location - wordpress.com · web viewarea 1b takes centre-stage in the north park. it is bound by...

10. Area 1B: Folly Field

LocationArea 1B takes centre-stage in the North Park. It is bound by the lakes to the south (Area 1A), and hedges delineating current boundaries with arable fields to the west and north (Area 1C) and to the east (Area 6A) (Figure 10.1).

Figure 10.1. Area 1B in the centre of the North Park. The aerial photograph dates from 2007. Source: NT.

Character of the areaExcept for woodland behind the folly, the area is relatively open. There are few mature trees in the open parkland, but a relatively large number of young trees, all planted in the late 20th century, planted in small groups of varying density.

The area rises up steeply from the lakes to the wooded hilltop on which the folly is located, with a particularly pronounced ridge running from the Chinese Bridge towards the folly tower (Figure 10.2).

Wimpole’s Registered Park: Tree Planting Plan – Area 1B

Figure 10.2. Aerial photograph (from 2007) of Area 1B. This shows the permanent pasture with in-field trees of the area, contrasting sharply with the arable nature of the fields surrounding it on its western, northern and eastern sides. 1990s tree planting is evident as the square- and rectangular-shaped fenced tree planting areas in the south-east, north-east, and south-west corners; the linear planting of trees on the western side, parallel to the hedgerow dividing the area from the arable field; and the square-shaped collection of trees in the central-east area. Source: NT.

The Gothic Tower, a late 18th century folly, is prominently located on one of the highest points in the area and dominates in almost all views in the North Park. It is backed by dense woodland that currently extends eastward to enclose Johnson’s Pond. Historically there would have been a clear separation between the two wooded areas; recent clearing of a strip of woodland here has partly addressed this issue. There are also two small ponds to the west of the Folly, and a (now dry) moat to its south (Figure 10.3).


Figure 10.3. Hydrological situation for Area 1B and surrounds. This shows Johnson’s Pond with its very steep banks, and the (dry) moat and ponds to the south and west of the folly. Source: Wimpole Estate Woodland Management Plan, S. Damant, 2011.

On the slope between the lakes and the folly relatively few mature trees are present. Some notable ones are two Oaks to the south-east of the folly, a very wide-branching Turkey Oak at the base of the folly, and a tall Horse Chestnut on the ridge to the south-west of the folly, all 18th century survivors (Figures 10.4 – 10.6). On the eastern and western sides, individual trees and three distinct fenced clumps were planted in the 1990s.

Figure 10.4. The two old oaks to the south-east of the folly. According to Phibbs’s calculations (1980), these were planted around 1720 and are thus the oldest surviving trees in this area of the parkland. View towards the north-east from the base of the folly’s tower. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.


Figure 10.5. Impressive wide-branching Turkey Oak to the south of the folly, with some of the 1990s trees in the foreground. View towards the north-west from the north-east part of Area 1B. Picture taken by the author, January 2012.

Figure 10.6. Tall mature Horse Chestnut on the ridge to the south-west of the folly. View to the north from near the Lower Lake. Picture taken by the author, January 2012.

The western boundary is formed by a shallow valley ditch that enters from the north through the boundary belts and drains in the Middle Lake; an outgrown hedge lines the ditch on its eastern side; the southern half of which has been partly cleared and with some new trees added in 2011, including three Black Poplars. The eastern boundary is formed by a dense hedgerow with standing trees, most of which are dead.

The permanent pasture in Area 1B contrasts sharply with the arable fields to its west, north and east. The dense and outgrown hedges separating the area from these fields also prohibit most views beyond, where historically this would have been more open parkland.

Designations and other constraints- The whole area falls within the Grade I Park and Garden.- The Gothic folly is a Grade II* Listed Building.- The whole area is part of the setting of the Grade I listed Hall.


- The area is part of the setting of the Grade II Chinese Bridge.- In the woods behind the folly the circular terminus of Bridgeman’s original

North Avenue, as well as the earthworks surrounding the artificial Johnson’s Pond are of archaeological significance. There is also a circular mound in the woodland between the folly and Johnson’s Pond, which may perhaps have been an old mill mound.

- Ridge-and-furrow was present on the slope between the folly and the lakes, as is evident on historic aerial photographs, but this has largely been destroyed through ploughing in the 1970s-early 90s. Some remnants of the medieval landscape, former field boundaries and pathways (as shown on the 1638 Hare map), are, however, still visible as earthworks (Figure 10.7).

- Wimpole Park is designated as a County Wildlife Site.- The wood behind the folly is managed under the Forestry Commission’s

English Woodland Grant Scheme.- Johnson’s Pond contains several Nationally Notable invertebrate species.- Bats are known to roost in the folly.- The whole area has got free public access during daylight hours (although the

folly area is currently out-of-bounds for health-and-safety reasons).

Figure 10.7. Results of archaeological earthwork survey plotted on the 1886 1st

edition OS map for Area 1B and surrounds. This shows remnant ridge and furrow remains on the slopes below the folly (although this was ploughed out in the 1980s), and the earthworks around the folly and Johnson’s Pond. Source: RCHME, 2003, and CMP (draft), 2006.


Known and likely future developmentsNo developments are known for this area, although an increase of public use of this area is expected, due to the promotion of the parkland through the ‘Visitor Experience Plan’ (in development). As a result, an increase of use for walking and cycling could be expected, potentially resulting in increased wear-and-tear and higher erosion levels.

Historical development of the area and its treesUntil Bridgeman started working at Wimpole in the 1720s, this part of the estate was outside of the parkland. It consisted of open fields, with some woods and a complex path network. Some of the main paths are still preserved in the landscape as field boundaries (Figure 10.8).

Figure 10.8. Part of the 1638 Hare map superimposed over the 2007 LiDar image for Area 1B and surrounds. This shows that the layout of the fields and paths in the medieval landscape had a major impact on the later landscape designs. At the bottom, the original stream is visible, originally backed by woodland to its north. Furthermore, the modern field boundaries largely follow the medieval pattern predating the emparkment. Source: S. Damant.

