which included a new Shire Hall, Grand Jury

Room and Gaol. His Gothic design was completed by 1799, by which time he was well into a

similar reconstruction at Chester. In Howard Colvin’s opinion, Harrison’s ‘Chester Castle

complex forms the finest group of Greek Revival buildings in Britain - the neo-classical

counterpart to Greenwich Hospital -’ (Colvin, 1995, p. 466).

He completed a number of commissions in Chester, including the House of Correction (1807-

8), the News Room, Northgate Street (1808), The North Gate, for 2nd

Earl Grosvenor (1808-

10), the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, St John Street (1811) and the widening of the Old Dee

Bridge (1825-6). In Manchester, he was responsible for the Portico library, Mosely Street

(1802-6), the Exchange and Commercial Buildings (1806-9) and the Theatre Royal (1806).

Harrison enjoyed a high reputation with his fellow architects; C R Cockerell, one of the best

travelled and intellectual of nineteenth century architects, opined in 1823 that he ‘has a divine

spark’ (Colvin, 1995, p. 467), and continued that ‘there are many hints for the history of

English architecture at Chester’ (Crook, 1971, p. 946).

Harrison received part of his remuneration for his work on Chester Castle by way of a grant

of land in Nicholas Street on which he built his own house (Emory, 1999, p. 167). His plans

and drawings were presented to the Chester Archaeological Society in 1849 by Miss Harrison,

and are presently deposited in the Cheshire Record Office.

2.6.4 Chester Castle and the Picturesque in the Eighteenth Century

Picturesque initially denoted ‘as in or like a picture’, and was much used when discussing

garden design. Gardens, with their statues, architecture, and water features were seen as

examples of art “improving” on nature, just as the landscape painting of Claude, much

favoured by English collectors, idealised the scenes depicted. Indeed, landscape designers

considered their work to be art of a high level; Capability Brown, for example, offered to

manage the 4th Earl of Scarborough’s estates ‘with Poet’s Feeling and with Painter’s Eye.’

What started off as an adjective, developed in the last decades of the eighteenth century into a

complex aesthetic, which found itself alongside Burke’s “Sublime and Beautiful”, and which

was awarded considerable intellectual attention by its proponents, notably William Gilpin,

William Payne Knight, and Uvedale Price. Gilpin travelled widely in Britain, sketching

landscapes and he published his theoretical principles in the form of three essays in 1792.

Medieval ruins, such as monasteries and old castles, were seen as being particularly

Picturesque; Fountains Abbey and Riveaulx Terrace are examples of incorporating ruins into

a garden, and a good example of a ruin to visit in the vicinity of Chester is Beeston Castle.

Where landowners were not fortunate enough to have a convenient gothic ruin on their estate,

it was common to construct one, as Sanderson Miller did at Hagley Park.

The interest in the Picturesque spread beyond intellectual circles, and became a favourite

topic for discussion amongst the better educated middle classes. A walk round the restored

walls of Chester would have provided the opportunity of stopping to admire certain views and

vistas, and then to discuss the effect they produced. A view of the Old Dee Bridge and the

river would almost certainly have been considered pleasingly Picturesque, but the bulk of the

old Castle ramparts, particularly seen against a turbulent cloud-scape, could well have

produced a frisson of awe which denoted the Sublime. Proceeding on, Harrison’s massive

backdrop of the heavily rusticated gaol would have produced a sense of terror, another



attribute of the Sublime. Equally important would have been the views of the Grosvenor

Bridge and the views of the Castle from the south, vistas now almost lost because of later tree

planting. (See Figures 8 and 9 View of River Dee and Chester Castle 18th century).

Figure 8 Chester Castle and River Dee during the 18th

Century (from EH publication, Chester)

Neo-classicism and the Picturesque, although ostensibly dissimilar, are closely linked in

aesthetic terms, and both play a part in the development of the highly influential nineteenth-

century aesthetic of Romanticism. Both are a move away from the acceptance of a strictly

classical theory of art, the dominant aesthetic of the Augustan period of the eighteenth

century, since both look for inspiration to archaeology and the close examination of historic

buildings and artefacts. Examples include the work of Le Roy and of Stuart and Revett in

their archaeological publications on the architecture of classical Athens. Indeed, it could be

argued that the intellectual views of this period adumbrated the late twentieth century concept

of “heritage”, which embraces conservation in all its guises.

Figure 9 Chester Castle and the River Dee (from early 20th

Century post card)

A particularly interesting feature of Chester Castle is the juxtaposition of Harrison’s Neo-

classical ensemble between a heavily restored medieval castle and the medieval church of St

Mary. It is a measure of Harrison’s skill that there is no apparent clash of styles, and also that

when viewed from the opposite bank of the river, the monumentality of both castle and gaol

would have formed a complimentary whole.



2.6.5 Thomas Harrison’s Gaol

The new gaol was commissioned by the Justices of the Peace for the County of Cheshire; the

building committee, formed in September 1786, included Sir Henry Mainwaring Bt, George

Leycester, John Leigh of Oughtrington, and John Legh of Adlington (Ockrim, 1988, pp. 416-

7).

Much of the impetus behind gaol reform in Britain in the late eighteenth century can be

attributed to the work of John Howard (1726-1790). Howard’s interest began following his

appointment in 1773 as high sheriff of Bedford and for the remainder of his life he travelled

widely in this country and in Europe visiting prisons and recording the treatment of their

occupants. In 1777 he published The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with

Preliminary Observations, and an Account of Some Foreign Prisons. His work was to be

influential in the drafting of new legislation concerning prisons, notably the Penitentiary Act,

1779, and the Gaol Bill, 1784-88 (Ockrim, 1988, p.97). These Acts stipulated that there

should be separate accommodation for male and female prisoners and that the different

classes of inmate should likewise be separated. Cells should be clean and airy, there should be

facilities for warm and cold bathing and a chapel should be built for the use of the prisoners.

The leading architect to specialise in prison design was William Blackburn (1750-1790), who

was responsible for eighteen prisons, including Oxford, Liverpool and Gloucester (Colvin,

1995, p. 128). The latter, which owed much to the ideas of its Governor, Sir George Paul,

appears to have been influential on Harrison, since, in 1784, Blackburn was paid to review the

early plans for Chester, and in 1793 copies of a pamphlet published by Paul ‘containing many

useful hints as to the care and regulation of gaols …’ were requested from Gloucester

(Ockrim, 1983, p. 70).

The Builder (vol. 21, p. 204, quoted in Ockrim, 1983, p. 69) records a visitor to Chester, a M.

Dupin, as commenting:

The Sessions House and Panoptic prison of Chester are united in the same building

which is assuredly the handsomest of its kind that is to be seen in Europe. The

interior arrangements are well contrived and bespeak much regard for humanity. The

architecture is equally simple and majestic.

J Hemmingway, in History of the City of Chester, provides a detailed description of

Harrison’s design (quoted in Ockrim, 1983, p. 69).

[The gaol] is from the nature of the ground built on two levels. The upper line of the

building on the east side consists of the turnkey’s room, the large and airy yard of the

male debtors; on the west side the female debtors’ rooms and court yard with the

prison hospital adjoining. … In the centre is the Gaoler’s house, projecting from the

line of the upper level, so as to completely command a view of every part of the

prison. The chapel of the prison is between the upper and lower level under the

Gaoler’s House and in the same semi-circular form: … On the lower level, and

immediately under the extreme line of the extreme line of the upper, are the cells for

solitary confinement and condemned criminals; also the very complete cold and

warm baths.

Moira Ockrim considers that the configuration of the felons’ yards is close to Blackburn’s

Northleach Bridewell, Gloucestershire, 1785, and also speculates that Harrison may have

visited the celebrated Maison de Force, Ghent, which had been rebuilt in 1773 (Ockrim, 1983,

p.71).

Harrison was also closely involved with the fitting-out of the new gaol; he was responsible for

the cast iron of the arcades and passages, and for the furnishing of the cells; including making

recommendations for beds and mattresses (Ockrim, 1983, p. 60).



Work started on sinking the foundations of the felons’ prison in July 1789, and was

completed by August 1793. The final phase to be completed was the debtors’ rooms, which

were ready for occupation in February 1801 (Croom, 1996, pp. 5-6).

In 1832 a new block designed by William Cole Jnr, containing 32 cells, infirmaries, and a

matron’s house, was built. This was H-shaped in plan with between three and five storeys

because of the land contour, and was sited to the northeast of the felons’ prison. A new

building designed by Robert Griffiths of Stafford was erected between 1867 and 1870,

probably a three storey, crescent-plan block, with 84 cells. (Croom, 1996, pp. 6-8).

2.7 Archaeology The archaeological resource of Chester Castle consists substantially of buried remains,

potentially spanning from prehistory to the present day, but significantly they have remained

largely undisturbed since the end of Harrison’s building programme. Furthermore, the area

covered by the Norman motte has potentially preserved archaeological deposits that have

remained undisturbed since c.1070.

The known archaeological resource mainly corresponds to the footprint of the medieval

castle, the extent of which is illustrated in Appendix D Plan G5. Further insights of the

archaeological resource have been gained by intermittent fieldwork conducted over the past

20 years, which are discussed below.

The castle has been the subject of three archaeological schemes of investigation (located in

Appendix D Plan G7): the earliest was an excavation undertaken by P Hough between 1979-

82; the second an evaluation undertaken by S Ward in 1993; and the third a watching brief

undertaken by Chester Archaeology Service in 1994.

The 1979-82 investigations were confined to the area of the Flag Tower and the western range

of the inner bailey. A programme of building recording work was carried out prior to

demolition of 19th century brick built buildings in the western range. This established six

phases of construction in the area: phase I comprised the medieval elements of the Flag

Tower, Half Moon Tower and adjoining curtain wall; phase III comprised the main late 17th

century structural elements of the Old Mint and Armoury; phase IV consisted of the mid 18th

century brick rebuilding of a section of the curtain wall; and phases V-VI comprised 19th

century alterations to the upstanding elements.

Three areas were selected for excavation: area A was located to the east of the Flag Tower

and measured approximately 12m east-west by 7m north-south; area B was to the north-west

of the Sally Port and to the south of the Flag Tower; and area C was between the Flag Tower

and Old Mint buildings, measuring approximately 2m east-west by 7m north-south. The

results of these excavations an be summarised as follows:

Medieval

The earliest deposits encountered demonstrated that the medieval masonry defences in the

western range of the inner bailey were built on top of the pre-existing Norman motte,

evidenced by a layer of redeposited clay. An area of paving outside the eastern entrance to the

Flag Tower lay directly above this clay and was thought to confirm the medieval origins of

the tower’s entrance, associated with this was a single posthole. Sand and clay deposits were

also found to overlie the redeposited clay and these produced pottery of 14th century date.



16th

/17th

century Outside the eastern entrance of the Flag Tower was a spread of cobbles

associated with two linear trenches, which may have accommodated a porch for the

entranceway.

Late 17th

century To the east and south of the Flag Tower were layers of dark soil

containing stone brick and mortar, which appeared to be laid as dumps that pre-dated the

armoury building. These layers produced clay tobacco pipe (c.1640-60), as well as 17th

century pottery, window glass, bottle glass, copper alloy, lead, iron and blacksmithing debris.

A pit was cut through these layers and filled by a mixture of sand and clay deposits, which

produced clay tobacco pipes (c.1690-1720), as well as pottery and glass of late 17th century

date. Also cut through the dumping episode were the sandstone footings to the armoury

building.

Mid 18th

century The standing building recording had produced evidence for alterations to

earlier buildings during this period. Archaeologically, a stone lined drain/culvert was detected

running along side the north wall of the Armoury, which contained clay tobacco pipe (c.1720-

50). To the south of the Old Mint were the remains of a bakehouse with a large brick oven,

the floor of the bakehouse initially comprised a mortar surface beneath which were clay

tobacco pipe fragments (c.1710-20).

The 1993 evaluation was sited in the parade ground of the Outer Bailey, immediately to the

southwest of Harrison’s ‘A’ block. The aim was to excavate two trial holes, in order to

investigate subsidence in the surface of the car park, which was believed to have been caused

by the buried outer bailey ditch of the medieval castle. The results are summarised as follows:

Trench 1: Directly beneath the tarmacadam surface was the crushed sandstone surface of

the parade ground, which was 150mm thick and overlay mixed deposits of friable stony

loams. These layers persisted to a depth of at least 2.5m and contained finds of late

18th/early 19

th century date.

Trench 2: As with Trench 1 the parade ground surface was encountered beneath the

modern tarmacadam. Beneath this lay friable stony loams to a depth of 1.4m, at which

depth a sandstone structure was encountered. At this point the trench was stepped in

wards and lower deposits of sandy clay loam containing sand lenses were encountered.

Finds recovered from these deposits dated from the early/mid 17th century through to the

late 18th century.

The excavator felt that the tendency of the deposits encountered (in trenches 1 and 2) to

tip from northwest to southeast indicated the site of the outer bailey ditch. The friable

stony loams dating from Harrison’s rebuilding of the castle in the late 18th century.

The watching brief undertaken in 1994 was located in the inner bailey, and was confined to

the excavation of a service trench to a depth of c.1m. No archaeological features were

recorded, but a significant assemblage of finds were recovered. The artefacts comprised high

status Roman and medieval pottery and glass, as well as painted wall plaster fragments, and

although this material was felt to be residual it does point to the quality of the archaeology

that may exist in the vicinity.



2.8 Chester Castle Today This final part of the ‘Understanding’ section presents a description of Chester Castle as it

exists today in terms of its existing fabric, its use, management and its provisions for visitors.

The setting of the Castle and its contribution to the townscape of Chester is examined and

current planning policies are outlined. The description of the site commences with a series of

plans and photographs, which are referred to later in the text.

2.8.1 Plans and Photographs

This section includes the following sequence of plans and photographs illustrating Chester

Castle, as it exists today.

Plans

Plan 1 (a) Study Zones, (b) Buildings and Landscapes

Plan 2 Existing Buildings and Structures

Plan 3 Existing Uses

Plan 4 Townscape Areas and Views

Plan 5 Ownership

Photographs

Plan 6 Location of photographs Zone A

Plates 1-2 Zone A: Harrison, Building and Castle Square Parade Ground

Plan 7 Location of photographs Zone B

Plates 2-8 Zone B: Inner Bailey

Plan 8 Location of photographs Zone C.

Plates 9-12 Zone C: Outer Landscape

Plan 1 Study Zones, Buildings and Landscapes



Study Zones Zone A – The Harrison Blocks (1795 – 1826)

Zone B – The Inner Bailey (Late 11th

to 19th

Century)

Zone C – The Outer Landscape

Building Form and Landscape



NB For photographs of structures and spaces see pages 45-57 and the Gazetteer entries.

Plate 1



1. Shire Hall Portico viewed through propylaea 2. Harrison North (A) block

3. Propylaea 4. Parade Ground Car Park

Plate 2



5. View of parade ground car park from Agricola Tower 6. Entrance to County Offices with St. Mary’s on

roof the Hill tower beyond

7. Entrance to Regimental Museum – 8. View from Shire Hall Portico towards

Harrison North Block Police Station

Plate 3



9. Entrance to Inner Bailey 10. Agricola Tower entrance

11. Agricola Tower with cell block and 12. Agricola Tower roof

Guard House to the left

Plate 4



13. Inner Bailey and location of well, surrounded by bollards

14.Napier House

Plate 5


September 2001

15. Inner Bailey ramp leading to rampart walkway. 16. Rampart walls east of Sally Port.

Napier House to left and Flag Tower to right.

17. Sally Port and closed access to Higher 18. View from Eastern Ramparts.

ramparts.

Plate 6


September 2001

19. Higher rampart north of Sally Port. Closed 21. View from north rampart.

to public.

20. North rampart and roof of Flag Tower.

Plate 7


September 2001

22. Frobishers House to the right. Flag Tower to the left. 23. Stairs within Frobishers House.

24. Fireplace within Half Moon Tower. 25. Flag Tower.

Plate 8


September 2001

26. Flag Tower, ground floor chamber 27. Brick face of curtain wall to the west

of the Flag Tower, showing gun slit.

28. Flag Tower and Frobisher’s House.

Plate 9



29. Gun shed 30. Ramparts and Napier House

31. Ramparts and Motte - steps lead to Sally Port 32. Ramparts rising above Motte

Plate 10



33. Half Moon Tower

34. Curtain wall (Flag Tower at rear)

Plate 11



35. St Mary’s on the Hill and Rear of Harrison North 36. Dense undergrowth adjacent to Town Wall walk

Block

38. Castle Drive below town walls 39. Model of Harrison’s Grosvenor bridge

Plate 12



39. Gated Drive leading to Castle Drive 40. End of Town Wall walk at main road - the Castle

lies beyond the car park

41. Driveway leading to car parks in outer landscape 42. Car parking in outer landscape

Plate 13



43. View of Castle from Grosvenor Bridge



2.8.2 Chester Castle Today – Schedule of Structures and Spaces

The following Schedule identifies the buildings, structures and spaces, which exist today.

They fall within three distinct zones: ‘A’ the Harrison buildings, ‘B’ the Inner Bailey and ‘C’

the Outer Landscape.

Plan No 1 identifies the Zone boundaries and Plan No 2 names and locates the various the

Buildings and Spaces. The distribution of uses throughout the site is illustrated in Plan No 3.

