Bosworth
Battlefield
The ‘Battle of
Redemore’
site
Heritage & Conservation Plan
DRAFT Brief
October
2010
“Such documents [conservation plans] should flow from a common thinking process –
understanding, assessment of significance, analysis of issues or vulnerability and policies
for retaining significance. As long as understanding precedes action, the process will work
well…if management or development proposals are defined without understanding, there is
a strong possibility that significance will be at risk.”
Informed Conservation. Clark, K.
“The value of the site should be defined, and a philosophy to guide all interventions should
be established.”
Bell, D. TAN 8 Historic Scotland
“The conservation policy appropriate to a place must first be determined by an
understanding of its cultural significance and its physical condition.”
Article 6 of The Burra Charter 1981 (latest version 1999)
BRIEF FOR
Bosworth Battlefield Heritage &
Conservation Plan Proposal, October 2010
1. Background to the proposal.
It is proposed that a Conservation Plan should be developed for the area of ground
henceforward called the ‘Bosworth Battlefield Landscape’. This will follow
guidelines, policies and strategies developed by English Heritage. However it should
also become the base line for all future strategies regarding English Battlefields.
In summary, the purpose of the Conservation Plan will be to provide a long-term
framework for conservation management of the Bosworth Battlefield Landscape and
appropriate aspects of its setting. To achieve this, it will draw together information on
relevant aspects of the landscape and the immediate setting; it will describe and
evaluate the complex significance of the area from a range of perspectives
(archaeological, social, ecological, aesthetic and others), and will then assess the
extent and nature of any threats to this varied significance. It will draw on this
information to develop conservation policies which will enable the Battlefield’s
significance to be sustained or enhanced, and will attract maximum support from
those involved in transforming policy into practice.
To achieve this, it will be essential to consult with relevant individuals and
organisations. It is envisaged that the list of consultees (to be discussed and agreed
with English Heritage) will include: landowners, tenants, a range of other users of the
site, appropriate English Heritage and Leicestershire County Council staff,
community representatives, educational providers, and relevant research
archaeologists. In a small number of cases, consultation will take place via formal
meetings. Where possible, less formal and time-consuming methods will be used.
Experience gained during the production of the Stanton Moor Conservation Plan
indicates that, as the document is developed, repeat consultation with certain
consultees will be essential, in order to discuss and agree key aspects of the Plan
(particularly policy proposals).
The Plan must be able to be a working dynamic and organic
document; with maps plans that are in a GIS format. This will
allow us to incorporate the plan into our existing data sets
and Centre Management Plan.
2.0 Proposed Conservation Plan Structure.
2.1 Aim of the Plan
In order to fully enable a proper understanding of the site, the consultant should
undertake research and survey work (as deemed necessary) and draw together
relevant information about the site, specifically to inform future land management
options, capital works and special projects that may be forthcoming. The consultant
should work with the Battlefield Heritage Centre in order to assess the archives
relating to the history of the Bosworth Battlefield Landscape. Also, the consultant
should be encouraged to record the personal recollections of current and former land
owners (and any other interested parties) about the area’s recent history, particularly
in regard to land use practice and utility service information as required.
2.2 Evaluation and Analysis
2.2.1 Identify any gaps in knowledge and the need for any specific and additional
survey information required to inform the analysis and development of management
policies.
2.2.2 Create a bibliography of all primary and secondary sources consulted,
highlighting any sources which proved unhelpful to focus any future research. The
text should be referenced to sources where appropriate.
2.2.3 Provide a landscape design evaluation map showing significant vistas and
views to describe how the design works.
2.2.4 Draw together and analyse the information gained to develop a clear
understanding of the development of the whole area, its historical context,
environmental interests, what has been lost, what survives, threats, issues,
constraints and the significance of the area. In all cases, digital mapping should be
used to illustrate information where relevant.
2.3 Issues and Constraints
2.3.1 Conservation Plan must identify known issues and constraints that may affect
the significance of the site as a whole and/or its significant character areas and
features in terms of future management.