Radnor, during the 1690s, created a North Avenue as part of extensive garden works he had carried out and which are shown on the 1707 bird’s eye view of the estate (Figure 10.9). Phibbs (1980) believes that Radnor’s avenue may have been of ‘fir’, Scots Pine. This avenue formed the prime north-south axis along which the entire garden was arranged. The gradual north-south gradient, with ground rising to the north-west, north and north-east, would have naturally lent itself to this layout. All later landscape designers further exploited the natural topography of this landscape to the fullest (Figure 10.10).


Figure 10.9. Johannes Kip’s engraving (after Knyff’s drawing) of Wimpole in 1707, before Bridgeman’s major restructuring. The main north-south axis, a major element in all subsequent designs, was already apparent in this formal late 17th century garden. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 10.10. Part of the Kip’s 1707 engraving, showing Radnor’s North Avenue disappearing on the hill across the river. Source: Adshead 2007.

Charles Bridgeman reutilised Radnor’s avenue as part of his axial landscape design, and designed his North Avenue through the centre of Area 1B ending in a roundel on the highest point of Johnson’s Hill, to the north of the folly (Figures 10.11 and 10.12); today this seems to be marked by a round tree clump.

Figure 10.11. Part of Bridgeman’s survey & proposal map of c1721. One of the main and strong design elements shown is the North Avenue, with a focal point on the hill at the end of the avenue. Source: Adshead 2007.


Figure 10.12. North end of Bridgeman’s North Avenue plotted on the 1886 1st edition OS map. This shows that Bridgeman’s Avenue ended just north of where the folly would be built in the 1770s. Source: CMP (draft), 2006.

The landscape in this area stayed the same until Lancelot Brown started working at Wimpole in the late 1760s (Figure 10.13). Brown created much of the North Park as we know it today. He removed most of the medieval landscape, although he kept some trees from former hedgerows, and remnants of the former enclosures are also still visible as archaeological earthworks.

Figure 10.13. Part of the c1767 ‘before’ map attributed to Lancelot Brown. This shows that the landscape in this area was, in essence, still the same as left by Bridgeman. Source: Adshead 2007.

Brown also removed most of the North Avenue, but intended to retain the outline of the avenue by replacing it with a string of small clumps. On Brown’s proposal map, the trees replacing the avenue are marked as deciduous trees (Figure 10.14). It is unclear how much of this plan was executed, as the avenue trees do not appear on any later maps and may all have been removed instead. However, the overall idea of having two rows of clumps of trees running down the slope from the folly to the lakes – with a relatively empty central space - has been retained in most subsequent developments, and this pattern can be traced on the subsequent historic maps, drawings and photographs (see below).


Figure 10.14. C1767 Brown’s proposal map of the area and its immediate surroundings. This shows Brown’s intentions: the area between the lake and the folly was left largely open, with just a few small clumps added, and a small number of trees of the former North Avenue left standing, still framing the main view of the folly from the Hall. Furthermore, it shows a continuous belt around the North Park, with a number of clumps placed on the inside of this belt. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 10.15. The anonymous ‘after’ view, c. 1767 - largely a copy of Brown’s proposal map – superimposed on the 1969 aerial picture for the area. The eastern edge of Area 1B has changed the most, following the extension of the North Park in this direction in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Source: S. Damant.


Brown enclosed his North Park with a continuous tree belt. His proposals show a string of tree clumps inside this belt, providing for a series of framed views along the Drive. The North Park would later be enlarged on its eastern side, following proposals by Emes and Repton; many of the trees along the eastern belt would be removed in the process (see also Area 6A). Figure 10.15 shows how Brown’s proposals relate to the modern situation.

Brown created in this area the main focal point of his North Park plans, the Gothic Tower. This became the termination of the main vista seen from the Hall, and was built in 1772 under Brown’s supervision. This was his interpretation of Sanderson Miller’s Gothic tower design from 25 years earlier, which remained relatively close to the original drawings (Figures 10.16 and 10.17). Lord Chancellor Hardwicke’s orders were passed on to Miller in 1749 via George Lyttleton:

‘He wants no House or even room in it, but mearly the Walls and Semblance of an Old Castle to make an object from his House. At most he only desires a staircase carried up one of the Towers, and a leaded gallery half round it to stand in, and view the Prospect. It will have a fine Wood of Firrs for a backing behind it and will stand on an Eminence at a proper distance from his House.’ (Quoted in Adshead, 1998).

The main tower of the folly was originally fitted out as a belvedere, incorporating a prospect room on the third floor, served by a kitchen and a cellar or larder, allowing the tower to be used as a dining room. The folly commands an extensive prospect to the south and south-east overlooking practically the whole of the landscape garden associated with the Hall.

Figure 10.16. 1751 Design by Sanderson Miller for the Gothic Tower. Although drawn ca. 25 years before actually built, Brown largely kept to Miller’s design intentions. Source: Adshead 2007.


Figure 10.17. 1777 engraving of the Gothic Tower in its landscape setting, just a few years after the project was finished. This picture shows the dominance of evergreen trees behind the folly, masking (year-round) the backside of the fake structure when seen from the north. It also provided a dark and dramatic backdrop to the lighter-coloured tower, thereby allowing for an increase in perspective when seen from the Hall. The view from the house is further framed by clumps of trees on the slopes in front of the folly. Source: Adshead 2007.

The folly was intended to have a backdrop of primarily evergreen trees, resulting in an increased contrast with the light stonework, and providing for an increased perspective when seen from the Hall, thereby making the Tower appear further away than it is in reality. This situation was already envisaged in 1749, when Lyttleton – who had a ruin designed for him by Miller in 1747 – described the design for the Wimpole folly in a letter to Miller:

‘It will have a fine wood of firrs for a backing behind it and will stand on an eminence at a proper distance from his house…’ (Quoted in Phibbs 1980, p. 25).

Sanderson Miller’s design sketch show to the rear of the folly a belt of what appear to be Cedars (pers. comm. Phil Scott, May 2011). Although Brown’s proposal map does not show evergreens behind the folly, the 1777 engraving (Figure 10.17, above) and a c1774 drawing (Figure 10.18) seem to suggest that evergreen trees had indeed been planted. The 1774 plate shows mixed coniferous and deciduous trees behind the folly. The 1777 engraving confirms this and also shows that the trees extended to the north-west of the Folly, blocking views from the north-west (from which only the tower remains visible) which might otherwise reveal its brick construction. Many of the trees depicted on the contemporary images seem, however, to be too large to have been planted during the late 1760s; it is possible that the artists showed the folly in its intended state. Alternatively, some trees may have been planted earlier; Brown may have kept some trees of Bridgeman’s ‘fir’ plantation that blocked the north end of his North Avenue to provide a suitable backdrop to his folly.


