Location - WordPress.com · Web viewTable 11.1. Summary of the significant views within, from,...

11. Area 1C: North-west parkland

LocationArea 1C comprises the north-western part of the parkland. It consists of the fields to the west and north of the folly, and also includes the tree belt beyond (Figure 11.1).

Area 1C borders Areas 6A to the east, 1B to the south-east, and 1A to its south.

Figure 11.1. Area 1C, comprising the north-western parkland. The aerial photograph dates from 2007. Source: NT.

Character of the areaArea 1C forms an important backdrop to the views into the North Park, in particular forming an appropriate background to the folly. The area is enclosed to the west and north with a dense and thick tree belt, excluding any views beyond. This provides for an enclosed feel, creating the park landscape within the belts’ boundaries.

Wimpole’s Registered Park: Tree Planting Plan – Area 1C

The very open and treeless nature of the large-sized arable fields does, however, provide for a somewhat uncomfortable contrast with the fields to the south-east and to the south of the lakes, which are considerably smaller in size, are down to pasture, and still have a good number of in-field trees (Figure 11.2).

The inside of the northern tree belt, the highest part of the area, - and one of the highest parts of the whole estate - provides for splendid views to the folly, to the Hall, over the entire estate and onto the distant Hertfordshire ridge further south.

The southern end of the area borders onto the woodland surrounding the former Upper Lake (Area 1A).

The boundary with Area 1B is formed by a ditch with an overgrown hedgerow to its east, the southern half of which has been partly cleared and with some new trees added in 2011, including three Black Poplars. Further to the north, the boundary with Area 1B consists of a fence line, with several standing trees along this in its western part, and the edge of the woodland behind the folly and Johnson’s Pond.

A ditch runs uphill to the northern tree belt in a north-eastern direction, starting at the north-western corner point of Area 1B; this ditch separates the two arable fields within Area 1C. There are many small shrubs and trees in this ditch and on its steep banks, primarily young Elm suckers. A footpath runs alongside the ditch to its east.

The north-eastern point of Area 1C is formed by a distinct southern spur in the tree belt, with an associated ditch within it. This forms the boundary between Brown’s c1770 tree belt to the west and Emes’s and Repton’s 1790s - 1800s belts to the east (which are part of Area 6A). There is currently no formal boundary between areas 1C and Area 6A, the former field boundary having been ploughed out in the 20th century and turned into one continuous arable field. The boundary is, however, visible as a crop mark: on the former field boundary the crop grows considerably taller.

The tree belt consists of a relatively wide strip of woodland, with a mixture of mature and younger trees. Although the belt is dominated by relatively young regrowth, the western range also contains several trees from the original planting around 1770: several Beech and Horse Chestnuts and Small-leaved Limes. Mature Limes are particularly prevalent in the north-western part of the belt; further east they disappear almost entirely. There is a wide carriage drive running through the centre of the tree belt.


Figure 11.2. Aerial photograph (from 2007) of Area 1C. This shows the arable nature, as well as the very large size of the fields in Area 1C, in sharp contrast with the character of the Folly Field.

Designations and other constraints- The whole area falls within the Grade I Park and Garden.- The whole area is part of the setting of the Grade I listed Hall.- The area is part of the setting of the Grade II* Gothic Folly.- The Belts are part of a large SSSI, the ‘Eversden and Wimpole Woods Site of

Special Scientific Interest’, designated for the presence of Barbastelle bat maternity roosts.

- All the tree belts are under the Forestry Commission’s Woodland Management Grant Scheme. Some coppicing and thinning is scheduled in some of the belt compartments until 2015.

- Wimpole Park is designated as a County Wildlife Site.- Both arable fields are tenanted (Richard Parrish).- The paths through The Belts are permissive footpaths.


Known and likely future developmentsNo developments are known for this area, although an increase of public use of this area is expected, due to the promotion of the parkland through the ‘Visitor Experience Plan’ (in development). As a result, an increase of use for walking and cycling could be expected, potentially resulting in increased wear-and-tear and higher erosion levels.

There is also a long-standing wish to incorporate the arable fields in this area back into the NT’s working farm. The current tenant is due to retire within the next few years, making this a feasible option in the near future.