2.4 Developing Management Policies
2.4.1 Identify an overall integrated vision together with policies for interpretation,
possible restoration, conservation, management and access. The policies should
refer to, and cross-reference extensively with, the previous evaluation and analysis.
2.4.2 Identify any potential conflicts between policies to ensure that they are fully
integrated. This may require a reassessment of priorities or techniques proposed, as
well as identifying a need for additional resources.
2.5 Management Overview
2.5.1 Set out how to implement the policies by defining and programming the work
needed. The programme should be realistic but not limited to the demands of any
one source of funding at this stage. This must refer and cross-reference extensively
with previous sections.
Based on the previous Evaluation and Analysis stages, and taking into account the
issues and policies - identify and describe the following:




Detailed management guidelines (prescriptions) required to achieve each
policy;
Work needed to interpret or, if appropriate, restore, and then conserve the
features and historic value of the area, in the next 10 years (with a possible
20 year vision). Comments should be made on the feasibility of repair or
restoration. The survey should prioritise work into areas into immediate (1-2
years), necessary (2-5 years) and desirable (5-10 years);
Patterns of regular management needed to secure this historic value for the
future, including any specific measures needed to conserve a significant
landscape feature and/or wildlife species; and,
A master plan showing character areas and interpretation/restoration
proposals.
3.1 Submission of Draft Conservation Plan
3.1.1 On completion of this stage of the work, an illustrated draft of the Conservation
Plan, presenting all the information gathered in the evaluation, analysis and
developing management polices steps, should be sent to the client, NE and EH,
inviting comments by an agreed deadline.
3.1.2 Meet with client to discuss and agree the content of the draft Conservation Plan
and to agree the type and extent of works to be specified in a Schedule of Works.
The Schedule must cover the following: Annual Management proposals, Standard
Capital Works Plan items and any Special Projects (capital items outside the scope
of standard works).
This part of the work must be in a format that can be readily used in a Capital Works
Plan.
3.2 FINAL CONSERVATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF
WORKS
3.2.1 The final Conservation Plan should be submitted for approval once all
necessary changes have been made.
The following plan structure is based on formal guidance from English Heritage to be
used for guidance, and can be altered if justifiable.
1
1.1
1.2
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Introduction
Background and purpose
Scope and methodology
Understanding the site and its setting
Chronology - key dates
Location / geology / topography
Tenure and management (i.e. brief recent history – post war; plus current
situation)
Cultural heritage, covering all the significant find scatters, sites, buildings
and historic landscape features.
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
3
site descriptions
Archaeological context (physical setting + intellectual / research context)
Survey/excavation history, collections and archives
Gaps in existing knowledge
Natural heritage
site descriptions
Ecological context (physical setting plus intellectual / research context)
Survey history, collections and archives
Gaps in existing knowledge
Setting and landscape context (including range of land uses in immediate
context area – agricultural, industrial, recreational)
Aesthetic qualities
Interpretation and presentation
Landscape use (to include status as regional tourism focus, known
educational use, agricultural use, Paranormal investigators etc)
Physical access and accessibility (to include history of access, and
character of approach routes for different users)
Assessment of significance
3.1
Statutory and other formal designations covering the site and its setting.
To be broken down into the set formal historical groups (see 2.4)
3.2
3.2.1
Statement of significance
Cultural heritage: archaeological and research significance
To be broken down into the set formal historical groups (see 2.4)
Archaeological setting of total site complex
Natural heritage
Landscape setting / immediate and wider landscape contexts
Aesthetic value
Group value
Significance (and intellectual accessibility) for different
audiences / communities, including:
Recreational / tourism significance
Significance as formal / informal educational and learning
resource
Modern spiritual value
Significance to local community / communities
Physical access and accessibility (including character of approach routes)
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
4
Issues and vulnerability
To be broken down into the set formal historical groups (see 2.4)
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.8
Setting
Local archaeological setting of whole landscape
Natural heritage
Landscape context
Aesthetic value
Group value
Impacts on significance and intellectual accessibility for different
audiences (as listed at 3.2.6)
Physical access and accessibility
Tenure and management issues
5
Policies
To address all issues listed under 3 and 4, above.
