Landguard Peninsula
Outline Conservation
Statement
Prepared for
the Landguard Partnership
July 2014
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula
Outline Conservation
Statement
Prepared for
the Landguard Partnership
July 2014
Contents
1.0 Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1
2.0 Understanding the Asset������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2
2.1 Why Landguard?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2
2.2 Summary of Historic Phasing �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3
2.3 History of the Landguard Peninsula�����������������������������������������������������������������������������8
2.4 Landguard Peninsula today������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18
3.0 Assessment of Significance������������������������������������������������������������������������������������30
3.1 Assessing Significance����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������30
3.2 Designations�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31
3.3 Summary Statement of Significance������������������������������������������������������������������������31
3.4 Significance by Interest��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32
3.5 Setting of the Landguard Fortifications�������������������������������������������������������������������34
4.0 Issues and Opportunities����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36
4.1 Ownership, Management and Funding������������������������������������������������������������������36
4.2 Landguard Fortifications������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36
4.3 Landguard Peninsula�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37
5.0 Conclusion �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39
6.0 Key Sources�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40
Appendix - List Entry Summaries���������������������������������������������������������������������������������41
Alan Baxter
This drawing incorporates information from the Ordnance Survey which is © Crown Copyright. ABA Licence: AL1000 17547
N
Site Plan showing designations
Site Boundary
Local Nature Reserve
Designation Area
Port reconfiguration Phase 1
(2008–11)
Site of Special Scientific
Interest
Port reconfiguration Phase 2
(on hold)
Listed Grade I
Scheduled Ancient Monument
(includes buildings)
Port reconfiguration not to scale
1.0
Introduction
The Landguard Peninsula, south of Felixstowe in Suffolk, encompasses a number of
statutory designations that recognise its historic and environmental significance. Most
notable and central to this document is the Landguard Fort and its associated fortifications,
which, according to English Heritage, “present an unusually complete physical record of
developments in military engineering and the response to perceived changes in defence
requirements over a period of more than two hundred years; from the early 18th to the mid20th century”.
The site described here as the Landguard Peninsula is illustrated, with its designations, on the
opposite page. This document outlines the historical development and present appearance
of the Peninsula (Chapter 2), summarises its significance (Chapter 3) and sets out some Issues
and Opportunities (Chapter 4).
1.0 Introduction
Today the Peninsula is owned and managed by a group of organisations that together make
up the Landguard Partnership. This Outline Conservation Statement has been prepared
to support the Partnership’s Round One submission to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for
the Discover Landguard Project, which aims to improve access to the Peninsula as a major
visitor attraction, increase community participation and ensure the long-term conservation
of the future of the assets on the Peninsula. If the Discover Landguard Project is successful
at HLF Round One, this document will form the basis of a full Conservation Plan to guide the
developing proposals – which are currently at an early stage – for HLF Round Two.
Aerial view of the Landguard Peninsula (photograph by Steve Wilson)
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
1
2.0
Understanding the Asset
2.1 Why Landguard?
The strategic importance of the Landguard Peninsula is as the most appropriate location to
defend Harwich Haven from seaborne attack. The reason for this can be found in Admiralty
charts, which show the relatively narrow approach channel from the Cork lightship. Simply
put, to enter the Haven it was necessary for ships to approach and then pass close to the
peninsula, where the channel was and is deepest. This meant that, until guns improved to
reach targets far at sea, the artillery fortifications of the Peninsula were orientated towards the
mouth of the Haven, guarding against intruders.
Landguard Fort
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Entrance channel
to Harwich Haven
1972 Admiralty chart. The purple buoys mark the approach channel at this time
2
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.2 Summary of Historic Phasing
The following drawings summarise the historical development of the fortifications of the
Landguard Peninsula. They cover roughly the area that is designated as a Scheduled Ancient
Monument. The eight phases of development are discussed in some detail in the following
section. Plans identifying the age of the extant fabric of the fort itself can be found at the end
of this chapter.
