SAVE THE TUDOR WALL

 All new information will be added to the top of this page as it comes to light.

                                   DATING THE HISTORIC GARDEN   08.01.2010

The Economic Framework.

We take as our starting point the following:

“Gardens are a sensitive barometer of economic activity, for in times of hardship there are no resources for new creations, and sums available for maintenance are reduced. Just as they reflect the financial climate, so too are they an expression of the artistic and social pursuits of their times. They can never be seen in isolation for they are as much a part of the cultural fabric as interior decoration or music.” Visions of Arcadia, European Gardens from Renaissance to Rococo, M. Woods, 1999, p11

From this standpoint the most likely period for the creation of the historic garden adjacent to Restoration House is pre 1607. This is because the most lavish and expensive part of the house is the South wing and was built before then by Nicholas Morgan and given in that year to his daughter Grace, as a wedding portion on her marriage to his clerk, Henry Clerke. All the work which followed in the 17th century by Henry Clerke (and his son Sir Francis) was of an inferior standard to that set by his father in law. This South wing of the current house is traditionally dated to 1587 and with its ogee capped double height bay window, monumental fireplaces, oak panelling and other joinery, along with its profusion of mullion windows, stylistically bears out a late 16th century date in every particular.

It is therefore consistent to start with the assumption that such a house would have had a garden of some consequence. The John Speed map of 1611 illustrates just such a garden enclosing a large house outside the city walls, to the South of Eastgate. The only realistic candidate for this depiction is Restoration House. This map shows a detached mansion bounded to the West, East and South, with walls which closely relate to the newly discovered boundary walls to the East and to the so called Tudor wall to the South. These walls enclose a garden itself indicated by trees. Moreover the ogee bay window of the South wing with its angled facets would have commanded views over the area enclosed by these Speed documented walls to the East and South, thus strengthening the logic that the most lavish part of the house and the newly revealed garden are contemporary additions, with evidently, the diapered brick and flint Tudor wall as the most spectacular feature. The only discrepancy in the Speed map is the exact location of the house and that the front of the house is further bounded by a wall to the West, rather than being tied as is now the case, discussed below.

The parts of the house attributed to Henry Clerke  (active 1607-30) and his son Sir Francis (active 1630-84), run north from the South wing and include an anachronistic Great Hall and a converted stable block. Significantly neither of these new built sections has views back onto the earlier garden and indeed appear to have been further separated from it by a wall at the end of the 17th century. This wall effectively closed off the raised terrace walks running North, which are a main feature of the early garden. The house itself was divided in the late 17th century with corresponding partitions aligning exactly with this garden wall, and the creation of Lower and Upper Restoration House with their separate entrances. The focus of the garden had now moved North to behind the new built Great Hall and North wing, and it is likely the earlier garden lost form and status.

Cartographic Evidence

Whether by accident or elimination, the John Speed maps (c1610) have been hitherto entirely overlooked as an aid to dating the garden. Elizabeth Hall (1994) relied on the 1633 Alnwick map to conclude there was no garden to the South and does not mention Speed.

This view has been adopted by Compass Archaeology (2008) and appears to have guided their interpretation. Yet Elizabeth Hall  (d.1998) did not have the advantage of the recent excavations, which bear out the Speed map, while Compass refer to no cartographic evidence prior to the 1854 OS map.

Every map apart from the Alnwick shows walls in positions which can be directly related to the recent findings. Thus the Tudor wall to the South features in the Speed maps (c.1610), the Baker map (c1768) the Hasted map (c1790), the Sales map (1819) and all the OS maps up to (?).  Similarly the East wall is shown in Speed, Baker, Hasted and Sales. Given that it is only the Alnwick map which fails to show these garden walls, yet shows walls to the distant North which appear to delineate fields rather than a garden, it is fair to agree with the Cartographic Society that “like so many historical documents these early printed maps…need to be used with a certain amount of caution…yet by plotting the additional information of Stow’s survey directly onto Agas map, a much fuller and more realistic picture of the Elizabethan city can be built up.  (The A to Z of Elizabethan London, 1979. p.ix & concl). Likewise to plot Speed’s Survey onto the Alnwick map yields a “fuller and more realistic picture”.

