Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement Prepared for the Landguard Partnership July 2014

Alan Baxter

Contents

1.0 Introduction ��1

2.0 Understanding the Asset ��2 2.1 Why Landguard? ��2 2.2 Summary of Historic Phasing ��3 2.3 History of the Landguard Peninsula ��8 2.4 Landguard Peninsula today ��18

3.0 Assessment of Significance ��30 3.1 Assessing Significance ��30 3.2 Designations ��31 3.3 Summary Statement of Significance ��31 3.4 Significance by Interest ��32 3.5 Setting of the Landguard Fortifications ��34

4.0 Issues and Opportunities ��36 4.1 Ownership, Management and Funding ��36 4.2 Landguard Fortifications ��36 4.3 Landguard Peninsula ��37

5.0 Conclusion ��39

6.0 Key Sources ��40

Appendix - List Entry Summaries ��41

Alan Baxter N This drawing incorporates information from the Ordnance Survey which is © Crown Copyright. ABA Licence: AL1000 17547 AL1000 ABA Licence: Copyright. Crown © is which Survey Ordnance the from information incorporates drawing This Site Plan showing designations

Local Nature Reserve Site Boundary Designation Area Port reconfiguration Phase 1 Site of Special Scientific (2008–11) Interest

Port reconfiguration Phase 2 Listed Grade I (on hold) Scheduled Ancient Monument (includes buildings)

Port reconfiguration not to scale 1.0 Introduction

The Landguard Peninsula, south of Felixstowe in Suffolk, encompasses a number of statutory designations that recognise its historic and environmental significance. Most notable and central to this document is the Landguard Fort and its associated fortifications, which, according to English Heritage, “present an unusually complete physical record of developments in military engineering and the response to perceived changes in defence requirements over a period of more than two hundred years; from the early 18th to the mid- 20th century”.

Today the Peninsula is owned and managed by a group of organisations that together make up the Landguard Partnership. This Outline Conservation Statement has been prepared to support the Partnership’s Round One submission to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for the Discover Landguard Project, which aims to improve access to the Peninsula as a major visitor attraction, increase community participation and ensure the long-term conservation of the future of the assets on the Peninsula. If the Discover Landguard Project is successful at HLF Round One, this document will form the basis of a full Conservation Plan to guide the developing proposals – which are currently at an early stage – for HLF Round Two.

The site described here as the Landguard Peninsula is illustrated, with its designations, on the opposite page. This document outlines the historical development and present appearance of the Peninsula (Chapter 2), summarises its significance (Chapter 3) and sets out some Issues and Opportunities (Chapter 4). 1.0 Introduction 1.0

Aerial view of the Landguard Peninsula (photograph by Steve Wilson)

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 1 2.0 Understanding the Asset

2.1 Why Landguard? The strategic importance of the Landguard Peninsula is as the most appropriate location to defend Harwich Haven from seaborne attack. The reason for this can be found in Admiralty charts, which show the relatively narrow approach channel from the Cork lightship. Simply put, to enter the Haven it was necessary for ships to approach and then pass close to the peninsula, where the channel was and is deepest. This meant that, until guns improved to reach targets far at sea, the artillery fortifications of the Peninsula were orientated towards the mouth of the Haven, guarding against intruders.

Landguard Fort

Entrance channel to Harwich Haven 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

1972 Admiralty chart. The purple buoys mark the approach channel at this time

2 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 2.2 Summary of Historic Phasing The following drawings summarise the historical development of the fortifications of the Landguard Peninsula. They cover roughly the area that is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The eight phases of development are discussed in some detail in the following section. Plans identifying the age of the extant fabric of the fort itself can be found at the end of this chapter.

To avoid confusion, the phasing of the fortifications is mapped onto the landmass of the Peninsula as it exists today. Please see the diagram below illustrating the extent of change to the Peninsula throughout this period.

Landguard Fort N Entrance channel to Harwich Haven 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

2000

1980

1870

1783

1660

1554

Location of Landguard Fort today

Coastline phasing of the Peninsula

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 3 1543-88 • Threat of invasion from Catholic Europe • Earliest known fortification is a circular, moated earthwork on the east side of the Peninsula, constructed in 1543 but dismantled in 1552 • Rebuilt and garrisoned in 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada as a hexagonal earthwork approximately 37 metres on each side

1625-28 • Coastal raids by pirates from Dunkirk • Existing fortifications had been badly neglected since 1603 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 • First Landguard Fort erected to the designs of Simon Van Cranfeld 1625-28 in sand and shingle topped with sod and clay slabs

4 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 1717-20 • War of the Spanish Succession broke out in 1702 • Fortifications had again fallen into a state of decay • New brick battery constructed to the south west in 1717-20 • Two-storey barrack range to the rear (enlarged with another storey in 1733)

1744-53 • War of the Austrian Succession in 1740-48; Jacobite rebellion in 1745-46 • Fort rebuilt by the Board of Ordnance in brick with stone dressings 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 • Existing battery incorporated into the two main faces of the pentagonal design • Beauclerk’s Battery added on the Haven side by 1753

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 5 1779-83 • American War of Independence began 1775 • New earthworks proposed by Captain Thomas Hyde Page to make Landguard Point a large defended camp • Fort extended with two wing batteries surrounded by wet ditches added to south east (South Redoubt) and north west (North Redoubt) • Additional square emplacement built to the north east (Rainham Redoubt) • The works are incomplete by the end of the American War of Independence in 1783

1870-80 • Royal Commission report of 1860 surveyed the defences of the United Kingdom, but works to Landguard Fort not approved until 1870 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 • Front curtain wall replaced with curved casemated battery for seven huge guns • Plan form and remaining curtain walls retained and remodelled with new concrete parapet • New elliptical keep within existing parade • Internal buildings replaced with semi-circular barrack block • Submarine Mining Establishment established at the north east of the Fort’s outworks in 1877-80

6 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 1889-1918 • Rapid technological advances meant that the 1870s armaments were soon obsolete • New gun emplacements constructed to the north (Left Battery) in 1889-90 and east (Right Battery) in 1898-1902 • Darell’s Battery erected on the Haven side of the fort, at the former site of Beauclerk’s Battery, in 1900-01 • Fire Command Post erected on the roof of the Fort in 1903; second storey added 1915 • No major structural alterations made to the Fort during First World War

1939-42 • Harwich Haven became an important naval base during Second World War

• Darell’s Battery reconstructed and two three-storey concrete towers added for control and Asset the Understanding 2.0 position finding, assisted by three new searchlight shelters to the north

• Emergency Battery with shelters and stores built between Left and Right Batteries

• Right Battery modified for new artillery with concrete gun houses

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 7 2.3 History of the Landguard Peninsula This section sets out the history of the Landguard Peninsula. It necessarily focusses on the built defences of the Peninsula, but also tries to place them within the wider geographical and historical context of Harwich Haven, and the sequence of perceived invasion threats that it has faced. This is based on two accounts written by Paul Pattison for English Heritage: the Landguard Fort Conservation Plan (with Moraig Brown, 2000) and Guidebook (2006).