Historical development of the area and its treesIn 1638, at the time when Hare’s map was produced, Area 6A consisted of a range of fields and paths, well outside the then estate boundaries (Figures 11.3 and 11.4). Quenden Way has remained as a field boundary: it now forms the ditch separating Areas 1B from Area 1C and which continues within Area 1C towards the northern tree belt.

Figure 11.3. Interpretative map of the 1638 Hare map for Area 1C and surrounds. This shows the large number of individual plots and strips, previous to the incorporation of this landscape within the estate. Bushie Avenells is where the fish ponds would be dug later in the 17th century. Quernden Way is at the location of the ditch within Area 1C. Source: CMP 2006 (draft), figure 1B.


Figure 11.4. Part of the 1638 map superimposed on the 2007 LiDar image for Area 1C and surrounds. Although the size of the individual fields has grown enormously, this shows nevertheless that the main field boundaries and paths were largely reutilised in later landscape changes. Source: S. Damant.

The 1707 Kip engraving shows the landscape after the extensive late 17th century changes. The main north axis has by now been established, making use of the steep slopes to the north of the Hall (Figure 11.5). The hills themselves are already shown as providing an appropriate backdrop to the garden design, forming a distant enclosure. In essence, these hills and their southern slopes still function in the same way; the difference is the gradual development of the belts, further accentuating the distinct ridge line. The drawing also shows that the garden and landscape works did not extend beyond the river, with the landscape between the river and the hills to the north shown as fields with some hedgerows.

Figure 11.5. Part of Kip’s 1707 engraving. This shows the river as a wooded line running beyond the formal gardens, with the designed landscape clearly contained within (except for the central north axis, the north avenue). Beyond the river, the landscape is shown as containing fields, separated by hedgerows, with the hills beyond. Source: Adshead 2007, figure 3.


Bridgeman’s work during the 1720s further established the main north axis. His proposal map also shows the situation of the two fish ponds with their surrounding grove, the late 17th century precursor to Brown’s lakes with its Pleasure Grounds (Figure 11.6). Part of this grove would be reused in Brown’s Pleasure Grounds and tree belts (Figure 11.7).

Figure 11.6. Part of Bridgeman’s c1721 proposal map for Area 1C and surrounds. This map also shows the late 17th century fish ponds and surrounding woodland grove. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 11.7. Bridgeman’s c1721 map superimposed on the 1886 1st edition OS map for Area 1C and surrounds. Radnor’s late 17th century grove around the fish ponds was partly absorbed into Brown’s woodland belt. The map also shows how the shapes of the fields, which go back to at least 1638, have largely remained the same through time. Source: CMP 2006 (draft), figure 25a.

This part of the landscape would receive very little change until Lancelot’s Brown’s involvement in the late 1760s and early 1770s. A ‘before’ map of the North Park from


c1767 shows, essentially, the same situation as had been created after Bridgeman’s involvement (Figure 11.8).

Figure 11.8. The c1767 ‘before’ sketch of the North Park, attributed to Brown. This shows that the area had essentially remained the same since Bridgeman’s involvement here. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 11.9. Part of Brown’s c1767 proposal map for the North Park. This shows his intentions for a continuous ride, both within, as well as on the inside of the tree belt. The tree clumps placed on the inside of the tree belt – marked on this map as evergreens -, placed along a double row of trees outlining the inner ride, would provide for a range of framed views along this ride. Particular viewing points, where the ride through the belt opens up to the parkland, are indicated in the south-west, mid-west and north-west of the map. Except for a dense clump to the west of the folly, it seems that Brown intended this part of the area to be devoid of trees. Source: Adshead 2007.

Lancelot Brown is responsible for instigating the creation of the North Parkland as we know it today. He took the whole of Johnson’s Hill inside the designed landscape and created a new park circuit beyond. Tree belts were placed to the west and north,


surrounding the open parkland, with a carriage drive looping around the newly created perimeter. Brown proposed along the northern belt: a ‘Ride between a double row of trees with clumps planted at intervals’ (Figures 11.9 and 11.10). While the belt was largely implemented as proposed, it is unclear whether the double row of trees along the inner ride and the clumps inside of this was actually planted; the 1774 estate map does not show either of these elements (see below).

Figure 11.10. Part of the c1767 ‘after’ map, attributed to Brown. This shows Brown’s vision for the North Park. It is unclear whether the clumps in between the tree belt and the ride were actually planted as shown here; the c1774 estate map does not show these. Source: Adshead 2007.