Figure 10.18. 1774 Wedgwood ‘Frog’ plate, showing the approach to the west gateway of the folly. It shows a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees behind the folly. Source: Adshead 2007.

Brown’s proposal maps further show that the folly is surrounded with clumps of trees flanking it on its western, eastern and northern sides. Between the folly and Johnson’s Pond, as well as around this pond, very few trees are shown, a situation very different from the current one (Figure 10.19). The 1777 engraving also shows small clumps of deciduous trees inside the moat in front of the Folly, framing the view when seen from the Hall; a similar situation is depicted by Repton’s view from the main house (see Figure 10.25, below).

Figure 10.19. Part of the c1767 ‘after’ proposal map, attributed to Lancelot Brown, showing the area surrounding the folly and Johnson’s Pond. Source: Adshead 2007.

The c1774 estate survey map shows what of Brown’s proposals was implemented (Figure 10.20). It makes it clear that the north avenue was replaced with a loose row of tree clumps, with an additional row of tree clumps further west, along the old field boundary. Further groups of trees are planted around the folly and Johnson’s pond. The eastern edge of the North Park is formed of a combination of linear belts and


clumps of trees, with a drive on its inside, but without the additional clumps originally proposed by Brown.

Figure 10.20. Part of the c. 1774 park survey plan, showing the extent of Brown’s designs as implemented. This is relatively close to Brown’s original design from c 1767, but with a few alterations: the north avenue has been removed and is replaced by a series of tree clumps in far less rigid, wider-spaced lines. The clusters on the inside of the eastern belt have also not to been planted, but the tree belt itself is here partly broken up into clumps instead. Trees also encircle Johnson’s Pond, but still with a big open gap separating these trees from the clumps surrounding the folly. Source: Adshead 2007.

A contemporary drawing made in the years just before 1774 shows the recently finished area from the southern shore of the Middle Lake. It shows individual and small groups of trees on the slopes below the folly (Figure 10.21).


Figure 10.21. 1774 Imperial Wedgwood ‘Frog’ plate, showing the view over the upper lake towards the folly, with the Chinese Bridge to the right. Source: Adshead 2007.

After Brown finished his work, the tree belt sheltering the North Park was further adapted, most importantly through Emes’s and Repton’s extensions of the belt to the east. The extension of the northern belt eastwards resulted in a visually much larger and wider North Park than Brown’s was, whilst the folly firmly remained the focal point when seen from the Hall or from other viewing points throughout the North Park.

As a result of the extension of the North Park further to the east, Emes proposed not only the new Pleasure Grounds but also that the road to the east of the estate was moved further eastwards. Emes proposed that the former farmland between Brown’s North Park and the new road would be incorporated into the parkland and the existing eastern ‘belt’ to be further broken up into individual clumps (Figure 10.22). Many of his proposals would not be implemented and some were, but only after Repton’s proposals during the 1800s (see also Area 6A). The 1800 estate map shows that the situation for Area 1B was not much different than shown on the c1774 survey map (Figure 10.23) A near-continuous tree belt is still visible from the lower end of the Lower Lake running up to the trees surrounding Johnson’s Pond, and not broken up further as proposed by Emes.


Figure 10.22. Part of Emes’s 1790 proposal map. He proposed the extension of the North Park to the east, with Brown’s eastern ‘belt’ further broken up into clumps. Parts of his proposals were taken up, but most only after Repton’s similar proposals a decade later. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 10.23. Part of the 1800 estate map. Although sketchy in its nature, it shows a situation for Area 1B not much different than shown on the c1774 survey map. The eastern ‘belt’ is still near-continues, and not broken up as proposed by Emes. Source: Adshead 2007.

Repton, in his 1801 ‘Red Book’ proposals and associated map (Figure 10.24), does not suggest any major changes to Area 1B. Except for some clumps of trees near the lakes and the folly, this map seems to suggest that the area between them largely lacks any large clumps of trees, although Repton’s ‘Red Book’ sketch for the area shows that this was not the case (Figure 10.25). This sketch shows that the slope below the folly contained a central open space, with the main south-north view flanked by small groups of trees on the ridges to the south-west and south-east of the folly. Shortly after 1800 the folly was adapted to serve as a gamekeeper’s lodge, following Repton’s proposals for this.


Figure 10.24. Repton’s 1801 annotated map of the 1800 estate map. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 10.25. Part of Repton’s 1801 Red book ‘after’ view, as intended to be seen from the Hall’s north front. Similar to the picture shown on the 1774 and 1777 engravings, this view also shows how the foreground of the folly was framed by small clumps of trees, together forming two naturalised lines, one running in a SW and one in a SE direction from the corners of the folly, accentuating the rolling slopes in this part of the park. The central part of the slope is carefully kept devoid of trees, thereby keeping the vista between the folly and the Hall open. Only some trees at the edge of the Lower Lake are visible in the middle ground within this sightline; these do, however, not block the view due to the height difference in topography, allowing for views to and from the folly over these treetops. Source: Adshead 2007.

The 1815 Withers estate map shows that many more trees were added to the area since then (Figure 10.26). This map shows that the gaps between the clumps along the western side of Area 1B, as previously shown on the c1774 map, had been filled in since, creating a linear pattern all along this edge. It is possible that the field to its west (in Area 1C) was arable and not turned into pasture as originally intended, which then may have required additional screening. A large open grove is now also shown to the south-west of Johnson’s Pond, which seems to be new planting, not shown on any earlier map.


Figure 10.26. 1815 Withers map. This map shows that the clumps as shown on the c1774 estate map, to the west and south of the folly, have been filled in since, and the trees now form a much more linear pattern. A large open tree grove is now also shown to the south-west of Johnson’s Pond, which seems to be new planting, not shown on earlier maps. Source: Adshead 2007.