2.3.1 Early history The area marked by the confluence of the Orwell and Stour Rivers, and sheltered by the Landguard Peninsula, is the first natural harbour between the Thames and the Humber. In the late Roman period, a large Shore Fort was established at Walton, to the north east of the present-day town centre of Felixstowe, indicating its strategic importance as a port of entry to the east of England. Walton Fort was sited at the source of the Deben and Orwell Rivers, a location lost to the sea in the 18th century.

Gippeswic (Ipswich) emerged as a major Anglo-Saxon emporium in the 7th and 8th centuries, and Harwich Haven consolidated its role in the expansion of the nation’s growing trading economy with continental Europe. In 855 a Viking fleet was defeated by the newly formed West Saxon Fleet at Bloody Point, off Shotley, and further attacks are known to have entered the Orwell in 991, 1010 and 1016. Landguard appeared in the Domesday Book of 1086 as ‘Langer’, and other early variations on its name are known to be ‘Lunger’ and ‘Langerston’. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

8 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 2.3.2 Fortifying Harwich Haven The town of Harwich was created as a new town from the existing settlement in the 13th century by Roger Bigod, who established the regular street plan visible today. Due to its vulnerability, the town was granted a license for building walls in 1352, and played an extensive role in the Hundred Years War, especially for the assembly of English fleets. During this period it was attacked on many occasions, being plundered and burnt in 1450.

In the 16th century, after the Reformation, Henry VIII fortified England’s major harbours against the threat posed by the combined forces of Catholic Europe. Harwich’s medieval wall was modified by the addition of two bastions (see topic box on p. 11) and defensive trenches in 1539. In 1543, after a visit by Henry himself, the first fortification on the Landguard Peninsula was constructed. This was one of five new timber and earthwork forts, or bulwarks, built to defend Harwich at this time, two at Landguard and three in Harwich, each with artillery and small garrisons. The fort on the Landguard Peninsula, which stood on land now lost to the sea, was a circular, moated earthwork with a rampart for the guns.

A typical feature of coastal defences in England over the following centuries is abandonment or neglect once the perceived threat had subsided. By 1533 the Harwich garrisons had been withdrawn and the guns had been returned to the Tower of London. In the 1580s, however, the deteriorating political situation, and especially fear of Spain, prompted further defensive work at Harwich. This included a new stone bulwark and the rebuilding of the existing bulwark at Landguard, so that a total of 46 canons defended the Haven. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

A late 16th-century map of Harwich Haven, showing the small artillery bulwark on Landguard Point (from English Heritage guidebook)

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 9 2.3.3 The first Landguard Fort (1625-28) The Landguard bulwarks were neglected once more by the accession of James I in 1603; peace with Spain would be agreed in 1604. Although this resulted in a reduction of national coastal defence, some permanent forts were proposed to guard strategic locations such as Harwich Haven. The Half-moon Battery was built on the Harwich quayside, while, at Landguard, a new fort was built to the initial designs of the Dutch Simon van Cranvelt. It was a simple square bastion scheme (see topic box opposite) of earth revetted (covered) with turf, built to house 62 guns and surrounded by a ditch. The main entrance was across a drawbridge and through a portcullis and inside there were several brick buildings – including a barracks, a governor’s lodging, magazines and a chapel – set around a small square parade ground.

The 17th century saw England fight three wars against the Dutch, in 1651-54, 1665-67 and 1672-74, during an extended period of international trading rivalry. Although Harwich served as an important safe haven for naval and mercantile ships during these conflicts, the first Landguard Fort was in a very poor state of repair by the mid-century. It was almost to be dismantled in 1666 but, with increasing fear of seaborne attacks and even invasion, was retained by the Master-General of the Ordnance. In September of that year the garrison was bolstered with a detachment of the Lord High Admiral’s regiment (the forerunners of the Royal Marines), which successfully rebuked a daring Dutch assault on the Fort in July 1667 (see topic box opposite). 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

The Landguard Fort of 1626 (from Suffolk Invasion by Frank Hussey)

10 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Bastion Fortifications Most simply, a bastion is an angular structure projecting outward from the curtain wall of an artillery fortification. It became a dominant feature of fortifications in the 16th century, in line with technological developments in artillery. The advent of the cannon meant the end of the medieval castle. High walls made easy targets and, as the power of guns increased, they became easier to breach. Bastion fortifications were lower than the round towers they replaced, presenting a smaller target in the landscape, and enabled flanking fire to be delivered on their attackers.

The bastion school emerged in Italy in the early 16th century and was extensively developed by the Dutch in their 80-year conflict with the Spanish between 1566 and 1648. The first Landguard Fort of 1625-28 was executed to the designs of a Dutchman, Simon de Cranvelt, and bastion fortifications became increasingly common during the Civil War (1642-51), when Sir Bernard de Gomme, another Dutch military engineer, established himself as the style’s most important proponent in England. He became the King’s chief engineer in 1640 and was knighted five years later. As well as the walls of Harwich town (see 2.2.4), de Gomme built or surveyed important bastion forts at Tilbury, Portsmouth and Plymouth. The evolution of bastion forts continued into the 18th and 19th centuries, as they became increasingly geometrically complex with elaborate layers of outer earthworks and subsidiary fortifications (see illustration below).

The Dutch Assault of 1667 On 2 July 1667, after a devastating attack on a depleted English fleet in the Medway, Kent (The Raid on the Medway), the Dutch sailed on Harwich under the command of Admiral de Reuter. 12 warships from the fleet of 70 attempted to bombard Landguard Fort, but were unable to get close enough for accurate fire in the treacherous waters. A force of 1500 troops then landed at Felixstowe cliff, with the aim of capturing Landguard Fort so that their ships could enter the Haven. Half marched inland to hold off the Suffolk Militia, who were arriving as reinforcements, while 800 men attempted to storm the Fort. Two assaults were beaten back by the 200-strong garrison under Captain Nathaniel Darell, aided by a small warship whose cannonballs scattered the beach shingle into the 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 attackers to deadly effect. Finding themselves pinned down by fire from the Fort and the channel, the Dutch retreated, leaving eight dead while only one Englishman was killed.

1841 plan of the colossal bastion fortifications at Geneva (Wikipedia Commons)

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 11 2.3.4 The second Landguard Fort (1717-20) The shock caused by the Dutch assault prompted a revision of the Harwich defences but, while Harwich itself was given bastioned walls by Sir Bernard de Gomme and a new battery on Beacon Hill, Landguard received no further major alterations. By the turn of the 18th century, however, it became clear once more that, as with much of Britain’s coastal defences, the Fort was in a terrible state of neglect. Following invasion scares in 1707 and 1708, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1709 for securing all naval dockyards. A new scheme was devised for the Haven, to include new forts at Landguard and Beacon Hill (Fort Anne) and a revision of the Harwich town defences.