Zone A - Harrison Complex: The complex of buildings designed by Thomas Harrison

including the Castle Square parade ground, its entrance and enclosure (site of former

Outer Bailey)

Gazetteer

Ref

Building/Space

*English Heritage Guardianship

Use

Listed

Building

42 Harrison Shire Hall County Court

County Council Office

I

43 Harrison A Block Cheshire Regimental Museum

Regimental Head Quarters

I

Statue of Queen Victoria II

44 Harrison Colvin House Vacant I

41 Harrison Entrance Arch

(Propylaea)

Car Park Attendant’s Office I

45 Parade Ground Enclosure

Parade Ground Castle Square

Car Park II

Zone B - Inner Bailey: The curtain walls and towers and all the medieval and later

buildings which they contain

Gazetteer

Ref

Building/Space


Use Listed

Building

5 Half Moon Tower* Vacant I

10 Frobisher’s House* Vacant I

6 Flag Tower* Vacant I

49 Napier House Vacant II

17 Agricola Tower* Part Chapel – Part open to public* I

50 Guard House and Cell Block* Display Area open to Public II

7 Sally Port* Closed I

11

Curtain Walls* (Sally Port to Half

Moon Tower)

Walk way not open to public

I

11 Curtain Walls and Access

Rampart* (east of Sally Port)

Rampart walk open to public II



Zone B continued

Zone C - Outer Landscape: The area of outer landscaping including the car parking

areas, driveways and ancillary buildings to the south of Zones A and B and extending to

the town walls

Gazetteer

Ref

Building/Space


Use Listed

Buildings

50/55 Gun Sheds and Officers Stables Storage II

64 Squash Courts Vacant -

Rifle Range Vacant -

Motte (Castle mound) Publicly accessible -

Drive leading to Gun Shed Publicly accessible -

Drive leading to gated Town Wall

archway and car park

Publicly accessible -

Public Car park Publicly accessible -

2.8.3 Brief Description of Existing Structures and Spaces

Zone A - Harrison Complex (Plates 1 and 2)

The centrepiece of the “Greek Revival” composition designed by Thomas Harrison is the

Shire Hall, which is complemented by two projecting wings, ‘A’ Block to the north and

Colvin House to the south. These enclose a parade ground, Castle Square, which is entered

through the propylaea. All the principle elevations are in yellow sandstone. Those elevations,

which overlook the Inner Bailey, are in red sandstone. The structures are all in outwardly

good condition.

The Shire Hall: This building contains the County Courts and has recently been the subject

of a major internal restructuring and restoration programme. An entrance at the north end of

the building provides access to the County Offices.

A Block: The building, its enclosed courtyard and ancillary structures are still in military use.

The lower floor is occupied by the Regimental Museum and the upper floor is used as the

Cheshire Regiment’s Head Quarters. Other parts of the building are used by the local cadet

force.

Colvin House: This no longer functions for military purposes and stands vacant with its lease

offered for sale.

Gazetteer

Ref

Building/Space


Use Listed

Building

16 Inner Bailey Court Yard* Marked by bollards only -

Inner Bailey Court Yard* Open to Public -

Raised platform adjacent to Flag

and Half Moon Towers*

Closed to public -

Inner Bailey Court Yard* Open to Public -



The Entrance Propylaea: Part of the entrance archway is in use as the car park attendant’s

office.

The Parade Ground (Castle Square): The parade ground is generally surfaced in black

tarmac. A central walkway through the car park space is defined by red tarmac and a further

strip of red tarmac leads alongside the North Block to an entrance to County Hall. The only

remaining historic surfaces are in limited areas immediately adjoining the principle buildings.

Bollards and other ‘Street Furniture’ are all contemporary. A statue to Queen Victoria, listed

Grade II is located on the area of the Shire Hall portico.

Zone B: Inner Bailey (Plates 3 to 8)

The Buildings, Structures and Spaces within English Heritage Guardianship. There is a

good understanding of the condition of the structures within Guardianship as these were the

subject of a detailed quinquennial inspection in 1998 prepared for English Heritage by

Buttress Fuller. Day to day responsibility for their care and supervision is the subject of a

local management agreement between English Heritage and Chester City Council.

Agricola Tower: (Plate 3) The Tower comprises an entrance chamber at ground floor level

with a stair turret leading to the Chapel of St Mary de Castro at the first floor. The stair

continues to a further second floor level and terminates at the roof deck above. The public has

access to the ground and first floor levels only. Although once permitted, public access to the

upper chamber and roof deck has been closed for safety reasons (principally lack of

supervision). Extensive views of the city’s skyline and the countryside to the west and north

can be gained from the tower’s rooftop. Externally much of the stonework has been refaced

during the 19th and 20

th centuries. A timber-framed screen fills the pointed arch on the lower

level of the south elevation. The whole is generally in good condition but evidence of water

penetration has been noted recently. The wall paintings in the Chapel are very faded and may

be being affected by damp conditions.

Guard House and Cell Block: (Plate 3) These joined 19th Century single storey utilitarian

sandstone buildings are in generally good condition. The Guard House is a single room,

which is open to the public and contains display material explaining the castle's history. The

adjoining Cell Block has had further displays but is now closed.

Frobisher's House: (Plate 7) This 19th century two storey building was built for military use

(its last use was as a sergeant’s mess) on the site of an earlier structure (possibly 17th century).

Remnants of pre-19th century brickwork are still evident at lower levels. The building has a

weatherproof roof and the window openings are boarded. The internal structural walls and

floors remain but only limited fittings exist which are of any interest (eg a ‘dumb waiter’).

The building is not open to the public.

Half Moon Tower: (Plates 7 and 10) The Frobisher’s House was built at the rear of and

gives access to the medieval Half Moon Tower. The early sandstone structure has been

refaced externally in the 18th/19

th centuries and ‘Georgian’ proportioned window openings

were formed in the outward facing elevation. The tower now contains two floors. The

windows frames have been removed and the openings are boarded but not sufficiently

securely to be pigeon proof. The floors are littered with droppings and dead birds. Evidence

of the 19th/20

th century military quarters still remain and include cast iron fireplaces, panelled

doors and remnants of wallpaper. The wall between the Frobisher’s House and the Half Moon

Tower contains evidence of possibly pre 18th century stone door surrounds and blocked off

openings

The Flag Tower: (Plates 5 and 6) This two storey sandstone structure is partially derelict. It

cannot be seen from without the Inner Bailey as it is flush with and does not now project



above the curtain wall. The three elevations projecting into the Inner Bailey are all in very

poor condition. Possibly much of the existing stone work dates from its original construction.

Evidence is present of structures, which once abutted the tower. (Two boarded entrances at

first floor level, masonry pockets for supporting timbers; chases for flashings and lime wash

are all evident externally). At ground floor level a door in the east elevation leads to an

interior space. Timber joints exist at first floor level but there are no floorboards and no

staircase access. A further door on the north elevation leads to another ground floor chamber.

The building is not open to the public.

Curtain Walls: West Section (between the Half Moon Tower and Sally Port) (Plate 5)

The narrow and poorly protected rampart walkway has been closed for public safety and parts

of the stonework require urgent attention. The internal face of the Curtain Wall between the

two towers contains much early stonework and evidence of now demolished buildings. The

internal face between the Flag Tower and Sally Port has an outer skin of brickwork, which

remains from a once adjoining building now demolished. The Sally Port is gated and not open

to the public.

Curtain Walls: East Section (east of the Sally Port): These are open to the public and

generally in fair condition. Ground surfaces are mainly in tarmac and concrete flags. Railings

and handrails protect the ramp but sections are of very poor appearance and of limited safety

value. A sandstone archway at the North end of the curtain wall links to the Agricola Tower.

This is thought to be part of the remains of a medeival structure (Kitchen and Butteries) and

lead to the north ditch.

Toilet Block: At the rear of the Agricola Tower is a norrow space adjoining the side of the

Shire Hall. At the last end of the passage is a modern brick toilet, which is not in use.

Inner Bailey Main External Space: The ground surfaces are mainly in tarmac but an area of

stone paving leads from the entrance archway to the Parade Ground. Twelve concrete

bollards mark the site of a well.

Raised Platform Adjacent to the Flag and Half Moon Towers: (Plate 7, No 22 and Plate

8, No 28). This site, which was once occupied by buildings that have been demolished, has

been left as rough ground. It is closed to public access by a fence and brick wall.

Between the south elevation of Napier House and the curtain wall walkway is a narrow low

space. A stone arch and steps span across this from a doorway into Napier House.

Napier House: This substantial 19th century military building reflects the general style of the

slightly earlier buildings by Harrison. It appears externally and internally to be in good

condition. It is now vacant and its lease under offer.

Zone C: The outer landscape (Plates 9 to 13)

The Gun Store and Officer Stables: Utilitarian but well designed, these 19th century the

County Council now uses sandstone military buildings for storage. There is a small single

storey later addition at the west end in brickwork. They appear in good condition externally.

The Squash Court: This mid 20th century building are in fair condition is of little historic

importance.

Rifle Range: This prefabricated corregated iron structure was located on the site in the 1920s

and is of some historic interest as a military structure.



Landscaping, Drives and Car Parks: (Plate 12) The driveways and car parks located

within the outer landscape are managed by Cheshire County Council. All are surfaced in

tarmac and are 19th and 20th century in origin. Apart from the entrance gateway to the main

road, they contain no features of historic interest.

Soft Landscape: (Plate 9) The grassed areas including the castle motte are close mown.

However, the trees and shrubs to east adjacent to the Town wall are not “maintained” and

hinder views of the castle from various directions (Plate 11).

2.8.4 Management, Ownership and Use

Responsibility for the day to day management, maintenance and ownership is spread between

a variety of agencies and is broadly outlined on Plan No 3. It should be noted that this is not a

definitive statement of legal ownership. Uncertainties appear to exist and further examination

is recommended. The extent of English Heritage Guardianship is, however, clearly stated. A

“Chester Castle Group” comprising owners and interested parties has been formed to discuss

future strategy for the site.

2.8.5 Access, interpretation and appreciation

The area of the Inner Bailey was occupied by the military until 1954, and thereafter the

buildings remained unused until a programme of clearance was undertaken between 1979-82.

This work was directed by Peter Hough on behalf of the Department of Environment, and

involved the demolition of the brick buildings erected in the early nineteenth century on the

west side of the Inner Bailey. The scheme was designed to make the medieval and post-

medieval history and development of the castle more intelligible to the public, by revealing

structures long hidden behind modern buildings. Chester City Council produced an

archaeological report on this work in 1996, as Chester Archaeology Excavation and Survey

Report No 10.

The site of the Inner Bailey is currently maintained as an open monument by English

Heritage, there is no admission charge and no custodial staff or shop facilities. On the external

zones of the monument signage is limited to an information board in front of the Flag Tower,

and a second by the sally port steps. The Agricola Tower is not externally signposted and the

visitor is left to stumble upon it, in fact its significance is altogether played down. Likewise,

the guard room which houses a series of information panels pertaining to the history and

development of the castle is not externally signposted, and the entrance is a heavy oak door

that tends to swing closed, creating the impression of a barred door. The block attached to the

Guard house has contained display material but this is now not shown to the public. These

two buildings, the Guard House and the Agricola Tower. Are in fact the only ones currently

accessible to the public, with the Flag Tower, sally port and old mint left in a boarded up and

fairly dilapidated state. All of the external signage now has a faded and somewhat

weatherworn appearance.

Within the Agricola Tower the signage is limited to an information panel set in the entrance

of the first floor Chapel that can be read through the heavily barred gate. There is no public

access to the third floor or the roof of the tower.

The chapel in the Agricola Tower was known to have contained fragments of medieval wall

paintings since 1817, but it was not until the National Survey of Medieval Wall Painting that

their significance was fully appreciated. A programme of remedial treatment was undertaken

by English Heritage in 1992-93, which included light surface cleaning and limited

uncovering, the results of which were published in an article by Cather, Park, and Pender in

2000. This chapel is currently barred from public access, and limited views of the chamber

can be obtained from a wrought iron gate.



No information booklets, guides or pamphlets have been produced on the castle other than a

leaflet advertising the Military Museum. As far as the tourist trail is concerned, there is no

signage to the castle from either the town centre, tourist information or Grosvenor Museum

locations, nor is there any link between the castle and the city walls tourist trail.

2.8.6 Visitor Numbers

At present the castle, particularly the Inner Bailey, is poorly signposted and fairly inaccessible

to the public. On a typical day, while undertaking the study, it was estimated that the Inner

Bailey received two visitors an hour during the summer months, when tourism in Chester is at

its height. An estimated 50% of these visitors did not actually enter any of the buildings

accessible to the public (such as the guard room or Agricola Tower), and seemed fairly unsure

about what they actually had access to. The situation is further complicated by the fact that on

more than one occasion during weekend visits to the monument; the doors to the

aforementioned buildings were not unlocked at the times they were supposed to be.

2.8.7 Museum Collections

The 1979-82 Excavation

In 1979 a decision was made by the Department of the Environment to demolish the old

armoury to expose the Flag tower, which it completely surrounded, for interpretive purposes.

When this had been removed limited excavations were undertaken in the Flag Tower and in

front of the Frobisher’s House. These revealed deposits which pre dated the Flag tower

thought to be the upper levels of the Norman Motte and its later occupation during the 17th

century. Evidence was found near the Frobisher’s House of ovens that may have been

associated with the old mint and 17th century brickwork.

The paper archive for the 1982 excavations is housed on microfilm along with photographic

and drawn records at the national archaeological record. The artefacts and environmental

finds are held by English Heritage Historical Properties (North) in 15 boxes (42 x 22 x 17 cm)

with a number of smaller boxes. The small finds are held by the Ancient Monuments

Laboratory of English Heritage.

The Military Museum

This museum located in Harrison's north wing houses a collection of material mainly

pertaining to the Cheshire Regiment, and as such covers most of the aspects related to the

modern period of occupation by the army at the castle. Several earlier pieces of material are

also in this collection including an original print of the proposed castle layout by Lavaux,

drawn in 1741.

Chester’s Grosvenor Museum (not located on the Study site)

The full paper archive and artefact collection from the 1993 evaluation and the 1995 watching

brief at the castle site, are held by Grosvenor museum service. The museum also houses a

collection of the water colour paintings pertaining to the castle by Moses Griffith.

The Public Record Office

The Public Record Office in London houses much of the original documentation regarding

the castle, contained within the Pipe Rolls of the relevant monarchs. The PRO also has, inter

alia, nineteenth century Ordnance Reports and plans of the Castle (Class WO/55) and

correspondence files (Class WO/44).



2.8.8 A Visitor’s View

An Imagined Commentary by a first time visitor to Chester Castle:

“I had to plan a tour of Chester’s main historic site in advance of visitors arriving from

abroad and, not being familiar with the town, I thought it best to make a reconnoitre. My

route was to start at the cathedral and work my way along the medieval town walls, taking in

the Roman remains and then the Castle before returning back to the City Centre.

Now having completed half of my tour I descend from the walls just past the old bridge across

the Dee. My map shows that the wall walk starts again a short distance along Castle Drive.

This seems to run so close by the Castle and the towers (the Flag, Half Moon and Agricola

towers are indicated on the map) that there must surely be a way in from here.

The wall walk rises above Castle Drive. Through the trees and dense undergrowth on the

other side of a fence I catch glimpses of old sandstone walls, could they be part of the castle?

The town wall walk takes a sharp turn to the right and further on the trees and shrubs thin out

to reveal military ramparts rising above a grass mound. But how do I get to it? The town wall

passes over a drive leading up to what must be the castle entrance but there is no way down

until the wall path ends at a main road. At this point a sign gives information about Chester

Castle. I head up the main road where hopefully I will find an entrance.

An impressive classical entrance archway is reached which to leads onto a car park enclosed

by a group of fine classical buildings. Surely the old castle must be behind these to the right.

So I wind my way through the cars in that direction.

This must be it! A sign gives some information and opening times. (There are no ticket

formalities). I walk into a rather dreary and unused looking space. The view ahead is

dominated by a large sandstone building – apparently a vacant military barracks. To the

right of this building rises a long ramp leading to the battlements. On the other side of the

ramp and further to my right is scene of dereliction. A raised area of rough ground and weeds

is fenced off and beyond are high wall some in brick and parts in crumbling stone from which

projects a squat tower and the white painted with boarded up windows. A sign tells me that

there are parts of the medieval Castle. All this appears very disappointing.

I survey the scene to my left where there is a low stone building with a tower beyond. At least

they look in good repair if not inspiring. The low building is a guard house and cell block. A

sign invites entry but the massive door looks very shut and no one is about. Still I must give it

a try after getting this far. Surprise! It opens. In a small room are a number of information

panels. They appear slightly aging but have illustrations of the castle in better and more

interesting times. I find myself reading with some fascination, the place has had quite a

history. But concentration is not helped by a feeling of slight unease. I feel rather

uncomfortably, alone and its getting late into the afternoon. Is it safe? Will I get locked in?

Outside again. Next to the guardhouse is the Agricola Tower; an information sign explained

that this was once the original entrance to the area that I'm now in, the Inner Bailey. Again a

shut door and not inviting but I decide to quickly look inside. This ground floor chamber is

certainly medieval and up a flight of stone spiral steps is a small chapel. Its gated off but

looks interesting. The information said there were wall paintings. I can see odd areas of

plaster and yes there are some vague forms and patches of dull colour. If only there was

better light, an illustrated explanation and the ability to get closer.

I hear a noise below. Unease returns and I move urgently down the stairs. I've seen no one for

the past half and hour.



“Just about to lock up”, says an official lady with keys, “but you could stay another five

minutes if you wish”.

"No thanks, I've seen all there is, but will you be locking the main gate? I’d rather like to look

at the walls”.

"No" she said, "this area is always open but we don't get many visitors”. I'm not surprised.

I walk across the tarmac space and notice a ring of concrete bollards. An information board

tells you that this is the site of the castle well. But there is no possibility of throwing a penny

and making a wish here. More signs tell of buildings and features of the castle that have long

gone.

Up the ramp and onto the walls. Well, the lower walls. The high exciting looking walls are

out of bounds. A pity because it’s the thrill of climbing narrow winding stairs and having

wide views over scary drops that makes castles fun places to visit. There are some views from

the lower ramparts- surely the river is down below- but you can't see much because of all the

trees. The platform was once an emplacement for guns but where are they now? Cannons

always kept the children amused for a time. They would pretend to aim and fire them but

there’s not much to FIRE the imagination here.