To avoid confusion, the phasing of the fortifications is mapped onto the landmass of the
Peninsula as it exists today. Please see the diagram below illustrating the extent of change to
the Peninsula throughout this period.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
N
2000
1980
1870
1783
1660
1554
Location of Landguard Fort
today
Coastline phasing of the Peninsula
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
3
1543-88
• Threat of invasion from Catholic Europe
• Earliest known fortification is a circular, moated earthwork on the east side of the
Peninsula, constructed in 1543 but dismantled in 1552
2.0 Understanding the Asset
• Rebuilt and garrisoned in 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada as a hexagonal earthwork
approximately 37 metres on each side
1625-28
• Coastal raids by pirates from Dunkirk
• Existing fortifications had been badly neglected since 1603
• First Landguard Fort erected to the designs of Simon Van Cranfeld 1625-28 in sand
and shingle topped with sod and clay slabs
4
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
1717-20
• War of the Spanish Succession broke out in 1702
• Fortifications had again fallen into a state of decay
• New brick battery constructed to the south west in 1717-20
1744-53
• War of the Austrian Succession in 1740-48; Jacobite rebellion in 1745-46
• Fort rebuilt by the Board of Ordnance in brick with stone dressings
2.0 Understanding the Asset
• Two-storey barrack range to the rear (enlarged with another storey in 1733)
• Existing battery incorporated into the two main faces of the pentagonal design
• Beauclerk’s Battery added on the Haven side by 1753
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
5
1779-83
• American War of Independence began 1775
• New earthworks proposed by Captain Thomas Hyde Page to make Landguard Point a
large defended camp
• Fort extended with two wing batteries surrounded by wet ditches added to south east
(South Redoubt) and north west (North Redoubt)
• Additional square emplacement built to the north east (Rainham Redoubt)
2.0 Understanding the Asset
• The works are incomplete by the end of the American War of Independence in 1783
1870-80
• Royal Commission report of 1860 surveyed the defences of the United Kingdom, but works to
Landguard Fort not approved until 1870
• Front curtain wall replaced with curved casemated battery for seven huge guns
• Plan form and remaining curtain walls retained and remodelled with new concrete parapet
• New elliptical keep within existing parade
• Internal buildings replaced with semi-circular barrack block
• Submarine Mining Establishment established at the north east of the Fort’s outworks in 1877-80
6
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
1889-1918
• Rapid technological advances meant that the 1870s armaments were soon obsolete
• New gun emplacements constructed to the north (Left Battery) in 1889-90 and east (Right
Battery) in 1898-1902
• Darell’s Battery erected on the Haven side of the fort, at the former site of Beauclerk’s
Battery, in 1900-01
• Fire Command Post erected on the roof of the Fort in 1903; second storey added 1915
1939-42
• Harwich Haven became an important naval base during Second World War
• Darell’s Battery reconstructed and two three-storey concrete towers added for control and
position finding, assisted by three new searchlight shelters to the north
2.0 Understanding the Asset
• No major structural alterations made to the Fort during First World War
• Emergency Battery with shelters and stores built between Left and Right Batteries
• Right Battery modified for new artillery with concrete gun houses
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
7
2.3 History of the Landguard Peninsula
This section sets out the history of the Landguard Peninsula. It necessarily focusses on the
built defences of the Peninsula, but also tries to place them within the wider geographical
and historical context of Harwich Haven, and the sequence of perceived invasion threats that
it has faced. This is based on two accounts written by Paul Pattison for English Heritage: the
Landguard Fort Conservation Plan (with Moraig Brown, 2000) and Guidebook (2006).
2.3.1 Early history
The area marked by the confluence of the Orwell and Stour Rivers, and sheltered by the
Landguard Peninsula, is the first natural harbour between the Thames and the Humber. In
the late Roman period, a large Shore Fort was established at Walton, to the north east of the
present-day town centre of Felixstowe, indicating its strategic importance as a port of entry
to the east of England. Walton Fort was sited at the source of the Deben and Orwell Rivers, a
location lost to the sea in the 18th century.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Gippeswic (Ipswich) emerged as a major Anglo-Saxon emporium in the 7th and 8th centuries,
and Harwich Haven consolidated its role in the expansion of the nation’s growing trading
economy with continental Europe. In 855 a Viking fleet was defeated by the newly formed
West Saxon Fleet at Bloody Point, off Shotley, and further attacks are known to have entered
the Orwell in 991, 1010 and 1016. Landguard appeared in the Domesday Book of 1086 as
‘Langer’, and other early variations on its name are known to be ‘Lunger’ and ‘Langerston’.
8
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.3.2 Fortifying Harwich Haven
The town of Harwich was created as a new town from the existing settlement in the 13th
century by Roger Bigod, who established the regular street plan visible today. Due to its
vulnerability, the town was granted a license for building walls in 1352, and played an
extensive role in the Hundred Years War, especially for the assembly of English fleets. During
this period it was attacked on many occasions, being plundered and burnt in 1450.
In the 16th century, after the Reformation, Henry VIII fortified England’s major harbours
against the threat posed by the combined forces of Catholic Europe. Harwich’s medieval
wall was modified by the addition of two bastions (see topic box on p. 11) and defensive
trenches in 1539. In 1543, after a visit by Henry himself, the first fortification on the Landguard
Peninsula was constructed. This was one of five new timber and earthwork forts, or bulwarks,
built to defend Harwich at this time, two at Landguard and three in Harwich, each with
artillery and small garrisons. The fort on the Landguard Peninsula, which stood on land now
lost to the sea, was a circular, moated earthwork with a rampart for the guns.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
A typical feature of coastal defences in England over the following centuries is abandonment
or neglect once the perceived threat had subsided. By 1533 the Harwich garrisons had been
withdrawn and the guns had been returned to the Tower of London. In the 1580s, however,
the deteriorating political situation, and especially fear of Spain, prompted further defensive
work at Harwich. This included a new stone bulwark and the rebuilding of the existing
bulwark at Landguard, so that a total of 46 canons defended the Haven.
A late 16th-century map of Harwich Haven, showing the small artillery bulwark on Landguard Point
(from English Heritage guidebook)
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
9
2.3.3 The first Landguard Fort (1625-28)
The Landguard bulwarks were neglected once more by the accession of James I in 1603;
peace with Spain would be agreed in 1604. Although this resulted in a reduction of national
coastal defence, some permanent forts were proposed to guard strategic locations such
as Harwich Haven. The Half-moon Battery was built on the Harwich quayside, while, at
Landguard, a new fort was built to the initial designs of the Dutch Simon van Cranvelt. It was
a simple square bastion scheme (see topic box opposite) of earth revetted (covered) with turf,
built to house 62 guns and surrounded by a ditch. The main entrance was across a drawbridge
and through a portcullis and inside there were several brick buildings – including a barracks, a
governor’s lodging, magazines and a chapel – set around a small square parade ground.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
The 17th century saw England fight three wars against the Dutch, in 1651-54, 1665-67 and
1672-74, during an extended period of international trading rivalry. Although Harwich
served as an important safe haven for naval and mercantile ships during these conflicts, the
first Landguard Fort was in a very poor state of repair by the mid-century. It was almost to
be dismantled in 1666 but, with increasing fear of seaborne attacks and even invasion, was
retained by the Master-General of the Ordnance. In September of that year the garrison was
bolstered with a detachment of the Lord High Admiral’s regiment (the forerunners of the
Royal Marines), which successfully rebuked a daring Dutch assault on the Fort in July 1667 (see
topic box opposite).