The eastern part of Brown’s scheme corresponds with the eastern boundaries of Areas 1C and 1B (Figure 11.11). This follows the line of the predecessor to Wimpole Lane, before this road was diverted further east during the 1790s. The extension of the North Park eastwards did not happen until Emes’s and Reptons work here in the 1790s and 1800s respectively.


Figure 11.11. Part of the c1767 ‘after’ map, showing Brown’s North Park, superimposed on a 1969 aerial photograph. It shows that the eastern boundary of Brown’s North Park was chosen alongside the old road which formed the eastern boundary of the park at this time. Source: S. Damant.

The c1774 estate map shows how Brown’s plans were implemented (Figure 11.12). It shows that the western and northern tree belts were largely implemented as he intended. At the north-eastern part (the current boundary between Areas 1C and 6A), the proposed continuous belt was not created: instead, a stretch along the old road seems devoid of trees; this would not be adjusted until after Repton’s proposals for this part in the 1800s. Except for the eastern edge, where the road was reused as a carriage drive, the map does not show the proposed drives through the belt, nor does it show the proposed tree lined drive on the belt’s inside. Also, the map only shows a few clumps on the inside of the belt on the northern side of the parkland, and not on the western side as Brown proposed. It is unclear whether the map leaves out certain elements, or whether certain elements of Brown’s proposals were not implemented at some stage.


Figure 11.12. Part of the c1774 estate map, showing how Brown’s proposals were implemented. This shows that the belt was planted largely as intended by Brown. However, the tree-lined inner ride and the clumps on the inside of the belt are not shown here, except for a few clumps in the northern section, suggesting that Brown’s proposals for this were only partially implemented. Source: Adshead 2007.

A drawing made around the same time shows the finished folly in its surroundings. Although rather sketchy, the background shows trees on top of the ridge, likely to be indicating the newly planted tree belt (Figure 11.13).

Figure 11.13. C1774 etching of the folly and surrounds, after completion. To the left of the folly, the ridgeline is shown with some trees, likely to be indicating the new tree belt here. Source: Adshead 2007.

Emes, working at Wimpole during the late 1780s and 1790s, consolidated Brown’s work. As a result of his proposed Pleasure Grounds, the main thoroughfare, Wimpole


Lane, was moved further east to its current position. Emes proposed that the fields to the west of this new road were to be enclosed by extending Brown’s northern boundary belt further east (Figure 11.14). This proposal was not taken up, but was later carried out in a similar form by Repton, with the new belt placed even further east, well beyond the new main road. As part of his scheme, Emes also proposed further tree planting in the area to the west of the folly. His map also shows a ride through the belt, more or less where Brown had proposed this previously.

Figure 11.14. Part of the c1792 Emes’s proposal map. Emes proposed to extend Brown’s North Park by extending the north belt further east and planting a new belt along Wimpole Lane, the main road moved further east, to its current position road. Source: Adshead 2007.

The 1800 estate map shows how much of Emes’s proposal map was carried out (Figure 11.15). It shows that the northern tree belt had indeed been extended eastwards as proposed, but the proposed breaking up of the eastern belt into clumps had not been done. Also, the new clumps proposed by Emes in the field to the west of the folly have not been planted either. Instead, the situation here is still not unlike the depiction on the c1774 map. The boundary between Areas 1C and 6A is now formed by a hedgerow with standing trees.


Figure 11.15. Part of the 1800 estate map for the area. This shows the new lay-out with Wimpole Lane moved further east (just to the east of this cut-out), and the northern tree belt extended eastwards, as proposed by Emes. The line of the old road is still clearly visible as a line of trees along field boundaries, not unlike the situation depicted on the c1774 estate map. The boundary between Areas 1C and 6A – between Johnson’s Pond and the ‘spur’ in the northern tree belt - is formed by a hedgerow with some standing trees. Source: Adshead 2007.

Repton used the 1800 map as an underlay for his 1801 proposals. In the north-eastern part of Area 1C - along the boundary with Area 6A -, Repton proposed two parallel rows of small tree clumps, together delineating the northern stretch of the former Wimpole Lane (Figure 11.16). He also proposed extra trees in the mid-west of the area, on the inside of the tree belt, in front of the existing viewpoint here. Repton is also thought to be responsible for thickening up Brown’s western tree belt.