Figure 10.27. Part of the 1828 Withers estate survey map for Area 1B and surrounds. This shows a similar situation to the 1815 map for this area. While the 1815 map still shows two distinctive ‘clumps’ immediately to the north of the lower lake, thereby leaving a large gap where Radnor’s avenue used to be, this map shows that this gap was filled in since. The yellow colour of the field to the west of the area under study shows that this was under cultivation by this time. The line of trees planted along this boundary may, therefore, have functioned as a ’screen’ at this stage, hence its continuous and linear shape. Source: Adshead 2007.

The 1828 Withers estate map shows a similar pattern but with even more trees, now also creating a near-continuous line of trees parallel to the Lower and Middle Lake (Figure 10.27). A contemporary image, showing the view from the base of the folly


back to the Hall, however gives a somewhat different impression: there are far fewer trees near the waterfront than the 1828 map suggests and most trees here may have been low trees or shrubs, therefore not blocking the main views (Figure 10.28). An equally romantic, early 19th century view of the inside of the folly, seen from the north-east, is also known (Figure 10.29)

Figure 10.28. 1828 painting by Richard Bankes Harraden, showing the view from the base of the folly to the Hall. Source: NT.

Figure 10.29. Early 19th century view of the inside of the folly, seen from the north-east. Source: Adshead 2007.

The 1886 1st edition OS map gives a somewhat different picture than the 1828 map. The eastern boundary has been moved, now also incorporating a triangular field within Area 1B (Figure 10.30). Most importantly, changes made by the 3rd and 4th

Earls of Hardwicke, the results of which are shown in this map, have resulted in an


un-doing of most of the linear planting shown on the 1828 map; this is the case for the linear planting along the western, southern and eastern edges of the area. The map also shows that trees were planted to the south-west of the folly, apparently re-instating one of Brown’s original clumps in this area. The grove to the south-west of Johnson’s Pond, as shown on the 1828 map, is still present, and even more trees seem to have planted to the west and south-west of this area, albeit in an even more open form. The end result of all these changes seems more similar to the naturalised landscape shown on the c1774 map than the 1828 situation.

Figure 10.30. Part of the 1886 1st edition OS map of Area 1B and surrounds. This map shows a somewhat similar situation to the 1828 map, albeit with some important differences. In general terms, the main difference is that the linear tree pattern as shown on the 1828 map for this area was partly undone again in the period before 1886. Source: CMP (draft), 2006.

The second edition OS map, from 1901, shows a near-identical pattern in the tree layout within the area (Figure 10.31). It does, however, show the lines of footpaths running through the area. Interestingly, unlike the current situation, the main south-eastern route from the folly was not along the eastside of the Lower Lake, but went to the north of the Brick End cottages (and then through Page’s Close).


Figure 10.31. Part of the 1901 2nd edition OS map for the area.

The 1891 sale particulars claimed of the Wimpole Tower and Ruins:

‘These are very picturesque and occupy an elevated position in the Park. A portion of the Tower is now occupied by the Head Gamekeeper on the Estate, and contains 3 Bed Rooms, Sitting Room, Kitchen, and Cellar. In close proximity are the Dog Kennels and Pheasant Aviaries substantially built of brick and slated, with extensive runs and breeding houses. Nag Stable and Poultry House.’ (Quoted in Adshead 2007, p. 117).

There are some contemporary photographs which show the late 19 th and early 20th

century situation around the folly (Figures 10.32 – 10.36). Around 1891, the folly seems to have been surrounded by a lot of trees, but many seem to have been cleared again before 1910. Around this time, a substantial fence was also put up along its western side, possibly as part of the construction of one of the animal pens.

Figure 10.32. View from the north front of the hall towards the folly. Photograph taken in 1891, as part of the Estate sale particulars. Source: NT.


Figure 10.33. Same view as above, but zoomed in on the area under study. This shows that the folly was, in 1891, surrounded by a large number of mainly mature trees, with some additional trees visible on the slope to the south-east of the folly. Source: NT.

Figure 10.34. Late 19th or early 20th century photograph of the area, seen from the south shore of the Lower Lake. Source: NT.

Figure 10.35. Folly seen from the south-east; postcard stamped 1910. Source: postcard collection John Procter.


Figure 10.36. Folly seen from the south-east; not dated, but possibly around 1910. Source: postcard collection John Procter.

While many of the trees in Area 1B seemed to have survived into the 1960s (Figures 10.37 and 10.38), the 1970s and 1980s saw a drastic loss of almost all the in-field trees in this area. Aerial photographs covering this area kept at the archives at the National Trust’s East of England’s regional office show a rapid process of tree loss: while a 1972 picture shows a situation practically identical to the 1969 picture, a 1982 photograph of the area shows an area suddenly practically devoid of all trees. Both the 1972 and 1982 pictures show, in addition, that this area was used intensively for farming during the 1970s and 1980s. Although trees were lost due to the Dutch Elm disease, it is likely that a number also would have succumbed due to intensive farming practices. Farming also demolished most of the remaining medieval landscape here: while on aerial pictures taken in 1955 and 1965 (also kept at the regional office) ridge-and-furrow is still clearly visible, this has disappeared by the time the 1982 picture was taken.

Figure 10.37. Part of an oblique aerial photograph from 1955. Source: NT.


Figure 10.38. Vertical aerial photograph of the area, taken in 1969. This image shows that by this time the woodland around the folly and Johnson’s Pond had grown much larger and had nearly joined up as well, although the three separate groups of woodland are still visible at this stage. Similarly, the woods surrounding the lakes have grown in extent, also made up of natural regeneration. In contrast, compared to the 1886 OS map, there are considerably fewer trees on the slope between the lakes and the folly, a process that would continue during the next few decades. Also note the loss of all trees in the surrounding arable fields. Source: NT.

After converting Area 1B back to pasture in the late 1980s, during the 1990s many trees were replanted in this area, however not enough to fully restore the landscape to its original design.

Significance: area as a wholeThe prime significance of this area is the provision of an appropriate setting for the Gothic Tower, centrally located within this area. The folly is the focal point of the entire North Park, set strategically within the gently rolling landscape.

In essence, the whole area is largely the same as originally designed by Brown, except that a number of trees have been lost in this area. Emes and Repton have subsequently extended the Park around this area, in particular the extension of the framing boundary belt to the east, but continued the Brownian style for the specimen trees and clump planting in the more open parts of this and the surrounding areas. Emes’s Pleasure Grounds developments also resulted in additional designed viewing points which allowed the appreciation of the folly and its surrounding landscaping.