6
7
8
Implementation, monitoring and review
References
Any other appendices,
Including all academic references; list of consultees; maps, plans and other
illustrations
(To be included as a separate appendix, or within the text, as appropriate.) Also all
mapping to be made available in GIS format (preferably compatible with MapInfo).
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Timetable
1. A timetable for producing the Conservation Plan will need to be set in light of the
extent of work involved, after initial discussion at a site meeting. Initial intention is
a completion date of before the end of 2011.
2. The specialist consultant preparing the Plan should provide a work programme
and method statement identifying how they will meet the requirements of the
brief. This programme will include an indication of project milestones, such as
the date for submission of the draft Evaluation and Analysis report and the date
for submission of the draft Conservation Plan to the client. The work programme
to prepare the Conservation Plan should not normally be more than 12 months.
3. The draft Conservation Plan must be submitted by a date to be agreed, closely
followed by a meeting with the client. Time must be allowed for the draft to be
circulated and comments made before the meeting. Subject to comments, the
final Conservation Plan must be produced before the end of 2011, to be agreed
by both parties prior to commencement.
Output requirements
4. Consultants shall follow good practice by ensuring:
 Draft and final versions of the Conservation Plan are clearly labelled with full
explanatory title, their status and date;
 All sections of all versions are adequately and sequentially numbered;
 All people and organisations involved in developing the plan are
acknowledged;
 All facts (including dates) and texts properly referenced;
 A full bibliography, reference and archive sources is provided;
 Appendices with useful information e.g. SSSI list of potentially damaging
operations, protected species, surveys, buildings gazetteer etc; are included;
 Include useful contact names and addresses.
5. A4 plans will be easier to use – applicants should state their preferences.
Plan format
6. Maps, plans, illustrations and photographs must be full colour where original
material is in colour or where colour is essential to preparation of new, illustrative
material.
7. Five electronic copies of each stage of the Conservation Plan (draft and final
versions) must be provided
Standards of work
8. Consultants should note that unsatisfactory work which does not follow the brief
(or any variation agreed with the client) or which is not submitted according to the
above timetable and/or output requirement may compromise the client’s eligibility
for grant aid.
9. The client is responsible for monitoring the work of the consultant/s, in terms of
time spent and costs incurred, to ensure that the plan is delivered on schedule
and within budget. The contract is between the consultant and the applicant.
10. The client must be alerted as soon as unforeseen costs or delays are predicted.
Tender Documents
11. To enable a full appraisal of the tenders, the following information is required
from the consultant(s):
 Proposed methodology for preparing the plan in accordance with the
requirements of the brief;
 Proposed programme and timetable for the work;
 Proposed time allocation for each stage of work;
 Time input by each member of the consultant’s team;
 Range of professional skills offered;
 Names and CVs for individuals who will prepare the plan;
 Details of any subcontractors;
 Total cost + VAT which should be broken down to show:
 Day rates for each member of the consultant’s team;
 Travel and related expenses;
 A separate rate for additional meetings beyond those identified in the
brief;
 Other expenses;
 Plan report production costs;
 Professional indemnity insurance details.
(Please note that day rates and expenses should be included in the total overall cost
as there will be no allowance for adding in these costs later)
12. Tenders should be submitted to the estate by the x of xx 20xx.
13. Copyright usually rests with the consultants, and their sub-contractors. Natural
England, English Heritage and Leicestershire County Council reserve the right to
use information and text produced as part of the management plan for things like
interpretation boards and publicity material.
Historical Background.
The Battle of Bosworth was first recorded in the York City Records the day after the
battle, where it was called the ‘Field of Redemore’. The battle saw the defeat and
death of Richard III, the last English king to die on the battlefield, and the birth of the
Tudor dynasty. According to tradition the crowning of Henry Tudor as Henry VII took
place on Crown Hill in Stoke Golding.
Towards the end of 2005 Leicestershire County Council, (LCC) was awarded a grant
by the Heritage Lottery Fund to investigate several theories as to where the battle
was fought, to ensure that the new visitor experience provided the most accurate
information about the battle. To do this a team of experts was brought together under
the direction of Glenn Foard of the Battlefields Trust, a specialist in battlefield
archaeology, to attempt to locate the site.