Figure 11.16. Part of Repton’s 1801 proposal map. Repton proposed two parallel rows of small tree clumps, together delineating the northern stretch of the former Wimpole Lane, to the north of Johnson’s pond. He also proposed extra trees in the mid-west of the area, on the inside of the tree belt, in front of the existing viewpoint here, with new paths proposed from here running to the north-west corner and to the folly. Source: CMP (draft), 2006.

Repton’s sketches in his 1801 Red Book for Wimpole do not show Area 1C in detail. Only his ‘after’ sketch for the main view from the north front of the Hall shows a small part of the area in the background, with only the trees of the northern tree belt visible. Importantly though, it shows the area under pasture, forming an integrated landscape with the field in front of the folly (Figure 11.17).


Figure 11.17. Part of Repton’s 1801 ‘after’ view, his proposal for the main view from the Hall northwards. To the left of the folly, a thick line marks the trees in the northern tree belt, which had by now had started to reach maturity. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 11.18. Part of the 1815 Withers estate map. It seems that the trees between Johnson’s Pond and the tree belt to the north were indeed planted, more or less as proposed by Repton, although not as small clumps, but as an extra line of trees parallel to the existing trees in the field boundary to its east. Also, trees have been planted in the field to the west of the folly, not only where shown on Repton’s proposal map, but also in the north-western part of the area. Meanwhile, a dense row of trees has appeared along the field boundary with Area 1B. Source: CMP (draft), 2006.

The 1815 Withers estate map shows the situation not long after Repton’s work at Wimpole was finished (Figure 11.18). This, and the fairly similar 1828 estate map (Figure 11.19) show that some of Repton’s proposals were indeed taken up. It seems that the trees between Johnson’s Pond and the tree belt to the north were indeed planted, more or less as proposed by Repton, although not as small clumps, but as an extra line of trees parallel to the existing trees in the field boundary to its east. Also, trees were planted in the field to the west of the folly, not only on the inside of the belt, where shown on Repton’s proposal map, but also in the north-western part of the area. The 1828 map shows that the field to the north of the folly was down to pasture, but that the western field was under arable cultivation at this time. Perhaps as a result of this, the field boundary between Areas 1C and 1B had been lined with trees, where Repton had proposed a continuous open landscape.


Figure 11.19. Part of the 1828 Withers estate map. This map shows a situation fairly similar to that shown on the 1815 map. The field to the north of the folly is under pasture (green), while the western field is under arable cultivation at this time. Perhaps as a result of this, the two parallel lines of trees between Areas 1C and 1B have remained, probably to screen out this arable field from views. Source: Adshead 2007.

The 1886 1st edition OS map shows that during the 19th century the trees in the western field gradually disappeared, while new trees had sprung up along the boundary with the field in the north-eastern part of Area 1C (Figure 11.20).


Figure 11.20. Part of the 1886 estate 1st edition OS map. Trees have almost all disappeared from the western field, while new trees have sprung up along the boundary with the eastern field. Source: CMP (draft), 2006.

The situation as shown on the 1886 map stayed practically the same throughout most of the 20th century, albeit with a gradual loss of the remaining in-field trees (Figures 11.21 and 11.22).

Figure 11.21. Part of a 1955 oblique aerial photograph. This already shows more or less the current situation for Area 1C, with large-sized arable fields. The eastern end of the area still shows some trees, which were subsequently lost as well. Source: NT.

Figure 11.22. RAF aerial photograph from 1959. This shows that all in-field trees have gone by this time. The small triangular field in the central-north part of the area, as first shown on the 1886 map, was still there; this was incorporated again with the large field in the late 20th century. The field boundary with Area 6A still existed as a hedge at this time as well, but was taken out later, in the 1960s or 1970s. Source: NT.

Significance: area as a whole


The area as a whole is significant as it is an integral part of the North Park landscape as originally designed by Brown. However, the intended continuous pasture - as shown in Brown’s, Emes’s and Repton’s proposals - was not kept, with the fields eventually all turned into arable cultivation, thereby not fulfilling its full parkland potential.

The belts, nevertheless, enclose the parkland, excluding views to the north and west. The rides inside and along the belts, with the intended viewing points, also provide for spectacular views back to the folly, the Hall and the distant hills to the south.