The Landguard Fort of 1626 (from Suffolk Invasion by Frank Hussey)
10
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Bastion Fortifications
Most simply, a bastion is an angular structure projecting outward from the curtain wall of
an artillery fortification. It became a dominant feature of fortifications in the 16th century,
in line with technological developments in artillery. The advent of the cannon meant
the end of the medieval castle. High walls made easy targets and, as the power of guns
increased, they became easier to breach. Bastion fortifications were lower than the round
towers they replaced, presenting a smaller target in the landscape, and enabled flanking
fire to be delivered on their attackers.
The Dutch Assault of 1667
On 2 July 1667, after a devastating attack on a depleted English fleet in the Medway, Kent
(The Raid on the Medway), the Dutch sailed on Harwich under the command of Admiral
de Reuter. 12 warships from the fleet of 70 attempted to bombard Landguard Fort, but
were unable to get close enough for accurate fire in the treacherous waters. A force of
1500 troops then landed at Felixstowe cliff, with the aim of capturing Landguard Fort
so that their ships could enter the Haven. Half marched inland to hold off the Suffolk
Militia, who were arriving as reinforcements, while 800 men attempted to storm the
Fort. Two assaults were beaten back by the 200-strong garrison under Captain Nathaniel
Darell, aided by a small warship whose cannonballs scattered the beach shingle into the
attackers to deadly effect. Finding themselves pinned down by fire from the Fort and the
channel, the Dutch retreated, leaving eight dead while only one Englishman was killed.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
The bastion school emerged in Italy in the early 16th century and was extensively
developed by the Dutch in their 80-year conflict with the Spanish between 1566 and
1648. The first Landguard Fort of 1625-28 was executed to the designs of a Dutchman,
Simon de Cranvelt, and bastion fortifications became increasingly common during
the Civil War (1642-51), when Sir Bernard de Gomme, another Dutch military engineer,
established himself as the style’s most important proponent in England. He became the
King’s chief engineer in 1640 and was knighted five years later. As well as the walls of
Harwich town (see 2.2.4), de Gomme built or surveyed important bastion forts at Tilbury,
Portsmouth and Plymouth. The evolution of bastion forts continued into the 18th and
19th centuries, as they became increasingly geometrically complex with elaborate layers
of outer earthworks and subsidiary fortifications (see illustration below).
1841 plan of the colossal bastion fortifications at Geneva (Wikipedia Commons)
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
11
2.3.4 The second Landguard Fort (1717-20)
The shock caused by the Dutch assault prompted a revision of the Harwich defences but,
while Harwich itself was given bastioned walls by Sir Bernard de Gomme and a new battery on
Beacon Hill, Landguard received no further major alterations. By the turn of the 18th century,
however, it became clear once more that, as with much of Britain’s coastal defences, the
Fort was in a terrible state of neglect. Following invasion scares in 1707 and 1708, an Act of
Parliament was passed in 1709 for securing all naval dockyards. A new scheme was devised for
the Haven, to include new forts at Landguard and Beacon Hill (Fort Anne) and a revision of the
Harwich town defences.
Due to cost, construction of the Landguard Fort (in a compromised form) did not begin
until 1717. It was constructed in brick to an unusual design: effectively a battery of two
principal faces – the south and west firing platforms – with ramparts supporting 20 pieces
of artillery above casemates containg gunpowder. The plan was closed with two shorter
flanks and the two-storey rear barrack block. The surrounding ditch was revetted, and could
itself be defended from a caponier (a covered passage projecting from a curtain wall) and
counterscarp galleries (in the outer side of the ditch).
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Alterations were made to the fort in 1730-33 to the designs of Captain John Peter Desmaretz,
after it became apparent that no larger supporting fortifications would be constructed on the
Harwich side. A larger battery of heavier guns was provided to combat the powerful warships
of the day, and a third storey was added to the barrack block.
The fort of 1717–20, after alterations made between 1730 and 1733 (from English Heritage guidebook)
12
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.3.5 The third Landguard Fort (1745-49)
Against a backdrop of war with France and the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland, the Board of
Ordnance proposed the building of a new fort at Landguard in 1744. This incorporated the
two main faces, the barrack block and the parade of the existing fort into a much larger and
more formidable structure, to a pentagonal design with bastions at the salient angles. It was
revetted in brick and inside there were new casemates (artillery chambers) and buildings. A
timber rampart was built for infantry defence beyond the external ditch.
A further phase of development came in 1779-83 during the American War of Independence,
when Britain’s defences were stretched and invasion was feared once again. Captain Thomas
Hyde Page constructed a new battery in Harwich and by 1779 had proposed a new 600-yard
long entrenchment (a defensive earthwork of trenches and parapets) across the Peninsula to
the north-east of the fort. This was intended to enable the Point to serve as a large defended
camp capable of sheltering a mobile field force (a device Page had also employed on the
Western Heights in Dover). This was built as two entrenchments, the King’s Lines and
the Prince’s Lines, with canon fire made possible through embrasures (internally-splayed
openings). The earthwork wings to the north-east and south-west of the fort were also
enlarged and a smaller independent fort, or redoubt (Rainham Redoubt), was established on
the east of the Peninsula.