I retrace my steps to the entrance to the Inner Bailey. Two foreign tourists are hesitating,

wondering whether to go any further. Not being a linguist I pass by heading across the car

Port towards the City Centre. At the end of the building that forms the far side of the car park

"square" a banner announces the entrance to the military, museums, but this castle area

doesn't seem to be a tourist hot spot so I head on up to the town and hopefully a bit more

excitement. I will not be bringing my visitors here!!”

(Written by R A Fraser, Donald Insall Associates, loosely based on his first visit to Chester

Castle).



2.8.9 Townscape

Chester is one of Europe’s best preserved towns and the Castle contributes to its

‘Townscape’. Its imposing character and scale provide an interesting contrast to the more

intimate grain of streets and buildings, which characterise the historic core of the town.

The Castle with its sandstone ramparts together with Harrison's imposing military and county

buildings and Grosvenor Bridge create a notable arrival point to the town when approached

from the south.

Together the Castle and town walls contribute to the character of the immediate townscape

and provide links with surrounding historic structures and spaces. The surrounding

Townscape areas are identified (refer to plan 4) as follows:

1. To the northeast the Castle has strong visual and historic links with St Mary’s on the Hill

(Plate 11, No 35):

The rear of Harrison’s space and A Block enclose and define the setting of the

church.

The medieval church has historical associations with the early Castle and its present

Regiment

The church and the rear of Harrison’s eastern wing contribute to defining the

townscape qualities of the steep and cobbled St Mary’s Hill and its termination with

Castle Street.

2. The area immediately below the Inner Bailey is enclosed by the town wall and the row of

tall lime trees that runs alongside. Within this space are located the late 19th century Gun

Store (Listed Grade II), the brick squash court and the corrugated iron structure of the

rifle range. The area appears and functions as a semi-private space (Plate 9, No 29).

3. Below the town wall is the lower level of Castle Drive and the densely vegetated banks of

the river Dee. This space, enclosed by its mellow sandstone walls and mature limes has a

secluded restful quality away from the bustle of the town. Located in the westerly section

of the town wall is a 19th century stone archway leading through to a gated driveway with

views into the castle grounds. To the east of the arch is a replica model (Listed Grade II)

of Harrison’s Grosvenor Bridge. The actual bridge, reputed at the time to be the world’s

longest single stone span, is best viewed and appreciated from this location. (see Plate 11,

No 37).

4. The open grass mound rising up to the western Inner Bailey Walls gives an impression of

the approximate form of the early castle motte (see Plate 9, No 32).

5. To the west of the castle mound is an extensive public parking area enclosed by buildings

and fencing.

6. The area to the west of the Castle Square parade ground was formerly known as the

Glover Stone, a ‘no mans land’ between city and county jurisdiction where fairs were

held. Harrison's entrance arch to the Parade ground is the castles most prominent feature

at this point in the townscape (see Plate 1, No 30).

Plan No 4 identifies the main views of the Castle together with the views that can be gained of

the city and countryside from the castle’s tower and ramparts.



2.8.10 Current Statutory Protection and Planning Policies

Statutory Protection

The site of the Inner Bailey is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. It contains thirteen separate

entries in the current Schedule of Buildings Listed for their Architectural and Historic

Interest. The detailed entries are included in Appendix B. In summary:

Zone A – The principal buildings by Thomas Harrison are all listed Grade I. The wall and

railings also by Thomas Harrison enclosing the parade ground and provost house to the north

of A Block are listed Grade II.

Zone B – The curtain wall and towers between the Half Moon Tower and the Sally Port are

listed Grade I, together with the Frobisher’s House. The curtain walls to the east of the Sally

Port are listed Grade II, presumably on the basis that these appear to have been realigned from

the original medieval structures in the 18th century. The Agricola Tower is listed Grade I. The

19th century Guard House and Cell block and Napier House are listed Grade II.

Zone C – the Gun Sheds and Officers Stables are listed Grade II.

Local Planning Policy

The Chester Draft Local Plan 1997 is currently at the Public Inquiry stage. Whilst it is not yet

formally adopted it is being used by the City Council for development control purposes.

Although the 1997 Draft Local Plan has been subject to changes in the period prior to the

public inquiry, it is not anticipated that these will have a significant impact on the Plan’s

Policies, which may relate to Chester Castle. The key objectives of the Plan’s Policies for

Conservation Areas are:

To ensure the preservation and enhancement of areas of architectural or historical interest.

To be responsive to the economic and social needs for change in historic areas.

To increase awareness of the importance and quality of areas of architectural or historical

importance.

Conservation Areas: Section G of the Draft Local Plan sets out the Council's policies for

Conservation Areas. Chester Castle is located within the City Conservation Area and as such

is covered by policies DENV 38 to 53, included in Appendix. Although not a formal

development plan, Chester City Council has prepared a City Centre Conservation Area

Character Assessment as guided by PPG15 and PPG1 and this will carry a degree of weight in

terms of development control. Section D covers the Castle Area. Enhancement Objective

6.5.23 refers to the visual intrusion of the car parking in the “Castle Square” and suggests that

it be removed, or that “opportunities for landscaping” to reduce its impact are considered.

Listed buildings: Section H of the Draft Local Plan relates to Listed Buildings. Parking

Policies DENV 54 to 59 will apply to all the Listed Buildings in the Study Area.

Employment: Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan deals with economic issues and outlines the

constraints on various sites. Policy DTE3 indicates that in relation to the Chester Castle Area

and other areas “a range of employment purposes, including cultural and tourism uses, which

protect and enhance the character of the area and are compatible with their existing cultural

activities will be permitted.” The policy makes it possible for new development and uses to be

considered for planning approval provided that the proposals do not conflict with the Local

Plan’s Conservation Area Policies.



Tourism: Section 5.60 sets out a Tourism Strategy for Chester. The preamble outlines five

objectives:

1. Reinforcing Chester as the “People’s place” (a lively cosmopolitan City).

2. Spreading the ‘load’ (Chester Castle is in the list of areas for tourists still to ‘discover’

and which could assist in spreading the load away from congested areas).

3. Provision for visitor attractions.

4. Tourist facilities.

5. Attracting visitors to stay longer.

Within the above policy DTE15 identifies the castle area as a location for heritage related

tourism attractions.

Culture and Heritage: Within the Culture and Leisure Section of the Draft Local Plan,

Policy DCV4 identifies the Castle Area as a Cultural/Heritage area and states that any

development within the area shall be compatible with and reinforce its cultural character.



SECTION 3: SIGNIFICANCE

3.1 Methodology

In order to develop policies to assist the conservation and management of the site and its

various elements it is necessary to identify why Chester Castle is significant.

The assessment of significance is based on the ‘understanding’ of the Castle’s history and

development as explained in the previous section. It is also based on the Planning Policies

Guidance for determining heritage merit as provided by the government in PPG15 and PPG16

and associated legislation, in particular the:

Character of conservation areas

Special architectural and historical interest of Listed Buildings

National importance of Scheduled Ancient Monuments

Account has been taken of the detailed criteria for Scheduling Ancient Monuments as

provided by PPG16. This indicates that in assessing the importance of an ancient monument

weight should be given to: period, rarity, documentation, group value, survival/condition,

fragility/vulnerability, diversity and potential.

Consideration has been given to all the above criteria in applying the following classifications

to the site as a whole and the various components of Chester Castle:

Internationally significant

Nationally significant

Regionally significant

Locally significant

3.2 Overview

Today, the Castle complex is characterised by three distinctive parts. The internationally

important Greek Revival buildings by Harrison, the much altered original medieval Inner

Bailey to the west and the outer landscape setting. The whole is nationally significant not just

because of the interest of the individual buildings as they exist today but also for the

underlying themes of political and cultural history to which they give expression and for their

townscape value.

1000 years of British history: The site has direct associations with and adds to the

understanding of many important aspects and events of national and local history, from the

time of William the Conqueror to the present day. These are reflected in its existing fabric, its

archaeology and its documentary records. It provides a rare example of a single site

continually used and adapted for the exercise of royal, civil, military and judicial authority for

1000 years

Royal and Feudal Power: The Norman conquest of 1066 began a crucial stage in the

establishment of the monarchy and the feudal system. Chester Castle played an important part

in this early process. For two hundred years following the conquest it was the seat of power of

the County Palatine under the Earls of Chester; thereafter the Earldom reverted to the Crown.

The Castle’s continued importance was to a considerable extent the result of being a crown

possession.



Civil Governance: Chester Castle has been the base for the exercise county governance since

its 11th century foundation to the present day.

Military: Throughout its long history it has had direct association with important national and

international military campaigns. Its buildings and form help tell the storey of the changes in

military organisation, logistics and technology.

Judicial and Penal: The Castle has been in continued use as a place for the dispensation of

justice: for trial, judgment and punishment.

Medieval Religious Art: Religion was an important element of medieval life and the wall

paintings of the Agricola Tower are an extremely rare example of religious art most probably

of the patronage of Henry III and although fragmentary are of high artistic quality and of

national significance.

The Work of Thomas Harrison: The Greek Revival style was an important expression of

western thought and culture during the turn of the eighteenth century. Thomas Harrison’s new

Shire Hall, Court, Prison and Military buildings at Chester Castle from that period provide an

example of immense national and international importance. The design of Harrison’s

buildings as they interfaced with the older castle and town views and the rebuilding of the

castle ramparts can also be seen to have been influenced by the concepts of the picturesque

and the sublime.

Urban, Character and Tourism: The Castle makes a key contribution to the history and

townscape of Chester, one of Europe’s best preserved historic towns and a world tourist

destination. The 18th and 19

th centuries saw a growing awareness of recreational travel and the

recognition of local character. During this period the town walls were repaired and converted

into a promenade. The 19th century military buildings at Chester Castle, which were

constructed from the local red sandstone, testify to the importance placed on maintaining the

character of the views from the walls and river Dee.

3.3 Historical Associations

(Significance status: National/Regional/Local)

3.3.1 Crown, Earldom and Shire Governance

The Norman conquest of 1066 began a crucial stage in the establishment of the nation and the

development of its military, legal and political components. Chester Castle played an

important part in this process.

Chester commanded a militarily strategic position at the northern end of the border region

between England and Wales (the Welsh Marches). It was a key staging point for the land

route to the North Wales coast, the north west of England and the sea crossing to Ireland. The

tidal river Dee (until the later Middle Ages) provided a safe harbour for sea going craft

penetrating into the hinterland of the North West coast. The Castle site itself was located on a

raised promontory providing a defensive position in relation to the river anchorage and port.

The motte and bailey castle at Chester established in 1070 by William the Conqueror was the

northernmost of three established by the King to subdue the north west of England and protect

the border from Welsh incursion. Its importance is demonstrated by the fact that Chester was

created a Palatinate, giving the hereditary earls of Chester considerable autonomy in military,

legal and civil control. This is further emphasised by the fact that when the earldom was

without a hereditary heir in 1237 its title and function were taken over by the crown.



The castle has been a base for county governance from the early Middle Ages through to the

present day. The earls of Chester (during the Palatinate) and then the Crown were responsible

for the administration of the Shire. Documentary evidence shows that much building activity

took place in phases during the 13th century within the Inner Bailey to accommodate

appointed officials and visits by the earl and monarch. The Outer Bailey, with Great Hall and

further accommodation, were also completed during that period. The Elizabethan period saw

the construction of a new Shire Hall and Exchequer and these were maintained in use until

being replaced during the Castle’s rebuilding of 1788 to 1822 by Harrison. The Harrison

buildings are still occupied today for legal and county functions.

During the reign of William III the Castle was the site of a royal mint. Records show that for

a two-year period (1696-98) a mint for the production of coinage was sited at the Castle. Its

location is likely to have been between the Frobisher’s House and the Flag Tower on the north

side of the Inner Bailey.

3.3.2 Military Power

Chester Castle is a rare example of a site, which has been continually developed and adapted

as a military base over almost 1000 years. The castle’s importance as a military site was

consolidated because it was in the direct possession of the crown from the 13th century.

It demonstrates through its existing fabric, archaeology and documentary records how the

early fortifications have been adapted and expanded in response to developments in military

technology and organisation. The original timber motte and bailey was strengthened in the

12th century with square stone towers. The existing Agricola Tower, an early gatehouse, and

the Flag Tower, probably on the site of the original keep, date from this period. The 13th

century saw the construction of a new gatehouse, no longer in existence, and the “half moon”

tower, which still remains. These towers with rounded external form illustrate the developing

military architecture of the time. Also in the 13th century, with the importance of Chester in

the Welsh campaigns of Edward I, came the major addition of an Outer Bailey. The castle

complex continued to be maintained and developed for military purposes over the following

centuries. During the later years of the 17th century further armoury, stores, workshop and a

Frobisher’s house were constructed on the northern side of the Inner Bailey. Following the

Jacobite rebellions of the first half of the 18th century, walls were further strengthened and

modified and battery positions added. Dramatic changes took place in the late 18th and early

19th century with the removal of the old Outer Bailey and the rebuilding phase by Harrison,

which included new Barracks and Armoury enclosing a parade space. The Inner Bailey

remained and continued to be modified for military use throughout the 19th and 20

th centuries.

The site has direct links with important military events and campaigns throughout the last

millennium, including:

The Norman Conquest – Chester’s Motte and Bailey castle consolidated Norman rule in

the north west of England

Barons Wars – supporters of Simon de Montfort held Chester Castle in the struggles

against Henry III

Welsh Campaigns of Henry III and Edward I – Chester Castle provided the main base and

commanded the supply route for the military campaigns and the construction of Edward

I’s castles along the North Wales coast. This led to the incorporation of Wales as a

Principality within the Kingdom.



Wars of the Roses – Chester Castle was involved in the struggles of Richard II against the

House of Lancaster whose supporter seized the Castle, where the King was imprisoned

for a time on his return from Ireland.

The Civil War – Chester was a royalist stronghold. The city and its castle were heavily

involved in the campaigns and subjected to an important siege.

William III and Ireland – Chester Castle was an important staging point on the military

supply route to Ireland. The Cheshire Regiment was raised on the nearby Roodee at that

time (1689).

1745 Jacobite Rebellion – Chester Castle was used for the imprisonment of rebel soldiers

after their defeat at Preston

19th Century Garrison Base – Chester Castle was the base for the Cheshire Regiments

which played a major part in military actions across the British Empire and also in

assisting the civil power maintain order in the expanding industrial towns of the North of

England.

3.3.3 Judicial Authority

From its earliest times the Castle has been a seat for the dispensation of justice and penal

correction. Judges lodgings were constructed within the Inner Bailey and in 1660 a garden

was provided within the Inner Bailey for their relaxation. Courts of justice were provided

within the Harrison rebuilding and these have been in continuous use up to the present day.

Buildings within the castle have been used throughout its history as prison accommodation. A

new prison was included within the Harrison complex. The Gaol, now demolished, illustrated

important changes in prison design after the penal reform legislation of 1784-8. At the time it

was considered as a major advance in the humane treatment of prisoners.

3.4. The Inner Bailey and Motte (Significance status: National)

The existing towers and curtain walls of the Inner Bailey contain surviving elements of the

medieval fabric. Together with the mound from which they rise, they provide a rare example

of the continuous adaptation of an original Norman motte and bailey.

3.4.1 The Agricola Tower

(Significant status: National)

The Agricola Tower, Grade I Listed, survives as a rare surviving example of a late 12th

Century castle gatehouse. It is the most complete remaining part of the early fortification.

Although much of its external stone surfaces were refaced in the 19th century, the whole is

still sufficiently intact to be appreciated and of great value.

The ground floor chamber has a fine stone vaulted ceiling and an Early English doorway

leading to a stone staircase. This space is thought to have been altered during the 14th

century.

At first floor level is an exquisite vaulted Chapel dedicated to St Mary de Castro. The Chapel

contains rare medieval wall paintings. They are fragmentary but of high artistic quality and

may well be some of the only known surviving wall paintings of Henry III’s patronage or

even of the last Norman earl. It is now used as a Regimental Chapel.



3.4.2 The Flag Tower

(Significance status: National)

This dates from the 12th century and signifies the first stage of the strengthening the original

timber fortifications. The massive thickness of its masonry walls testifies to its defensive

purpose and great age. The Flag Tower, Listed Grade I, is believed to occupy the site of the

original Norman keep. Although altered during the following centuries and possible reduced

in height, its plan form and some original fabric remain intact. The raised platform between

the Flag Moon Tower and Half Tower constructed in the 16th century for the Frobisher’s

building and armoury are probably an adaptation of the original motte formation, which the

early keep surmounted.

3.4.3 The Half Moon Tower


This D shaped tower, listed Grade I, is likely to have been constructed in the second stage of

the reinforcement of the Norman castle in the early 13th century. Although altered during the

following centuries and refaced, its overall shape remains intact. It contains interesting

evidence of its occupation as military quarters during the 19th Century.

3.4.4 The Inner Bailey Curtain Walls


The early Norman timber palisades enclosing the Inner Bailey are likely to have been

replaced by fortified stonewalls during the mid thirteenth century by Henry III. These have

since been reinforced and refaced and the existing visible fabric is likely to be largely 18th /

19th century. In 1786 the section to the east of the Sally Port was reconstructed outside the

original line. Nevertheless, the walls still clearly define the original space of the Inner Bailey;

link the surviving medieval towers and may well contain part of the early fabric. The Curtain

Wall north of the Sally Port is listed Grade I and to the east is listed Grade II

3.4.5 The 19th

Century Regimental Buildings of the Inner Bailey

(Significance status: Regional)

The Harrison phase of development together with the more utilitarian buildings and

adaptations of the late 18th and 19

th centuries both within and below the Inner Bailey, provide

an important example a regimental HQ during the expanding period of the British Empire.

The internal adaptations and additions to the Inner Bailey were functional military structures

but the use of red sandstone testifies to the recognition of the contribution they made to the

character of Chester, especially the views from the Dee and the walls, which had become a

recreational promenade.