Significance: elements within the areaThe woodland of The Belts is highly significant, for its internationally important SSSI & SAC designation. The Belts are also significant for enclosing the north-western part of the North Park, and for providing spectacular views from various points along the intended drives through and along the belt.

Now lost trees in the arable fields were important, as they identified former field boundaries, and were placed to provide appropriate foreground perspective from the viewpoints along the inside of the belt. They also broke up the linearity of the tree belt edge and the large, otherwise relatively open fields.


Significance: viewsTable 11.1. Summary of the significant views within, from, to, and through Area 1C. Note: the level of significance given here reflects the significance for this area; the overall significance of some views, especially those for which the area is part of a wider panoramic view, may be different than this table shows (see separately produced Views Management Plan for further information). The levels of significance follow those given in section 8.3 of the CMP for Wimpole Estate (2008).

View Direction(i.e. view to)

Significance of View Comments

Views within the areaN/AViews from the area

From south-west corner to the folly NE Highly significant From near the water’s edge, close to the westernmost island in the middle lake. This is where Brown’s Pleasure Ground walk would have ended into open parkland. Corresponds more or less with current exit of path through woods. (Figures 11.25 and 11.26).

From south-west corner to the folly, at southern end of the western belt

ENE Significant At end of former path through belt.

From western boundary belt to folly and Orwell church

E - ESE Highly significant At point where ride through belt touched open parkland (see, e.g., 1800 map). View of folly focused on the entrance gate. Surprising view of Orwell church over the brow just south of the folly.

From western boundary belt (halfway point) to Hall, farm, and folly, and distant hills beyond farm.

ENE - SSE Highly significant Panoramic view. At point where ride through belt touched open parkland (see, e.g., 1800 map). Designed viewpoint already shown on Brown’s map. Crossing over boundary ditch is still visible as earthwork. First time Hall becomes visible again on the drive climbing up from the south. (Figures 11.27 – 11.29).

From NW point of tree belt to folly, Hall and distant hills

SSE - ESE Highly significant Panoramic view. At point just south of where the ride through belt comes into open parkland (see, e.g., 1800 map). Folly provides for a suitable foreground to the view


over most of the parkland, Hall and distant hills. Also good view of Repton’s southern Belt addition in Area 6A. Hall is partly obscured by very tall Plane trees to south of Chinese Bridge, originally planted by Brown. (Figure 11.30.

Views to the areaFrom Hall/ central line of parterre to North Park west of folly

NNW Highly Significant Holm Oak in the foreground provides for appropriate perspective; narrow view created in between avenue and the grove. North-western part of Area 1C visible from here.

From SE corner of parterre, to North Park west of folly

N & NW Significant

From NW point of Pleasure Grounds to folly and whole area

SW-N Highly significant Part of panoramic view, from just south-west of the historic gate leading into the parkland. Great view of the Hall; the avenue in Area 2A; the ha-ha bordering to the north of Area 2A, snaking its way up the hill, with the metal bridge halfway; Brown’s Plane clump near the Chinese Bridge; and the folly. Area 1C provides appropriate background to this view. First time the folly is visible again along the Pleasure Grounds walk.

From NE part of Area 2B (near the small Holm Oak clump) to North Park

N - ENE Significant Part of panoramic view of the North Park. The northern part of Area 1C is visible form this location. Also one of the view spots where both the lower lake and middle lake are in full sight. Also great view of folly (Figure 11.31).

From Greening’s Viewing Mound on eastern side of the plateau, in Area 2B

N - NE Highly significant Part of panoramic view. Main focus is on the folly, but northern half of Area 6A is also particularly visible from this point. The nearby grove is important for guiding this view and blocking out views to the area to its east. A particularly large part of Area 1C is visible from this spot. (Figure 11.32).

From the Mill Mound in Area 2B to North Park

N - E Significant Part of panoramic view. Focus from here is primarily on the folly and the hills to the north-east of the folly

View from high ground in SW part of Area 1D to the belts

N - E Significant Panoramic view. View from near the tall Plane tree, roughly where Brown proposed a ‘seat’ as well. Particularly good view of the end of The Gloucesters and the ridge beyond.


From the bridge at the western end of the Victoria Drive to the belts

NW Some significance View over Long Ropes and Page’s Close, focused on the folly and the belt beyond. Part of western field of Area 1C clearly visible. View partly blocked by recent regrowth directly in front of the bridge.

