No 19 HISTORIC CHURCHES a wasting asset Warwick Rodwell with Kirsty Rodwell 1977 Historic churches— a wasting asset Warwick Rodwell with Kirsty Rodwell 1977 Research Report No 19 The Council for British Archaeology 1 © W J Rodwell 1977 Published by the Council for British Archaeology, 7 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5HA Designed by Allan Cooper FSIA and Henry Cleere The CBA wishes to acknowledge the grant from the Department of the Environment towards the publication of this report. Printed at Tomes of Leamington. ii Contents Introduction v Section 1 Explanation of the Survey Background to the Survey Definition and scope of church archaeology 1 Summary of findings and recommendations 3 Section 2 Content of the Survey The Diocesan background 4 Scope and limitations 4 Methods of approach 4 The grading of churches 5 Section 3 The Present State of Churches in the Diocese Living churches, built before 1750 9 Living churches, rebuilt after 1750 10 Churches made redundant since 1952 11 Ruined and demolished churches 13 Churches of reduced size 17 Section 4 The History of Church Archaeology in the Chelmsford Diocese Church excavations 19 Section 5 Case Study 1—Churches in an Historic Town The ancient churches of Colchester 24 Parochial churches 24 Non-parochial churches 37 Conclusions 39 Section 6 Case Study 2—A Rural Parish Church St Mary and All Saints’ Church, Rivenhall 42 Section 7 Case Study 3—An Anglo-Saxon Minster St Botolph’s Church, Hadstock 50 Section 8—Case Study 4—Church Conversions St Lawrence’s Church, Asheldham 55 St Michael’s Church, Latchingdon 58 St Mary’s Church, Little Oakley 61 Section 9 Threats to Church Archaeology in the Diocese The archaeology of the building 63 Redundancy, conversion, and demolition 78 Churches at risk 80 Section 10 Summary and Recommendations Care and conservation: the prevention of damage to churches and graveyards 83 The archaeological problem: organization and execution 86 Academic problems and priorities 88 Section 11 Gazetteer 94 Bibliography 129 iii Introduction The undertaking of a survey such as this is no easy loss of evidence, the reaction is one of surprise, regret and a task. First, no comparable study has ever been produced willingness to avoid the same problem arising again. In and there is thus no ‘model’ to emulate or to provide general, it may be said that incumbents and Parochial general guide-lines. Secondly, the subject of church Church Councils (PCCs) are consciously interested in historic archaeology is very wide ranging, both chronologically churches and wish to do all they can to care for them, and physically, and it involves many specialist disciplines. within the limits of financial and practical possibility. When there is so much to take into consideration it is Likewise, the majority of church architects and reputable virtually impossible to give equal weight to every aspect, builders do the best they can, given the constraints within or indeed to ensure that nothing of significance is omitted which they often have to work. Regrettably, there are altogether. Thus, excavating for the foundations of an exceptions; from time to time Canon Law is flouted, unsound Anglo-Saxon church is very different from, but no more or advice obtained, unsuitable architects, builders or firms less important than, the industrial archaeology of boilers, employed and as a result historic evidence is unnecessarily bell machinery or tower clocks. destroyed. Occasionally, it is difficult to view a particular action as anything other than cold-blooded vandalism. One It is often said that our churches are better looked after or two instances have been included in the text, without than ever before, and as far as the structural soundness and further comment, merely to illustrate that some remarkable general appearance of churches is concerned this is acts of destruction do take place. undoubtedly true. But there are other important aspects of the business of caring for churches to consider, and the The emphasis of this report is, however, constructive and theme of this report is the destruction of primary historical I have taken pains to show ways in which the destruction evidence, whether it is inside the church or outside it, of historic evidence may be minimized, and where losses above ground or below. This destruction is a matter of are unavoidable, how prior recording could take place. At grave concern, not just to archaeologists, but to present neither the Church nor the State makes provision ecclesiologists, architectural historians, genealogists, for recording the bulk of the historic evidence which is demographers and ecologists. destroyed year by year. The first stage in the enquiry is to pin-point the areas where historic evidence is being lost; the second is to ascertain Acknowledgements how and why destruction takes place; and the