A criticism of the Speed maps, (and one reason which may account for their past rejection?) is that Restoration House appears to be shown closer to the City wall and Eastgate than is truly the case. Interestingly it is shown slightly closer in one Speed edition than another. Yet in both these editions St Margaret’s Church is much more drastically misplaced, and its identity might be questioned were there not a written identification in one edition. It too is jammed just outside the City Wall when it is about ¼ mile distant. This may be because of a different importance placed on being “Within” or “Without” the City wall in the pre –modern world view. Thus likewise “ the Tower (of London) as a whole is not shown in its correct position relative to the City wall”  (ibid, p.vii). This view is embodied in the nomenclature of London churches, whether “within” or “without” the wall, being an essential distinction. Likewise Restoration House is traditionally referred to as a “city mansion outside the city wall”.

On balance the cartographic evidence strongly supports the notion that there have been notable enclosing walls to the South and East of Restoration House since at least 1610, possibly earlier. This notion is further supported by the evolution of the house itself. For the current South wing of Restoration House was the North wing of the Tudor hall house, and the newer parts of the house were all built further North. The new North wing complete with a full set of large mullion and transom windows facing North (to the river) and with two observation windows angled onto the river from the buttressing tower, was probably finished by c 1600-20. The canted bay window was now in the south of the house, commanding the Tudor garden while the newly built Great Hall and North wing gave no views back to the old garden. Indeed by the time Henry Bockenham built a new north wall (c1700), butting up to the raised terraces, the importance of the old garden was surely on the wane. Nothing of quality north of this wall appears to have been built, as the house was now divided between Upper and Lower Restoration House and in part tenancy throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is most improbable that a garden as powerfully conceived and executed as that under review would have been attempted under such circumstances.

Interpreting the Garden Walls

The historic garden as plotted from excavated or surviving evidence shows a powerful square conception, open to the North, closed to the South by the diapered Tudor Wall, with another behind. Two parallel projecting arms created the northward thrust. These arms took the form of raised terrace walks and they projected North in order to purposefully command the River Medway, probably from a gazebo on the East terrace, from which a plinth section survives. By projecting North to the river and tying back into the Tudor wall to the South, a set of raised terrace walks created views without and enclosure within.

The importance and allure of the Medway is basic to an understanding of the North-South orientation of the garden. Just as country house gardens exploit or visually incorporate the landscape beyond, and the Japanese garden utilises “borrowed scenery” so this garden took as its subject the riverscape northwards and possibly East. That Henry VIII had been overwintering his fleet at Chatham Reach (then known as ‘Jillingham Water’) from as early as the 1530’s probably contributed, just as the diaries of Evelyn and Pepys testify to the spectacle and fascination of the fleet. Even up to Dickens’ time the commerce of the river and its narrative power was taken for granted. Again it is perhaps a late 20th/21st century perspective which obscures this more elemental approach. That the 18th and 19th centuries saw the closing down of this river vista by built development along the progressively embanked foreshore is demonstrated by the blocking up of the view from the Harbour Master’s House (top of Nag’s Head Lane) which is now hopelessly overshadowed by later development.

The 16th and early 17th century garden was centred on the now lost Tudor hall house, on the footprint of which Vines House now, it is believed, largely stands. This Tudor hall house directly looked out on the garden. The Tudor wall would be powerfully apparent with walks in front of it and above, connecting up with the northerly raised terrace walks. While this brick diaper and flint wall spectacularly faced the river, the raised terrace walks nearly 20feet wide were formed by dressed ragstone walls, probably with red brick upper sections. The scale of the enterprise is truly impressive, the ragstone walls appear to have been of fine quality, coursed and galletted, their inner and outer faces 20feet apart. Likewise the discovery of another ragstone wall 20feet behind the Tudor wall confirms the same massive scale to the South. The sheer might of the conception and its powerful northwards thrust suggests the confidence and wealth of the owner.