The reconstruction/refacing of the curtain walls was also undertaken in sandstone to match

the character of the recently rebuilt Town Walls and the incorporated castelletions must have

had a visual purpose rather than a military function. The Agricola Tower was retained by

Harrison, repaired, and then refaced in the existing red sandstone.

The Napier block built in the 1830s with armouries on the ground floor and barracks above by

Royal Engineer designers is architecturally well considered and is Grade II listed. The use of

red sandstone signifies the sensitivity at the time of its to its location. Originally it was to

have been in brick but with financial support the Dee Commissioners persuaded the military

authorities to use red sandstone to compliment the older surrounding structures.

The Guard House and Cell Block, which abut the Agricola Tower, were built in the latter part

of the 19th century. They are simple but well detailed structures robustly constructed in



sandstone. They signify the need for cells to accommodate periods of incarceration rather than

the former military punishment of flogging.

The design of the brick 19th century military Sergeant’s Mess at the rear of the Half Moon

Tower is utilitarian. It is built on the site of 17th century remains (the Frobisher’s House) and

is listed Grade 1 in association with the Half Moon Tower.

The existing adaptations of the Half Moon Tower as military quarters are an interesting

reminder of the Tower’s continued use into the 19th and early 20

th centuries.

The Toilet block at the rear of the Agricola Tower is of no significance.

The gun store building to the west of and below the Outer Bailey (listed Grade II) is further

evidence of the military expansion of the later 19th century and again the sandstone

construction refers to the local character.

3.5 The Work of Thomas Harrison (rebuilding of 1788 to 1822) (Significance status: International)

Thomas Harrison’s substantial rebuilding of the Castle that took place at the beginning of the

19th century is of immense importance and has listed Grade I status.

It is a nationally and internationally outstanding example of architecture in the Greek

Revival style.

It is rare because of the scale and complexity of project and the fact that it remained

within the design control of a single acclaimed architect over its extended period of

design and construction.

Its architecture gives expression to its functions by invoking feelings and impressions of

power and authority.

Harrison’s military wings and parade ground expressed the status of the Army and its

important role in expanding and defending the Empire.

The central building and its two projecting wings together with the Propylaea and

enclosing boundary creates a complete assemblage enclosing an impressive space.

There is a strong visual and stylistic link between Harrison’s Castle complex and the nearby

Grosvenor Bridge designed by the same architect. The two create a “gateway” to the

Chester’s town centre when approached from the west.

The design of Harrison’s buildings, especially as they interfaced with the older castle and

town views, is an example of the period’s interest in concepts of the picturesque and the

sublime.

3.6 The Castle’s Contribution to the Character of Chester (Significance status: National)

By reputation, Chester is one of Europe’s best preserved historic towns and many facets of

history are reflected in its architecture and townscape from Roman times onwards. Chester

Castle is an essential part of this rich fabric.



The castle with its sandstone ramparts, Harrison’s imposing military and from the county

buildings and Grosvenor Bridge create an outstanding arrival point to the town fro mthe

South and West.

The massive ramparts rising above the river and the views to the west and south from

their battlements contrast with the more intimate scale and grain of the town and add to

the visual experience of the whole.

The castle complex is bounded on two sides by the town wall “circuit” which is crucial to

Chester as a visitor attraction and of the major historic importance. The Castle is part of

and adds to this significance.

The castle and town walls together contribute to the character of the immediate townscape

and link with surrounding historic structures and spaces.

The views gained from the Castle’s towers and ramparts provide an additional experience

and appreciation of the City and its countryside to the West and the North.

3.7 Archaeology

Chester Castle is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The site offers a most important resource,

containing archaeologically stratified structures, features and deposits, which can be securely

dated by well documented historical events.

The value of this resource is further heightened by the fact that the site contains not only the

remains of an entire Norman motte and bailey castle, but also an entire 13th century castle,

which remained largely unaltered until the time of Harrison. In this sense the site is a

complete resource, and its future importance depends heavily upon its continued management

as such.



SECTION 4 : VULNERABILITY ISSUES

4.1 Overview

The significance of Chester Castle falls very broadly into three categories: political history,

cultural history and its relationship with the townscape of Chester. In what way are these

areas of importance threatened? This section of the Conservation plan examines the

vulnerability of the castle both as a whole and in terms of its individual components.

Perhaps even more fundamental to the consideration of vulnerability than ‘physical condition’

is ‘appreciation’ and ‘use’. Structures that are not understood and appreciated are at best

ignored and at worst prone to removal or alteration to the extent that significance is lost. ‘Use’

is critical because buildings that are not in a use that is able to generate sufficient funding for

maintenance will often be vulnerable to decay (unless cared for by the State or a concerned

owner as a ‘monument’). ‘Use’ should be considered in its broadest sense. In particular a

structure can be said to be in ‘use’ as a monument to be enjoyed, learned from and

appreciated.

4.2 Condition

Poor physical condition is the most visibly apparent threat to a building and its significance.

At Chester Castle the Harrison blocks are generally sound and in good repair. The structures

that make up the Inner Bailey, however, range from those being well maintained and in good

condition to others that are in extreme states of disrepair. Here remedial action is urgently

required to prevent further decay. A common concern applicable to the Inner Bailey is the

vulnerability of the local red sandstone masonry to weathering and delamination. Poor quality

repair with inappropriate mortars can exacerbate the problem. The yellow sandstone to the

frontages of the Harrison buildings is not as susceptible to this form of decay but still needs to

be treated with care.

(General policies to address these issues are included in Policy Topic E)

4.3 Use and Vacancy

The greatest changes in use have taken place over the past ten years with the decline of the

military functions. The Inner Bailey is no longer the heart of a busy regimental depot and

Colvin House and Napier Barracks now stand empty and open to lease. Vacancy and the

uncertainty of future uses, whether they will be capable of sustaining the fabric or whether

they bring destructive pressures, threaten all the key areas of importance. Potential problems

do not just relate to those buildings that are vacant now but to the future and significance of

the whole. The current use of the Parade Ground for car parking is detrimental to the setting

and appreciation of the whole site. Issues related to the use of particular buildings are

examined in Section 4.8.

(General policies to address these issues are included in Policy Topic C)

4.4 Pressures for Change and New Development

Finding new uses for the two former military buildings, the Inner Bailey’s Flag and Half

Moon Towers and Frobisher’s House may well bring pressures for adaptation, building

extensions and new structures. Further pressures for change and new development may arise



in relation to the buildings and landscaped areas below the Inner Bailey to the west and south.

Development can bring opportunities for greater use and awareness of the site and funding for

historic structures. However, poorly considered design which ignores the historic significance

of the site could be extremely detrimental. Any change will have to be carefully and

rigorously controlled.

(General policies to address these issues are included in Policy Topic G)

4.5 Appreciation and Understanding

Chester Castle has been crucial to the history Chester for over 1000 years and during that

period has on many occasions played an important role in the nations affairs. It contains

buildings, structures and artistic work of international and national cultural significance.

Yet, “Chester Castle? What Castle?” Anecdotally many people seem unaware that Chester

has a castle. It is largely unappreciated as an “entity” and its displays explaining the military

and medieval significance of the site appear to have few visitors. Lack of general

appreciation, understanding and perception represent a major threat to the survival of the

fabric and to realising its full potential. The reasons why there is a lack of general

appreciation are complex and interrelated.

A fundamental problem is that to many people it does not appear as a ‘traditional’ castle.

Viewed externally, the walls of the Inner Bailey do not appear ancient. Their outer faces are

mainly late 18th/early 19

th century. Their scale and the castellated upper sections suggest

military use but perhaps even this is not immediately obvious to the casual observer. Neither

is the Inner Bailey’s great age immediately obvious when viewed internally especially as

much of the visible fabric is 19th century and the whole dominated by the Napier Barrack

Block. The poor condition and appearance of much of the Inner Bailey is also a major

impediment to visitors and their understanding of the site.

The Regimental Museum and displays within the Agricola Tower have low visitor numbers

and require considerable investment to update the forms of presentation so that they can

complement Chester’s other historic attractions and better support its tourist economy.

Nevertheless the stories they tell are crucial to the understanding of the Castle and potentially

there is greater scope for the two to work together for the benefit of the whole (an upgrading

of the Regimental Museum is currently in progress).

While this conservation plan has established a good general understanding of the site, its

historic development and significance, there are some gaps in available knowledge.

A knowledge of pre-Norman occupation of the site.

A detailed understanding of the development of the medieval structures (towers, curtain

walls and Sally Port).

A detailed understanding of what archaeological evidence remains below ground

especially beneath those presently unbuilt upon areas that may be vulnerable to future

change.

A precise and detailed understanding of the current ownership, leasehold and license

arrangements as related to property, rights of access and parking.

(General policies to address these issues are included in policy sections A and F)



4.6 Ownership and Strategic Management

Chester Castle is divided between two freehold ownerships, the Crown and Cheshire County

Council, and the Ministry of Defence. In practice, however, it is vested with various

departments within those large organisations or other external agencies. (Plan 3 generally

shows the current position, subject to confirmation). In particular control of the Crown

property is split between English Heritage, which has a management agreement with Chester

City Council; the Ministry of Defence; and the Crown Estates, who are seeking to dispose of

two major leaseholds (Colvin House and Napier House).

Ownership and control is crucial to the long-term future of the Castle. Lack of coordinated

planning, management and understanding on the part of the various agencies potentially pose

serious long-term threats. Disposal of leaseholds for quick commercial gain or on terms that

did not address conservation issues could have a damaging impact on individual buildings and

on the complete entity.

Of all the varied and interlinked issues the most critical is the lack of a clear vision about the

future of key aspects of the site and in particular the extent to which it should become a

heritage based visitor attraction as indicated in the Chester Local Plan and the report for the

City by Drivers Jonas in 1995. The condition and presentation of much of the Inner Bailey is

lamentable. Napier House and Colvin House stand vacant and the appreciation of Harrison

buildings surrounding Castle Square is considerably diminished by the extent of car parking.

Yet, without a clear understanding of the planned intensity of visitor use, whether it is to

remain low key or whether the site is to be developed and presented as a major attraction, the

strategic context for making these decisions is lacking.

(General policies to address these issues are included in Policy Topic C)

4.7 Accessibility and Townscape Linkages

Chester Castle’s location, setting and physical relationship with the town are important to its

significance but in some respects they are also problematic:

It is perceived as being remote from the city centre and other tourist attractions

Although adjacent to the City Walls and Riverside Drive it has no direct access from

either. Visitors approaching from the walls and Riverside Drive car park have to make a

detour and pass alongside the busy main road to the Harrison’s entrance propylaea. They

then have to negotiate a route through the car parking within the parade ground to either

the Inner Bailey in one direction or the Regimental Museum in the other. The approach

from the city centre is not obvious and the first views of the Castle are of the high blank

walls at the side and rear of Harrison’s A Block.

There is no pedestrian through route across the site, so it does not receive the attention of

any casual passing visitors.

The views of the Inner Bailey from the west are obscured by dense tree cover and from

the town walls by a heavy shrub and under storey layer (compare Figure 9 with the

present situation).

(General policies to address these issues are addresses in Policy Topics B and F)



4.8 Vulnerability Issues: Existing Buildings and Spaces (refer to policy guidelines PG8 to PG17)

4.8.1 Inner Bailey Structures

Overview: Although in the Guardianship of English Heritage the Flag Tower and Half Moon

Towers and Curtain Walls are abandoned and partially derelict. The Flag and Half Moon

Towers are vacant and not usable in their current condition. There are no firm plans for their

future. The Napier Barrack block is vacant and its lease is on the market but future uses are

uncertain. The Agricola Tower, Guard and Cell Block, also in Guardianship, are maintained

and in use as a museum/ display space but because of very low visitor numbers their future

role must be uncertain.

The structures and spaces within the control of English Heritage received a Quinquennial

Inspection in 1998. That report examined the condition of the fabric in detail and provided an

outline schedule of works and budget costs. Five categories of priority were identified on a

scale of 1(urgent) to 5. The document (Chester Castle’s Quinquennial Inspection Report

November 1998 by English Heritage) should be referred to for a detailed understanding of

these issues and threats to the fabric related to the physical condition.

4.8.2 Inner Bailey: Courtyard and Raised Platform

(refer to policy guidelines PG11 to PG13)

Condition issues: The courtyard ground surfaces are in fair condition but generally of poor

appearance. The raised platform level has been left as unmaintained rough ground following

the demolition of former military buildings.

Use issues: The space serves as the only access for visitors to the Agricola Tower and Curtain

Walls.

New uses for the Napier building and the vacant Towers are uncertain but will inevitably

involve changes and adaptations to the existing surfaces ramps and levels.

Access for servicing vehicles, pedestrians, parking and the routing of utilities could

present particular issues and potential problems.

The single, usable access for vehicles and pedestrians will constrain future use. This is a

narrow archway (by Harrison) which may be prone to damage if used by heavy vehicles.

Heavy use by both pedestrians and vehicles would be potentially dangerous.

The Sally Port is kept locked because of the perceived safety and security issues.

Appreciation/Setting issues: The Inner Bailey has the appearance of an abandoned 19th

century military depot uninviting to visitors.

The raised platform, upon which former structures that abutted the north west wall once

stood, is unattractive and neglected.

The ground surfaces and ramp to the wall walkway are generally unattractive tarmac and

concrete paving which provide no historic references.

The well is hidden beneath the tarmac surface and located only by concrete bollards.

There may well be buried archaeological remains of considerable value which could be

exposed and damaged during restructuring of spaces and levels to adapt the area for new

uses.



4.8.3 Curtain Walls

(refer to policy guidelines PG9 and PG10)

Condition issues: The walls are generally sound but poor sections exist internally between

the Flag and Half Moon Towers. The Parapets and high-level walkway on this section require

some attention. The Flag Tower’s external wall has a significant structural crack.

Use issues: Curtain wall between the Sally Port the Half Moon Tower - The outer face of

the medieval walls was reconstructed during the late 18th and 19

th centuries and incorporated a

narrow high level walkway suitable for maintenance purposes but not for visitor access.

Unfortunately, these north west ramparts are the highest of all the curtain walls and would

afford the best distance views and appreciation of the form of the medieval castle. The curtain

wall between Sally Port and Agricola Tower is accessible to visitors.

Appreciation/Setting issues: The inner face of the north west curtain wall is most likely to be

on the exact line of the medieval wall. This is faced in the brickwork remains of a much later

structure now demolished. Views across the river from the south west ramparts (to which

visitors can gain access) and the impression of the strategic nature of the site are obscured by

dense tree cover.

4.8.4 Flag Tower

(refer to policy guideline PG7)

Condition issues: The structure is derelict and a significant crack in the west wall could

indicate continuing instability (Plate 7, No 25 and Plate 10, No 34).

Use issues: Not in use. Derelict and dilapidated appearance. No existing usable internal floors

without adaptation.

Appreciation/Setting issues: The significance of the Flag tower being the site of the original

keep is difficult to appreciate. Viewed externally from the Inner Bailey it is impossible to

locate because its upper section has been removed and its position is not reflected in the form

of the external walls. Internally its setting is very detrimentally affected by the derelict

condition of the raised platform upon which it stands. Good views could be obtained from the

roof of the tower but this is inaccessible.

4.8.5 Half Moon Tower and Frobisher’s House


Use issues: These buildings are not in use and not capable of use without adaptation.

Condition issues: Frobisher’s House a partly derelict shell. Half Moon Tower is in fair

condition but the window/door openings on the outer wall are poorly boarded up and

effectively open to the elements.

Appreciation/Setting issues: The appearance of the half Moon Tower as seen from the Inner

Bailey is obscured by the abandoned shell of the Frobisher’s House. Externally the tower has

two 19th/18

th cent. window/door openings (with hand rail leading to the grass mound below).

These are boarded up and give an abandoned appearance.





Use issues: The tower is open to the public but has very low visitor numbers. The

Regimental Chapel on the first floor is gated and visitors excluded. It is occasionally used for

religious purposes.

Condition issues: Structurally, mainly good but water ingress evident. Wall paintings appear

to be in a deteriorating condition and affected by water ingress/damp.

Appreciation /Setting issues: External 19th century refacing masks the towers great age. The

wall paintings in the chapel, which is gated and locked, are difficult to view, appreciate and

interpret. No visitor access be gained to upper room and roof level.

4.8.7 Guard House and Cell Block


Use issues: The exhibition space is open to the public but has low visitor numbers.

Condition issues: None, condition good.

Appreciation/Setting: The evidently well researched displays present a useful aid to

understanding Chester Castle but they are low key and of insufficient scale and draw to attract

more than the occasional interested visitor.

4.8.8 Napier House


Use issues: The building is vacant and its future use uncertain. Different uses will have

varying demands on the external space, typically vehicular access for servicing and parking.

Condition issues: None, condition good.

Appreciation/Setting issues: Setting compromised by generally neglected appearance

of the Inner Bailey

4.8.9 Harrison’s Buildings and Castle Square Parade Ground

(refer to policy guidelines PG1, PG2, PG3, PG4, PG5, PG6 and PG7)

Use issues: Harrison’s Shire Hall: None; this is in active use as Law Courts and with recent investment

and the sensitive adaptations to its fabric it will remain so into the foreseeable future. This is

the originally intended use for the building and is therefore entirely compatible with its

significance.

Harrison’s Colvin House: Vacant and its lease is on the market with future uses uncertain.

Harrison’s A Block: In use with Military Museum on ground floor and Regimental HQ on

upper floor.

Condition issues: Generally, condition good.

Appreciation/Setting issues:

The Setting of the whole architectural composition is dramatically affected by the mass of

car parking in the parade ground

The views looking outwards along the main axis from the central block towards the

parade ground entrance are considerably devalued by the car parking in that space and the

siting of the police block beyond (Plate 2).



Roads and traffic noise and fumes make the surroundings to the parade ground unpleasant

and pedestrian access unwelcoming

The whole lacks visitor interpretation.