Due to cost, construction of the Landguard Fort (in a compromised form) did not begin until 1717. It was constructed in brick to an unusual design: effectively a battery of two principal faces – the south and west firing platforms – with ramparts supporting 20 pieces of artillery above casemates containg gunpowder. The plan was closed with two shorter flanks and the two-storey rear barrack block. The surrounding ditch was revetted, and could itself be defended from a caponier (a covered passage projecting from a curtain wall) and counterscarp galleries (in the outer side of the ditch).

Alterations were made to the fort in 1730-33 to the designs of Captain John Peter Desmaretz, after it became apparent that no larger supporting fortifications would be constructed on the Harwich side. A larger battery of heavier guns was provided to combat the powerful warships of the day, and a third storey was added to the barrack block. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

The fort of 1717–20, after alterations made between 1730 and 1733 (from English Heritage guidebook)

12 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 2.3.5 The third Landguard Fort (1745-49) Against a backdrop of war with France and the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland, the Board of Ordnance proposed the building of a new fort at Landguard in 1744. This incorporated the two main faces, the barrack block and the parade of the existing fort into a much larger and more formidable structure, to a pentagonal design with bastions at the salient angles. It was revetted in brick and inside there were new casemates (artillery chambers) and buildings. A timber rampart was built for infantry defence beyond the external ditch.

Before this fort was completed, however, it was realised that its walls were too small to support the large calibre guns required against large warship attempting to gain entrance to the harbour, which would be able to engage the fort before its guns could return fire. As a result of this, a more powerful glacis was installed by 1753, which came to be known as Beauclerk’s Battery, after the governor who took up residence that year.

A further phase of development came in 1779-83 during the American War of Independence, when Britain’s defences were stretched and invasion was feared once again. Captain Thomas Hyde Page constructed a new battery in Harwich and by 1779 had proposed a new 600-yard long entrenchment (a defensive earthwork of trenches and parapets) across the Peninsula to the north-east of the fort. This was intended to enable the Point to serve as a large defended camp capable of sheltering a mobile field force (a device Page had also employed on the Western Heights in Dover). This was built as two entrenchments, the King’s Lines and the Prince’s Lines, with canon fire made possible through embrasures (internally-splayed openings). The earthwork wings to the north-east and south-west of the fort were also enlarged and a smaller independent fort, or redoubt (Rainham Redoubt), was established on the east of the Peninsula.

War with France broke out in 1793, and several invasion scares at the turn of the century prompted a systematic review of the defence of the south coast in which Harwich Haven was given considerable importance (see topic box). As part of this scheme Page’s infantry encampment was moved to a less exposed position in Harwich, and the entrenchments were razed in 1803 to prevent them being acquisitioned by the enemy. Alterations to Landguard Fort itself were focussed on upgrading its armaments: Beauclerk’s Battery was modified in 1806 to carry the heaviest ordnance in the Haven, and the fort’s bastions had also been remodelled by 1817. Importantly, these now incorporated traversing carriages, enabling guns Asset the Understanding 2.0 to be trained at enemy targets on both land and sea.

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 13 The Napoleonic defences at Harwich A significant development in Britain’s coastal defences during the Napoleonic Wars was that of the Martello Tower: squat, round miniature forts built to a broadly common design across Southern England. Each tower had three canon and accommodation for up to 30 men on the upper floor, with storage and magazine space below. The largest group of Martello Towers was in the south east, where 103 were built, forming a chain of defence and strategic communication. Landguard Fort became a critical link in this chain, ensuring the defence of Harwich Haven from capture and use as a bridgehead by an invading force. There were five Martello towers in the immediate vicinity: two on Landguard Peninsula, one at Walton, and one at Shotley Point. These were commanded from the impressive new Circular Redoubt in Harwich (1807-10). This massive casemated fort was of a very low profile and surrounded by a deep ditch. It supported a formidable artillery battery of ten 24-pound guns that covered the town from landward assault and provided a second defence of the Haven behind Landguard Fort. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

Harwich defence scheme

14 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 2.3.6 The reconstructed Landguard Fort (1870-78) Following the end of hostilities with France, there was a general order in 1817 to reduce ordnance to the minimum. The need to upgrade Landguard Fort was not recognised until the middle of the century, when it was found to be old and defective by an 1853 review of the Harwich defences. Furthermore, the Royal Commission of 1860 recognised that the defence of the British Isles needed to be radically upgraded to match the vast technological developments that had transformed naval warfare in recent years. However, while other Harwich defences, such as the Martello towers, were upgraded in the years after 1860, and an entirely new battery was built at Shotley Point, Landguard Fort remained neglected until 1870.

Major alteration works took place from 1870-78 in order to house seven huge rifled muzzle- loading guns (RMLs) in a curved, granite-faced casemated battery which replaced the south and south-western faces of the existing fort. The rampart and four remaining bastions were remodelled for a further nine RMLs, two in covered emplacements and the rest open on the new concrete parapet. A semi-circular barrack block replaced the old internal buildings. At this date, the fort could house 98 officers and men, with additional accommodation in the hut barracks, built outside in 1872-73. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

Inside one of the 1870s casemates today. Note the joinery for a removable partition wall to subdivide the space

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 15 Due to the continually rapid advances in military technology, the new fort, with its unwieldy and slow-firing RMLs, was soon left ill-equipped to defend Harwich Harbour. As a result, the 1880s and 1890s saw a series of incremental additions made to the Peninsula. One solution to faster and better-armed warships was breech-loading (BL) guns, which, by the 1880s, had been developed to fire over a parapet and recoil into a pit below for safe reloading. These guns were installed in small batteries protected by concrete emplacements fronted by earthworks: as on Landguard Peninsula at Left Battery (1889-90).

Darell’s Battery was constructed to the front of the Fort in 1900-01, with two quick-firing guns to protect the submarine minefield at the harbour entrance against fast torpedo boats. These underwater mines were an interesting development of the Landguard Peninsula defence scheme in the late 1870s, when the Submarine Mining Establishment was constructed at the northern boundary of the fort. Run by the Royal Engineers from the purpose-built brick Ravelin Block of 1877-80, this compound included facilities for assembling, installing – via a narrow-guage tramway to a jetty with a specially-adapted boat – and electronically detonating the mines. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

The Ravelin Block today as Felixstowe Museum

Signage at Darell’s Battery. The name commemorates the commander who led the defence against the Dutch attack of 1667

16 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 2.3.7 The 20th-century Landguard Fort When the First World War broke out in 1914 Harwich was designated both as a War Anchorage for the Royal Navy and a Class ‘A’ Fortress. The only major addition to the Fort at this time was the second storey of the Fire Commander’s Post in 1915 (the first storey had been erected on the south eastern roof of the Fort’s casemated battery in 1903). This incorporated the Port War Signal Station, which housed navy personnel who controlled entry and exit to the Haven by destroyers and other naval vessels. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

The Fire Commander’s Post. Note the painted markers to assist range-finding

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 17 The threat of an invasion attempt saw land defences being prepared across the Landguard, including trenches, barbed-wire entanglements, blockhouses and earthwork redoubts. New long-range coast guns were provided at Brackenbury Battery, at the southern end of Felixstowe, to improve seaward defence, though neither these nor the existing armaments at Landguard saw action during the war.