War with France broke out in 1793, and several invasion scares at the turn of the century
prompted a systematic review of the defence of the south coast in which Harwich Haven
was given considerable importance (see topic box). As part of this scheme Page’s infantry
encampment was moved to a less exposed position in Harwich, and the entrenchments were
razed in 1803 to prevent them being acquisitioned by the enemy. Alterations to Landguard
Fort itself were focussed on upgrading its armaments: Beauclerk’s Battery was modified
in 1806 to carry the heaviest ordnance in the Haven, and the fort’s bastions had also been
remodelled by 1817. Importantly, these now incorporated traversing carriages, enabling guns
to be trained at enemy targets on both land and sea.
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Before this fort was completed, however, it was realised that its walls were too small to
support the large calibre guns required against large warship attempting to gain entrance
to the harbour, which would be able to engage the fort before its guns could return fire. As
a result of this, a more powerful glacis was installed by 1753, which came to be known as
Beauclerk’s Battery, after the governor who took up residence that year.
13
The Napoleonic defences at Harwich
2.0 Understanding the Asset
A significant development in Britain’s coastal defences during the Napoleonic Wars was
that of the Martello Tower: squat, round miniature forts built to a broadly common design
across Southern England. Each tower had three canon and accommodation for up to 30
men on the upper floor, with storage and magazine space below. The largest group of
Martello Towers was in the south east, where 103 were built, forming a chain of defence
and strategic communication. Landguard Fort became a critical link in this chain, ensuring
the defence of Harwich Haven from capture and use as a bridgehead by an invading force.
There were five Martello towers in the immediate vicinity: two on Landguard Peninsula,
one at Walton, and one at Shotley Point. These were commanded from the impressive
new Circular Redoubt in Harwich (1807-10). This massive casemated fort was of a very
low profile and surrounded by a deep ditch. It supported a formidable artillery battery of
ten 24-pound guns that covered the town from landward assault and provided a second
defence of the Haven behind Landguard Fort.
Harwich defence scheme
14
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.3.6 The reconstructed Landguard Fort (1870-78)
Following the end of hostilities with France, there was a general order in 1817 to reduce
ordnance to the minimum. The need to upgrade Landguard Fort was not recognised until
the middle of the century, when it was found to be old and defective by an 1853 review
of the Harwich defences. Furthermore, the Royal Commission of 1860 recognised that the
defence of the British Isles needed to be radically upgraded to match the vast technological
developments that had transformed naval warfare in recent years. However, while other
Harwich defences, such as the Martello towers, were upgraded in the years after 1860, and
an entirely new battery was built at Shotley Point, Landguard Fort remained neglected until
1870.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Major alteration works took place from 1870-78 in order to house seven huge rifled muzzleloading guns (RMLs) in a curved, granite-faced casemated battery which replaced the south
and south-western faces of the existing fort. The rampart and four remaining bastions were
remodelled for a further nine RMLs, two in covered emplacements and the rest open on the
new concrete parapet. A semi-circular barrack block replaced the old internal buildings. At
this date, the fort could house 98 officers and men, with additional accommodation in the hut
barracks, built outside in 1872-73.
Inside one of the 1870s casemates today. Note the joinery for a removable partition
wall to subdivide the space
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
15
Due to the continually rapid advances in military technology, the new fort, with its unwieldy
and slow-firing RMLs, was soon left ill-equipped to defend Harwich Harbour. As a result, the
1880s and 1890s saw a series of incremental additions made to the Peninsula. One solution
to faster and better-armed warships was breech-loading (BL) guns, which, by the 1880s, had
been developed to fire over a parapet and recoil into a pit below for safe reloading. These
guns were installed in small batteries protected by concrete emplacements fronted by
earthworks: as on Landguard Peninsula at Left Battery (1889-90).
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Darell’s Battery was constructed to the front of the Fort in 1900-01, with two quick-firing guns
to protect the submarine minefield at the harbour entrance against fast torpedo boats. These
underwater mines were an interesting development of the Landguard Peninsula defence
scheme in the late 1870s, when the Submarine Mining Establishment was constructed
at the northern boundary of the fort. Run by the Royal Engineers from the purpose-built
brick Ravelin Block of 1877-80, this compound included facilities for assembling, installing
– via a narrow-guage tramway to a jetty with a specially-adapted boat – and electronically
detonating the mines.
The Ravelin Block today as Felixstowe Museum
Signage at Darell’s Battery. The name commemorates the commander who led
the defence against the Dutch attack of 1667
16
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.3.7 The 20th-century Landguard Fort
2.0 Understanding the Asset
When the First World War broke out in 1914 Harwich was designated both as a War
Anchorage for the Royal Navy and a Class ‘A’ Fortress. The only major addition to the Fort
at this time was the second storey of the Fire Commander’s Post in 1915 (the first storey
had been erected on the south eastern roof of the Fort’s casemated battery in 1903). This
incorporated the Port War Signal Station, which housed navy personnel who controlled entry
and exit to the Haven by destroyers and other naval vessels.
The Fire Commander’s Post. Note the painted markers to assist range-finding
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
17
The threat of an invasion attempt saw land defences being prepared across the Landguard,
including trenches, barbed-wire entanglements, blockhouses and earthwork redoubts.