The boundary walls and railings and the Provost House lack the Grade I listed status

enjoyed by the main Harrison buildings (they are Grade II listed).

The Chester City Centre Character Assessment proposes landscaping the Parade Ground to

reduce the effect of the parking. This would not be appropriate.

4.8.10 The Outer Landscape, Gun Sheds and Other Buildings

(refer to policy guidelines PG18 to PG24)

4.8.11 The Gun Store and Officer Stables


Uses: None immediate, in use for storage

Condition: None, condition good

Appreciation/setting: The tarmac surfaced drive and parking areas adjoining the building do

not enhance its setting.

4.8.12 The Squash Courts and Rifle Range


These 20th century buildings are of no architectural importance, however the Rifle Range is

of some historic interest as an early twentieth century pre-fabricated military building.

4.8.13 Landscaping, Drives and Car Parks


The driveways and car parks located within the outer landscape are well maintained but

detract from the setting and appreciation of the castle. The outer landscape area is poorly

served in terms of pedestrian access.

4.8.14 Soft Landscape


The trees and shrubs to the east, adjacent to the town wall, hinder views of the Castle from

various directions.



4.9 Summary of key vulnerability issues

Poor public awareness and understanding of the castle as an entity and its significance

Low visitor use of the Museums

Derelict condition of the Flag and Half Moon Towers and associated curtain walls

Poor condition of certain elements of the of the Agricola Tower

Poor condition and difficulty of interpretation of the Agricola Tower wall paintings

Poor appearance of the ground surfaces within the Inner Bailey

Car parking within the Parade Ground detrimental to the appearance of the Harrison

blocks

Poor pedestrian accessibility

Linkages to other tourist routes and destinations not developed

Challenge of securing uses for the major vacant buildings which will:

(i) generate adequate funding to secure the future of their fabric

(ii) allow the significance to be appreciated

(iii) not damage the fabric or significance

Decisions about individual buildings or spaces made without consideration to the historic

context could jeopardize the whole

Lack of a clear vision about the site’s role as a visitor destination

Gaps in archaeological understanding



5 POLICIES

5.1 General Aims

With the departure of the military depot and the medieval fabric in various states of disrepair,

a “do nothing” approach is not a desirable option from any standpoint. Finding new uses that

can support the upkeep of the two major vacant buildings (Harrison’s Colvin House and

Napier House) will involve change. Safeguarding the medieval fabric within the three towers

will require significant capital spending and revenue upkeep as will the 18th century curtain

walls. All this will demand an imaginative and flexible approach to preservation policy, future

use and site interpretation.

Strategies for development and future use are required which secure the appropriate balance

between conservation objectives and the financial interests of the individual owning or

developing parties. Conservation of historic significance on the one hand, and achieving the

best economic outcomes, both for individual owners and the city as a whole, on the other,

should be seen as mutually supportive endeavours. There is no reason why economic potential

should not be gained from the unique significance and qualities of the site provided that this is

consistent with its future preservation.

The part of the castle site, which is at very serious risk through vacancy, dereliction and no

clear future use is the Inner Bailey. Determining a philosophy and approach to this area is

absolutely fundamental to the conservation plan for the entire site.

This Conservation plan is predicated on the conviction that the Inner Bailey is of such

significance it must be conserved and its significance appreciated both from within and

without. It must be presented in such a manner as to demonstrate clearly its historic and

cultural significance and its evolving physical form from its earliest beginnings as a motte and

bailey fortification. Of equal importance is recognising and preserving the international

significance of the Harrison blocks and their setting. Any future uses both for the vacant

buildings within the Inner Bailey and the Harrison Wings must be entirely consistent with and

supportive of this approach and with the objective of securing a wider appreciation of the

significance of both the individual elements and the whole. Its potential as a heritage visitor

attraction has not yet been realised or sufficiently explored.

The policy section is in three parts, “general policies” which apply to the study site as a

whole, specific “policy guidelines for individual elements” and a conclusion highlighting

those policies which should be pursued as a priority.



5.2 General Policies

A Understanding and Research

It is most important that proposals to safeguard the fabric and promote the appreciation of

the castle are based on a comprehensive understanding of its constituent parts and its

historical associations. Some gaps in current understanding have come to light and should

be addressed.

A1 Proposals for the future of Chester Castle must be founded on and driven by a

deep understanding and appreciation of the site’s significance

A1.1 Proposals for any one part of the site must be considered in the light of a detailed

knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the significance of the site as a whole.

A2 Further research should be undertaken to add to the understanding of the site

and fill gaps in knowledge revealed through the conservation plan study. A

detailed research agenda addressing site archaeology and documentary records

should be devised and pursued within the context of local and national

priorities.

Site archaeology

A2.1 Further site studies should involve examination and recording of the existing

structures within the Inner Bailey to as far as possible to establish the date of original

construction and to understand in detail the subsequent changes that have taken place.

The structures to be further examined are:

The Agricola Tower

The Flag Tower

The Half Moon Tower and Frobisher’s House

The Curtain Wall between the Sally Port and Half Moon Tower

The Sally Port

A2.2 A programme of non-intrusive survey such as ground penetrating radar should be

undertaken in the Harrison Parade ground area and Inner Bailey with a view to

locating accurately the buried remains of the ditch, gatehouses, curtain walls, flanking

turrets and associated buildings.

A2.3 Prior to any new development or landscape enhancement, sensitive archaeological

investigations should be pursued within those areas to achieve a greater understanding

of the medieval Castle and possible earlier occupations of the site and also to inform

decisions relating to the planning of the new proposals.

A2.4 Consideration should be given to undertaking and to the permanent display of

archaeological excavations which would enhance the Castle’s tourism/local interest

potential provided this did not conflict with other essential uses on the site.

Documentary research

A2.5 Studies should be undertaken of records held by the following organisations which

have not been examined as part of the Conservation plan study and which may add to



the understanding of the Castle:

The Cheshire Regimental Museum

Chester Diocesan records

(NB The PRO and the Grosvenor Museum appear to have been well researched)

Recording

A3 All individual buildings, structures and below ground archaeology, identified as

having a degree of significance, which become subject to development proposals

should be surveyed and recorded in accordance with best practice as advised by

English Heritage.

A3.1 The level of recording should be in proportion to the impact of the works and the

significance of the building, feature, artefact or archaeological deposit.

A3.2 Historic buildings should be recorded following the guidance of the former Royal

Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (now part of English

Heritage)“Recording Buildings-A descriptive Specification (RCHME 1996) or the

current relevant professional standards.

A3.3 Archaeological evidence should be recorded in accordance with the Institute of Field

Archaeologist’s Standard Guidance for Archaeological Excavations (1994) or the

current relevant professional standards.

A3.4 Information provided by such recording should be deposited with the Local Planning

Authority, the Chester City Council’s Urban Archeology Data base and the County

Sites and Monuments Record and the National Monument Record through English

Heritage North West Region.

A3.5 Recorded information should be held by each building owner in order to guide

maintenance and repair programmes and as background information for future

reviews of the Conservation Plan.

B Setting, Landscape and Townscape

The setting of Chester Castle is important both for the appreciation of the castle itself and for

its contribution to Chester's townscape. It should be protected and appropriately enhanced.

Some current hard and soft landscape features are detrimental to views of the castle and

setting. A particular issue is the extent of car parking within the site which is detrimental to

its appearance. Conflicts exist between the objectives of seeking to reduce the level of parking

and the need to accommodate the operational parking necessary to support established uses

and the future occupancy of the historic buildings.

B1 The setting of Chester Castle should be protected and appropriately enhanced

both for the appreciation of the castle itself and for its contribution to Chester's

townscape.

B1.1 The objective of protecting and where possible enhancing views to and from the

castle should be an important consideration in the assessment of planning applications

B1.2 The important views of the castle (identified within 2.8.8) to which particular

attention should be given are as seen from:



Grosvenor Bridge

Town Wall pathway

Town Wall pathway at junction with Nicholas Street

Nicholas Street

St Mary’s Hill

Edgar’s Field

The riverside path on the south side of the Dee and Curzon Park

B1.3 In the design of any redevelopment proposals for the Police Headquarters site,

account should be taken of the setting of the Castle and in particular the Propylaea

and the axial view from the Shire Hall.

B2 The uses of the open areas within the site should be compatible with the historic

and architectural significance of the site and the operational requirements of the

existing historic uses.

(for use of spaces in relation to a Visitor Strategy refer to policy C2)

(for use of spaces in relation to a Parking Strategy refer to policy C3)

B3 The hard landscape surfaces within the site should respect and enhance Chester

Castles’ historic character and significance.

B3.1 Existing tarmac surfacing to the driveways and parking spaces with the study area

should generally be reconsidered and replaced with materials more sympathetic to the

historic buildings and environment (refer also to detailed policy guidelines PG7.3,

PG20, PG17)

B3.2 Areas of stone or other natural paving should be retained (refer also to detailed policy

guidelines PG17.2, PG7.3)

B3.3 The guidance set out in English Heritage’s Street Improvements in Historic Areas

should be followed.

B4 The existing soft landscape and any new landscape features should be designed

and managed to enhance the character and significance of the site.

B4.1 Account should be taken of the need for tree management to exploit near views and

distant vistas of the castle. (refer also to detailed policy guidelines PG21, PG23,

PG6.1)

B4.2 Consideration should be given to managing appropriate areas in a manner which

encourages a greater diversity of local flora and fauna.

B4.3 New landscape features or management regimes should not seek to draw attention to

themselves but contribute to and reinforce the character of the whole.

B5 Future reviews of the Chester City Council’s Local Plan and the Character

Assessment of the Chester City Centre Conservation Area should support the

objectives of protecting and enhancing the wider setting of the Castle.

B5.1 The Local Plan should retain and strengthen policies to preserve and enhance views

of and from the Castle.



B5.2 The section of the Character Assessment of the City Centre Conservation Area, which

refers to the detrimental affects of car parking, should be revised to the effect that the

introduction of soft landscaping into the parade ground would not be an appropriate

means of reducing the impact of car parking.

B6 A public realm plan should be devised to further the objectives of protecting and

enhancing the immediate setting of buildings and structures within the site and

in particular to take account of:

The necessary enhancement of hard and soft landscaping.

The use of spaces particularly in relation to the visitor and parking strategies.

Access and servicing requirements for operational users and visitors.

Lighting of spaces and buildings for presentation purposes as well as functional

requirements.

C Ownership, Use and Strategic Management

These crucial and interlinked issues need to be addressed together. Owners and developers

whilst having regard to the best interests of their particular buildings and operations must

also recognize the needs of other users and Chester Castle as a complete entity. Ownerships

are fragmented and a mechanism to facilitate collaboration is required. The key issues to be

addressed involve: determining the extent to which the Castle is to be promoted as a visitor

attraction, finding appropriate new uses for the vacant buildings, and establishing an

appropriate level of car parking. These are all fundamental to the future of the site and a

range of urgent investment decisions.

C1 All those directly involved in the future use and management of Chester Castle

should act as responsible custodians of valuable heritage not only in relation to

their own particular demise but also for the site as whole and collaborate

accordingly.

C1.1 Those Parties with direct ownership/leasehold interests in the site should collaborate

in the preparation of strategies for the future management of the site and to this end

the informal steering group already established should be further consolidated.

C1.2 Existing and future owners, developers and occupiers of the site should work within

the framework of the Conservation Plan.

C1.3 Individual occupiers should review their operational and future development

strategies in the light of the conservation plan policies.

C1.4 Information about principle ownerships, leaseholds, licenses and maintenance

responsibilities should be shared between the various parties with a direct owning or

occupying involvement in the site.

C1.5 In making decisions about the selection of future occupiers and developers preference

should be given to those able to demonstrate a track record of sympathetic working

with historic buildings and sensitive settings.



C2 Urgent priority must be given to devising and implementing a visitor strategy

C2.1 The visitor strategy must achieve a workable balance between the Castle as a heritage

attraction, at whatever level, and the operational requirements of the Law Courts, and

Cheshire County Council Offices.

C2.2 The visitor strategy should be guided by and take account of the conservation plan

policies and must propose realistic capital, revenue, management and marketing

plans.

C3 A parking and vehicular servicing strategy should be devised to further the

objectives of enhancing the immediate setting of buildings and structures

within the site.

C3.1 The parking strategy must achieve a workable balance between the objective of

enhancing the appearance of Castle and its surrounding spaces and driveways, to

which intensive car parking is detrimental, on the one hand and on the other, the

operational requirements of the established and potential users and the requirements

for general public parking.

C3.2 Vehicular servicing must have regard to the requirements of site users, the physical

constrains imposed by the historic structures and the need to enhance ground surface

appearance.

C4 New uses should urgently be found for vacant buildings that are compatible with

and supportive of the Conservation Plan Policies.

C4.1 New uses within the site must be supportive of:

existing uses

each other

the significance of the site as whole

the significance of the building they occupy

the visitor strategy

the interpretation and understanding of the site

D Statutory Considerations

This site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and contains Listed Buildings (graded I and II).

Such a sensitive site requires the full application of the protection provided by the Planning

Acts, other relevant legislation and Local Plan Policies. English Heritage has Guardianship

responsibility for the Inner Bailey and this involves a duty to preserve and promote public

understanding and enjoyment of the buildings within its control.

D1 The level of protection afforded through Listed Building, Scheduled Monument

and Conservation Area status should be maintained and rigorously applied.

D1.1 All development must take account of the guidance set out in PPG 15, PPG 16, and

other current best practice, the Chester City Local Plan.

D1.2 The Local Planning Authority and English Heritage should be consulted at the earliest

stage of any proposals for new buildings or alteration or extensions to existing

buildings.



D1.3 Consideration should be given by English Heritage to recommending that the original

wall and railing enclosure to the Parade ground are to be upgraded to Grade I as this

forms an integral part of the Listed Building Grade I assemblage by Thomas

Harrison.

D1.4 Owners should develop management guidelines, in conjunction with English Heritage

and the Local Authority, for all structures and their interiors identified as being

significant to the site. This will help to define those minor works which will not

require consent and what types of more major work is likely to receive consent.

D2 In the interpretation and implementation of regulations which prescribe

requirements for the design, construction, health and safety and operation of

buildings, due account should be taken of the heritage status and significance of

the site. For example:

As with all modern codes and standards the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act must be carefully balanced with the conservation objectives.

(Helpful guidance is set out in the English Heritage note Easy Access to Historic

Properties).

D3 English Heritage should take full and active regard to its responsibilities in

respect of its Guardianship role for the Inner Bailey which involves a duty to

preserve and promote public understanding and enjoyment thereof.

E Conservation of the Fabric

Maintenance, Repair and Enhancement

Carefully planned long term maintenance and some urgent action is essential to save the

future well being of individual structures and the whole site. Repair regimes must follow best

practice guidelines as inappropriate maintenance techniques or poor workmanship can

damage sensitive historic buildings and accelerate rather than prevent decay. Areas of

external space although owned by one party are of common concern and it follows that

standards of care and enhancement should be jointly agreed for the benefit of the whole.

E1 Buildings and spaces within the site must be regularly and appropriately

maintained in accordance with current best practice.

E1.1 Detailed maintenance plans should be developed for each building (exteriors and

interiors) and all the external spaces based on the principles set out in the

Conservation Plan.

E1.2 All buildings and structures on the site should be subject to periodic inspection,

repair, maintenance and audit regimes which will ensure that defects are not ignored

for so long that the fabric suffers avoidable damage and decay. The maximum

interval between inspections should be 5 years

E1.3 The repair of historic structures on the site should follow the best practice guidance

contained within:

Repair of Historic Buildings, Principles and Methods by C Brereton published by

English Heritage.

The Technical Pamphlets and Guidance Sheets published by the Society for the

Protection of Ancient Buildings, SPAB)



The specific guidance set out in the Inner Bailey Quinquennial Inspection Report,

November 1998 for English Heritage. The principle maintenance issues relate at

Chester Castle to stonework, the main recommendations being:

A phased programme of pointing is essential and fine lime putty mortars should be employed.

Loose and friable stone fabric should be removed prior to pointing

Stone blocks should only be replaced if there is a danger to the structural or weathering of the

whole

Acceptance of natural erosion is preferable, within the limitations of structural integrity to

large scale masonry replacement

E1.4 English Heritage should undertake an urgent programme of first time consolidation of

the historic fabric within the Inner Bailey.

E2 Responsibility for the care of buildings, external spaces and boundary/party

structures must be co-coordinated to ensure that the historic fabric is preserved

and enhanced to a common standard.

E2.1 Clear lines of communication between users, the owners and managers must be

established. All those involved with maintenance and repairs should be fully aware of

their roles and responsibilities.

E2.2 Individual occupiers should review their maintenance strategies in the light of the

conservation plan policies and detailed guidelines.

E2.3 Information about primary maintenance responsibilities should be shared between the

various parties with a direct owning or occupying involvement in the site.

E2.4 Upon the renegotiation or disposal of leaseholds, freeholds or licences the contract

conditions should be reviewed having regard to the Conservation Plan Policies.

Resources

E3 All owners and those responsible for maintenance of buildings structures and

spaces should seek to ensure that adequate revenue and capital provision is

made for appropriate maintenance, repair, and enhancement.

E3.1 Financial arrangements made at the disposal property or reversion of leaseholds

should take due account of the need to ensure that sufficient finance is available for

proper building repair and maintenance.

E3.2 All potential sources of grant funding should be investigated to support major

schemes of repair and public realm enhancement (EH, HLF, EC)

E3.3 Capital projects involving new development, or those which change or intensify the

use of buildings or spaces should also be linked to building repair.

F Visitor Access and Interpretation

The existence of Chester Castle is obscure to many local people and visitors. Its potential as a

visitor attraction and as a resource for understanding the history of Chester is not being

realised. Without a clear visitor plan, whether it is to remain low key or whether the site is to

be presented as a major heritage attraction, the context for making decisions about vacant

buildings is lacking. This also has implications for heritage tourism in Chester as a whole.