The newly published garden drawings of Elizabethan and Jacobean architect Robert Smythson, (England’s Earliest Garden Plans, by Paula Henderson, Country Life, 2nd Dec, 2009) show gardens which mirror these features. All were dominated by “a great square enclosure” several  “with terraces around three sides” many commanding river views. The garden of Northampton House on the Strand had “plain square beds between terraces, the farthest overlooking the Thames”. Nearby Somerset House had two square gardens commanding the Thames, “the greater of these aligned with the main body of the house”

The South wing of Restoration House similarly demonstrates these qualities, its canted bay window commanded both the garden and the river, echoed by a responding Pavillion or Gazebo on the N end of the East terrace walk. That this bay and wing, conforming as it does in quality and conception to the garden, predates 1607 is certain enough. Smythson’s drawings were done in 1609 and “are crucial evidence for Jacobean gardens –their size, their planting, and most intriguingly, their striking boldness of design” (ibid, Henderson, p.64).

----------------------------------

09.10.09

Tudor Wall Saved for Posterity

OWNERS of Restoration House have won a major battle in their campaign to restore historic Tudor gardens which were once a feature of their property.

Jonathan Wilmot and Robert Tucker have purchased the one-and-three-quarter acre Century Buildings site, which has been partially developed for housing.

The site includes a decorative knapped flint and brick Tudor wall, which was partially demolished by developers before Robert Tucker spotted its significance and persuaded them to stop. English Heritage spot-listed the wall, protecting it from further destruction.

Desperate to prevent further damage, Robert and Jonathan attempted to buy part of the site in March last year. Their offer was turned down by the developers, who subsequently went into administration.

The deal to buy the site from administrators was completed only last week.

“This is a great opportunity to protect the setting of Restoration House and create a valuable new heritage asset for Medway, which will be open to the public,” said Jonathan. “The main priority will be to rebuild the demolished part of the Tudor wall and to restore the historic formal garden in the area adjoining Restoration House.”

“Our first responsibility is to have the whole site archaeologically surveyed,” said Robert. “It’s important to know exactly what is there so that it can be properly restored.

“We want to reflect the literary and historic heritage of Rochester. The brewery which once stood on the site was immortalised by Dickens in Great Expectations. And the gardens are mentioned by Pepys, who says that during a visit to Restoration House he kissed a shopkeeper’s wife in the cherry orchard. There is a spring on the site which supplied Rochester’s first piped water supply.”

Before restoration can take place, four town houses on the historic  garden site must be demolished. English Heritage have already called for the planning consent which allowed their construction, to be overturned, and for the demolished wall to be rebuilt.  

Jonathan and Robert believe the consent was illegal and have asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to review the case. If the government office agrees they will be seeking compensation from the Council.

“We invite Medway Council to work constructively with us on this matter,” said Jonathan. “It’s an opportunity for them to show they really mean what they say about the importance of our history and heritage.

“Restoration House and garden is already rated one of the top 100 houses open to the public in England. We see at first hand how it can inspire and delight visitors of all ages and from all walks of life.

“In time we hope to create something equally fascinating on the Century Buildings site.”

“Last but not least we want  to thank the 9,500 people who signed our petition to save the Tudor wall,” said Robert. “And the many local people who supported our campaign. This support was instrumental in enabling us to buy the site.”

- end -

Restoration House dates back to the 15th or 16th century and once adjoined a much earlier property. It takes its name from King Charles II, who spent his first night in England there on his way to London to reclaim the Crown. The house has been described as the finest pre-civil war town house in England. Charles Dickens used the property as the model for Satis House, the home of Miss Havisham in Great Expectations. The current owners have spent years on its careful restoration. They have also re-created the half-acre garden into a showpiece. The disputed Tudor wall would have formed a backdrop to the garden and would have been clearly seen by visitors arriving at Rochester by river.

NEW HOPE FOR THE TUDOR WALL.  05.09.08

Future Homes, the company responsible for the demolition of the Tudor Wall and for the development of the entire site, have recently gone into Administration. As we understand it the Administrators will be looking to sell the site. We are now hopeful that we may be able to buy that part of the site which abuts the Garden of Grade 1 Listed Restoration House.