Most historic maps, as well as late 18th century artistic drawings, show that the trees in the area between the lakes and the folly are mainly grouped as small clumps and groves which are loosely scattered on the slopes to the south-west and the south-east of the folly. This design of the tree planting resulted in an increased perspective when looking at the folly from the Hall, from the north-west point of the Pleasure Grounds, and from the higher ground to the north-west of the Hall. It also helped guide the views when looking up the slopes towards the folly, after crossing the lakes at the crossing points to either side of the lower lake.


Significance: elements within the areaThe folly is of prime importance within the parkland. The overall design of the Gothic Folly consists of three round towers linked by lengths of curtain wall to form an irregular ‘V’ on plan. At a distance this gives the impression of a ruined castle commanding the landscape from the brow of Johnson’s Hill. Several of the most important views of the entire estate are focused on the folly, providing for an important focal point in the landscape.

The folly provided for a superb picturesque element in the late 18th and early 19th

century landscape. The Gothic Tower, together with the contemporary Hill House, also provided a didactic contrast between ancient and modern times (Adshead 1998).

The most important view line is the central south-north axis, aligned on the north front of the Hall. The primary sight of the folly is from the Saloon, situated on the ground floor of the Hall (This was the prime room used for entertaining guests until the 3 rd

Earl had Soane design the Yellow Drawing Room directly to its west, from where a near-identical view is obtained). From the Saloon the folly, in particular its tall central tower, served as an eye-catcher, not only drawing attention to itself, but also drawing the eye across the North Park. The view of the folly is framed by the short avenue in Area 2A (just to the north of the Hall), scattered clumps and individual trees in the areas on either side of the Lower Lake, and is given further perspective by the trees in the woodland behind the folly and the distant tree belt on the top of the ridge to the north of the folly.

Not just from the Hall, but from several points within the parkland the folly and its surrounding landscaping are clearly visible and command an important role within important panoramic views. One such view of the folly within its setting is the view from the north-east end of Radnor’s ‘Fir Walk’ (the 1 ½ Avenue), on the hilltop to the north-west of the Hall: from here, panoramic views are obtained across Brown’s North Park. Similar views are obtained from the hill to the NW of the Hall, behind Bridgeman’s grove.

Another historically significant panoramic view was provided by Emes’s work: the view from the north-western point of the Pleasure Grounds, at the point where the ha-ha crosses the fields; this view takes in the Hall, the deer park, the lakes, the Chinese Bridge, the folly, as well as most of the pasture on either side of the lakes. Further important views of the folly in its landscape setting are obtained from different view points along the path within the Pleasure Grounds, in particular from the west-east aligned path in the southern part of the Pleasure Grounds.

In addition to this, significant views of the folly in its landscape setting are obtained from various viewing points from the boundary route in the western tree belts, the north-west corner of Brown’s tree belt, as well as the southernmost part of Emes’s tree belt to the east of the area. Not just the folly’s central tower, but the large emblazoned gateway in the south-west curtain wall was also intended as an important focal point. This side of the folly is best appreciated when approaching the folly after crossing the Chinese Bridge, from the inside of the boundary belt to the west of the folly, and also from the Old Great North Road (the modern A1198), which follows an elevated route with good views north-eastwards towards the Folly.

When looking out from the folly, there are three significant views: a view back to the Hall over the Lower Lake, best seen from the central tower; a great view of the Middle Lake, best seen from the area to the west of the central tower and from the western gateway; and the view to Home Farm, Thornberry Hill Cottages, Orwell


Church and the distant hills beyond, best viewed from the eastern curtain walls of the folly.

A few old trees, to the south and south-east of the folly, are significant in their own right, because of their important contribution to the aesthetics of the area: in particular, the two Oaks and the very wide-branching Turkey Oak to the south-east of the folly, and the large Horse Chestnut on the ridge to the south of the folly – all 18th century survivors - have high aesthetic and amenity value.

The trees in this area planted during the 1990s were planted as commemorative trees, sponsored by many different members of the public to commemorate deceased loved ones. This has some historic significance in its own right.


Significance: viewsTable 10.1. Summary of the significant views within, from, to, and through Area 1B. Note: the level of significance given here reflects the significance for this area; the overall significance of some views, especially those for which the area is part of a wider panoramic view, may be different than this table shows (see separately produced Views Management Plan for further information). The levels of significance follow those given in section 8.3 of the CMP for Wimpole Estate (2008).

View Direction(i.e. view to)

Significance of View Comments

Views within the areaFrom northern side of the crossing to the east of Lower Lake towards the folly

NNW Significant

Views from the area

From folly to Hall over the Lower Lake S Highly significant Best seen from base of central tower. River plays an important role in this view. Cf. 1828 painting. (Figure 10.40).

From folly to Middle Lake SW Significant Best seen from the area to the west of the central tower and from the western gateway. Loss of open water and islands in western half of this lake and dense wood along north shore of Middle Lake compromise this view today (Figure 10.41).

From folly to 1 ½ Avenue SSW Significant Middle Lake provides appropriate middle ground interest.From folly to Home Farm, Thornberry Hill Cottages, Orwell Church and the distant hills beyond, best viewed from the eastern curtain walls of the folly

SE Significant Panoramic view.

From gap in tree cover to west of Johnson’s Pond to Hall

Some significance Framed view

From folly to western tree belt W Some significanceViews to the areaFrom Hall to folly N Highly significant Central north-south axis of North Park; framed by short

avenue in area 2a; given perspective by clumps of trees in


areas 1d and 1b, as well as the northern tree belt (Figure 10.42).

From Chinese Bridge towards the folly NNE Highly significant Sudden appearance of folly when coming from south. Tower stands high above steep ridge (Figure 10.43). View partly obscured by block of 1990s tree planting in view line.

From NE point of tree belt to folly and eastern part of area

SW Some significance Part of panoramic view; provides for a suitable foreground to the ‘river’ and beyond

From the ridge inside the eastern (Repton’s) tree belt, just to the north-west of the old clay pit/quarry, towards the folly

WNW Significant Repton proposed a viewing point here. Interesting prospect of the folly, with the focus primarily on the inside of the gateway.