Insufficient advantage is currently being taken of the potential linkages between the Castle

and Chester’s other heritage museums and sites



General

F1 The general public must be enabled and encouraged to appreciate the

significance of Chester Castle and to this end a Visitor Strategy is urgently

required (see also policy C2)

Intellectual Access

F1.1 Intellectual access should be facilitated by the production of general guide books and

research publications taking account of the latest research.

F1.2 The historical importance of the site should be used as a resource for educational

projects and suitable information should be prepared.

F1.3 The knowledge and enthusiasm of people with special knowledge or interest in the

site and associated topics should be utilised as a resource.

F1.4 Advantage should be taken of the potential linkages between the Castle and Chester’s

other heritage museums and sites particularly:

The Regimental Museum

The Grosvenor Museum

Physical Access

F2 Access to those parts of the parts of the Castle which are currently restricted or

closed should be improved within the constraints of operational requirements,

safety and security.

F2.1 Pedestrian accessibility and signage to the Castle from the City Centre and from the

town walls should be considerably improved.

F2.2 Consideration should be given to improving pedestrian movement within the study

area and linking this to interpretation signage.

F2.3 Provisions for disabled people (including blind, partly sited and those with ambulant

difficulties) must be considered in the planning of access and pedestrian facilitation in

accordance with developing statutory requirements

F2.4 The towers and rampart walkways of the Inner Bailey provide vantage points from

which the form and significance of the early fortification can be understood and

appreciated and which provide views over the city. Means should be explored to

enable visitor access to these features.

F2.5 Chester Castle especially those parts normally closed to the public should be included

in projects such as Heritage Open Days. In particular Consideration should be given

to facilitating visitor access to the fine architectural interior of the Harrison

Courtrooms within operational constraints.

Interpretation

F3 A comprehensive, coherent strategy for interpretation of the whole site should be

developed and implemented using appropriate and varied media.



F3.1 The content of historical interpretation material should convey the ‘story’ of the site

as a whole and should take into account latest research finding.

F3.2 Interpretation media (signage, displays, etc.) should be appropriate in scale, quality

and material to location and should be reviewed at intervals for condition and for

accuracy of content (see policy F4.1).

F3.3 Interpretation material should contain sufficient information on context and location

to enable appreciation of setting and relationship to extant and lost features and,

simply, to navigate the site.

F3.4 Material should refer to other complementary services, sites and collections.

F3.5 Where possible reference should be made to significant artefact collections or objects

which have strong association with the site and consideration should be given to on-

site display.

G Development Issues New Development and Change to the Existing Fabric

The scope for new building interventions or alterations without damaging the integrity of the

whole, the setting and vistas is extremely limited. However, some change to the historic

structures and spaces may be necessary to facilitate new uses or to secure the continued

viability of established occupancy which will help conserve the site.

G1 The design and construction of any new structures, alterations to historic

buildings or landscaping at Chester Castle will involve reconciling the new to the

old so that the significance of the old is preserved and enhanced, not diminished.

G1.1 The principles, promoted by English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of

Ancient Buildings, of minimum necessary intervention, reversibility, and respect for

authenticity should be applied. These principles should be balanced against the

importance and sensitivity of the buildings and the benefits of the proposal to the

conservation of the whole site.

G1.2 Any new building or extensions should be limited to development which would

support the re-use of existing structures or benefit the conservation and appreciation

of the site as a whole.

G1.3 New buildings should not be erected to accommodate uses which could reasonably be

housed in existing buildings.

G1.4 Any alteration or adaptation of existing buildings and structures must be necessary for

their re-use, represent good stewardship and support the conservation of the site as a

whole.

G2 All alterations, extensions and new structures should be well designed, of a

quality at least commensurate with the historic buildings.

G2.1 Professional consultants and contractors with a track record of sensitive work to

historic buildings and areas, and membership of the appropriate professional bodies,

should be appointed for all design work and its implementation at Chester Castle.

G2.2 Physical proposals for existing buildings should be informed by the inherent



character, form and special qualities of the building.

G2.3 New work to existing buildings should not imitate original work so closely that new

and old become confused. Substantial alterations and insertions might have a strong

character of their own while minor works should not draw attention to themselves.

G2.4 New buildings, additions or alterations should be “of their time” and should not be

capable of confusion with the original. They should complement rather than parody

existing buildings. “Solid” elements of new structures should compliment the

character of the dominant material of the adjacent historic structures.

G2.5 New utilities, mechanical and electrical services should be planned to minimise their

impact and to avoid damage to any building fabric, features, artefacts, historic

services or below ground archaeology of significance.

G2.6 Below ground services should be designed and implemented taking account of the

archaeological significance of the site.

Demolition and Removal

G3 Buildings and features identified as having a level of “significance” are all

important to the understanding of Chester Castle. It is most desirable that these

should be retained.

G3.1 Any removal of fabric must be shown to have real benefits to the wider conservation

objectives, which outweigh the loss

G3.2 A small number of buildings, features and ground surfaces are of no intrinsic value

and do not contribute to the significance of the site. These elements are identified in

the Policy guidelines for Individual Elements.

Assessment, Evaluation and Recording

G4 All buildings, artefacts, features and areas, if these are to be subject to change,

must be assessed and evaluated and recorded before design decisions for future

proposals are made.

G4.1 The results of the investigation work should inform the design and decision making

process. cross ref to PPG 15, 16

G4.2 Detailed record must be made of any part of the site which will be irreversibly

altered, lost or demolished prior to the work taking place. (See understanding)

G4.3 As built records must be made following any works of alteration and held in safe

keeping by the owner for future reference.

H Archaeology

The site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and included within the County Sites and

Monument record and the Chester City Council’s Urban Archaeology Data Base. Part of

Chester City Centre is designated an Area of Archaeological Importance, one of only five

towns in England specifically protected in this way and the Castle site is within this zone.

Archaeology is the subject of specific policies within the Chester City Local Plan.



H1 The significance of Chester Castle as a Scheduled Ancient Monument of

National importance must be respected and given due weight in future

management, maintenance and development proposals.

H1.1 There is a presumption in favour of retaining archaeological deposits, especially

those of national importance, in situ.

H1.2 The approach set out in PPG16 should be followed for all proposals affecting

archaeological features

H1.3 Any proposals for development must be informed by careful assessment and

evaluation. Mitigation through design modification to avoid damage or removal of

archaeology is to be preferred.

H1.4 Where a development proposal affecting below ground archaeology or landscape

features is accepted as of benefit to a building or structure of key significance or to

the conservation of the site as a whole, then the works should be subject to an

appropriate programme of watching and recording.

H1.5 Interpretation of the landscape and below ground archaeology is as important as the

interpretation of buildings, structures and artefacts.



5.3 Policies Guidelines for Individual Elements

5.3.1 This section of the Conservation Plan provides general guidance on the relative importance of

particular elements. It highlights thematic issues such as access and indicates a broad policy

approach covering such issues as repair, adaptability and use.

Broad policy guidance is provided for the main buildings and spaces where relevant in

relation to:

Preferred future use

Condition (not referred to if not an obvious issue)

Allowable change to fabric

Archaeology/Recording/Further Study

Zone A - The Harrison Blocks

This study is concerned with the external fabric of these buildings and structures. Internal

examination has been excluded from the Conservation Plans’ project brief)

PG1 Harrison A Block (North Wing)

PG1.1 Preferred future uses: Current uses as Regimental HQ, Military Museum, Territorial

Army local cadet unit are highly appropriate

PG1.2 Allowable change to the fabric: None to two frontage elevations. Possible the most

minor interventions to side and rear external high boundary walls to facilitate

access requirements in the event of changes in use.

PG2 Harrison Colvin House (West Wing)

PG2.1 Suitable future uses: Those that would positively assist with the appreciation of the

particular building and site as a whole without placing undue demands for servicing

and parking which could have a negative impact on the whole. New uses should:

a) be compatible with the existing structures in terms of state requirements.

b) not be prejudicial to and preferably enhance the appreciation and understanding

of the individual building and site as a whole.

c) not place undue and incompatible demands on vehicle and pedestrian access

and servicing infrastructure.

d) be environmentally acceptable in the sense that their operation does not

detrimentally impact on other established uses, for example in terms of noise

generated or times of peak use.

e) be appropriate neighbours and cooperative with the other established users of

the site and the Castle as a monument and visitor attraction. In particular

residential use is unlikely to be appropriate as this could conflict with visitor

access, attractions and events and lead to further demands for parking.(see also

PG7.1.1)

PG2.2 Ensure that the marketing and disposal of Colvin House leasehold would not

conflict with a “visitor strategy”. (In this regard residential use is unlikely to be

appropriate).



PG2.3 Allowable change to the fabric: None to two frontage elevations. Possibly the most

minor interventions to the rear external facilitate new uses.

PG3 Harrison Central Block (Shire Hall)

PG3.1 Preferred future uses: Current use as Crown Court is highly suitable.

PG3.2 Allowable change to the fabric: None to two frontage elevations. Possible most

minor interventions to side and rear to allow for low key operational change.

PG4 Harrison’s Propylaea

PG4.1 Desirable Future uses: Interpretive/security control.

PG4.2 Allowable change to the fabric: None.

PG5 Parade Ground enclosing wall and railings

PG5.1 Allowable change to the fabric: None.

PG6 Landscape immediately adjacent to parade ground enclosure

PG6.1 Allowable change to the fabric: None. Specifically the ground surface should

remain as grass with no additional landscape features which would detract from the

design or the architectural forms beyond and space within.

PG7 Parade Ground

PG7.1 Suitability/Sustainability of Current Use: Undesirable. The disposition and intensity

of car parking has an extremely detrimental effect on the impression of the whole

Castle and the views and appreciation of the Harrison Blocks in particular.

PG7.1.1 Undertake a parking and access strategy for the castle square parade ground.(see

policy C3)

PG7.2 Desirable Future uses: Event space/ open space, operational parking and service

access

PG7.3 Allowable change to the fabric: Replacement of tarmac with gravel surfaces should

be encouraged. The layout and design of ground surface must be simple and robust

and not draw attention to itself but provide a suitable setting for the architectural

composition. Stone surfaces adjacent to the buildings should be retained.

Zone B - The Inner Bailey

PG8 Agricola Tower

PG8.1 Preferred future uses: The Tower must remain open to public view. Accessibility

should be extended to the upper level. Consider enabling access to a viewing

platform at roof level. Interpretation of the whole and particularly the Chapel wall

paintings should be considerably enhanced.

PG8.2 Allowable change to the fabric: None to the early fabric. The minimum works the

necessary to secure access to the roof level should be undertaken provided that

early fabric or appearance is not compromised.



PG8.3 Condition: Evidence of water penetration must be urgently addressed. This may be

affecting the Chapel wall paintings.

PG8.4 Further Study: There is evidence of changes to roof and floor levels. The Tower

should be the subject of a detailed study analysing in detail the changes to the fabric

over its life span. A strategy for the urgent preservation of the wall paintings should

be undertaken as soon as possible.

PG8.4.1 Undertake an urgent study to assess whether the Agricola Tower frescoes are at risk

and the conservation measures required.

PG9 Guardhouse and Cell Block

PG9.1 Preferred Future uses: It would be desirable to continue and enhance the existing

historical displays and public accessibility (refer to Policy F.4). But other uses

could be considered provided these were to the benefit of the appreciation of the

site as a whole and its conservation

PG9.2 Allowable change to the fabric: Limited alteration adaptation could be considered

to facilitate change provided this was in connection with a

conservation/development strategy benefiting the whole.

PG10 Half Moon Tower and Frobisher's House

PG10.1 Preferred future use: Open the building for public access and interpretation

facilities. But other uses could be considered provided these were to the benefit of

the appreciation of the site as a whole and its conservation.

PG10.2 Allowable change to the fabric: None to the Pre 19th Cent. structural fabric of the

Half Moon Tower. The main internal components (fireplaces, architraves, shutters,

doors etc. dating from the 19th Cent. and possibly earlier should be retained.

Alteration and adaptation of the Frobisher’s House could be considered to facilitate

change provided this was in connection with a conservation/development strategy

benefiting the whole.

PG10.3 Condition: Poor. Prior to making longer term decisions about their future the

buildings should continued to be repaired and interiors better protected from

weather and pigeon infestation.

PG10.4 Further/Recording/Further Study: These structures should be the subject of a

detailed study analyzing in detail the changes to the fabric over their life span. This

should inform detailed proposals for repair and any future change. A further study

should explore possible options in connection with the use of the use of the

surrounding derelict” platform area” and Flag Tower.

PG11 Flag Tower

PG11.1 Preferred future uses: Open the building for public access and interpretation. But

other uses could be considered provided these were to the benefit of the

appreciation of the site as a whole and its conservation. Consider enabling access to

a viewing platform at roof level.

PG11.2 Allowable change to the fabric: None to any pre-19th Century structural fabric.



PG11.3 Condition: The Flag Tower almost certainly on the site of the original William I

timber keep, retains its plan form and early fabric from its reconstruction in stone in

the mid 12th century. It is in a ruinous state and demands the highest attention.

PG11.4 Further/Recording/Further Study: The Tower should be the subject of a detailed

study analyzing the changes to the fabric over its life span. This should inform

detailed proposals for repair and any future change. A further study should explore

possible development options in connection with the use of the Flag Tower together

with the surrounding derelict “platform area” and Half moon Tower.

PG12 Sally Port

PG12.1 Preferred future use: Opening up this as a access for public use could be desirable

both to aid appreciation of the early Castle and to improve pedestrian routes to and

from the Town walls.

PG12.2 Allowable change to fabric: None to the medieval structure.

PG12.3 Condition: Upper entrance archway in fair condition. Internal steps not inspected.

PG12.4 Further recording/further study: Consideration should be given to undertaking a

feasibility study to test the viability of bringing back the Sally Port into use.

Particular issue for consideration would be likely to focus on safety and security

and the means of accommodating pedestrian movement between the lower level

and the town wall. The route would not be suitable for disabled access.

PG13 Curtain Wall – Half Moon Tower to Sally Port

PG13.1 Preferred future use: Facilitating public access walkway would be a desirable

objective but to make the necessary alterations for public safety may compromise

historic fabric.

PG13.2 Allowable change to the Fabric: None to the external face of the Curtain wall. On

the internal face to the Inner Bailey there is evidence of earlier but now demolished

structures. Between the Sally Port and the Flag Tower the wall is faced with

extensive brick work. Map evidence suggests this may be 17th century but from site

inspection appears later and requires further investigation. Sympathetic change or

modification to the face which retained specific features of interest ( e.g. the 19th

century gun slits) could be allowable. Between the Flag Tower and the Half Moon

Tower the wall predominantly remains as sandstone and is likely to contain visible

medieval fabric. Traces of previous building and in particular a chimney is of

interest and should be retained.

PG13.3 Further Recording/Further Study: The rampart walkway appears in its visible form

and finishes 19th century. This could not accommodate, in safety, public access

without considerable change and modification. Consideration should be given to

commissioning a feasibility study into its archeology and whether public access

could be made possible to all or part of the walls without compromising historic

significance.

PG13.4 Condition: variable with poor sections requiring attention (refer to 1998

Quinquennial Report).



PG14 Curtain Wall South East Sections and Associated Ramped Access.

PG14.1 Preferred future use: It is important to the appreciation of the site that the rampart

walkway remains open to the public. It is also important that the access ramp

remains not only because its evidence of the historical change within the site but

also because it provides easy access to the walls and a circular route.

PG14.2 The archway linking the Curtain Wall Walkway with the Agricola Tower should be

retained.

PG14.3 Condition: Generally sound, local repairs are required (refer to 1998 Quinquennial

Report).

PG15 Inner Bailey Raised Platform

PG15.1 Preferred future Use: The space should not remain in its current derelict condition.

It should be used in conjunction with and provide a setting for the Flag and Half

Moon Towers.

PG15.2 Allowable change fabric: No historic surfaces remain worthy of preservation.

Below ground structures archaeological evidence could exist which are significant

and sensitive to change.

PG15.3 Condition: Rough ground requires hard and possibly soft landscaping to facilitate

public access. Part of the area was a garden prior to the late 18th century. This could

be reflected/referred to in the design and layout of the space although this landscape

design should not diminish importance of the historic structures.

PG15.4 Further research/study: The future of the raised platform must be considered in

relation to the future role for the Flag Tower and Half Moon Tower.

PG16 Napier House

PG16.1 Preferred future use: Any uses which would not require external alterations to the

building and which did not place demands on the external spaces within the Inner

Bailey which compromised public access to or the appreciation of the site as a

visitor attraction. In particular:

PG16.1.1 Ensure that the marketing and disposal of Napier House leasehold would not

conflict with a “visitor strategy”. (In this regard residential use is unlikely to be

appropriate).

PG16.2 Limited use could be made of the Inner Bailey spaces by a future user of Napier

House provided this did not conflict with other uses particularly visitors and the

appreciation of the Inner Bailey as a whole. The entrance to Napier House from the

Curtain Wall terrace to the south could be brought back onto use provided public

access was not compromised.

PG16.3 Allowable Change to External Fabric: None, but the most minor.

PG17 Inner Bailey Ground Surfaces and Space at rear of Agricola Tower

PG17.1 Suitability of current use: Maintenance of public pedestrian access is of key

importance to the appreciation of the site. Limited service access for vehicles

should be permitted. Parking should be discouraged other than essential operational

requirements (see policy C3).



PG17.2 Allowable Change to the Fabric: The limited area of stone paving that remains

should be retained. Consideration should be given to replacing the tarmac areas

with more appropriate and sympathetic materials. Any future design proposals for

new surfaces should consider the possibility of revealing or otherwise expressing

the early ground plan of structures within the Inner Bailey and especially the well.

Consideration should be given to the removal of the Toilet block at the east end of

the passageway at the rear of the Agricola Tower.