Creditors are now clearing the site of scaffolding, and the scaffold and sheeting which was erected by the developers to obscure our view of the wall has now been removed. This means that visitors may view the wall again for the last few weeks of our open season from our Mount. (please find our opening times and cost on relevant page)

Due to the increasing pressure we exerted archaeological trenching was undertaken  during July with stunning finds. The footings of major walls have been discovered running up to the Tudor wall and extending though to the garden of Restoration House, thus vindicating our belief that the Tudor wall was part of a magnificent garden scheme, and was not merely an isolated fragment. We are now pushing for still more trenching and research not only in the historic garden but towards the Dickens' Brewery in the belief that the whole site is a major heritage asset which is far from understood and which never should have been developed in the first place .

Trench one

Trench one

Plan of the site

Trench two

Trench two

We would also like to say a big thankyou to everyone who has signed our petition & to all the help and support from the many shops and businesses that had posters up and made space for our petition.Over the last month we've rained in the petition so now its only available to sign at Restoration House and at 'The Six Poor Travelers' in Rochester High St. If you would like to sign our petition but can't get to either location its also available to print from the link at the bottom of this page. Our current total of signatures has now passed 8000!

----------------------------------------------------------

The cover up

Last Friday 16th May 2008, the developer (Future Homes) covered the Tudor wall with hessian as a first move and then built a 2 store scaffold clad with screening to completely obscure the view of the wall from the garden of Restoration House, as a result of the publicity the wall has attracted. This response shows how worried the developer is at the gains we have made towards its total reinstatement. The justification that this is for protection against damage , debris and dust from groundworks can only mean the developers intend to defy the EH advice for a full archaeological survey and to continue operating in breach of Condition 7 of the planning consent.

Below are some pictures of the 'cover up':

Now you see it...

And now you don't.

And now you see nothing at all!

The first good news!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGLISH HERITAGE MAKE HISTORIC DECISION

The Tudor wall discovered in January next to Restoration House in Rochester has been the cause of an epoch making decision by EH. The wall which was discovered when the site adjacent to Restoration House was stripped out for redevelopment was then partially demolished by the developer Future Homes. Complete destruction to make way for a 4 storey block of flats was only avoided by the frantic efforts of the owners of Restoration House to save the still stunning remains by whatever means they could. The Medway Council Conservation Officers appear to have known nothing about the wall (despite it being in the city centre Conservation area) and the Kent County Council archaeologist in charge of a watching brief (delegated to Archaeology SE) did nothing to step in. Finally, the owners of Restoration House went in desperation to EH.  Medway Council had failed to inform them of the development and they promptly spot listed the wall and put a stop to the immediate destruction.

Undaunted the developer set about moving the proposed block of flats to butt up against the remaining fragment, nominally consolidated, and continued with another block of 4 town houses right against the garden wall of Rochester’s world famous Grade I house, host to Charles II and Dickens’ Miss Havisham.

EH”s Regional Director SE, Dr Andy Brown, has now told Medway Council that “in order to sustain the significance of this part of Rochester’s historic environment, EH consider that the Tudor wall should be reinstated and that planning permission be modified to exclude the two westernmost blocks from the permitted scheme”. At a Press Call on Thursday (8th May) he described the wall as “a magnificent Tudor wall, on a palatial scale (before demolition it was 36 metres long) and fit for a king”. This is the same wall which the developer Mave Heldon (Future Homes) described as “puny” and “of no real significance”.

The significance of the decision by EH can hardly be stressed enough. It is the first time in at least 20 years that they have interceded in such a fashion and dealt so robustly with a council which did not notify them of a development in a Conservation area where “the harm to the setting of the listed buildings cannot be mitigated in any other way than the demolition of the currently incomplete buildings closest to …Restoration House.” The letter to Medway Council concludes that “English Heritage believes that the Council must now exercise its powers to effect a remedy to this whole sorry episode. Should it fail to do so, we will have to look at other options to fulfil our own duty to secure the preservation of the outstanding historic assets concerned”.

It is this threat to the Medway Council which is so epoch making, as EH would in fact have to enforce their position via the offices of the Secretary of State, a route which has never yet been taken. The coolly determined Dr Brown says “there is always a first time”.