From the top of the prominent ridge in the eastern field, towards the folly

WNW Some significance In same line as view from within the tree belt. View line will be further framed by replanting some trees on the old field boundary here.

From NW point of tree belt to folly, Hall and distant hills

SSE - ESE Significant Part of panoramic view. At point just south of where the ride through belt comes into open parkland (see, e.g., 1800 map). Folly provides for a suitable foreground to the view over most of the parkland, Hall and distant hills. Hall is partly obscured by very tall Plane trees to south of Chinese Bridge, originally planted by Brown. Lakes provide for an important middle-ground interest.

From western boundary belt (halfway point) to Hall, folly, farm, and distant hills beyond farm.

ENE - SSE Significant Part of panoramic view. At point where ride through belt touched open parkland (see, e.g., 1800 map). Designed viewpoint already shown on Brown’s map. Crossing over boundary ditch is still visible as earthwork. First time Hall becomes visible again on the drive climbing up from the south.

From western boundary belt to folly and Orwell church

E - ESE Highly significant At point where ride through belt touched open parkland (see, e.g., 1800 map). View of folly focused on the entrance gate. Surprising view of Orwell church over the brow just south of the folly.

From south-west corner of Area 1C to ENE Significant At end of former path through belt.


the folly, at southern end of the western beltFrom north-east corner of Horse Common Plantation to the folly

NE Highly significant From close to the westernmost island in the Middle Lake. This is where Brown’s Pleasure Ground walk would have ended into open parkland. Corresponds more or less with current exit of path through woods. View somewhat marred by arable nature of field to west of folly.

From area to the SW of Middle Lake to folly and western part of area

N - NE Highly significant With reflections in water of lake of Chinese Bridge, trees along northern shore and the folly. Cf. ca. 1774 drawing (Figure 10.44).

View from high ground in SW part of Area 1D, along the tree belt, across North Park

N - E Highly significant Part of panoramic view over North Park and beyond to the east. View from near the tall Plane tree, roughly where Brown proposed a ‘seat’ as well. Particularly good view of the end of The Gloucesters and the ridge beyond.

From SW side of area 1D, along ha-ha to folly

NNE Significant View to folly, with trees on either side nicely framing this view. The Middle Lake below the steep slope provides interesting middle ground interest. Part of intended visitor route, highest point when climbing form Pleasure Grounds and before entering the western belt (Figure 10.45).

From NE end of ‘Radnor’s Fir Walk’ to folly and whole area

NE Highly significant Part of panoramic view

From within ‘Radnor’s Fir Walk’/ ‘1 ½ Avenue’ to folly

NNE Significant Only the tower is visible, but provides for a dramatic sight (Figure 10.46).

From the Mill Mound in Area 2B to North Park

N - E Significant Part of panoramic view. Focus from here is primarily on the folly and the hills to the north-east of the folly. Part of Lower Lake in middle ground of view.

From Greening’s Viewing Mound on eastern side of the plateau, in Area 2B

N - NE Significant Part of panoramic view. Main focus is on the folly. The nearby grove is important for guiding this view and blocking out views to the area to its east. Part of Lower Lake in middle ground of view.

From NE part of Area 2B (near the small Holm Oak clump) to North Park

N - ENE Highly significant Part of panoramic view of the North Park. One of the view spots where both the lower lake and middle lake are in full


sight. Also great view of folly (Figure 10.47).From NW point of Pleasure Grounds to folly and whole area

SW-N Highly significant Part of panoramic view, from just south-west of the historic gate leading into the parkland. Great view of the Hall; the avenue in Area 2A; the ha-ha bordering to the north of Area 2A, snaking its way up the hill, with the metal bridge halfway; Brown’s Plane clump near the Chinese Bridge; and the folly over the Lower Lake (water itself not visible, but trees along its edge are prominent). First time the folly is visible again along the Pleasure Grounds walk.

From southern part of Pleasure Grounds to folly and whole area

N Significant

From A1198 to folly NE Some significance This is the Old Great North Road, delineating the western boundary of the estate

Views through the areaN/A


Figure 10.39. Overview of the significant views relevant to Area 1B, plotted on the 1969 aerial photograph. Further details are given in the table above. This figure shows views within, from, and to Area 1B. Red = Highly significant view; Yellow = Significant view; Green = Some significance.

Figure 10.40. View to S to the Hall, from the base of the folly’s tower. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.


Figure 10.41. View to SW, from the folly to Middle and Upper Lake. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.

Figure 10.42. View from gardens to north of Hall towards the folly, framed by the short double North Avenue in Area 2A. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.

Figure 10.43. View to folly over the Chinese Bridge. Photo taken by the author, March 2012.


Figure 10.44. View to NE from south-west side of the Middle Lake, over the lake towards the folly and surrounding area. Chinese Bridge is to the right. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.

Figure 10.45. View to NE of folly from within Radnor’s ‘Fir Walk’. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.

Figure 10.46. View from south-western part of Area 1D to NNE. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.


Figure 10.47. Part of panoramic view to N, from higher ground to NW of Hall, to NW of Bridgeman’s grove. Photo taken by the author, March 2011.

Design guidance The area between the lakes and the folly was intended to be a relatively open

area, in particular its central part. Some of the clumps shown on the 1886 map to the south-west and south-east of

the folly could be restored. Two loosely scattered rows consisting of several small clumps of trees provide for an appropriate setting and perspective for the views towards the folly, and accentuate the height of the rolling slopes. These two tree rows run from the folly towards the south-west and south-east of the area. The intention should be to create clumps on the slope to the SW and the SE of the folly, giving appropriate perspective when seen from several angles, with the central area in between left open (as shown, for instance, on the c1774 map and the 1774 Wedgwood plates).

Dense woodland backs the folly, consisting of a mixture of evergreens and deciduous trees. As several late 18th century drawings of the folly show, its immediate background consisted mainly of evergreen trees. Although currently there are several small evergreens present here, deciduous trees are dominant. There are opportunities here for enhancement of the situation to recreate the original intention, providing for a dark background to the light stonework of the folly. A good replacement tree here (with a similar shape to the historical intentions) could be the Himalayan Cedar, a few of which have already been planted here during the last few years by Simon Damant. Phibbs (1980) previously recommended Weymouth pine as a possible alternative to the Scots Pines which do not do very well here.