Views through the areaFrom the north-west of Area 6A, on the inside of the tree belt, to the Hall and the distant hills

W - SE Highly significant Panoramic view. View from just to the east of the end of Brown’s tree belt. When coming from the west, the Hall suddenly appears from behind the woodland surrounding Johnson’s Pond. Also excellent views to the western and south-western distant hills, as well as the distant ridge in the south-west beyond the western belt.


Figure 11.23. Overview of the significant views relevant for Area 1C, plotted on the 2007 aerial picture of the parkland, part 1. This figure shows views from, to, and through Area 1C. Further details are given in the above table. Red = Highly significant view; Yellow = Significant view; Green = Some significance.


Figure 11.24. Overview of the significant views relevant for Area 1C, plotted on the 2007 aerial picture of the parkland, part 2. This figure shows further views to Area 1C. Further details are given in the above table. Red = Highly significant view; Yellow = Significant view; Green = Some significance.

Figure 11.25. View of folly from south-west corner of Area 1C, at point where the path from within the belts enters the open parkland. View to ENE. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.


Figure 11.26. View of folly from south-west corner of Area 1C, at point where the path from within the belts enters the open parkland. Same as previous picture, but zoomed in. View to ENE. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.

Figure 11.27. Part of panoramic view from the middle of the western tree belt. View to folly and distant hills beyond. View to ESE. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.


Figure 11.28. Part of panoramic view from the middle of the western tree belt, to S. The Hall is in the centre. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.

Figure 11.29. Part of panoramic view from the middle of the western tree belt, to S, zoomed in on the Hall. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.

Figure 11.30. Part of panoramic view to SSE from north-west corner of tree belt. The folly is on the left-hand side. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.


Figure 11.31. Part of panoramic view from the north-west point of Area 2B to the N. Part of Area 1C to the west of the folly is visible from here. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.

Figure 11.32. Part of panoramic view from Greening’s viewing mound in Area 2B to the N, zoomed in on Area 1C. A relatively large part of the open, arable field is visible from this spot. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.

Design guidance All in-field trees in both fields of Area 1C have been lost. Priority should be given

to replant trees in these fields. This will make it clearer that these fields are part of the designed landscape, and will somewhat soften the current sharp contrast between the belts and the arable fields, as well as the contrast between the large-sized open, arable fields with the smaller-sized ones with in-field trees in the rest of the North Park.

The clump in the north-west area will be particularly visible from the higher ground in Area 2B (from Greening’s viewing mound and Area 2B’s NE point), and from the Hall: replanting these will give some much-needed interest to this part of the field. Use 1828 map as basis.

The remainder of the in-field trees in the fields of Area 1C delineate old field boundaries and/or provide appropriate foreground interest for views from designed viewing points along the inside of the tree belt, as shown on Brown’s 1767, the 1774, Emes’s 1792, the 1800, Repton’s 1801, and the 1815 and 1828


maps. Use the 1828 map as a basis for restoration, with the 1886 map for additional information. These trees should be put back, as long as the overall effect will not appear too linear. In particular the trees delineating the former field boundary with Area 6A in the north-east should be replanted somewhat less linear than shown on the 1828 map; use the 1886 map as basis for this, and –where appropriate - follow Repton’s vision as shown on his 1801 proposal map for the western of the two rows here.

Selection of digital files for assessmentThe main maps for restoration purposes for Area 1C are the 1828 Withers and the 1886 1st edition OS maps, with the 1828 map of particular importance for the westernmost of the two fields, as this shows the situation before most trees were removed here (Figure 11.33).

Figure 11.33. Area 1C, showing the locations of the trees on the 1828 (in dark blue) and the 1886 (in light blue) maps, plotted on the 2007 LiDar image. Source: S. Damant.

Creation of tree planting planIn the western field most trees shown on the 1828 map can be replanted, excepting a few on the old west-east field boundary in the middle of the field which would otherwise make this too linear. Trees for this field should be prominent and large-sized; in line with the presence of species in the nearby belts, these should be primarily Beech, Oak and Lime.