The Second World War saw Harwich resume its naval significance, an increasingly important role in the battle to protect Britain’s merchant shipping routes. Landguard Fort served as Harwich’s Fire Command Headquarters throughout the war, and the armaments at Darell’s Battery and Right Battery were upgraded and extended. Darell’s was given two impressive three-storey fire control towers, and three new searchlight shelters nearby, while Right was protected against aerial attack by concrete gun-houses and anti-splinter covers. Heavy anti- aircraft batteries were established on Landguard Common, and elsewhere in the Haven, to defend against the Luftwaffe, especially in 1940-41.

Landguard Peninsula also played a significant strategic part in both Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk in May 1940, and D-Day, 6 June 1944, when troops and tanks embarked on landing craft and ships from a purpose-built area beside the Fort. At the end of the war, the Haven defences were reduced and only key installations maintained, until, in 1956, all British coast and anti-aircraft artillery was disbanded.

2.4 Landguard Peninsula today

2.4.1 Landguard Fort The pentagonal form of Landguard Fort as it survives today is largely that of the 1745-49 fort, much of which was reconstructed in 1870-78. These two phases are easily distinguished by their material: the first phase being red brick and the second phase yellow stock bricks, with granite blocks for the facing of the new casemated battery. Drawings showing the age of the Fort’s surviving fabric are included at the end of this section. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

Landguard Fort and Darell’s Battery as seen from the ditch

18 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Outer Parade The fort is entered through the main gate to the north east, by way of a 1930s concrete bridge across a dry, flat bottomed ditch. The gatehouse is an 1870s rebuilding (in yellow stock bricks) but the curtain walls are of the 1740s fort (in red brick). To the exterior, the gatehouse has a semi-circular arch and pilasters (the pulleys of the former drawbridge survive in the arch spandrels). The entrance passageway is of two bays with storerooms, a cookhouse and guardroom with a passage to a detention room. There is a clock above the arch facing the outer parade.

The external walls of the outer parade contain the 1740s casemates, though the fittings are of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is a side gate, or sally port, in the centre of the north curtain. Stairs lead to the upper levels of the North-East, East and South-East curtain walls, which have gun emplacements, casemates and firing steps to the concrete parapet, of various phases of addition.

The 1870s gatehouse from across the ditch 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

The outer parade

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 19 Inner Parade The rear arc of the 1870s keep forms the curved wall between the outer and inner parades. Its entrance is an arched gateway with massive granite dressings, dated 1875 on the keystone, situated opposite the main gatehouse. It has a semi-circular dry moat crossed by a concrete bridge. The keep is of two storeys with external stairways and walkways, and divided into compartments by joinery partitions which are glazed to the parade. There is a cast iron lamp standard in the centre of the parade.

The rear arc of the keep housed the barrack block: soldiers on the ground floor and officers’ quarters on the first floor. The forward arc of the keep was for the casemated battery. Magazines on the ground floor stored gunpowder barrels, cartridges and shells, in separate rooms to avoid the risk of accidental explosion. Because of their great weight, shells were winched up to the guns above on mechanical hoists. These guns occupied casemates of brick and concrete faced with massive granite blocks and iron shields. Each is divided by a removable partition, with a barrack for up to six soldiers at the rear and the gun at the front. The two casemates to the east were adapted for new use as a Seaward Defence Headquarters in 1952; surviving original features include the map table, elevated desk area and partitions. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

The entrance to the inner parade

The inner parade, looking back at the barrack block

20 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Two other notable features of the casemated battery are the caponier, a passageway leading from the centre of the magazines out into the Fort’s external ditch, and the Fire Commander’s Post which was later constructed on the roof.

View of the caponier and the Fire Commander’s Post from Darell’s Battery

Ravelin Block (Felixstowe Museum) The Ravelin Block is a single storey brick building immediately to the west of the fort, which dates to the Submarine Mining Establishment of the late 1870s. Its interior and exterior remain largely as built, now in use by the Felixstowe Museum, and parts of the associated railway and wooden pilings to the jetty also survive.

Felixstowe Museum holds an extensive collection relating not just to the Landguard Peninsula 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 but to the wider history of the local area, with 14 exhibition rooms including ‘Local, Social and Military History of Felixstowe’, ‘The Pleasure Steamer Era’, ‘Roman and Medieval Felixstowe’ and ‘Submarine Mining History’. It was founded as a registered museum in 1982 and has continued to expand, now utilising all available rooms for exhibitions or storage. The museum achieved full Arts Council Museum Accreditation in 2013.

The Felixstowe Museum collection is well-suited for the historic interiors of the Ravelin Block, and has ensured that the building has remained almost wholly unaltered and kept in good condition. It retains its jack arch brick ceilings and historic joinery and ironmongery, as well as many features relating specifically to its former use by the Submarine Mining Establishment, such as a section of tramway tracks, with a turntable, formerly used to transport mines down to the wooden pier off the beach.

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 21 LANDGUARD POINT LANDGUARD FORT N 1540 –1744 Ground-floor plan

