SAVE THE TUDOR WALL

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

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