PG17.3 Further Recording/Further Study: Any proposal to renew the ground surfaces

should require careful removal and inspection/recording of any archaeological

evidence.

Zone C - Outer Landscape and Ancillary Buildings

PG18 The Gun Shed and Officers Stables

PG18.1 Preferred future uses: Continuation of office/storage use or the provision of

visitor/leisure facilities.

PG18.2 Allowable Change to Fabric: Minor change to facilitate new uses could be

considered.

PG19 Squash Courts and Rifle Range

PG19.1 Consideration should be given to the removal of the Squash Courts and the use of

the site in conjunction with the alternative role for the Gun sheds. The Rifle range

could be retained as an interesting reminder of an early 20th century military

building.

PG20 Driveways and Parking Areas

PG20.1 The existing parking area adjacent to the southern rampart of the Inner Bailey is

detrimental to its setting. Consideration should be given to its removal and

replacement with soft landscaping.

PG20.2 The driveway leading to the locked gated archway through the town wall and

Castle Drive is used for parking. Consideration should be given to allowing

pedestrian use to the entrance of Castle Drive in order to improve accessibility from

the Castle Drive car park. Consideration should also be given to the prohibition of

parking along the driveway to improve appearance and safety of the pedestrian

route.

PG20.3 The parking area to the west of the driveway is sufficiently distant from the castle

not to have a detrimental affect on its immediate setting. It does however, have a

negative impact on important views of the Castle as seen from the Grosvenor

Bridge and the castle wall. Any proposals for this car park should take account of

the need to maintain and enhance views of Chester Castle.

PG21 Trees and shrubs

PG21.1 The trees and shrubs adjacent to the town wall should be the subject of a

management plan. The main objective of the plan should be to allow for views of

the castle from the town wall and also to improve more distant views both to and

from the castle ramparts.



PG22 Pedestrian Access

PG22.1 No facility currently for pedestrian access from the Town walls. Consideration

should be given to enabling pedestrian access to this part of the site from the Town

walls and Castle Drive.

PG23 Grassed Areas

PG23.1 These ground areas should remain as existing in order to maintain views of the

castle and for the existence and form of the motte to be appreciated. Further tree or

shrubs planting or development which constricted views should be avoided.



5.4 Priorities

5.4.1 A Visitor Strategy

As highlighted throughout the study, certain issues need to be addressed with very

considerable urgency. This short concluding section highlights those strategic management

policies which are crucial, to the future of the Castle.

The summary of vulnerability issues highlighted the inertia that may result from the lack of a

clear vision about the sites role as a visitor destination. The condition and presentation of

much of the Inner Bailey is lamentable and Napier House, and other historic structures stand

vacant. Decisions about new uses and investment in the repair and enhancement of the fabric

are urgently required. Yet, without a clear plan for visitor use, whether it is to remain low key

or whether the site is to become a major attraction, the strategic context for decisions about

repair and bringing back buildings and spaces into use is lacking.

Policy C2 states that urgent consideration should be given to developing a “visitor strategy”

to determine the extent to which the Inner Bailey is to function as a visitor attraction. The

options could range from:

a) No visitor provision. (This would be contrary to the policies of the Conservation Plan)

b) A modest upgrading of the existing provision which should include:

(i) Improving access and interpretation for the Agricola Tower Guard House and cell

block

(ii) Landscaping and making accessible the raised platform area and securing and

maintaining and presenting the Flag and Half Moon towers and Frobisher’s House

suitable for external viewing

(iii) Enhancement of the currently accessible courtyard, ramps and walkways

c) Development of the Castle as an important visitor attraction for Chester. For example a

proposal to develop the site as an interpretive centre telling the story of medieval Chester

could involve:

(i) Bringing the Frobisher’s House and Half Moon and Flag Towers into use

(ii) An enhanced use of the Agricola Tower, Guard House and Cell Block

(iii) Enabling the public to gain access to the roof top levels of the towers and possibly

parts of the upper rampart walkways

5.4.2 Parking and Servicing Strategy

Car Parking is the other major issue in relation to the future use of vacant buildings and about

how the setting of the castle is to be enhanced. The current extent of parking within the site

raises serious conflicts. On the one hand there is the need to support the beneficial use of

historic buildings but account must also be taken of the negative impact of parking on setting

and appearance. Policy C3 calls for a parking and vehicular servicing strategy to be devised

and this is urgently required.



5.4.3 Urgent Repairs in the Inner Bailey

The report highlights the poor state of repair of structures within the Inner Bailey which are

within the Guardianship of English Heritage. Policy E1.4 proposes that urgent attention to be

given to preventing further deteriation by implementing a first time consolidation programme.

Chester Castle Conservation Plan Donald Insall Associates


APPENDIX A


Bibliography



Chester Castle Conservation Plan Bibliography

Primary sources

PRO WO44 Board of Ordnance in-letters.

PRO WO55 Board of Ordnance miscellaneous papers, including periodic reports on

Chester Castle, 1806 to 1851.

PRO WORK 14 Office of Works files

PRO SC - Special collections: Minister’s accounts

PRO SC 6/774/13-15

PRO SC 6/778/3

PRO SC 6/Hen. VIII/340, m. 7.

PRO SC 12/22/96

PRO E 101 – Exchequer, King’s Rememberancer: Accounts various

PRO E 101/486/7

PRO E 101/487/11

PRO E 101/489/21-5

PRO E 101/351/6

PRO MINT 1/6, p.62. Ches. R. O. QJB Judicial: Sessions Books

Ches. R. O. QJB 4/34-5.

Ches. R. O. QJB 13a (unfol.), Sess. 12 Apr. 33 Chas. II.

Ches. R. O. QJB 14a, ff. 68v., 92v., 141, 178, 193, 226.

Ches. R. O. QJB 15a (unfol.)

Ches. R. O. QJB 16a, ff. 3v., 15.

Ches. R. O. QJB 20a (unfol.)

Ches. R. O. QAM 3.

Ches. R. O. QAB 1/1/1, pp. 14, 21.

Ches. R. O. QAB 1/1/2.


Ches. R. O. QAB 1/8.


Ches. R. O. QAB 2/1/2-3, 9.

Ches. R. O. QAB 2/1/8, pp. 42.

Ches. R. O. QAB 2/1/43.

Ches. R. O. QAB 2/6/1-3, 12-20.

Ches. R. O. QAB 2/6/58-9.

Ches. R. O. QAB 4.

Ches. R. O. QAB 5.

Ches. R. O. QAB 6.

Ches. R. O. QAB 6/20.

Ches. R. O. QAB 6/120. Ches. R. O. EDD 16/120 p.53.

HDT Title Deeds

Ches. R. O. HDT 136.



Ches. R. O. HDT 2356.

Ches. R. O. SF/Chester Castle.

Chester City R.O. CR 63/2/120.

Chester City R.O. MR 3, m. 1.

Chester Castle Rebuilding Act, 1788, 28 Geo. III, c. 82.

Chester Castle Goal Act, 1807, 47 Geo. III, Sess. 2, C. 6.

B.L. Harl. MS. 2149, f. 172v.

B.L. Harl. MS. 2073, f. 101.

B.L. Harl. MS. 2002, ff. 7-8.

B.L. Harl. MS. 2091, ff. 311-19

B.L. Harl. MS. 7568, f. 131.

Cal. Pat. 1232-47, 184-5, 188-9, 240, 244.

Cal. Pat. 1247-58, 272.

Cal. Pat. 1258-66, 397, 416, 487.

Cal. Pat. 1307-13, 427.

Cal. Pat. 1321-4, 194.

Cal. Pat. 1327-30, 271, 411.

Cal. Pat. 1381-5, 265.

Cal. Pat. 1441-6, 1.

Cal. Pat. 1272-81, 169.

Cal. Pat. 1391-6, 433.

Cal. Pat. 49.

Cal. Close 1313-18, 505.

Cal. Close 1323-7, 450.

Cal. Close 1327-30, 142, 288.

Cal. Close 1272-9, 141.

Cal. Close 1307-13, 187, 294.

Cal. Close 1288-96, 425, 482

Cal. Close 142, 169.

Cal. Lib. 1226-40, 294, 348.

Cal. Lib. 1240-5, 70, 311.

Cal. Lib. 1245-51, 30.

Cal. Lib. 1245-51, 134.

Cal. Lib. 258.

Cal. Lib. 29, 73, 170, 223.

Cal. Fine R. 1232-1307, 189.

Cal. Fine R. 1327-1337, 100.



Cal. Chart. R. 1257-1300, 54, 282-3.

Cal. Chart. R. 1256-1300, 268.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1547-80, 630, 633, 636, 669, 673; 1581-90, 30.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1645-7, 526, 529, 563.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1652-3, 303, 474, 478, 1655, 256, 1656, 186.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1661-2, 49, 423, 435-6, 442, 452, 492, 498, 565, 570.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1672, 425, 471,1675-6, 521.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1679-81, 364, 143, 147, 153.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1687-9, 76

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1693, 31, 1694-5, 312.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 680, 1581-90, 1603-10, 315, 363.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1648-9, 183.

Cal. S.P. Dom. 1651-2, 92, 168, 454, 457, 473.

Cal. Treas. Bks. 1689-62, 1301, 1700-1, 319.

Cal. Treas. Bks. 1681-5, 179, 196, 248.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 27-8, 36-7.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 71, 76, 78-9, 81.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 113, 117, 120, 123-5

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 149.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 172, 208.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 2-3

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 45, 166.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 94-5.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 38, 52, 54, 59.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 88, 98-99, 177, 179, 209-10, 219.

Ches. In Pipe Rolls 164, 176, 181, 165, 173, 176, 210.

Sources

Cheshire Sheaf, 1st series vol 1. 1880.

Cheshire Sheaf, 3rd

series, vol II, 1898, pgs 16, 33, 47-48.

Adam of Usk Chronicon,ed. Thompson, E.M. pgs 27-8, 176-9*

Beck, J. Tudor Cheshire pg 19, 1969

Boughton, P Picturesque Chester, 1997

Borenius, T, and

Tristram, E.

English Medieval Painting. Paris, 1972

Brown, R.

Stewert.

‘The Accounts of the Chamberlains and other officers of the county of

Chester’ 1301-1360

Carrington, P The English Heritage Book of Chester. London: Batsford English Heritage

1994

Cather, S, D

Park & R Pender

‘Henry III’s Wall Paintings at Chester Castle’, Medieval Archaeology, Art

and Architecture at Chester, A Thacker (ed.), British Archaeological

Association Conference Transactions XXII, 2000, pp. 170-189.

Chester Record

Office

Constables of Chester Castles.



Childs, J The Army, Jas.II and the Glorious Revolution, pg 9.

Colvin, H (gen.

Ed.)

History of the King’s Works,

Vol. 2, The Middle Ages, London, 1962

Vol. 3, 1485-1660, Pt. 1, London, 1975

Vol. 4, 1485-1660, Pt. 2, London, 1982

Crook, J M ‘Architecture of Thomas Harrison, II’, Country Life, 22nd

April 1971, pgs

946-7

Crook, J M ‘A Most Classical Architect: The Architecture of Thomas Harrison’, Country

Life, April 22, 1971, pp. 944-7.

Crouch, D ‘Administration of Norman Earldom’, J.C.A.S, lxxi, pgs 69-95, 1991

Davison, B. ‘Early earthwork Castles: a New Model’, Chateau Gaillard Conference in

Castle Studies pg 37-46*

Driver, J.T. Cheshire in the later Middle Ages, 1971.

Ellis, P & others Excavations at Chester: Chester Castle, The Seventeenth-Century Armoury

and Mint, Chester, 1996.

Beeston Castle, Cheshire. London, English Heritage 1993

Emory, G. Curious Chester. Chester, 1999

Geddes, W. ‘Chester Mint’, T.H.S.L.C cvii, pgs 12-17

Hewitt, H.J. ‘Cheshire under the Three Edwards. A history of Cheshire Vol.5, 1967,

Cheshire Community Council.

Hough, P. ‘Excavations at Beeston Castle’ J.C.A.S. lxi, pg 2

Howard, J. State of Prisons, (1780 ed), pgs 400-403

de Lavaux, Alex A plan of the Castle of Chester circa 1745, with additional new works erected

by the Rt Hon, The Earl of Cholmondely

Manning, T & S

Stewart

Wall Painting Condition Audit: Chester Castle, Cheshire, English Heritage

Ancient Monuments Laboratory, 1997.

McNiven, P. Cheshire Rising of 1400, Bull. John Ryland’s Library pgs 387-9, 1970

Moore, E J &

Moore, CN

The Mint at Chester for the great recoinage of 1696-1698. Seaby Coin and

Medal Bull 754, 160-6

Morrill, J.S. Cheshire 1630-60, pgs 128-138, 1974

Morris, J.E Welsh Wars of Edward I, pgs 115,118-120, 1901

Morris, R.H Chester In Plantagenet & Tudor Reigns. 1894

Ockrim, M ‘Thomas Harrison and the Rebuilding of Chester Castle: A History and

Reassessment’, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, 66, 1983.

Orderic Vitalis Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. M.Chibnall, 236-7*

Pennant, T Tours in Wales (1784), pg 206

Prestwich, M. War, Politics and Finance under Edward I, pgs 30, 119-120, 157*

Prestwich, M. ‘English Castles in Reign of Edward II’, Jnl. Medieval History, pgs 159-178

Peter, Ellis. [ed] Excavations at Chester; Chester Castle. ‘The 17thC Armoury & Mint’,

Simpson, F

‘Chester Castle, AD 907-1925’, Journal of the Architectural, Archaeological

and Historical Society, Chester and North Wales, new series, Vol. XXVI, pt.

2, pp. 71-132, 1925

Studd, R ‘The Lord Edward’s Lordship of Chester’, T.H.S.L.C. CXXVIII. Pg 1-25,

1979

Thacker, A ‘Chester’, Chester 1900,ed Kennet, A.M, pgs 13-16*

Thacker, A.T.

(ed)

‘The Earldom of Chester and its Charters’, J.C.A.S. Vol 71, 1991

Thacker, A

forthcoming

Chester Castle. In: Thack, A T & Lewis, C eds. A History of the County of

Chester 5: the city of Chester. London: Oxford UP for University of

London Institute of Historical Research. (Victoria History of the Counties of

England)



* (References marked * are made in secondary sources and have not been directly

researched as part of this study.)

Theses, Dissertations and Unpublished Reports

Hore, J The Environs of Chester Castle, University of Liverpool, unpublished

Diploma in Landscape History, 1984.

Buttress Fuller

Alsop Williams

for English Heritage, Chester Castle Quinqennial Inspection November

1998

Drivers Jonas Chester Castle Area study for Chester City Council in 1995

Croom, J Chester Castle County Gaol, unpublished report for RCHME, 1996

Manning, T and

Steward, S

Wall Painting Condition Audit, Chester Castle, Cheshire, Ancient

Monuments Laboratory Report 33/97

Ockrim, M The Life and Work of Thomas Harrison of Chester, 1744-1829, Courtauld

Institute of Art, unpublished PhD, 1988.

Maps Referred to

1682-4 Staffordshire Record Office, DW1778 V III/0/4

1725 British Museum, Kings MS map, ix – 8a

1741 Cheshire Record Office 931/1057; copy of the 1725 map

1740’s Cheshire Record Office 931/1060; copy dated 1775

1748 Cheshire Record Office 931/1061

1769 Cheshire Record Office 931/1058

c1857 Cheshire Record Office QAB 6/49

Paintings in Grosvenor Museum

Nichoson, Francis (1753-1844) Chester Castle & Skinners Yard 1936.89

Griffith, Moses (1747-1819) Old county hall at Chester Castle 1939.328

Griffith, Moses (1747-1819) Chester Castle, Outer Bailey 1939.329

Griffith, Moses (1747-1819) Chester Castle, Outer Gateway 1939.330

Batenham, William (fl.1813-

1830)

Chester Castle 1942.286.2

Byrne, William (1743-1805) The south-west corner of Chester

Castle

1942.291

Chester Castle Pl.1 Cc 298.42

Metcalf Chester Castle 1942.294

‘Chester Castle Pl.1’ 1942.299.1

‘Chester Castle Pl.2’ 1942.299.2

Pickering, George (1794-1857) Chester Castle, Cheshire 1942.307

Bailey, T Chester Castle 330a,52,43.