Johnson’s Pond is surrounded by trees. In between Johnson’s Pond and the woodland behind the folly a third cluster of

trees is present, with a large open area on either side, providing for uninterrupted views towards the northern tree belt, when seen from the Hall.

A relatively open grove of trees is located to the south and south-west of Johnson’s Pond.

Both the western and eastern edges of the area are demarcated by several clumps of trees.

Dense woods are placed near the crossings on either side of the Lower Lake. Along the remainder of the lakes’ edges, only a few individual trees are placed.

Selection of digital files for assessment


For Area 1B the 1886 map is more in line with late 18th century design intentions than the 1828 map. The latter shows several intrusive linear tree plantings, which by 1886 had largely been altered to a situation more similar to the late 18 th century maps for this area (Figure 10.48). The 1886 map should thus be the main map guiding the tree restoration works for this area.

Figure 10.48. Digitised trees of the 1886 OS map, plotted on the 2007 LiDar image for the area. File created by B. Govier, using digitised tree data created by S. Damant.

Creation of tree planting planFigure 10.49 shows the 1886 map plotted on the 2007 LiDar image. This makes it clear that, although the 1990s tree planting has filled in some of the most urgent gaps, there is still room for further tree planting here. In particular in the south-eastern and south-western corners of Area 1B several clusters of trees can be replanted, plus some trees in other parts, such as the ridge to the south-west of the folly.


Figure 10.49. The 1886 map plotted over the 2007 LiDar image for Area 1B. This shows that most existing trees in this area are young trees planted in the 1990s. It also make sit clear that there is still scope for additional planting, based on the 1886 map. Source: S. Damant.

Following the assessment, a total of 60 new trees can be planted in Area 1B (Figures 10.50 and 10.51). 51 of these are based on historic precedents, in all cases based on the 1886 map. 6 extra trees are also proposed, to compliment the historic design: 3 behind the folly to add to the evergreens here; and 3 to the west of the rectangular 1990s block planting in the eastern part of the field, to help create a more natural edge to this group of trees. In addition, 3 of the trees planted in the 1990s which have since died should be replanted.

Trees for which it was decided that these should not be replanted can be divided into two groups: the first – and largest – group consists of trees which are either still there (a tiny minority for this area), or where the trees are currently replaced by a hedgerow (in which case it is proposed here that the hedgerow be thinned to allow a few standing trees to grow into mature trees, see below), or 1990s tree planting has already replaced a historic tree on that location or in the immediate vicinity.

The second group of trees for which it was decided that these should not be replanted consists of tree locations which could in theory be replanted - as no tree is there already or nearby -, but for which the assessment in the field showed that replanting would go against the historic design intentions. In most cases, once mature, these would otherwise interfere with significant sightlines.

Although most of the field has been ploughed in the 1970s and 1980s, some tree hollows were still visible; this was the case for 4 of the 60 trees.


Appendix 3 gives an overview of the trees proposed for Area 1B. This provides each tree with its coordinates, information about the historic map on which the tree location is based, the reason for replanting, the tree species proposed, and any archaeological or other visible remains of the former tree, plus any other relevant information.

Appendix 2 provides for a map showing the location of the proposed trees, with their individual numbers.

Figure 10.50. Overview of all 60 new trees for Area 1B, plotted on the 2007 LiDar image for the area. Green ‘tree symbols’: 51 trees based on historic precedents; green dots: extra trees to compliment historic design; yellow dots: replacement trees for dead 1990s trees. Map created by the author, based on original made by B. Govier, February 2012.


Figure 10.51. Overview of all 60 new trees for Area 1B, plotted on the 2007 LiDar image for the area. Map created by B. Govier, April 2012.

For Area 1B, the following tree species are proposed:

Table 10.2. Overview of tree species proposed for the new trees in Area 1B. See Appendix 2 for specific locations of individual trees.Species Latin name Number

of treesComments

Oak Quercus robur 15 Ash Fraxinus excelsior 12 Beech Fagus sylvatica 8

Horse ChestnutAesculus hippocastanum 6

Field Maple Acer campestre 5 Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus 4 Hornbeam Carpinus betulans 3 Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodora 2 Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 1

Lucombe OakQuercus x hispanica 'Lucombeana' 1

Hybrid between Q. cerris and Q. suber (Cork Oak); appearance as of TO, but keeps leaves through winter; adapted to chalky soil

Small-leaved Lime Tilia cordata 1

Turkey Oak Quercus cerris 1

Need to source: similar shape to impressive, wide-branched TO to its NW

Weymouth Pine Pinus strobus 1 Total 60


As for Area 1B a detailed tree planting plan was already produced in 2011 – the results of which were published in the author’s October 2011 report -, it was possible to implement this plan during the winter of 2011-2012. The offer of a generous donation by a private sponsor made it happen, and the trees were planted in February 2012. Figure 10.52 shows the final map on the basis of which the new trees were planted.

Figure 10.52. Tree species for the 60 new trees in Area 1B. These have already been planted in February 2012. The red dots are 1990s trees that still need to come out, because they interfere with the design intentions (mostly because of planting in significant view lines) – see also next section; some of these trees are already dead. A = Ash; B = Beech; DC = Deodar Cedar; HB = Hornbeam; HC = Horse Chestnut; HT = Hawthorn; L = Small-leaved Lime; LO = Lucombe Oak; M = Field Maple; O = English Oak; S = Sycamore; TO = Turkey Oak; WP = Weymouth Pine.

Restoring the landscape following the above guidelines is likely to alter the current character of this area, once the new trees are maturing. The planting will add to the 1990s planting, filling in the remaining gaps. It will also rectify some of the mistakes made then, in particular the linearity of some of the 1990s planting. The central open space will be somewhat reduced in size, creating a slightly less intimidating and more intimate space. Furthermore, the prime views from the crossings on either side of the Lower Lake up the slope towards the folly will be greatly enhanced and better framed.