The Medway Council have now responded by doing nothing, apparently on the assumption that a High Court or Secretary of State route to enforcement would be too slow /and or costly to prevent the completion of the development.  The developer has responded by covering the Tudor wall in hessian and the view from the ancient Mount of Restoration House been blocked by building a screened scaffold.  This is a particularly significant cover up as the owners of Restoration House have been inviting the public to view the remains of the once palatial wall as part of their opening season and in a bid to petition against the loss. Additionally, developer Mave Heldon had said publicly that the wall “could be seen by anyone who was interested”. Can she be held to this? If so a stream of visitors would help to slow work and put further financial pressure on the developer in a falling market. The cover up also physically expresses the paranoia of the Council and developer alike who appear to be in close league, the Council for its part putting an information cover up and block out re the Tudor wall at all its libraries, the Guildhall Museum and Medway Archive as well as its Tourist Information Centre, which formerly promoted RH as the jewel in the Medway Crown.

What next? The owners are calling for the complete archaeological survey which was meant to be a pre-condition of the planning permission but which was not executed nor that omission enforced. The developers have violated other conditions as well as building the townhouses bigger and with more windows and different roofs. Again the Medway Council have failed to enforce these violations and have further assisted by prevaricating over the need/desirability for extra archaeological work. The great fear is that they will find evidence of a stunning Tudor water garden, the showpiece of which was the knapt flint and diapered brick wall, which appears to have been an exceptionally lofty and spectacular Eminence for viewing the Medway and its multifarious activities. From this Eminence the castle, cathedral and Rochester bridge would have been visible and right across on the other wing to “Jillingham Water” the overwintering port for Henry VIII”s fleet, and eventual site of the Tudor Dock, later Chatham Dockyard.

It is as if the Medway Council are terrified of knowing how exciting the discovery of the Tudor wall really is and in continuing acts of ignorance, complicity and authoritarian silence are attempting to bury the lot.

Below is the letter English Heritage sent to the Medway Council

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  April 2008

Mr G Edwards             

Regeneration and Development Directorate
Medway Council
Compass Centre                                                                       Direct dial: 01483 252007
Chatham Maritime
Kent ME4 4YH                                                                       e-mail: andy.brown@english-heritage.org.uk

Dear Mr Edwards

FLINT AND DIAPERED BRICK WALL AT REAR OF NOS 1 AND 3 EAST ROW, ROCHESTER

Thank you for your letter of 9 April to my colleague Mr Kendall seeking the views of English Heritage on the matter of the Tudor wall within the development site known as the Century Buildings. This matter is of such significance that, as Regional Director, I will be leading our involvement from here and any further correspondence should be addressed to me rather than to Mr Kendall.

As Mr Kendall has made clear in his correspondence to date, his advice has been provisional and subject to revision in the light of the views of our own legal team. We now have had the benefit of that advice, which has substantially altered our perspective on the case. In summary, in order to sustain the significance of this part of Rochester’s historic environment, we consider that the Tudor wall should be reinstated and that the planning permission should be modified to exclude the two westernmost blocks from the permitted scheme.

Our advice to your Council begins from the standpoint that, setting aside the issue of the Tudor wall for the moment, the development to the rear of 1 to 3 East Row has caused substantial harm to the setting of the listed buildings known as Vines Croft, Vines House and Restoration House. Had English Heritage been properly consulted over the application, we would have advised in the strongest terms against the granting of permission. In our view, the Council has failed in its duty to pay the necessary special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of these listed buildings.

Since the granting of planning permission, however, the harm from the development has been exacerbated in our opinion by the partial demolition of the Tudor garden wall. We take the view that this wall is without doubt within the curtilage of Vines House and therefore that it should properly be considered subject to listed building controls. Had listed building consent for its partial demolition been sought, we would again have advised strongly against its granting. That listed building consent was not obtained prior to the works to the wall leaves the works allegedly unauthorised, and leaves your Council in the first instance with the decisions either to prosecute or to use its listed building enforcement powers, or both.

Furthermore, we are not persuaded that the partial demolition of the wall should not have been the subject of a separate planning permission since the works appear to us to have constituted an engineering operation that was not identified in the planning application. If that were the case, your Council would have the option of enforcing reinstatement of the wall under its planning powers.

Since 23 January 2008, the Tudor wall (strictly speaking, the flint and diapered brick wall at rear of Nos. 1 and 3 East Row) has been listed in its own right. Once reinstated under either planning or listed building powers, for the avoidance of doubt I confirm that English Heritage would oppose the grant of listed building consent for its (re-)alteration; even in its reconstructed form, the wall would remain of special interest through its historical and aesthetic value, and for its contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.

