‘Rediscovering our Parish Churches’
English Heritage and the Diocese of Salisbury
Partnership Project
Part One: Historical, Architectural and Archaeological Review
FINAL REPORT
This report covers 78 churches: 33 in Heytesbury Deanery (H)
45 in Sherborne Deanery (S)
1. Background
This review of churches in the deaneries of Heytesbury and Sherborne has been conducted for English Heritage by Keystone Historic Buildings Consultants of Exeter. It forms part of a wider survey designed to help the diocese of Salisbury to achieve its vision: as stated in our brief, this is ‘to awaken the imagination of deaneries and parishes on the future of their buildings in the context of their mission plans and of the setting of these buildings in the communities that they serve.’
The present study, therefore, forms Part One of the overall review and deals essentially with the heritage aspects of each building – its history, architecture, fittings and furnishings, setting, condition, and, very importantly, how change would impact upon its heritage.Parts Two and Three of the project are being undertaken using resources within the diocese itself. Part Two will examine parishes in terms of their spiritual and social value to their congregations and their communities. This will include a review of how the wider community views the church and its buildings and how those buildings might be used for a variety of community-enhancing activities. Part Three will comprise an educational programme which will help people to understand the development of their church and to identify the needs of the congregation.
2. HOW THE WORK WAS CARRIED OUT
The Part One survey work was carried out by Dr Geoff Brandwood (project manager), Dr Martin Cherry, and Dr John Elliott, each of whom was allocated about one-third of the churches. All three consultants are architectural historians with a special interest in and knowledge of church architecture. A list of the churches we were asked to review is given in Appendix 1. Work on the project took place between March and December 2008.
There have been three elements in drawing up the reports – documentary research, site visits, and (linked to the latter) a discussion with a nominated representative from each parish.
2.1 Documentary research.Before beginning our visits we collected as much information as could reasonably easily be assembled. The obvious published sources such as ‘Pevsner’, the Royal Commission of Historic Monuments (for Dorset), the Victoria County History (for parts of Wiltshire), and Hutchins’ history of Dorset were obvious first points of call. Statutory list descriptions were assembled and we examined the latest quinquennial reports. We supplemented all this with a review of the parish documents in the record offices at Chippenham and Dorchester, examined the files of the Incorporated Church Building Society in Lambeth Palace Library, searched the 19th-century journal, The Ecclesiologist, and also the journals of the county historical societies. Guide books which we later encountered on our visits sometimes proved valuable sources of information. The inevitable constraints of time meant that a further stratum of sources – local newspapers and the 19th-century architectural press – have not been searched. However, we do feel we have been able to approach our visits with a very sound knowledge base to build upon.
2.2 Site visits. Armed with this background information, we visited each church – usually for between two and four hours – to examine its structure and evolution in depth and to make notes about it and, sometimes, to start assembling the report on site.
2.3 Site discussion.In all but a couple of cases we have been met by a parish representative who has invariably been most helpful in telling us something about the life of the parish; about work done (or, occasionally, not done) to meet the recommendations of the previous quinquennial report; plans for the future, and give us information about the usage of the church and churchyard.
3. Format and objectives of the reports
The reports on individual churches have been produced on a standard template. This contains basic data (such as location, listed status etc), a statement of significance about the building (from a heritage perspective), its historical background, details of architects and patrons, and its architectural development and main features. Then there are sections about the local environment of the church, its condition and work recently done and to be done, amenities available in the building and whether change is in prospect. The section ‘The Impact of Change’ looks at how change, if required, might impact on the building; this is then translated into a ‘grading’ of the church on a 1 to 4 scale wherein 1 denotes a building of such importance that it should be protected from all but the most modest changes, while 4 relates to a handful of buildings which, though they may be valued as places of worship have little heritage significance and where even the most radical change would raise no heritage issues. The last section provides a record of the listing descriptions (and the few sites and monuments descriptions that exist) relating to the church and churchyard.
It was our understanding (and hope) that the reports would make their way into the parishes and we therefore tried to make them accessible and, hopefully, interesting. Long and complicated architectural description has been avoided. It would be particularly gratifying if, drawing upon the background research we have done and our knowledge of architecture and architects, we can perhaps tell people things they don’t know. Who was this Mr Crickmay who restored the church in 1885 or the ubiquitous T.H. Wyatt? What was the hard luck (and hard up) story in the 1842 appeal to build Dilton Leigh’s new church.
Typically the reports run to six to eight pages.
4. THE SETTING OF THE CHURCHES
The 78 churches are predominantly rural, often serving very small communities and, consequently, with very small congregations. Urban areas are represented by Westbury, Warminster and Sherborne. In a little more detail:
H S
In places with over 1,000 people 4 2
In villages (100-1000 people)1427
In hamlets (under 100 people) 4 9
Isolated (no or very few houses nearby) 1 7
5. A VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURE AND DATES
The buildings themselves are splendidly diverse both in date and character, ranging from the little 1905 ‘tin tabernacle’ at Brokerswood (H), just outside Westbury, to the splendour of Sherborne’s great medieval abbey church. Often the churches are small, sometimes without even an aisle.