Henry VIII fort Ditch c.1540 Ravelin Block East Curtain LANDGUARD POINT LANDGUARD FORT N Bastioned fort Gatehouse 1540 –1744 Ground-floor plan 1625−8 N North LANDGUARD POINT LANDGUARD FORT N Curtain N 1744–50 1540 –1744 Ground-floor plan New battery and Sally barrack 1717−20 port Guard room LANDGUARD POINT N LANDGUARD FORT N 1870–78 Outer parade Drawbridge 1540 –1744 HenryGround-floor VIII fort plan 0 500m Ditch0 500yds Ravelin Block c.1540 South N East Curtain 1900–56 Curtain Henry VIIIBastioned fort fort 1744 –1803Ditch Gatehouse c.1540 1625−8 Ravelin Block North N Soldiers’ barracks East Curtain Curtain Bastioned fort Henry VIII fort Ditch Gatehouse 1625−8 New battery andc.1540 Ravelin Block North Sally Inner parade port barrack 1717−20 Curtain East CurtainEntrenched camp Guard room 1779−82Outer parade Bastioned fort Gatehouse Drawbridge New battery and 0 1625−8 500m 0 500yds Sally barrack 1717−20 port North Guard room Curtain Outer parade South 1744 –1803 Drawbridge Curtain Magazines 0 500mNew battery and 0 500yds Sally 1744–50 port Sally barrack 1717−20 N Guard room South 1870–78 Outer parade BastionedSoldiers’ fort barracks port 1744 Curtain 1744 –1803 Magazines 1900–56 0 500m 0 500yds Drawbridge Caponier N Soldiers’ barracks Inner parade Entrenched camp South 1744 –1803 1779−82 0 500m 0 500yds Curtain Inner parade Entrenched camp N Soldiers’ barracks 1779−82 1870 –1914 Magazines 1744–50 Inner parade N Entrenched camp Sally Bastioned fort port 1870–78 1779−82 1744 Magazines Magazines 1744–50 1900–56 SallyCaponier First-floor plan Bastioned fort RNAS Felixstowe port 1870–78 1744 1913 0 500m 0 500yds Magazines Magazines Hut barracks 19001744–50–56 Chapel Bastion Caponier 1872 Sally Bastioned fort port 1870–78 0 500m 0 1744 500yds 1870 –1914 MagazinesLeft Battery 1900–56 Submarine Mining 1888 Establishment 1877Caponier N Pillbox Holland Bastion 1870 –1914 G13 0 500m 0 500yds Casemated Battery 1870 Pillbox N First-floor plan RNAS Felixstowe G12 Darell’s Battery Right Battery G10 1870 –1914 1913 1898 1900 G11 Hut barracks First-floor plan Clock RNAS Felixstowe N Age of Fabric: Ground floor plan Chapel Bastion 1872 chamber 1913 G14 Hut barracks Left Battery Submarine Mining 1888 First-floor plan Chapel Bastion RNAS Felixstowe1872Establishment 1877 0 500m 0 500yds G15 Pillbox Holland Bastion 1913 G13 Left Battery Asset the Understanding 2.0 Submarine Mining Hut barracksCasemated G9 1888Battery 1870 Chapel Bastion Pillbox RML replica Establishment 1877 1872 Holland Bastion TODAY Pillbox G12 Officers’ quarters Darell’s Battery Right Battery G13 G10 Casemated Left Battery 1898 G16 Submarine Mining 1900 FELIXSTOWE Battery 1870 1888 Pillbox N G11 Establishment 1877 Clock Right Battery G12 Pillbox Holland Bastion Darell’s Battery G13 G14 chamberG10 Casemated 1898 1900 G11 G1 Battery 1870 Clock Pillbox Harwich Bastion 0 500mRight Battery 0 500yds G12 chamberG15 Docks G2 Darell’s Battery G14 G10 G7 G8 1900 1898 G3 G11 G9 G6 G4 G5 0 500m 0 500yds G15 Clock RML replica chamber Casemated TODAY G14 Officers’ quarters battery Martello Landguard Fort King’s Bastion towerG16 G9 Seaward FELIXSTOWE N and barracks RML replica 0 500m 0 500yds G15 Defence HQ TODAY SHOTLEY Officers’ quarters G16 GATE Circular Redoubt G9 FELIXSTOWE N G1 Harwich BastionMartello RML replica TODAY Docks tower Officers’ quarters G2 G7 G8 G16 FELIXSTOWE G1 G3 N Harwich Bastion Beacon Hill G6 G4 G5 Guns (late 19th century) Docks G2 Casemated 0 1km G7 G8 G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML 0 50m battery Martello Landguard Fort G3 0 1mile G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML G1 HARWICH G6 Seaward King’s Bastion tower and barracks Harwich Bastion G4 G5 G11, 12 64-pounder RML 0 150ft Casemated Defence HQ Docks G2 G13, 16 9-inch RML SHOTLEY battery G7 G8 Martello Landguard Fort G14, 15 8-inch RML howitzer GATE G3 Seaward King’s Bastion tower and barracks Circular Redoubt G6 G4 G5 Defence HQ Martello Casemated SHOTLEY tower GATE Martello Landguard Fort battery Circular Redoubt Seaward King’s Bastion tower and barracks Martello Beacon Hill Guns (late 19th century) Defence HQ tower SHOTLEY 0 1kmAge of Fabric: First floor plan 0 50m GATE G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML Circular Redoubt 0 1mile G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML Beacon HillHARWICH Martello Guns(adapted (late from 19th English century) HeritageG11, 12 guidebook) 64-pounder RML 0 150ft 0 1km tower G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML G13, 16 9-inch RML 0 50m 0 1mile G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML G14, 15 8-inch RML howitzer HARWICH Beacon Hill G11, 12Guns 64-pounder(late 19th RML century) 0 150ft 0 1km G13, 16 9-inch RML G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML 0 50m G14,Landguard 15 8-inch Peninsula RML howitzer Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 0 1mile 22 G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML HARWICH Alan Baxter G11, 12 64-pounder RML 0 150ft G13, 16 9-inch RML G14, 15 8-inch RML howitzer 2.4.2 External Batteries 1744–50 In the late 19th and 20th centuries, the rapidly changing technology of coastal artillery meant that batteries were increasingly installed externally to the main fortification. The main 1870–78 surviving batteries on the Landguard Peninsula are illustrated in the diagram below.

1900–56

4 5

3 6 2

1 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

1 Right Battery 5 Searchlight shelters

2 Emergency Battery 6 Darell’s Battery

3 Practice Battery English Heritage guardianship 4 Left Battery

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 23 2.4.3 Beach Defences The reinforced concrete huts, pillboxes, searchlight shelters and tank traps that are dotted around the beach are an important part of many visitors’ experience of the fortifications of the Landguard Peninsula. These defensive structures were constructed during the Second World War as part of an extensive scheme to prevent enemy landings which included a concrete sea wall, infantry trenches, barbed-wire entanglements and steel scaffolding barriers. Of the older phases of the Peninsula’s development, the wooden Landguard Groyne survives to the southern tip of the Point, as do the timber pilings of the former submarine mining jetty.

As shown in the photographs below, after half a century of exposure to the elements and devoid of their original function, the cumulative effect of these man-made structures is as a picturesque part of the natural landscape. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

24 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 25 2.4.4 Landscape context The landscape context of the fortifications of Landguard Peninsula is characterised both by its natural beauty, as a peninsula of undeveloped land with the sea on three sides, and the formidable scale of the container port on the fourth side, which dominates even the impressive scale of Landguard Fort.

View of beach from Right Battery 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

Aerial view showing the fort in the context of the Port of Felixstowe (photograph by Steve Wilson)

26 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter It is important too to consider the Landguard Peninsula as viewed from the approach channel to the Haven, which is where its fortifications would have been sighted by enemy ships. Due to the changes of levels in the surrounding land it is difficult to get a sense of the total scale of the Fort when viewing it from the Peninsula. From the sea, however, its full form – and the extent to which it is experienced as an integrated part of the Peninsula landscape – becomes apparent, as does the historic layering of different centuries of fortifications which make it unique. 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0

Views of the Fort and the Peninsula from the Approach Channel to Harwich Haven

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 27 2.4.5 Management of the site The Landguard Peninsula combines land under several different ownerships and uses, managed as a whole under a joint agreement by the Landguard Partnership (see drawing opposite).

Ownership • Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC): the Nature Reserve along the east of the Peninsula (and lease additional land from Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company, including the viewing area car park and visitor centre) • Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company (FDRC): northern area of the site adjacent to the port • English Heritage: has guardianship of Landguard Fort, Ravelin Block and outer batteries • Harwich Haven Authority: southern area of the site, including the Landguard Bungalow and Radar Tower

Local Management Agreements The area in the guardianship of English Heritage is managed by three different organisations under separate Local Management Agreements, which makes each responsible for the day-today care and management of their part of the site.