New long-range coast guns were provided at Brackenbury Battery, at the southern end of
Felixstowe, to improve seaward defence, though neither these nor the existing armaments at
Landguard saw action during the war.
The Second World War saw Harwich resume its naval significance, an increasingly important
role in the battle to protect Britain’s merchant shipping routes. Landguard Fort served as
Harwich’s Fire Command Headquarters throughout the war, and the armaments at Darell’s
Battery and Right Battery were upgraded and extended. Darell’s was given two impressive
three-storey fire control towers, and three new searchlight shelters nearby, while Right was
protected against aerial attack by concrete gun-houses and anti-splinter covers. Heavy antiaircraft batteries were established on Landguard Common, and elsewhere in the Haven, to
defend against the Luftwaffe, especially in 1940-41.
Landguard Peninsula also played a significant strategic part in both Operation Dynamo, the
evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk in May 1940, and D-Day, 6 June 1944, when troops
and tanks embarked on landing craft and ships from a purpose-built area beside the Fort. At
the end of the war, the Haven defences were reduced and only key installations maintained,
until, in 1956, all British coast and anti-aircraft artillery was disbanded.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
2.4 Landguard Peninsula today
2.4.1 Landguard Fort
The pentagonal form of Landguard Fort as it survives today is largely that of the 1745-49 fort,
much of which was reconstructed in 1870-78. These two phases are easily distinguished by
their material: the first phase being red brick and the second phase yellow stock bricks, with
granite blocks for the facing of the new casemated battery. Drawings showing the age of the
Fort’s surviving fabric are included at the end of this section.
Landguard Fort and Darell’s Battery as seen from the ditch
18
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Outer Parade
The fort is entered through the main gate to the north east, by way of a 1930s concrete
bridge across a dry, flat bottomed ditch. The gatehouse is an 1870s rebuilding (in yellow stock
bricks) but the curtain walls are of the 1740s fort (in red brick). To the exterior, the gatehouse
has a semi-circular arch and pilasters (the pulleys of the former drawbridge survive in the
arch spandrels). The entrance passageway is of two bays with storerooms, a cookhouse and
guardroom with a passage to a detention room. There is a clock above the arch facing the
outer parade.
The 1870s gatehouse from across the ditch
2.0 Understanding the Asset
The external walls of the outer parade contain the 1740s casemates, though the fittings are
of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is a side gate, or sally port, in the centre of the
north curtain. Stairs lead to the upper levels of the North-East, East and South-East curtain
walls, which have gun emplacements, casemates and firing steps to the concrete parapet, of
various phases of addition.
The outer parade
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
19
Inner Parade
The rear arc of the 1870s keep forms the curved wall between the outer and inner parades. Its
entrance is an arched gateway with massive granite dressings, dated 1875 on the keystone,
situated opposite the main gatehouse. It has a semi-circular dry moat crossed by a concrete
bridge. The keep is of two storeys with external stairways and walkways, and divided into
compartments by joinery partitions which are glazed to the parade. There is a cast iron lamp
standard in the centre of the parade.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
The rear arc of the keep housed the barrack block: soldiers on the ground floor and officers’
quarters on the first floor. The forward arc of the keep was for the casemated battery.
Magazines on the ground floor stored gunpowder barrels, cartridges and shells, in separate
rooms to avoid the risk of accidental explosion. Because of their great weight, shells were
winched up to the guns above on mechanical hoists. These guns occupied casemates of
brick and concrete faced with massive granite blocks and iron shields. Each is divided by a
removable partition, with a barrack for up to six soldiers at the rear and the gun at the front.
The two casemates to the east were adapted for new use as a Seaward Defence Headquarters
in 1952; surviving original features include the map table, elevated desk area and partitions.
The entrance to the inner parade
The inner parade, looking back at the barrack block
20
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Two other notable features of the casemated battery are the caponier, a passageway leading
from the centre of the magazines out into the Fort’s external ditch, and the Fire Commander’s
Post which was later constructed on the roof.
Ravelin Block (Felixstowe Museum)
The Ravelin Block is a single storey brick building immediately to the west of the fort, which
dates to the Submarine Mining Establishment of the late 1870s. Its interior and exterior remain
largely as built, now in use by the Felixstowe Museum, and parts of the associated railway and
wooden pilings to the jetty also survive.
Felixstowe Museum holds an extensive collection relating not just to the Landguard Peninsula
but to the wider history of the local area, with 14 exhibition rooms including ‘Local, Social and
Military History of Felixstowe’, ‘The Pleasure Steamer Era’, ‘Roman and Medieval Felixstowe’
and ‘Submarine Mining History’. It was founded as a registered museum in 1982 and has
continued to expand, now utilising all available rooms for exhibitions or storage. The museum
achieved full Arts Council Museum Accreditation in 2013.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
View of the caponier and the Fire Commander’s Post from Darell’s Battery
The Felixstowe Museum collection is well-suited for the historic interiors of the Ravelin Block,
and has ensured that the building has remained almost wholly unaltered and kept in good
condition. It retains its jack arch brick ceilings and historic joinery and ironmongery, as well as
many features relating specifically to its former use by the Submarine Mining Establishment,
such as a section of tramway tracks, with a turntable, formerly used to transport mines down
to the wooden pier off the beach.