Further recommendations[Note: SHORT/ MEDIUM/ LONG refers to the priority in which this work needs to be carried out]

The hedge line in the centre of the North Park, delineating the western boundary of Area 1B, is intrusive. This hedgerow ought to be broken up into separate clumps of trees, as shown on the 1886 map. This has already been partly done relatively recently for the southern part of this hedgerow, with additional trees planted where necessary; it is recommended that the rest of the hedgerow gets a similar treatment. Make sure that there are also large gaps between trees: the idea is to create clusters of trees, rather than a continuous row. SHORT

Clear moat in front of the folly of brambles and shrubs. Instigate regular maintenance programme. SHORT

Reduce vegetation cover around ponds to west of folly. Instigate regular maintenance programme. SHORT

Include area around folly into sheep grazing area. SHORT Restore the folly. SHORT – MEDIUM Open up folly area to the public again; reinstate paths through wood behind folly

and around Johnson’s pond. SHORT – MEDIUM The line of trees planted in the 1990s, to the east of and parallel to the western

hedgerow is inappropriately intrusive (Figures 10.53 and 10.54). Although the 1828 map shows a similar line, the current line is not in the same place, having been planted circa 30 metres too far to the east, and thus much higher on the slope. More importantly, the 1886 map shows that many of those trees were subsequently removed, the remaining trees at that stage being more in line with the late C18 design intentions for this area; the 4th Earl seems to have reduced the linearity by braking up the line into three separate groups, thereby allowing for unbroken views of the folly – in particular towards the gateway - from different viewpoints to either side of the upper lakes. It is recommended that a handful of trees are removed to recreate the 1886 situation, rather than the 1828 situation: recreate separate clumps, meanwhile leaving appropriate gaps for the view lines towards the folly. SHORT – MEDIUM (cf. map, Figure 10.52 above)

The block of trees planted in the 1990s in the south-west part of the area was planted here for the management of pedestrian traffic, but has very little historical precedence and blocks the view of the folly when crossing the Chinese Bridge (Figure 10.55). The Gothic Tower, with its landscaping around it, was meant to be experienced rising up above the steep slope, once exiting the dense wood after crossing the Chinese Bridge. This block should be thinned to allow this view to be appreciated: ideally leave only one or two of the trees (1 or 2 Oaks, or 1 Oak and 1 Ash) and remove the rest, possibly leaving some of the Ash as low-pollarded trees or coppiced under storey. SHORT – MEDIUM

The shape of the clusters of trees planted in the 1990s, in the south-eastern part of Area 1B should be softened up by removing some trees. The trees have not only been planted in a rigid rectangle, starkly contrasting with the natural landscape surrounding it, the trees within the block have also been planted in a perfect grid (Figure 10.56). Naturalise the edge by removing several trees; plant extra trees around this block (as fulfilled through the tree planting plan, see above), and remove the fencing (as soon as this is deemed possible). SHORT - MEDIUM

Break up hedgerows to east of the area into individual trees. This hedgerow has a low variety of species; select several healthy-looking field maples, plus occasional hawthorn bush, and let these grow into trees. Clear shrubs in vicinity of these trees. Remove dead trees and shrubs. Keep remainder of hedgerow low, possibly through laying. SHORT – MEDIUM


Some of the trees planted to the south-east of the Folly and south of Johnson’s Pond might, once mature, interfere with views from the folly towards the south-east (Figure 10.57). Remove some (cf. map, Figure 10.52 above); instigate regular check of impact on view lines by remaining trees. SHORT - MEDIUM

The dense tree cover between the folly and Johnson’s Pond is historically inaccurate: a large number should be removed, resulting in a much more open woodland, as shown on the 1886 map, contrasting with dense tree clusters behind the folly and in the immediate vicinity of Johnson’s Pond. The post-1886 planting and natural regeneration merging these two distinct areas should be removed. Part of this area has already been changed by creating a gap between the trees around Johnson’s Pond and the remainder of the trees, and changing part of the adjacent area into coppicing woodland; consideration should, however, be given to removing more trees altogether, recreating the clear view of the tree belt behind the folly, when seen from the Hall. The end result should be to have three large clusters of trees: one around Johnson’s Pond, as it is now, one behind the folly, and one halfway in between. Keep coppiced wood low. SHORT - MEDIUM

Instigate regular checks on Himalayan Cedars and Weymouth Pine behind the folly, to see how they take here and for their aesthetic effects. Extent evergreen planting in future, gradually replacing some of the unhealthy-looking Scots Pines to the north of these. MEDIUM – LONG

There are some inaccurately placed trees in the south-east part of the park, next to the path towards the crossing point below the lower lake: there is no historic precedence for this cluster of trees and some of these trees might, once mature, obscure the significant view to the folly from the northern entrance point at the lower end of the lower lake (Figure 10.58). It is recommended that these trees should not be replaced when they die. LONG

Figure 10.53. The line of trees, planted in the 1990s, on the western side of the area. The photograph shows the inappropriate linearity of this line of trees. Photo taken by the author, March 2011, looking from the folly towards the south-west.


Figure 10.54. The line of trees, planted in the 1990s, on the western side of the area. The photograph shows that the continuous line of trees might, once mature, obscure significant views towards the folly’s gateway. Photo taken by the author, March 2011, looking from the south-west corner of the area (equating with the view from the north-east of Brown’s former Pleasure Grounds), towards the north-east.

Figure 10.55. The block of trees planted in the 1990s in the south-western part of the area. This picture shows how the trees block the significant view to the folly from the Chinese Bridge. Photo taken by the author, March 2011, looking from the Chinese Bridge to the north-east.

Figure 10.56. The block of trees planted in the 1990s in the south-eastern part of the area. This picture shows the linearity and rigidity of the grid planting here. Photo taken by the author, March 2011, looking towards the north-east.


Figure 10.57. Block of trees planted in the south-east part of the area in the 1990s. There is no historic precedence for these trees, and they might, once mature, interfere with this significant view from the northern side of the crossing below the lower lake towards the folly. Photo taken by the author, March 2011, looking towards the north-west.

Figure 10.58. Trees planted in the 1990s on the higher part of the slope to the south-east of the folly. Once mature, some may interfere with this significant panoramic view towards the south-east. Photo taken by the author, March 2011, looking towards the south-east.


location - wordpress.com · web viewarea 1b takes centre-stage in the north park. it is bound by...

Documents