In the eastern field, the majority of the trees shown on the 1886 map can be replanted, excepting some trees of the westernmost of the double tree row in the eastern end of the field, thereby creating a more clumped feel to this line, cf. Repton’s 1801 vision. Trees in both rows could reflect tree species found in traditional hedgerows, including Oak, Ash and Field Maple, thereby also reflecting the dominant tree species in the hedgerow along Wimpole Lane to the east.


Some of the 1828 trees in the western part of the eastern field can also be replanted, providing for more interest when viewed from viewpoints along the inside of the western tree belt.

Trees alongside the ditch separating the two fields – as shown on the 1886 map -should not be replanted, as there are already plenty young shrubs and trees inside this ditch, for which an appropriate management strategy could be envisaged instead.

Following the assessment, a total of 34 trees can be planted in Area 1C (Figure 11.34). 16 of these are based on the 1828 map, and 18 on the 1886 map. As both fields in Area 1C have been under cultivation for a long time, there are no visible remains of the former trees. The easternmost line of trees, forming the boundary with Area 6A, however, is still visible as a crop mark.

Appendix 3 gives an overview of the trees proposed for Area 1C. This provides each tree with its coordinates, information about the historic map on which the tree location is based, the reason for replanting, the tree species proposed, and any archaeological or other visible remains of the former tree, plus any other relevant information.

Appendix 2 provides for a map showing the location of the proposed trees, with their individual numbers.


Figure 11.34. Overview of all 34 new trees for Area 1C, plotted on the 2007 LiDar image for the area. Map created by B. Govier, April 2012.

For Area 1C, the following tree species are proposed:

Table 11.2. Overview of tree species proposed for the new trees in Area 1C. See Appendix 3 for specific locations of individual trees.Species Latin name Number

of treesComments

Oak Quercus robur 11Field Maple Acer campestre 4Lime Tilia spp. 4 Primarily T. cordataBeech Fagus sylvatica 3Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 3Ash Fraxinus excelsior 2Hornbeam Carpinus betulans 2Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus 2Lucombe Oak Quercus x hispanica

'Lucombeana'1

Black Poplar Populus nigra 1Black Walnut Juglans nigra 1

Total 34


Restoring the landscape following the above guidelines is likely to alter the current character of this area, once the new trees are maturing. It will return trees to the vast empty space, thereby providing much-needed interest to the fields when seen from other parts within the North Park, These trees will also break up the linearity of the tree belt edge, and provide appropriate framing of important views from the drive within and along this belt. The trees on the eastern end of the area will also allow for the restoration of a significant historic visitor route and viewing point.

Further recommendations[Note: SHORT/ MEDIUM/ LONG refers to the priority in which this work needs to be carried out]

Continue reducing the growth on the boundary with Area 1B: select specimens from this ‘hedgerow’, and let these grow into trees; remove all other trees and shrubs. The southern section has already been treated in this way. Make sure that there are also large gaps between trees: the idea is to create clusters of trees, rather than a continuous row. The final result will be a continuous and more integrated landscape. SHORT

Clear some of the shrubs and Elm regrowth inside ditch in between the two fields of Area 1C, and instigate a regular coppicing and thinning programme. SHORT - MEDIUM

Restore former viewpoint along the northern tree belt, just to the east of the boundary with Area 6A, by reconnecting this viewpoints with the ride inside the belt. SHORT – MEDIUM

Restore former viewpoints along the western tree belt, by reconnecting these viewpoints with the ride inside the belt. These are the main viewpoint, halfway the western tree belt, as well as the two viewpoints between here and the Upper Lake, as also shown on e.g., the 1800, 1801, 1815 and 1828 maps. SHORT – MEDIUM

Introduce a new estate path around the edge of the upper parkland inside the existing belt. Create a walking route here on the inside of the tree belt. SHORT – MEDIUM

Take fields out of tenancy and get back in NT’s hands. MEDIUM Create new footpath on the field boundary between Areas 6A and 1C, linking the

northern belt and Brown’s viewpoint with Johnson’s Pond, cf. Repton’s 1801 proposal map and the 1815 and 1828 maps. MEDIUM

Take fields out of arable cultivation, and return to pasture, as depicted in Repton’s 1801 ‘after’ sketch. MEDIUM – LONG


Location - WordPress.com · Web viewTable 11.1. Summary of the significant views within, from,...

Documents

Transcript of Location - WordPress.com · Web viewTable 11.1. Summary of the significant views within, from,...