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
21
Henry VIII fort
c.1540
T
LANDGUARD FORT
Ground-floor plan
LANDGUARD
FORT
N
Ground-floor plan
New battery and
barrack 1717−20
Ravelin Block
N
stioned
fort
ort
1625−8
Ravelin Block
0
0
Ditch
0
500m
Sally
port North
Curtain
yds
N
2.0 Understanding the Asset
stowe
Inner parade
500m
0
Inner parade
Soldiers’ barracks
Magazines
Inner parade
G13
G14
First-floor plan
Chapel Bastion
0
500m
0
500yds
Pillbox
G13
Chapel Bastion
TODAY Pillbox
G12
0
500yds
Pillbox
G14
TOWE
500yds
N
G15
G16
Harwich Bastion
Martello
towerG16
G16
Casemated
battery
Circular Redoubt
e
G3
HARWICH
G4
G5
22
1km
0
G6
G2
G7
G4
Guns (late 19th century)
Seaward
Defence HQ
G8
King’s Bastion
G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML
G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9King’s
12.5-inch
RML
Bastion
G11, 12
64-pounder RML
G13, 16
9-inch RML
G14, 15
8-inch RML howitzer
King’s Bastion
0
1mile
0
0
0
/ July 2014
G8
Seaward
Defence HQ
Age of Fabric: First floorG1,
plan
2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch
Guns (late 19th century)
G5
Defence HQ
G5
1km
RML
G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML
(adapted from English Heritage
G11, 12 guidebook)
64-pounder RML
G13, 16
9-inch RML
G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML
G14, 15
8-inch RML howitzer
G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML
G11, 12
64-pounder RML
G13, 16
9-inch RML
G1, 2, 3, 8 &10 10-inch RML
G14,
15
8-inch
RML howitzer
Landguard
Peninsula
Outline Conservation Statement
G4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 12.5-inch RML
G11, 12
64-pounder RML
G13, 16
9-inch RML
G8
Guns (late 19th century)
G6
1mile
G6Seaward
G3
Guns (late 19th century)
1mile
RML replica
RML replica
G7
G4
Casemated 0
G7
battery
Casemated
battery
0
G9
G3Hill
Beacon
G1
Harwich Bastion
Beacon Hill
G9
Officers’ quarters
Landguard Fort
G9
and barracks
RML replica
G1
50m
150ft
50m
150ft
0
0
G1
G10
G11
Officers’ quarters
SHOTLEY
GATE
G2
Landguard Fort
and barracks
Harwich Bastion
Docks
Circular Redoubt
G1
Martello
Harwich Bastion
tower Officers’ quarters G2
Docks
N
Clock
Holland Bastion
chamberG10
G11 Pillbox
Clock
chamber
G15
yds
G16
G11
N
G14
Clock
G15
G12 chamber
G14
Pillbox
G10
Pillbox
FELIXSTOWE
G15
Holland Bastion
Holland Bastion
G12
G13
G13
0
Chapel
Sally
port
Right Battery
Darell’s Battery
1898
1900
Chapel Bastion
First-floor
planGround floor plan
Age of Fabric:
Right Battery
1898
ery
First-floor plan
Casemated
Battery 1870
First-floor plan
Left Battery
1888
Battery
00
Magazines
SallyCaponier
port
Left Battery
Magazines
1888
Submarine Mining
Caponier
Establishment 1877
N
Hut barracks
1872
Sally
port
N
RNAS Felixstowe
1913
Magazines
Hut barracks
Caponier
1872
Magazines
500yds
Magazines
South
Curtain
500yds
Magazines
0
500yds
South
Curtain
Soldiers’ barracks
1870 –1914
yds
Drawbridge
Bastioned
fort
Soldiers’
barracks South
Curtain
1744
Drawbridge
500yds
Bastioned fort
1744
Guard room
Guard room
Outer parade
N
Ou
N
Guard room
0
Sally
port
1900–56
Gatehouse
Drawbridge
enched camp
1779−82
North
Curtain
1870–78
East Curtain
Outer parade
Sally
port
N
1744–50
500yds
North
East Curtain
Curtain
Gatehouse
Ditch
Sally
port
Entrenched camp
East Curtain
Outer parade
1779−82
Gatehouse
North
Curtain
500yds
N
N
1744 –1803
Ditch
Ravelin Block
y VIII fort
d1540
0
N
Bastioned fort
1625−8
N
LANDGUARD FORT
plan
HenryGround-floor
VIII fort
c.1540
Ravelin Block
50m
150ft
Alan Baxter
Casemated
battery
2.4.2 External Batteries
In the late 19th and 20th centuries, the rapidly changing technology of coastal artillery
meant that batteries were increasingly installed externally to the main fortification. The main
surviving batteries on the Landguard Peninsula are illustrated in the diagram below.
N
4
5
3
2.0 Understanding the Asset
6
2
1
Alan Baxter
1
Right Battery
5
Searchlight shelters
2
Emergency Battery
6
Darell’s Battery
3
Practice Battery
4
Left Battery
English Heritage
guardianship
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
23
2.4.3 Beach Defences
The reinforced concrete huts, pillboxes, searchlight shelters and tank traps that are dotted
around the beach are an important part of many visitors’ experience of the fortifications of the
Landguard Peninsula. These defensive structures were constructed during the Second World
War as part of an extensive scheme to prevent enemy landings which included a concrete
sea wall, infantry trenches, barbed-wire entanglements and steel scaffolding barriers. Of the
older phases of the Peninsula’s development, the wooden Landguard Groyne survives to the
southern tip of the Point, as do the timber pilings of the former submarine mining jetty.