• Landguard Fort Trust: opens Landguard Fort to the public on behalf of English Heritage from April to October, 7 days per week • Felixstowe History & Museum Society: runs the Felixstowe Museum located in the Ravelin Block • Landguard Conservation Trust: a bird observatory and biodiversity monitoring station, located in Right Battery and only open to visitors for special events

The Landguard Partnership

2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 Landguard Peninsula as a whole is managed under a joint agreement by the Landguard Partnership, which comprises the above as well as Natural England, the statutory advisor on nature conservation, Felixstowe Town Council, which represents the local community, and Yeo Group Ltd., which runs the Landguard Visitor Centre and Viewpoint Café.

The Partnership has a full-time Project Officer, a part-time Events and Marketing Coordinator, and a part-time Ranger, employed through SCDC. A large proportion of its funding comes from a Section 106 agreement with the Port due to its expansion programme, of which Phase 1 has been completed and Phase 2 has been put on hold. This includes annual payments for the running of the Landguard Partnership secured until 2018 and the provision of a permanent visitor centre once Phase 2 recommences.

28 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter N 2.0 Understanding the Asset the Understanding 2.0 This drawing incorporates information from the Ordnance Survey which is © Crown Copyright. ABA Licence: AL1000 17547 AL1000 ABA Licence: Copyright. Crown © is which Survey Ordnance the from information incorporates drawing This Ownership Plan

English Heritage (leased to Suffolk Coastal District Council Landguard Conservation Trust) Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company Harwich Haven Authority Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company (leased to SCDC) Port reconfiguration Phase 1 (2008–11) English Heritage (agreement with Landguard Fort Trust) Port reconfiguration Phase 2 (on hold) English Heritage (licensed to Felixstowe History and Port reconfiguration not to scale Museum Society)

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 29 3.0 Assessment of Significance

3.1 Assessing Significance Assessing ‘significance’ is the means by which the cultural importance of a place and its component parts is identified and compared, both absolutely and relatively. The purpose of this is not merely academic. It is essential to effective conservation and management, for the identification of areas and aspects of higher and lower significance, based on a thorough understanding of the site, enables proposals to be developed which safeguard and where possible enhance the character and cultural values of a place. The assessment is an essential step towards the identification of areas where only minimal changes should be considered, as well as locations and actions where change might enhance understanding and appreciation of the site’s significance.

Statutory designation is the legal mechanism by which we as a society, through the actions of the state, identify significant historic places in order to protect them. The designations of the Landguard Peninsula are listed below, but it is necessary to go beyond these designations in order to arrive at a more detailed and broader understanding of significance that considers more than matters archaeological, ecological and architectural-historical. This is achieved here by using the terminology and criteria from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document, adopted in March 2012, places the concept of significance at the heart of the planning process.

Annex 2 of the NPPF defines significance as:

The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008) includes a methodology for assessing significance by considering ‘heritage values’. Ultimately, the difference between 3.0 Assessment of Significance of Assessment 3.0 this and NPPF amounts to one of terminology – the intellectual approach used to analyse and understand significance is the same.NPPF terms are used here because adopting them now will make the process of preparing and assessing future planning and listed building consent applications easier, but the equivalent heritage values are given in brackets for reference.

Annex 2 of NPPF definesarchaeological interest [‘evidential value’] in the following way:

There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

Commonly used definitions for the other types of interest are:

Architectural and Artistic Interest [‘aesthetic value’]: These are the interests in the design and general aesthetics of a place. They can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way the heritage asset has evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an interest in the art or science of the design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings and structures of all types. Artistic interest is an interest in other human creative skill, like sculpture.

Historic Interest [‘historical value’]: An interest in past lives and events (including pre-historic). Heritage assets can illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets with historic interest not

30 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter only provide a material record of our nation’s history, but can also provide an emotional meaning for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise wider values such as faith and cultural identity [‘communal value’].

This assessment begins below with statutory designations, followed by a summary statement of significance of the Landguard Peninsula, and a breakdown of this significance by the type of interest described above.

3.2 Designations The Landguard Peninsula encompasses the following statutory designations, as shown on the opening page of this document:

• Landguard Fort and its associated field works were scheduled as an Ancient Monument in 1962. The area was enlarged in 2001 and the description was amended. Landguard Fort itself was also designated a grade-I listed building in 1986. • A large proportion of the Peninsula is designated for its ecological significance as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and/or a Local Nature Reserve. The Peninsula is a Vegetated Coastal Shingle habitat, which harbours several rare species of flora and fauna, including Stinking Goosefoot. Landguard is also recognised as a nationally important site of bird migration, landfall, breeding and wintering. 3.3 Summary Statement of Significance Although the high significance of the Landguard Peninsula is recognised by the above designations, they do not adequately convey the overall significance of the site when considered as a totality. The location of the Landguard Peninsula, surrounded by water on three sides, is integral to its archaeological, architectural and historic interest as an appropriate

site for the defence of Harwich Haven; as well as to its ecological interest for the rare coastal Significance of Assessment 3.0 habitat which is a direct result of this geography. Furthermore, the ecological importance of the Peninsula today is due in a considerable way to its exclusively-military purpose for several centuries, which ensured the site had restricted access and remained undeveloped.

While most historic sites can be broken down into an internal assessment of higher or lower significance, this is not an appropriate strategy when assessing the significance of the Landguard Peninsula. Instead, it must be seen as highly significant in its entirety. No single historic phase of its fortifications – whether archaeological or architectural – takes precedent over another; moreover, the significance of each phase gains meaning from the others in telling the overarching story of the developments in coastal defences since the medieval period.

Beyond its separate designations, therefore, the Landguard Peninsula is a significant whole that must be considered above all in its relationship with the sea. Despite its resoundingly modern scale, the Port of Felixstowe is a part of this significance in the ongoing history of Harwich’s role as a national trading port which the fortifications of the Landguard Peninsula were engineered to protect. With this in mind, perhaps the most significant aspect of the site is its views across the Haven, as plotted in section 3.5. While the panoramic views from the fort were fundamental to its establishment in military terms, they remain significant in providing an ongoing connection to Harwich Haven – the Fort’s raison d’etre – which today is a spectacular hub of international container shipping.

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 31 3.4 Significance by Interest

3.4.1 Archaeological Interest As summarised in section 2.2, since the 16th century the fortifications of the Landguard Peninsula have seen a long and cyclical history of construction, disrepair and subsequent rebuilding, according to new military threats or developments in technology. This means that the site has immense archaeological interest and contains a substantial amount of buried evidence related to previous phases.

The Scheduled Ancient Monument List Entry Summary for Landguard Fort draws attention to the ‘archaeological information relating to the occupation and function of the fort from the 17th to the mid-20th century [which] is retained in the associated buried remains, slighter earthworks and other features which extend over much of the peninsula’. Of the earliest phases, in 2002 a research investigation successfully located elements of the well-preserved bastion, curtain wall and ditch of the 1625-28 fortification, to the north east of the present fort, of which there is now no evidence above ground. It is also probable that there are surviving elements of the lost but extensive earthworks that were constructed across the peninsula in the late 18th century, as well as in the Second World War.