Historical and Archaeological Research of the
Battle of Bosworth 1485.
When the Battlefield Centre opened in 1974, the generally accepted theory (first
published in 1788) was that the battle took place where you can see the standards
flying today, on Ambion Hill.
The new research indicates that this is incorrect. All interpretations depend on
locating ‘Redemore’, and on finding the site of the marsh, which Henry used to
protect the flank of his army as he attacked Richard.
A team of specialists from various disciplines were brought together to apply the
techniques of battlefield archaeology to search for the battlefield.
The evidence collected by the project team has shown the marsh could never have
existed on Ambion Hill. However landscape study, field name evidence and soil
coring have located an area of medieval marsh between Upton, Stoke Golding,
Shenton and Dadlington.
Stoke Golding’s claim to be the birthplace of the Tudor dynasty is likely to be valid,
with Crown Hill almost certainly the location where Henry Tudor became Henry VII.
It was however a systematic archaeological survey with metal detectors that was the
method by which we finally located the battlefield. After five years of survey with only
hints that we were close to the action, it was only in the last week of planned
fieldwork that the critical archaeological evidence was found. The project was then
extended and intensive work undertaken during 2009 to explore the core of the
battlefield. This work now continues to test the edges to the field scatter to determine
the limit of the archaeological evidence.
The troops who decided the battle were the typical infantry and cavalry of the late
medieval period, with bow, bill and lance. But it is gunpowder weapons which have
provided the key archaeological evidence for the location of the battlefield.
‘The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French,
knowing by the king’s shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to
avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king’s battle.’
Jean Molinet (1490)
The archaeological survey of Bosworth Battlefield has so far produced a large, but
discrete scatter of 32 lead round shot fired from artillery and bullets fired from early
hand guns – more than the entire lead round shot from all the other battlefields of the
15th and 16th century in Europe put together. They range in size from up to 93mm –
suggesting that several guns of varying calibres were on the field.
Because we have no comparable evidence for such as scatter and there is no
information as to where the cannon were located, the interpretation of the pattern we
have recovered demands new research. This will involve the application of modern
ballistics tests and other methods of scientific analysis.
The combined evidence proves that the battle was fought in the low lying area
between the villages of Dadlington, Shenton, Upton and Stoke Golding.
Sites and significant finds of other periods within the
proposed conservation area.
In looking for evidence of the Battle of Bosworth a large number of archaeological
artefacts have been found from other periods, including several scatters which
represent occupation sites. Along with a number of previously known archaeological
features, these must be taken into consideration in the conservation strategy. The
key groups of finds include:
Stone Age axes from south of Fenn Lane
Bronze Age round barrows near Sutton Cheney
Roman artefacts scatter near Fenn Lane and Roman temple site on Ambion Hill
Scheduled Monument Deserted medieval village of Ambion
Site of English Civil War skirmish north of Fenn Lane
Other sites that would be deemed relevant and important should include windmill
sites, historic buildings, village cores and parkland. Industrial sites, including sandpits
and quarries, as well as the Ashby de La Zouch Canal and the line of the Ashby and
Nuneaton Joint Railway should also be included. Several areas of marshland, which
contain important paleo-environmental evidence as well as possible battle evidence,
bring further diversity to the landscape.
The Leicestershire & Rutland Historic Environment Record currently holds
157 monument records for the area. The HER is held by the Historic and
Natural Environment Team at County Hall, Glenfield.
Field Archaeology Methodologies used to date.
Field walking.
A number of different field walking groups have undertaken surveys on ploughed
fields within the proposed conservation area. Most of these were undertaken on a
20m x 60m grid ‘traverse and stint’ collection system.
Metal detecting.
Although some individual random metal detecting has taken place within the area,
the major landowners have never allowed detectors on their ground until approached
by the Battlefield Heritage Centre. Since 1995 AHARG (Ambion Historical and
Archaeological Research Group) have undertaken a large amount of detecting.