We consider that your Council should use its powers under the 1990 Act to remedy the partial demolition of the wall by enforcing its reinstatement to the extent that it survived at the beginning of 2008. Moreover, we consider that the right thing for the Council to do, recognising the severely damaging effect of the western part of the development and the Council’s mishandling of the original application in failing to consult English Heritage and others, would be to modify the planning permission such that the westernmost part of the development was no longer permitted; the harm to the setting of the listed buildings cannot be mitigated in any other way than the demolition of the currently incomplete buildings closest to the rear of Vines Court, Vines House and Restoration House. Modification of the permission is the first step towards this outcome.

That said, I acknowledge that there may be alternative ways of arriving at the outcomes we have identified as being highly desirable, i.e. the reinstatement of the Tudor wall and the removal of the buildings currently under construction closest to the listed buildings on Crow Lane. It may be that the outcomes can be achieved by constructive negotiation between interested parties, and I would be pleased to participate in discussions, albeit without prejudice to decisions on any prosecution, modification or enforcement action by the Council or indeed by the Secretary of State, that might result in solutions without having recourse to enforcement action.

English Heritage believes that the Council must now exercise its powers to effect a remedy to this whole sorry episode. Should it fail to do so, we will have to look at other options to fulfil our own duty to secure the preservation of the outstanding historic assets concerned.

Yours sincerely

Dr Andrew Brown

Planning & Development Regional Director

South East

c.c. M Harlow, EH Legal Director

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition to Save the Tudor Wall and Garden now available to sign at many locations in Medway including:

In Rochester High St:

Six Poor Travellers

Baggins Book Shop

Garden Cafe

Fieldstaff Antiques

Carters

Camille the Florist

Martin's Fireplaces & Antique Interiors

And at the Cathedral Refectory

John St, Rochester:

Man of Kent Public House

Good Intent Public House

Hair Affair Hair Dressers

In Strood:

Medway Archive (Rear of the Civic Centre)

In Rainham:

Hale & Moore Fishmongers (Station Rd)

More sign up points coming soon...

Our Easter Sunday Open Day was a phenomenal success with 330 visitors battling snow & sleet to view the Tudor Wall, which glittering under an icy glaze, enlisted everyone's sympathy.

Many thanks to our wide range of visitors & their high level of commitment and support.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A "stunning Tudor wall" has recently been uncovered in the development site adjacent to our existing gardens. Alas no sooner was it discovered than the developer recklessly tore down up to 10 metres of prime Tudor work. This was only possible because the developer had not undertaken the archaeological survey which we had requested since 2003 and which was a condition of the planning consent. The complete destruction of the wall was only averted by our intervention and by involving English Heritage, who immediately Listed Grade 2 what remained.

Wall as exposed December 2007.

Detail of prime Tudor diaper flint & brick work.

Wall being demolished 7th January 2008.

History of the site, the wall & why its only just come to light

The Tudor wall lies to the south of our garden. This site of about 2 acres known as the Sentry site, was formerly a cash and carry and before that a brewery (Woodhams Est 1750). The owner of Sentry acquired the garden of our neighbouring Vines House by buying up Vines House and appropriating its garden to his business, providing some extra warehousing and car parking (and some future planning gain). He or his heir sold the site some 5 years ago and what had been residential and with restraining covenants became commercial. Or perhaps Brown-field.

At any rate the protests from a small group of residents at the ensuing plans for redevelopment were unsuccessful at preventing the emergence of a set of buildings which day by day become a larger reality set to blight our beautiful garden.

Having commissioned an archaeological survey of our garden in 1994, and from other information and inspired guesses, we were pretty sure that a good part of the Sentry site –all of that abutting our South boundary wall- was originally part of the garden of “sir Francis Clerke’s pretty seat” as Restoration House then was. Amongst our representations to the planning officer therefore was an urgent request for an archaeological survey, stressing as we did  the common levels of the two sites and other information. As a result an archaeological survey was required of the developers, who got this changed to a watching brief, which is far less exacting.