3.4.2 Architectural Interest In addition to what is hidden beneath the ground, the standing fortifications of the Landguard Peninsula as they survive today contain several separate phases of considerable architectural interest. Regarding the fort specifically, while much is retained from the third rebuilding of 1745-49 in terms of plan form and its essential redesign as a bastion fortification, the visible historic fabric is almost wholly of 1870-78. The casemated work of this phase remains fundamentally unaltered, and is one of the best surviving of the period. There are many original surviving finishes, fixtures and fittings that illustrate its original design and function.

3.0 Assessment of Significance of Assessment 3.0 The late 19th and 20th century additions, which most significantly include the Fire Commander’s Post, external batteries and beach fortifications, are also of architectural interest for the impressive extent of unaltered historic fabric, and for their group value as individual but visually-interrelated elements of a larger defence strategy. There is further, wider group value between the fortifications of the Peninsula and the Ports of Felixstowe and Harwich, the trading interests of which they have long protected. The juxtaposition of the ultra-modern container port and the fort is a dramatic illustration of this vital relationship.

3.4.3 Historic Interest Importantly, the architectural interest inherent to each phase of the Landguard fortifications gains historic interest when considered together as evidence of the changing design intent behind fortifying the Landguard Peninsula in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

The layering of the two primary surviving phases of the fort itself is subtle, and apparent largely through the change from red to yellow stock bricks: both phases are evidential of the same fundamental military philosophy, by which increasingly large and unwieldy armaments were aimed inflexibly at the mouth of the Haven.

32 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter The subsequent change in technology and gun range by which artillery was instead orientated out to sea is dramatically apparent in the late 19th and 20th century additions. These are both largely external to the confines of the fort itself and built in reinforced concrete, an evidentially different and modern material. Similarly, the beach fortifications are testament to the re-use of the Landguard Peninsula as a defensive outpost during the Second World War.

The Ravelin Block is of immense historic interest as the only surviving component of the technologically pioneering Submarine Mining Establishment built at Landguard in 1879, one of the earliest such establishments in the British Empire.

Furthermore, during the long history of the Landguard Peninsula it has been notable for its association with many significant historic figures and events: in fact, each phase is indicative of a military conflict, whether the threat that prompted it was real or otherwise. The Dutch assault of July 1667 is the most important of these, and remains an under-known aspect of English history despite its indisputable status as an event of national historic importance. The involvement of Dutch military engineers such as Simon de Cranvelt and Sir Bernard de Gomme in the 17th century Landguard Fort is another key aspect of its historic importance at the time.

3.4.4 Other Interest All of the above aspects of archaeological, architectural and historic interest contribute to the background communal value of the Landguard Peninsula. Another contributor to this sense of local significance is the Landguard Fort’s long-standing visual and functional relationship with the Port of Felixstowe, which is an important local employer.

However, the Landguard Peninsula is of most importance for the local community not as a place that testifies to centuries of military warfare but as a place of accessible recreation and public outdoor space. The ecological significance of the Peninsula landscape as an important natural habitat for rare local species and migrating birds grants it further interest for the 3.0 Assessment of Significance of Assessment 3.0 community at large, as well as for specialists and enthusiasts.

3.5 Setting of the Landguard Fortifications The Landguard Fortifications are given considerable significance by virtue of their setting, in terms of both the beautiful natural land- and seascape and the dramatic man-made backdrop of the Port of Felixstowe. It is important however to consider this setting not simply as how the Landguard Fortifications sit in that context (as described in section 2.4.4) but how the assets themselves are experienced. Due to its status as a defensive structure, the Fort’s interior embodies a remarkable sense of isolation from the landscape it was built to protect. It is only when one reaches the parapets that its strategic views of command and defence, as illustrated in the following section, are realised.

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 33 3.5.1 Key Views

2 1

4 6

North-west from roof of 1 Harwich Bastion North-west from wall near 3.0 Assessment of Significance of Assessment 3.0 8 2 Chapel Bastion West from roof of Casemated 3 Battery 7 South-west from roof of 4 Casemated Battery South from roof of Casemated 5 Battery

6 From Fire Commander’s Post

7 North-west from Right Battery

8 South-east from Right Battery

English Heritage guardianship

34 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 1 2

3 4

5 6 3.0 Assessment of Significance of Assessment 3.0

7 8

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 35 4.0 Issues and Opportunities

The purpose of this chapter is to identify ways in which the significance of the Landguard Peninsula is vulnerable, as well as the ways in which it has the potential to be enhanced by the Discover Landguard Proposals. This discussion is split into three sections: the general strategic approach, centred on ownership, management and funding; and the specifics of the site itself in terms of both the Fortifications and the wider Peninsula.

4.1 Ownership, Management and Funding

Issues • The Landguard Peninsula is owned and managed by many different stakeholders (as set out in 2.3.5), resulting in many simultaneous and often conflicting aspirations for the future of the site • The annual payments secured through the Section 106 agreement with the Port due to its expansion programme are due to cease in 2018 • If successful, a HLF grant may cover one-off repairs, but it will not fund ongoing maintenance • The organisations that run the site at present are over-dependent on volunteers • The renewal and maintenance of Landguard’s heritage assets will require considerable funds

Opportunities • The overall management provided by the Landguard Partnership should result in the coherent, co-ordinated and long-term vision that the HLF will expect

4.0 Issues and Opportunities and Issues 4.0 • There is considerable potential for additional revenue-generating uses for the site, which, if properly explored, mean that the self-sustaining funding that the ongoing maintenance of the Landguard fortifications requires should be achievable in the long term

4.2 Landguard Fortifications

Issues • Due to inadequate maintenance and the harsh environmental conditions of the site, Landguard Fort is in a generally poor state of repair at present. The ground floor rooms and corridors are damp, and there is a need to update the flood defence strategy for the site (especially the Ravelin Block) • From April 2015 English Heritage will operate under its New Model, by which the ownership of historic sites will fall under the responsibility of a charity (to be called English Heritage). This could bring uncertainty to the status of the Landguard Fortifications as an ‘unmanned’ site in English Heritage guardianship • If the Port of Felixstowe carries out phase 2 of its proposed reconfiguration, there will be a large impact on the setting of the Landguard Fort. Any proposals will need to be conceived with the possible effects of this phase in mind

36 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter • The Fort contains many large, empty spaces which seem disproportionate when compared with its small collection of exhibits • The impressive and historically-significant views out from the Fort to the land- and seascape of the Haven are not currently publicly accessible • It is not currently possible to walk around the exterior perimeter of the Fort’s curtain walls, and is thus difficult to get a sense of its scale and standing in the landscape