5.1 Medieval church-building – a very brief summary. Other than at Sherborne Abbey, there is no in situ pre-Conquest work in any of the churches. However, various fragments such as part of a cross fragment at Batcombe (S), various pieces at Knook (H), the very notable font at Melbury Bubb (S) and cross shaft at Codford St Peter (H), are clear signs of Christian worship on their respective sites before the building of the present churches, in the later Middle Ages. Very little archaeology has been undertaken in the two deaneries: an exception is at Pulham (S) where a very small excavation at the east end suggested there just might be some pre-Conquest evidence; more significantly it clearly demonstrated how burials ‘snuggled up’ to churches to be as close as possible to the holy place, when not actually buried inside (and how later developments simply straddled or engulfed such long-forgotten interments). What is for sure is that there is a great deal more to be discovered as and when archaeological investigation is undertaken. On the one hand it must be borne in mind that this archaeological potential is not only below ground, but concealed behind plaster or by later change. On the other hand, cases like Pulham demonstrate how churches grew, and sometimes contracted like amoebas (for instance a tower replacing a detached belfry, or a regular burial replacing charnel houses).
Romanesque (Norman) work is not particularly prolific or significant although Sherborne Abbey, again, has important traces. Longbridge Deverill (H) has a 12th-century arcade which is a distinct rarity in the survey areas, while much of the fabric at aisleless Knook is Norman too. The 13th century – the century of the Early English style and Salisbury Cathedral – is also not very well represented. The finest work is the chantry chapel at Boyton (H) which dates from c.1275-80 and was built by the powerful Giffard family and the east end of Heytesbury, a royal foundation and collegiate church that drew its inspiration form the cathedral church. The chancel at Yetminster (S) has the considerable length characteristic of the 13th-century and a number of lancet windows, also typical of the time.
The vast majority of the medieval churches in the two deaneries underwent change in the late Middle Ages, so much so that earlier work was often entirely obliterated. This wholesale rebuilding and remodelling is a reflection of increasing prosperity in the western counties, much of it founded on the success of the wool industry. Once again, of course, pride of place goes to Sherborne Abbey where the rebuilding began under Abbot Robert Brunying (1385-1415) and continued for at least a century. This provided a building of exceptional interest and beauty which includes, in the choir, the earliest fan-vaulting in England (c.1450). All Saints, Westbury (H), is of particular interest in the evolution of architecture in Wiltshire since some of the tracery is similar to that at Edington, a collegiate church built by Bishop Edington of Winchester in 1351-61, and a pivotal building nationally in the transition to the new architectural fashion – the Perpendicular style.
Perpendicular architecture is found in abundance in the two deaneries. Characteristics are enlarged windows, panel tracery at the tops of windows, clerestories, embattled parapets, towers with pierced stone slabs in belfry windows (especially characteristic of nearby Somerset), stair turrets rising above the tower parapets, and a new sense of light and space in church interiors. Among the many good examples of late medieval church-building, particularly notable examples are Bradford Abbas (S), Yetminster (S), Mere (H) and All Saints, Westbury.
5.2 After the Reformation.As is well known, the Reformation put a firm and long-lasting brake on church-building in England and, with few exceptions, it did not restart until well into the 17th-century. There are examples of this at Folke (S), 1628; Sherrington (H), 1620s/3os; and Upton Lovell (H), 1633. The 18th-century is represented by the rebuilding of Melbury Osmund (S) in 1745 in a very down-to-earth Gothic revival style.
5.3 The Victorian age.As a generalisation the appearance of our churches today is the one they assumed between about 1840 and the First World War. This was a time which radically altered the vast majority of pre-existing churches and added a great many more. There was a huge reaction against the perceived laxity of Georgian worship. The dignified classical trappings that churches had acquired by 1800 was deplored as idolatrous. There was a strong desire to fit out churches in a more suitable manner for the worship of God. Our two deaneries are no exception to this process, thus few churches retain any of their C17, C18 or early C19 appearance, apart from some of the memorials of that period. Despite much hostile criticism of Victorian architecture during the earlier part of the 20th century (sadly still an issue in some quarters), the quality of design and craftsmanship from this period become more widely appreciated in recent decades. Truly outstanding churches, including work by some of the great masters of Victorian architecture, are to be found in both deaneries, including:
Cattistock (S) by G.G. Scott and tower by G.G. Scott junior
Chapmanslade (H) by G.E. Street
Corsley, St Mary (H), Arts & Crafts church by the little-known W.H. Stanley
Halstock (S) largely rebuiltby A.W.N. Pugin
Heytesbury, restoration by William Butterfield
Knook (H), again a restoration by Butterfield
Sutton Veny (H) by J.L Pearson
Upton Scudamore, restoration by G.E. Street
Warminster (H), St John, Boreham, by G.E. Street
5.4 Furnishings and fittings.Quite apart from their architecture, one of the great glories of English churches is the richness of their contents. The Reformation, the Civil War, and changes of fashion during more peaceful times have all taken their toll but nonetheless, when compared to continental churches, we are incredibly fortunate in what remains. Our two deaneries are no exception. In the reports we highlight the main items at each building. This is no place (nor is there much purpose) to attempt a list of definitive highlights but as examples of such treasures there are:
Saxon cross at Codford St Peter (H)
Saxo/Norman font at Melbury Bubb (S)
Medieval stone screens at Batcombe (S) and Bradford Abbas (S)
Late medieval seating at Trent (S)
The wealth of medieval fittings at Mere (H)
17th-century seating schemes at Folke (S), Sherrington (H), Maiden Bradley (H) and Mere (H)
Fine Victorian ensembles at, for example, Cattistock (S), Chapmanslade (H),
Sherborne Abbey, Sutton Veny (H), Warminster, St John, Boreham (H)
Art Nouveau font/stoup at Longbridge Deverill by Alfred Gilbert
5.5 Archaeology: An important recommendation
The majority of churches are on mediaeval, often pre-conquest, sites. Little or no workhas been undertaken in terms of fabric analysis from an archaeological or investigative point of view.[1] Equally Little workhas been done on their archaeolgical setting and significance. This is an important dimension which should be addressed whenever works of change or remodelling provide the opportunity (for instance, trenneching for services inside andoutsidechurches; reflooring; reroofing).