Harrison, Thomas (1744-1829) Castle Portico 1952.95

Chester Castle 245.A.1954

Buck, Nathaniel (after 1696-

before 1779)

Chester Castle, 1727 1954.265.3



Gaesty, John (active 1850-82) Chester Castle & Savings Bank 1956.18.4

Buck, Nathaniel (1696-1779) Chester Castle from the North west,

1727

1956.38

Buck, Samuel Chester Castle (from N.W) 36.A.1958

Baas, R B Skinner’s Yard, 1824 100.A.1958

Pether, Henry (1828-1865) Chester Castle by Moonlight 1959.7

Unknown (early 19th century) The Propylaeum, Chester Castle 1959.9

Varley, John (1778-1842) Chester Castle & Skinners’ Yard 1959.50

Cuitt, George Chester Castle 148.A.1360

Picken, Thomas (d.1870) Chester Castle & old bridge- from

new bridge

1960.148.22

Buck, S & N NW view of Chester Castle 148.A.60

Cuitt Jnr, George (1779-1854 Chester Castle from Castle street 1960.148.111

Cuitt Jnr, George (1779-1854) Chester Castle from Nun’s Gardens 1960.148.115

Stuart, J Outer Castle Gateway 1962.83

Romney, John (1786-1863) Chester Castle 1963.31.10

Cuitt Jnr, George (1779-1854) Chester Castle from the Dee, 1815 1963.54.2

Batenham, G Chester Castle 1777 54.A.1963

Rayner, Louise (1832-1924) Chester Castle 1965.184

‘Drawaza’ Chester Castle from the North, 1772 1965.235

Godfrey, S (18th century) Chester Castle 1965.236

Batenham Chester Castle 255.A.1965

Pike, Joseph Chester Castle 87.A.1967

Evans & Gresty (active 1854-

60)

Chester Castle, Barracks & Assize

courts

1973.32.6

Cox, David Chester Castle from across the Dee 151.A.1975

Harrison, Thomas (1744-1829) Preliminary designs for the

Propylaeum, Chester Castle

1975.168.15

Harrison, Thomas (1744-1829) Railings opposite Chester Castle 1975.168.17

Haghe, Louis (1806-95) The Castle & St

Bridgets’ Church 1979.19

Tasker, William (1808-1852) Procession of High Sheriff passing

Chester Castle, March 1845

1980.74

de Lavaux, Alexander (fl.1745) Plan of Chester Castle 52.A.1987

Cook, Mark (1868-c1934) Chester Castle & the river Dee 1989.103

Howard, Bernard L (b 1924) County Hall, Chester, 1994 1994.15

Evans, Neale T (b 1926) Chester Castle 1996 1996.570

Havell, F J (1810-1840) Shire Hall, Chester Castle, 1836 1998.154

Cheshire Sites & Monuments Record

Record Number Site Name

3007 / 1 / 0 Chester Castle

3007 / 1 / 1 Chester Castle- Inner Bailey

3007 / 1 / 2 Chester Castle- Gatehouse, Inner Bailey

3007 / 1 / 3 Chester Castle- Guard Tower, Inner Bailey

3007/ 1 / 4 Chester Castle- Half Moon Tower

3007 / 1 / 5 Chester Castle- Flag Tower, Inner Bailey

3007 / 1 / 6 Chester Castle- East Range, Inner Bailey

3007 / 1 / 7 Chester Castle- Agricola Tower Inner Bailey



3007 / 1 / 8 Chester Castle- Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 9 Chester Castle- Gatehouse, Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 10 Chester Castle- East Range, Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 11 Chester Castle- East Range, Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 12 Chester Castle- Great Chapel- Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 13 Chester Castle- Tower, East Range, Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 14 Chester Castle-Tower, West Range outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 15 Chester Castle- Stables, Outer Bailey

3007 / 1 / 16 Chester Castle- Garden



APPENDIX B


Full Chronology



FULL CHRONOLOGY

Botanical evidence suggests a densely forested environment dominated by lime and oak

woodland. Worked stone tools (microliths) manufactured by Hunter-gatherers have been found in

the area.

c.4400-2500BC Palaeobotanical evidence suggests some woodland clearance confined to

river valleys, flood plains and terraces, though there is little evidence for

cultivation in the Chester area at this time. Worked stone tools (polished

axe heads) have been found in the area.

c.2500-1250BC Palaeobotanical evidence suggests a wooded environment with small

local clearances probably given over to cereal cultivation. Clearance

increasing during the latter part of the period to the extent that some parts

of the landscape became permanently open.

c.1250BC-AD43 Desertion of many upland settlements due worsening climate and soil

exhaustion. The beginnings of hilltop enclosures (hill forts). Late Iron age

pottery (VCP) has been recovered from Chester, and pre-Roman plough

marks were observed at a site on Frodsham street.

AD

43 Roman invasion of Britain.

c.74 A small auxiliary fort may have been established at Chester to oversee

the lead/silver mines in Flintshire.

c.79 The Roman legionary fortress of Deva was established at Chester by

Legio II Adiutrix Pia Fidelis.

c.88 Legio XX Valeria Victrix are stationed at Chester.

c.100 The defences are partially reconstructed in stone.

c.120-160 Most of the men in Legio XX are detached to serve on the Hadrianic and

Antonine frontiers of northern Britain. Chester serving as a military

depot.

c.160 Legio XX return to Chester, reconstruction of barrack blocks and other

buildings in stone.

197 Legio XX used to support the governor of Britain (Claudius Albinus) in

his bid for the imperial throne.

c.200 Some of the towers and gateways were rebuilt.

287-93 Last mention of Legio XX, this time supporting Carausius in a bid for the

imperial throne.

c. 300 The north wall of the fortress was extensively repaired.



c.402 Roman coinage ceases to reach Roman Britain.

410 The Roman emperor Honorius abandoned responsibility for the defence

of Britain.

603 A synod of the British clergy may have been held at Chester.

616 The battle of Chester fought between the kingdoms of Powys and

Northumbria.

689 The founding of St.John’s church at Chester.

875 The relics of St. Werburgh are brought to Chester from Hanbury

(Staffordshire).

893-4 A Danish army wintered at Chester.

907 A royal burh is established at Chester by Aethelflaed, Lady of the

Mercians.

970 A hoard of silver pennies was buried in a jar on Castle Esplanade.

1070 Motte and Bailey Castle founded by William the Conqueror.

1159-60 £102.7s.6d. spent on the work of the castle during the minority of Earl

Hugh. £20 spent on the rebuilding of the castle bridge.

c.1210 The Agricola Tower is built as the bailey gatehouse with a first floor

chapel, decorated with wall paintings.

c.1230-40 The Agricola Tower chapel is given a second coat of wall paintings of

very high quality and focused on the Virgin.

1237 The end of the independent earldom, the castle is taken over by the

crown, and remains the administrative centre of the palatinate.

1241-5 Henry III uses the castle as a base for his campaigns in Wales, and an

‘oriel’ is constructed before the doorway of the King’s chapel. The castle

was used as a goal from this time.

1245 The King’s apartments were repaired, the paintings in the Queen’s

chamber renewed and a bridge made from the castle into the orchard.

1246-8 Henry III builds a new chamber over a cellar at a cost of £220.

1247-51 Henry III replaces the wooden palisade round the Outer Bailey with a

stonewall.

1249-53 Henry III demolishes the hall in the Outer Bailey and builds a new Great

Hall at a cost of £350.



1251-67 Prince Edward uses the castle as a base for his campaigns against the

Welsh.

1264 The castle is acquired by Simon de Montfort after the battle of Lewes.

1265 The castle is held by Lucas de Taney (the justiciary appointed by Simon

de Montfort) and besieged by Prince Edward's men (James de Audley

and Urian de Saint Pierre) for 10 weeks, prior to its surrender.

1275-7 Edward I stayed at the castle while awaiting Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’s

response to his summons to do homage. The King’s houses in the Outer

Bailey were renovated for the Earl of Warwick and given a new chapel.

1282-3 The castle is used as a base for Edward I’s second campaign in Wales.

Prince Llywelyn’s brother David and 5 squires were held hostage in the

castle goal.

1284-91 Edward I adds new chambers for the King and Queen, as well as a stable

and carries out repairs to the King’s houses at a cost of £1,400.

1292-3 Edward builds a new outer gatehouse at a cost of £318.

1294 The castle is used as a base for Edward I’s third campaign in Wales.

1296 Six scots taken at the battle of Dunbar were held in the castle goal.

1299 Ten ceiling corbels in the King’s great chamber were coloured, and

William of Northampton adorned the lesser chapel near the great hall

with a depiction of the murder of Thomas Becket.

1301 The chapel in the Agricola Tower is converted into a treasury.

1310 The shire hall was removed to a new position just outside the main gate

of the Outer Bailey.

1322 The castle is granted to Edward II’s favourite Hugh Despenser the

younger.

1326 After Despenser’s fall the castle reverted to the crown.

1327 Castle in the custody of Thomas of Warwick, and orders issued for its

provisioning and repair.

1328 The justice of Chester’s deputy had a hall, chamber and new kitchen in

the Inner Bailey.

1329 A new attilliator (weapons maker) was appointed.

1337 100 yards of wall had to be rebuilt, and repairs were undertaken on the

constable’s hall and other buildings of the inner ward as well as the

bridges leading to the two gatehouses.



1347 Gonkes Chapel, Damory Tower, the Great Chapel, the Great Hall and

several other chambers were all in disrepair.

1353-5 £170 spent on the repair of the Inner Bailey wall.

1355 A new exchequer was built within the castle.

1374-96 The office of master mason at the castle lapsed.

1397 the office of Keeper of the King’s artillery in Cheshire and Flintshire is

first mentioned.

1399 Henry Bolingbroke stays at the castle twice. Sir Piers Legh of Lyme was

executed at the castle by the Duke of Lancaster.

1400 The castle is successfully defended by the Chamberlain of Chester, the

County Sheriff and the Constable, from a siege during the Earl’s Rising.

The castle was garrisoned by 8 men-at-arms and 35 archers.

1401 The exchequer is moved to a building adjoining the shire hall, just

outside the castle.

1404 The castle was garrisoned by 8 archers.

1422-61 Henry VI spent an average of £25 a year on the maintenance of the

castle, under the control of a master mason and master carpenter.

1441 The jailors of the castle and Northgate, Rockley and Rooley fought

together on the Roodee.

1447 Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, was detained at the castle for practising

the King’s death.

1474 Edward, Prince of Wales (Being only 5), was conveyed to the castle at

Christmas with much pomp.

1495 Henry VII appointed a new master mason and again spent c. £25 a year

on maintenance.

1506 A charter was passed to maintain the castle’s independence from the city.

1511 £272 was spent on repairs to the great hall, gatehouses and shire hall.

1536 The castle became a base for the County justices.

1577-82 The Great Hall is rebuilt at a cost of £650, to house the shire court. The

parliament chamber to the south was also reconditioned to house the

exchequer court.

1579-81 The castle provided supplies and lodgings for soldiers before they

embarked for Ireland, during the revolt.



1585 On St.Andrew’s day the castle bridge fell down killing two horse and

some cattle transporting coal. In addition, 16 pirates were committed to

the castle goal for taking a ship out of Wirral.

1613 500 marks was spent on the castle.

1624 A survey of the castle was undertaken for the county justices.

1627-8 The Earl’s representatives reluctantly paid for repairs, including a new

bridge into the castle.

1636 The castle was condemned as old and ruinous.

1642-6 The castle was a royalist headquarters during the siege of Chester, with a

garrison commanded by a military governor. It escaped physical damage

and in 1646 surrendered with all its arms, ordnance and ammunition

intact.

1646-59 The castle was a supply base for parliamentary troops in Ireland, with a

garrison under a military governor.

1651 The castle goal was full of royalist prisoners after the battle of

Worcester. The Earl of Derby tried to escape but was recaptured upon

Dee bank.

1655 The principal gentry of the county were sent as prisoners to the castle,

under suspicion of being disaffected with Cromwell’s government.

1659 Castle put into a state of defence during the rising of Sir George Booth,

and shots were exchanged with royalists who had entered the city.

1660-2 Governor and garrison removed from the castle. Much of the outer

gatehouse fell down, and cost of repairs was estimated at £860 by John

Shaw the county surveyor. A garden was created in the Inner Bailey for

the judges to walk in at the Assize.

1662 Sir Theophilus Gilbey was granted a warrant to enlist and arm 60 foot

soldiers to be kept under array at the castle. Sir Evan Lloyd was

appointed governor. A survey of the castle estimated the cost of repairs at

£5,000.

1662-4 Just over £546 was spent on repairs to the castle.

1666 Fears of an uprising among disaffected parliamentarians stimulated the

King to order the proceeds of the local mize to be paid to the governor for

additional repairs.

1680 Sir Geoffrey Shakerley was governor and was ordered to disband the foot

company garrisoning the castle. By 1681 there were only three gunners

remaining.



1682-6 The Duke of Monmouth visited the castle and issued a new commission

to Shakerley to act as governor, and a new garrison was installed. The

men were quartered in public houses and private dwellings, and the castle

received a Roman Catholic chaplain.

1687 James II visited the castle and heard mass. At this time the castle was

garrisoned by 8 companies of soldiers from Ireland and a newly

appointed furbisher. The castle received a new armoury and Frobishers

shop.

1689 Peter Shakerley was replaced as governor by Sir John Morgan, who

requested two new companies of 100 men. A gun platform was built.

1690 The castle was used in the transport of soldiers to Ireland to repress the

Jacobites. The roof of the exchequer court and protonotary’s office were

repaired.

1691 Repairs to the armoury included 62 yards of brick walling, also the Flag

Tower and Half-moon Tower were re-rooved.

1694 A company of c. 90 invalids was drawn out of Chelsea hospital to

garrison the castle.

1696-8 The castle received a mint for William III’s recoinage. This was staffed

by a comptroller (the astronomer Edmond Halley), a warden, master,

assayer and 5 other officials. It issued half-crowns, shillings and

sixpences.

1714-27 Military stores and ordnance were removed to the Tower of London.

1715-17 500 Jacobite prisoners were brought to the castle after the government’s

victory at Preston.

1728 The castle was commanded by a governor and two companies of invalid

soldiers.

1745 Castle under threat of attack by the Jacobites. George Earl of

Cholmondeley put Chester in a state of defence, repairing the castle’s

defences and adding raised batteries in the inner and outer wards and a

raised platform with a parapet southeast of the great hall. The military

architect Alexander de Levaux was engaged to draw up a plan to

strengthen the fortifications, but the work was never carried out.

1760-86 A large portion of the curtain wall of the Inner Bailey behind the

armoury fell down. Repair work included the reconstruction of Lord

Cholmondeley’s battery.

1785 Quarter sessions ordered the rebuilding of the goal, and this was awarded

to Thomas Harrison. Captain G French ascended in Lunardi’s balloon

from the castle yard.



1788 Harrison demolished the exchequer and constables house, then built the

prison and southern parts of the main block.

1789 A passage with a new gateway was opened into the upper ward, and

consent was given for the outer gatehouse to be removed and replaced by

a new arch and guardrooms.

1791 The exchequer, grand jury room, protonotary’s office and prisoners’

wards had all been finished.

1794-9 The main block including the shire hall, portico and prison chapel were

finished.

1802 5 prisoners broke out of the castle on March 31st.

1803 The Militia were called up on April 4th and assembled at the castle.

1804 The inner gatehouse, Square Tower and part of the curtain wall of the

Inner Bailey were demolished and a new armoury block was erected in

their place.

1805 5 convicts made their escape from the castle.

1806-10 Another block housing the barracks, provost cells and exchequer court

was erected on the north side of the outer ward. A ditch faced with a

stone wall was constructed round the castle yard.

1811-13 A new Doric gateway (propylaeum) was constructed.

1814 May 28th, William Wilson was executed at the castle for setting fire to a

barn in Tiverton.

1818 The Agricola Tower is refaced in sandstone.

1826 The military hospital on Castle Street was erected by William Cole the

younger.

1831-6 Demolition of the officers’ barracks and judges’ lodgings in the

southeast range of the inner ward, to make way for a new armoury

and Napier House. Harrison’s ‘B’ block converted into

accommodation for officers and judges.

1846 The guardroom in the upper bailey was constructed.

1849-50 Castle garrisoned by the 46th

Foot (became 2nd

Bn The Duke of

Cornwall’s Light Infantry).

1860-70 Castle garrisoned by a company from a regiment stationed in

Manchester.

1865 The prison was found inadequate by visiting justices.



1867 The Liverpool Fenians planned an attack on the castle, and the

garrison was reinforced by three additional companies from

Manchester, local volunteers and several hundred men from

London and Aldershot.


Bn. The Rifle Brigade; 81st foot RHQ

(became 2nd

Bn. The Loyal Regt. North Lancashire); one company

of 54th

Foot 2nd

Bn. The Dorsetshire Regt.


Foot, King’s Own Royal Regiment

(Lancaster). ‘Larry’ the regimental bear had to be shot having

sustained injuries while jumping through the window of a moving

train when the regiment was leaving Chester in 1871.

1871-3 Castle garrisoned by the 2nd

Bn. 14th

Foot The West Yorkshire

Regiment (Prince of Wales’ Own).

1873 The open ball alley was converted into straw sheds.

1875-7 Harrison’s main block in the lower ward was altered to include a

new Nisi Prius Court, designed by T.M.Lockwood.

1877 The prison was transferred to the crown.

1878 The guardroom cells in the upper bailey were constructed.

1882 The castle became the depot for the 22nd

(Cheshire) Regiment.

1884 The prison was closed to civil prisoners.

1891 Protonotary’s office converted to a council chamber for the new

county council

1892 The exchequer court was transferred to the War Department, and

the site of the prison became a drill ground for the local volunteer

artillery.

1899-1902 The Cheshire and Cearnarvonshire Artillery Volunteers used the

straw sheds in the castle ditch to house their 40-pounder guns

1900-02 The prison buildings were demolished.

1903 The artillery corps received new QF 4.7in. guns.

1904 The straw sheds were converted into dining halls for the men.



1921 The Agricola Tower chapel ceased to be used as the magazine. The

miniature rifle range was constructed. The fire engine shed in front

of the Agricola Tower was taken down.

1922 Harrison’s barrack block was restored. The site of the well in the

upper bailey was uncovered and the water “found to be of excellent

quality”, subsequently recovered with a York stone slab. 21 lime

trees along the southeast side of the rifle range were planted.

1923 An extensive conservation programme was undertaken on the wall

paintings in the Chapel of the Agricola Tower by the Office of

Works.

1938 B block (Colvin House) became the Machine Gun Training Centre.

1939-57 The site of the prison was used to build the new county hall.

1958 RHQ Cheshire Regiment took over ‘A’ block on the formation of

Infantry Brigade Depots.

1972 Part of ‘A’ block was made into the regimental museum.

1979-82 Excavation and building recording in the inner bailey, directed by

Peter Hough for the Department of the Environment (now English

Heritage).

1992-3 Investigation and conservation of wall paintings in the Chapel of

the Agricola Tower, undertaken by English Heritage and the

Courtauld Institute.

1997 Colvin House ceased to function as the Garrison Officers’ Mess.

1999 The HQ for the Army Medical Services TA left Napier House.



APPENDIX C


Ecology Report

by

Colin Hayes

of

Ecology First



APPENDIX D


Study Plans (as per Gazetteer)

Chester Castle Conservation Plan Vol I

Documents

Transcript of Chester Castle Conservation Plan Vol I