third is to suggest ways and means whereby the loss could either be The Survey was sponsored by the Inspectorate of Ancient averted, or else a proper record made when destruction Monuments of the Department of the Environment and is inevitable. executed under the auspices of the Churches Committee of the Council for British Archaeology. The local adminis- First, one must recognize that it is impossible to save tration of the Survey was undertaken by the Essex Archaeo- everything and that each age destroys some of its legacy logical Society. The writer is grateful to the staff, officers from the past. This is the price of progress. The questions and members of those organizations for assistance and which we must ask are these: how much are we losing today? advice throughout the project; likewise acknowledgement is And can we afford to lose that much? due to the staff of the Essex County Council Planning Department, to the Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance A survey which discusses the loss of historic evidence and the Chelmsford Diocesan Advisory Committee. inevitably raises the problem of how to present the findings In addition to the invaluable assistance given by the above without causing offence. Presentation has thus posed a bodies, many people have given their time to discuss particular dilemma since nobody welcomes complaints on his own problems with me, or to answer my numerous questions. It is doorstep. A vast catalogue of the destruction of historic impossible to acknowledge everybody by name, but particular evidence sustained by each parish would have been unreadable, mention must be made of the Venerable P S G Bridges, the contents offensive and the whole exercise negative. Chairman of the Diocesan Advisory Committee and Arch- On the other hand, it would have been possible to give deacon of Southend-on-Sea; the Venerable C D Bond, tables of statistics of the various losses and threats without Archdeacon of Colchester; Mr H Lovell, Secretary to the citing a single named example. With no supporting evidence Diocesan Board of Finance; Mr R K Morris, Secretary of their credibility would undoubtedly have been denounced the CBA Churches Committee; Mr P A T Burman, Deputy by those anxious to insist that everything is in order in Secretary of the Council for Places of Worship; Mr J D their parish. A third course seemed more appropriate: to Hedges and Miss C Couchman of Essex County Council. Mr take a midway line by discussing the problems in general, Morris also read the text and assisted with its editing. with constant support from actual examples. In compiling Section 5 I was grateful for assistance from I have made every effort to ensure that examples are Messrs D T-D Clarke and G M R Davies; Professor G R presented impersonally, and I wish to make it clear that Martin kindly read the first draft of that section and offered the description of a problem or an historic loss in a particular valuable suggestions which have been incorporated. church is in no way intended as a criticism of any individual incumbent, committee, architect, builder or firm. In nine Section 6 describes results which could never have been cases out of ten, none of these parties will even be aware achieved without the whole-hearted co-operation of Rivenhall that any damage has been done, or if they are conscious of Parochial Church Council and the Rector, the Reverend historic losses they probably regard them as unfortunate D Nash. The co-operation of the church’s architects, Messrs and genuinely unavoidable. Indeed, it frequently happens that Laurence King and Partners, is also acknowledged with when an archaeologist or an historian points to a particular gratitude. v Similarly, Section 7 owes much to Hadstock Parochial Church Council and the Rector, the Reverend M L Yorke; the church’s architect, Mr H C Bellchamber, is also to be warmly thanked for his co-operation. The Asheldham Case Study (Section 8) was only possible through the good offices of the Diocesan Youth Chaplain, the Reverend P C Elvy; and for permission to discuss Latchingdon I am grateful to Mr J C H Dunlop and his architect, Mr P J Lorimer. Finally, for assistance with the project in various ways, I am grateful to many friends and colleagues, in particular: Dr and Mrs D J E L Carrick, Mr P J Drury, Mr D J Fowler, Mr and Mrs D R Stewart and Dr H M Taylor. Of all the debts, none can exceed that to my wife, who has been closely associated with the Survey at every stage. She assisted with virtually all the individual church surveys, had a hand in many of the illustrations and scrutinized the earlier drafts of the text. W J RODWELL Oxford September 1975 vi viii Section 1 Explanation of the Survey ‘lt is a matter for rejoicing that the first half of the 20th century witnessed a remarkable revival of interest in the ancient churches of England.