6. LISTING
6.1 Listed status of the churches. The churches in the two deaneries are of considerable architectural and historic significance and only the ‘tin tabernacle’ at Brokerswood (H) and the utilitarian modern church of St Paul in Sherborne are not listed. The breakdown is:
H STotal
Grade I 927 36
Grade II*1513 28
Grade II 5 3 8
Grade B++ 2 1 3
Grade C++ 1 - 1
Not listed 1 1 2
Total3345 78
(Note:++ Grades B and C are obsolescent grades. However, there are some 650 churches in the country which still have them and English Heritage is now beginning a six-month programme to rationalise them into the I, II*, II system. See Appendix Two for our suggestions).
It will be noted that the Sherborne churches are, on average, more highly graded than the Heytesbury ones. Interestingly, it will be seen in Appendix Two that we suggest some possible upward revisions and these in fact pertain to churches in the Heytesbury Deanery.
6.2. Recommendations on listed status
Generally speaking we felt that the gradings of the churches reflected their architectural and historic importance fairly. In a few cases we were of the opinion that reconsideration might usefully be given to the grades and these are detailed in Appendix Two. Summary:
HS
Grade II* to I 20
Grade II to II* 30
Grade B to II* 11
Grade B to II 10
Grade C to II 10
6.3. List descriptions
Part of our brief was to consider the existing list descriptions for the churches under review. Having been written over a long period they are, inevitably, a mixed bag. On the whole, though, despite being rather dull catalogues of architectural facts, they do cover the essential information, usually adequately and accurately. We certainly would not recommend any wholesale rewriting as this would not be a productive use of English Heritage resources. In a few cases, however, we have identified errors and areas for improvement in the existing descriptions and these are detailed in the reports for individual churches. The four B and C-grade churches will be reviewed shortly and we would expect that the resulting descriptions will be much more intelligible and accessible to the general public than the old-style ones.
7. CONDITION OF THE CHURCHES
Our brief included an assessment of the condition of each church. This has been done on a simple Good – Fair – Poor scale and our summary is:
H S
Good2727
Fair 612
Poor 0 6
Good = no major expense required in the short term (just routine
maintenance)
Fair = moderate expense required (e.g. dealing with damp patches, modest roof repairs, renewal of rainwater goods, etc)
Poor = substantial expenditure needed (e.g. partial or whole reroofing, serious damp problems, extensive repairs to stonework)
We must stress that our assessments are informal ones based in part on the visual evidence and partly on what we were told about work being done following quinquennial inspections: we are not trained architects and our inspections have been made from ground level and without access to concealed areas where problems might be lurking. We would also stress that a ‘poor’ rating does not necessarily reflect lack of effort by a parish: Cattistock (S) was so categorised simply because of major problems of water ingress into the tower which the parish, with support from English Heritage, are valiantly dealing with. On the other hand, failure to tackle important work identified at Folke (S) in the 2003 quinquennial can only make problems worse and is a cause for anxiety. Most parishes have been assiduous in commissioning QIRs although there are occasional omissions (e.g. Sherrington (H) where no report had been made since 2000).
As a general comment we have been extremely impressed by the condition of most of the buildings and this reflects great credit upon loyal congregations and those on whom they can call for support. Sometimes the efforts have been truly herculean, especially as parishes also have to meet the bill for the parish share. It is abundantly clear to us that the churches we have visited are deeply loved and cared for. This affection is almost inversely proportional to the size of the community. We have been told time and again that the church is important in the minds of non-attenders and even non-believers who are willing, say, to offer funds, cut the grass, and help with social events.
In a few instances, however, we felt that even at well-kept churches a little more attention to basic maintenance – annual clearing of gutters, clearing weeds from masonry, repairs to rainwater goods etc – could be better and perhaps ward off a really major bill in the long run. Occasionally we met cases where parishioners were rather daunted by what to do and how to proceed. Some dioceses now have support officers to help and such a course might usefully be considered in Salisbury (see section 11 below).