Initially fields were covered on a random wander method. From about 1999 fields
were systematically walked on a 20m transect system followed in 2005 in a
systematic 10m transect using GPS plotting of finds. This then was brought down to
5m and subsequently to 2.5m transects with a very few transects recently at 1.25m;
some of which have been searched in “all metal” mode as apposed to the vast
majority of which have been searched with discrimination mode.
Historic Landscape.
In 2005 a large area of the landscape was surveyed; both on foot and from aerial
photographs. The data from this was used to create a map of the medieval open field
system with most furlongs being recorded. The conservation plan should plot all and
any surviving ridge and furrow. Potentially this could be listed using a scoring system
from “very poor examples” through to “classic examples”.
A large amount of work has been undertaken by Rodney Burton. He mapped the
soils to identify those which developed in wet conditions. Birmingham and Bradford
also analysed the peat deposits to establish when certain areas of marsh
disappeared. This area would need to be extended to include any other possible
areas of ancient or historic natural landscape.
Natural History.
The area includes SSSIs and will require specific strategies as necessary. Natural
history records are held by the Historic and Natural Environment Team at Holly
Hayes Environmental Resources Centre, Birstall.
Areas of previous destruction
Various industrial, agricultural, recreational and wartime processes and
developments have caused varying levels of damage to the landscape, which will
affect the heritage value of the particular areas. These areas should be plotted and
assessed.
Other Known Areas of Research.
There is some coverage of the proposed site covered by LIDAR mapping held at
BBHC
There is also some thermal imagery data and geophysical survey results from
several areas including the Roman site on Ambion Hill held at BBHC and by the
HNET team.
Ownership and Management.
The survey area is owned by a large number of private landowners and in many
cases worked by tenants. The suggested battlefield area (as deduced form the finds
scatters) is under five landowners.
The location of the villages of Dadlington, Stoke Golding, Upton, Shenton and Sutton
Cheney.
The location of probable and possible battle related finds so far found during the
archaeological metal detecting survey as of 1/10/10.
The subsequent plan therefore shows a suggestion for the conservation plan area.
It is proposed that the Bosworth Battlefield Conservation Area be split into three
sections. The Core area (Zone 1) is to be determined by the most up to date
interpretation of the archaeological scatter. Zone 2 should present a buffer to he
scatter and include more peripheral areas, such as the potential camp site for
Richard’s forces before the battle. Zone 3 should include other significant buildings,
landscape features and artefact scatters representing other periods to place the
battlefield in its landscape context.
Physical access within the proposed conservation
area.
Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre forms the hub of the interpretation for Bosworth
Battlefield. The Centre is fully accessible with good visitor facilities and was recently
chosen to be included in East Midlands Tourism Think Access Q-book as a case
study on accessibility.
An external interpretation trail around Ambion Hill is soon to be constructed which will
provide intellectual and physical access to a wider area, including interpreted views
over the actual battlefield. Guided walks give visitors further access to the landscape
and its story.
The wider battlefield however has presently no formal interpretation from the
Heritage Centre staff. Although public access across the site is technically available,
the public right of ways have no obvious circular route, and a number of them cross a
very busy road. At present, only Whitemoors car park, on Mill Lane, Shenton Station
and the Heritage Centre itself provide official car parking within the proposed
Conservation area.
Public rights of way and public parking area within the area.
On-site interpretation.
Until 2009, no one in recent times knew of the true site of the Battle of Bosworth.
A Visitor Centre was set up in a derelict tenant farmhouse on Ambion Hill in Sutton
Cheney, where C20th historians had placed Richard’s army; and from where his final
charge was thought to have taken place.
Work is now in hand to create an interpretation hub on the top of Ambion Hill,
overlooking the actual site and will be managed by the now National award winning
Heritage Centre, as the gate way to the Battle site.
Heritage Centre visitor figures.
49,000 people visited the Heritage Centre in the last financial year. 96% of those
surveyed said they would come again. At least twice as many people visit the
Country Park and wider area for recreational and dog walking, horse riding and other
outdoor activities.