Opportunities • The Fort is a robust engineering structure which can withstand an increase in footfall • Improve interpretation and re-organise the Fort’s internal exhibition spaces into a coherent narrative for the visitor • Open up an external access route around the perimeter of the Fort • Consider the creation of Landmark Trust-style holiday lets in the Fort’s under-used and atmospheric rooms, such as the first-floor casemates, or even the beach fortifications • There is a huge, untapped market of potential visitors, as demonstrated by the disparity between the number of visitors to the car park and to the museum itself. Almost 200,000 cars used the car park in 2004, and, due to the opening of the Viewpoint Café, there is reason to suspect that it has increased significantly since then. In comparison, there were just under 15,000 visitors to the Fort that year (this has since risen to just over 23,000 in 2013) • Establish a viewing point for shipping approaching and entering the Haven. The fortifications have the potential to host the best view on the Peninsula, for example from Darell’s Battery or the Fire Command Post on the roof of the Fort • Create a Heritage Partnership Agreement between English Heritage and the Landguard 4.0 Issues and Opportunities and Issues 4.0 Fort Trust to agree a suite of standing consents for maintenance tasks • Establish an on-site Heritage Skills Programme to carry out conservation and maintenance • Make use of unoccupied rooms in the Fort to provide overflow exhibition space for Felixstowe Museum • Provide interpretation boards to increase public engagement as maintenance work is carried out • Develop ‘Augmented Reality’ interpretation technology to bring the Fort’s empty rooms to life 4.3 Landguard Peninsula

Issues • If visitor numbers increase, then some archaeological and ecological aspects of the wider Peninsula may be put at risk. The combined high significance of different aspects of the site as a whole must be preserved

• Different aspects of the site’s significance may result in conflicts of interest, for example between the conservation requirements of ecology and archaeology

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 37 • There is a risk of the broader context of Felixstowe’s naval history, for example the Seaplane Experimental Station and HMS Beehive, being forgotten because there are no standing architectural remains

• At present there is poor circulation around the site, with physical internal barriers separating the Fort, Ravelin Block, external batteries and wider Peninsula. This leads to a confusing and fragmented visitor experience

Opportunities • Create a singular, joined-up visitor experience: encompassing the Fort, the Museum, Viewpoint Café and car park and the wider Peninsula, and combining the many types of significance which make the site so special

• Provide interpretation throughout the wider site to ensure the inclusion of the many different events and associations which contribute to the historic significance of the Landguard Peninsula

• This could be positioned as part of the wider drive for the regeneration of Felixstowe (for example the Seafront Gardens, which received HLF funding in 2011)

• Better utilise the archaeological significance of the site by hosting community digs and offering interpretation for visitors as the site is investigated in ongoing stages

• Consider charging for use of the car park to create a stable income stream for the Peninsula 4.0 Issues and Opportunities and Issues 4.0

38 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter 5.0 Conclusion

This Outline Conservation Plan has identified that the significance of the Landguard Peninsula cannot be isolated as one or two distinct factors. By its very nature, this document has been centred on the built heritage assets of the Landguard fortifications, but it concludes that, above all, it is significant as a cumulative collection of high-quality assets: archaeological, architectural and historic, but also of manifest importance in terms of ecology, community value, and the bustling commerce of the adjacent port.

This holistic vision of the Landguard Peninsula is also its ‘unique selling point’ as a rare visitor experience that encompasses all of the above. There is, however, much to be done in order to realise its potential in this respect. This Outline Conservation Statement has set out some important first steps and overall ambitions as to how it can be achieved. First, and most crucially, there is a need for coherent management of the many stakeholders that own and run the Peninsula, with agreed objectives as to what will be achieved by the Discover Landguard project proposals.

In our view, then, some of these fundamental governing principles should be to remove barriers between the different elements of the site – both paid and physical – and to establish a viewing platform from the Fort that offers the best panorama of both the beautiful natural land- and seascape and the industrial spectacle of the comings and goings of container ships using the Port of Felixstowe. In light of the future loss of funding from the Port, there is also a very imminent need for bold and ambitious proposals to ensure the financial self-sufficiency of the Landguard Peninsula, which will be the long-term key to its success.

Ultimately, therefore, this Outline Conservation Statement not only attempts to explain and discuss the history and significance of the assets on the Landguard Peninsula, but to set the Landguard Partnership a challenge regarding their Round One HLF bid: to ensure reasonable and appropriate development of the nationally-important and often fragile site, but also – Conclusion 5.0 and just as importantly – to make the most of its considerable and at present under-utilised potential.

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 39 6.0 Key Sources

Alan Baxter & Associates, Felixstowe South Reconfiguration. Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (unpublished, 2003)

Brown, Moraig, et al, English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Series. Landguard Fort report no 3: Right Battery (unpublished, 2004)

English Heritage, Landguard Fort and the Artillery Defences of the Landguard Peninsula. A Conservation Plan (unpublished, 2000)

Hussey, Frank, Suffolk Invasion(Lavenham: Terence Dalton Limited, 1983, 2005 edn.)

Pattison, Paul, Landguard Fort (London: English Heritage Guidebooks, 2006)

–et al, English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Series. Landguard Fort report no 4: Darell’s Battery (unpublished, 2005)

Stewart, Graham, Time & Tide: The History of the Harwich Haven Authority 1863-2013 (London: Wild ReSearch, 2013)

Wood, D.A., Landguard Fort, Felixstowe (unpublished)

–Landguard Fort, Felixstowe. List of books, reports, papers & other research material for Landguard Fort (unpublished, 2013)

–Drawings of Landguard Fort, Felixstowe. A guidance to the available drawings & maps for Landguard Fort, Suffolk (unpublished, 2010)

6.0 Key Sourses Key 6.0 – I. Scrivner and A. Lockwood, Gazetteer of the Landguard Peninsula (unpublished, 1999)

40 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix - List Entry Summaries Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 41 Appendix 1 Appendix

42 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 43 Appendix 1 Appendix

44 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 45 Appendix 1 Appendix

46 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 47 Appendix 1 Appendix

48 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 49 Appendix 1 Appendix

50 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 51 Appendix 1 Appendix

52 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 53 Appendix 1 Appendix

54 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter Appendix 1 Appendix

Alan Baxter Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 55 Appendix 1 Appendix

56 Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014 Alan Baxter

Alan Baxter Prepared by Tom Brooks and William Filmer-Sankey Reviewed by Reider Payne Draft Statement of History & Significance issued March 2014 Draft issued May 2014 Final issued July 2014

T:\1339\1339-027\DTPData\2014-05_Conservation Statement\1339-27_Landguard Peninsula_Outline Conservation Statement.indd

This document is for the sole use of the person or organisation for whom it has been prepared under the terms of an invitation or appointment by such person or organisation. Unless and to the extent allowed for under the terms of such invitation or appointment this document should not be copied or used or relied upon in whole or in part by third parties for any purpose whatsoever. If this document has been issued as a report under the terms of an appointment by such person or organisation, it is valid only at the time of its production. Alan Baxter & Associates LLP does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from unauthorised use of this report.

If this document has been issued as a ‘draft’, it is issued solely for the purpose of client and/or team comment and must not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of Alan Baxter & Associates LLP.

Alan Baxter & Associates LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England, number OC328839. Registered office: 75 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6EL.

75 Cowcross Street London EC1M 6EL tel 020 7250 1555 fax 020 7250 3022 email [email protected]