2.0 Understanding the Asset
As shown in the photographs below, after half a century of exposure to the elements and
devoid of their original function, the cumulative effect of these man-made structures is as a
picturesque part of the natural landscape.
24
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.0 Understanding the Asset
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
25
2.4.4 Landscape context
2.0 Understanding the Asset
The landscape context of the fortifications of Landguard Peninsula is characterised both
by its natural beauty, as a peninsula of undeveloped land with the sea on three sides, and
the formidable scale of the container port on the fourth side, which dominates even the
impressive scale of Landguard Fort.
View of beach from Right Battery
Aerial view showing the fort in the context of the Port of Felixstowe (photograph by Steve Wilson)
26
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.0 Understanding the Asset
It is important too to consider the Landguard Peninsula as viewed from the approach channel
to the Haven, which is where its fortifications would have been sighted by enemy ships. Due
to the changes of levels in the surrounding land it is difficult to get a sense of the total scale
of the Fort when viewing it from the Peninsula. From the sea, however, its full form – and the
extent to which it is experienced as an integrated part of the Peninsula landscape – becomes
apparent, as does the historic layering of different centuries of fortifications which make it
unique.
Views of the Fort and the Peninsula from the Approach Channel to Harwich Haven
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
27
2.4.5 Management of the site
The Landguard Peninsula combines land under several different ownerships and uses,
managed as a whole under a joint agreement by the Landguard Partnership (see drawing
opposite).
Ownership
• Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC): the Nature Reserve along the east of the
Peninsula (and lease additional land from Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company, including
the viewing area car park and visitor centre)
• Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company (FDRC): northern area of the site adjacent to the
port
• English Heritage: has guardianship of Landguard Fort, Ravelin Block and outer batteries
• Harwich Haven Authority: southern area of the site, including the Landguard Bungalow
and Radar Tower
Local Management Agreements
2.0 Understanding the Asset
The area in the guardianship of English Heritage is managed by three different organisations
under separate Local Management Agreements, which makes each responsible for the day-today care and management of their part of the site.
• Landguard Fort Trust: opens Landguard Fort to the public on behalf of English Heritage
from April to October, 7 days per week
• Felixstowe History & Museum Society: runs the Felixstowe Museum located in the
Ravelin Block
• Landguard Conservation Trust: a bird observatory and biodiversity monitoring station,
located in Right Battery and only open to visitors for special events
The Landguard Partnership
Landguard Peninsula as a whole is managed under a joint agreement by the Landguard
Partnership, which comprises the above as well as Natural England, the statutory advisor on
nature conservation, Felixstowe Town Council, which represents the local community, and
Yeo Group Ltd., which runs the Landguard Visitor Centre and Viewpoint Café.
The Partnership has a full-time Project Officer, a part-time Events and Marketing Coordinator,
and a part-time Ranger, employed through SCDC. A large proportion of its funding comes
from a Section 106 agreement with the Port due to its expansion programme, of which Phase
1 has been completed and Phase 2 has been put on hold. This includes annual payments
for the running of the Landguard Partnership secured until 2018 and the provision of a
permanent visitor centre once Phase 2 recommences.
28
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2.0 Understanding the Asset
This drawing incorporates information from the Ordnance Survey which is © Crown Copyright. ABA Licence: AL1000 17547
N
Ownership Plan
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Felixstowe Dock & Railway
Company
Felixstowe Dock & Railway
Company (leased to SCDC)
English Heritage (agreement
with Landguard Fort Trust)
English Heritage (licensed
to Felixstowe History and
Museum Society)
Alan Baxter
English Heritage (leased to
Landguard Conservation
Trust)
Harwich Haven Authority
Port reconfiguration Phase 1
(2008–11)
Port reconfiguration Phase 2
(on hold)
Port reconfiguration not to scale
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
29
3.0
Assessment of Significance
3.1 Assessing Significance
3.0 Assessment of Significance
Assessing ‘significance’ is the means by which the cultural importance of a place and its
component parts is identified and compared, both absolutely and relatively. The purpose
of this is not merely academic. It is essential to effective conservation and management, for
the identification of areas and aspects of higher and lower significance, based on a thorough
understanding of the site, enables proposals to be developed which safeguard and where
possible enhance the character and cultural values of a place. The assessment is an essential
step towards the identification of areas where only minimal changes should be considered, as
well as locations and actions where change might enhance understanding and appreciation
of the site’s significance.
Statutory designation is the legal mechanism by which we as a society, through the actions of
the state, identify significant historic places in order to protect them. The designations of the
Landguard Peninsula are listed below, but it is necessary to go beyond these designations in
order to arrive at a more detailed and broader understanding of significance that considers
more than matters archaeological, ecological and architectural-historical. This is achieved here
by using the terminology and criteria from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
This document, adopted in March 2012, places the concept of significance at the heart of the
planning process.
Annex 2 of the NPPF defines significance as:
The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That
interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from
a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008) includes a methodology
for assessing significance by considering ‘heritage values’. Ultimately, the difference between
this and NPPF amounts to one of terminology – the intellectual approach used to analyse and
understand significance is the same. NPPF terms are used here because adopting them now
will make the process of preparing and assessing future planning and listed building consent
applications easier, but the equivalent heritage values are given in brackets for reference.
Annex 2 of NPPF defines archaeological interest [‘evidential value’] in the following way:
There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold,
evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with
archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of
places, and of the people and cultures that made them.
Commonly used definitions for the other types of interest are:
Architectural and Artistic Interest [‘aesthetic value’]: These are the interests in the design and
general aesthetics of a place. They can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way the
heritage asset has evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an interest in the art or science
of the design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings and structures of all types.