Just before Christmas we were delighted –indeed somewhat astonished- to discover (from our Viewing Mound, doubtless intended to exploit this very feature) the ongoing uncovering of an extraordinarily arresting retaining wall of knapped flint and diapered brickwork. (shown above) Though patched and braced with tie bars it appeared in reasonable condition, though we had no opportunity to get on site and examine it closely. Returning a fortnight later from a Christmas break, we were appalled and deeply saddened to find a 10 metre section of this wall had been demolished, and the remainder in great danger.

We immediately contacted the Conservation  Officers of Medway Council. To our dismay they knew nothing about the wall, though they claimed that a watching brief had been required, via the offices of Kent County Council. The developer had appointed Archaeology Southeast who have refused to comment.

It has become clear that what has been uncovered (and recklessly destroyed) is a flamboyant Tudor retaining wall of a formal garden dug back into the hill, and probably was the North facing South wall of a large detached garden.

1860 Ordnance Survey map showing surviving connections to layout.

What's so special about this wall ?

The wall is shown on Sale's map of Rochester of 1816. The wall is a retaining wall of which 26m survives to a depth of 3.1m from the foundation course. It varies in height, between 2.1m and 2.4m above the ground. The width shown exposed at the South Western end is 0.91m at the base & 0.6m wide at the top, and is composed of flint and brickwork with large lumps of clunch.

The wall is highly decorative with its diamond pattern running the length, the rare knapped flint flush work acting both as stunning infill with long bonding flints tying back into the chalk clunch. This method of construction has enabled the wall to survive for nearly 5 centuries. doing its orignal job as intended. The structural sophistication denotes a wall of the highest quality and must have been an expensive central feature of a lavish Tudor garden. The reflective lustre of the flint may well have offset a water garden.

What's its relation to Restoration House?

The level it runs at is consistent with a raised walkway, parts of which still survive at RH, notably as the Viewing Mound or Mount. This raised walkway enclosed a lower –Sunk Garden- level, which again runs through to our sunk Time Court. An 1860 OS map (attached) also shows this to be the case; and indeed may well represent the essential form of the Tudor/Stuart garden. Additionally, alternate courses of black and white limewash as quoins to the house, saved by a fluke of being internalised  and panelled over by the extension of the house in the 17th century, raise the possibility of a holistic scheme of house and garden decoration.

The wall was built when Restoration House was still evolving from the Tudor hall house into the city mansion we know today. Our present south wing was the new northern cross wing to that Tudor hall. These buildings would have enveloped the detached garden with its stunning wall.

The future

We have long wanted to both stop the development and to buy the site and have been unsuccessful in the first and intimidated in the second. But now, however belatedly, it occurs to us, with a thud both deadening to our purses yet delightful to our mind’s eye, that we must move heaven and earth to the sense of reclaiming this part of the site enclosed by its glinting flint wall and rimey brick diaper. This would entail us buying the proposed houses already under construction on the Sunk level, with the surrounding terraces and in particular the magical wall.

Our ultimate aim would be to re-establish the lost Tudor garden, by reinstating the demolished section of the wall, the raised walkways & the sunk (water?) garden. This is a unique opportunity to reclaim a fascinating chapter of Medway's history, to not only preserve the beautiful gardens at Restoration House but to re-establish an ancient part of the curtilege of a house and garden which has already attracted over 25,000 visitors in the short time it's been open.To lose the wall and allow this development to continue will diminish the experience of the visitor for generations to come.

It’s a bold and late bid, but without the evidence of this wall we could not be certain of the site’s relevance and its claim upon us. The discovery of this wall is acting like a powerful catalyst, galvanising years of tentative ruminations.

How can you help?

Please click here for a printable petition form, get as many people as you can to sign it then post it back to us at:

Save the Tudor Wall, Restoration House, 17-19 Crow Lane, Rochester, Kent. ME1 1RF

Or if you're a small business please email your address to us at the email below, and we'll post you a set of posters, leaflets & petition forms for you to have in your shop window or on the counter. (please tell us what size poster and how many you would like in your email. (poster available in A4 & A3 sizes).

Write or email your local councillor: http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/council/councillor/433.html

Pledge your support to: Robert.tucker@restorationhouse.co.uk