Artistic interest is an interest in other human creative skill, like sculpture.
Historic Interest [‘historical value’]: An interest in past lives and events (including pre-historic).
Heritage assets can illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets with historic interest not
30
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
only provide a material record of our nation’s history, but can also provide an emotional meaning
for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise wider values
such as faith and cultural identity [‘communal value’].
This assessment begins below with statutory designations, followed by a summary statement
of significance of the Landguard Peninsula, and a breakdown of this significance by the type
of interest described above.
3.2 Designations
The Landguard Peninsula encompasses the following statutory designations, as shown on the
opening page of this document:
• A large proportion of the Peninsula is designated for its ecological significance as a Site
of Special Scientific Interest and/or a Local Nature Reserve. The Peninsula is a Vegetated
Coastal Shingle habitat, which harbours several rare species of flora and fauna, including
Stinking Goosefoot. Landguard is also recognised as a nationally important site of bird
migration, landfall, breeding and wintering.
3.3 Summary Statement of Significance
Although the high significance of the Landguard Peninsula is recognised by the above
designations, they do not adequately convey the overall significance of the site when
considered as a totality. The location of the Landguard Peninsula, surrounded by water on
three sides, is integral to its archaeological, architectural and historic interest as an appropriate
site for the defence of Harwich Haven; as well as to its ecological interest for the rare coastal
habitat which is a direct result of this geography. Furthermore, the ecological importance of
the Peninsula today is due in a considerable way to its exclusively-military purpose for several
centuries, which ensured the site had restricted access and remained undeveloped.
3.0 Assessment of Significance
• Landguard Fort and its associated field works were scheduled as an Ancient Monument in
1962. The area was enlarged in 2001 and the description was amended. Landguard Fort
itself was also designated a grade-I listed building in 1986.
While most historic sites can be broken down into an internal assessment of higher or
lower significance, this is not an appropriate strategy when assessing the significance of the
Landguard Peninsula. Instead, it must be seen as highly significant in its entirety. No single
historic phase of its fortifications – whether archaeological or architectural – takes precedent
over another; moreover, the significance of each phase gains meaning from the others in
telling the overarching story of the developments in coastal defences since the medieval
period.
Beyond its separate designations, therefore, the Landguard Peninsula is a significant whole
that must be considered above all in its relationship with the sea. Despite its resoundingly
modern scale, the Port of Felixstowe is a part of this significance in the ongoing history of
Harwich’s role as a national trading port which the fortifications of the Landguard Peninsula
were engineered to protect. With this in mind, perhaps the most significant aspect of the
site is its views across the Haven, as plotted in section 3.5. While the panoramic views from
the fort were fundamental to its establishment in military terms, they remain significant in
providing an ongoing connection to Harwich Haven – the Fort’s raison d’etre – which today is
a spectacular hub of international container shipping.
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
31
3.4 Significance by Interest
3.4.1 Archaeological Interest
As summarised in section 2.2, since the 16th century the fortifications of the Landguard
Peninsula have seen a long and cyclical history of construction, disrepair and subsequent
rebuilding, according to new military threats or developments in technology. This means that
the site has immense archaeological interest and contains a substantial amount of buried
evidence related to previous phases.
3.0 Assessment of Significance
The Scheduled Ancient Monument List Entry Summary for Landguard Fort draws attention
to the ‘archaeological information relating to the occupation and function of the fort from
the 17th to the mid-20th century [which] is retained in the associated buried remains, slighter
earthworks and other features which extend over much of the peninsula’. Of the earliest
phases, in 2002 a research investigation successfully located elements of the well-preserved
bastion, curtain wall and ditch of the 1625-28 fortification, to the north east of the present fort,
of which there is now no evidence above ground. It is also probable that there are surviving
elements of the lost but extensive earthworks that were constructed across the peninsula in
the late 18th century, as well as in the Second World War.
3.4.2 Architectural Interest
In addition to what is hidden beneath the ground, the standing fortifications of the Landguard
Peninsula as they survive today contain several separate phases of considerable architectural
interest. Regarding the fort specifically, while much is retained from the third rebuilding
of 1745-49 in terms of plan form and its essential redesign as a bastion fortification, the
visible historic fabric is almost wholly of 1870-78. The casemated work of this phase remains
fundamentally unaltered, and is one of the best surviving of the period. There are many
original surviving finishes, fixtures and fittings that illustrate its original design and function.
The late 19th and 20th century additions, which most significantly include the Fire
Commander’s Post, external batteries and beach fortifications, are also of architectural interest
for the impressive extent of unaltered historic fabric, and for their group value as individual
but visually-interrelated elements of a larger defence strategy. There is further, wider group
value between the fortifications of the Peninsula and the Ports of Felixstowe and Harwich, the
trading interests of which they have long protected. The juxtaposition of the ultra-modern
container port and the fort is a dramatic illustration of this vital relationship.
3.4.3 Historic Interest
Importantly, the architectural interest inherent to each phase of the Landguard fortifications
gains historic interest when considered together as evidence of the changing design intent
behind fortifying the Landguard Peninsula in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
The layering of the two primary surviving phases of the fort itself is subtle, and apparent
largely through the change from red to yellow stock bricks: both phases are evidential of the
same fundamental military philosophy, by which increasingly large and unwieldy armaments
were aimed inflexibly at the mouth of the Haven.
32
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
The subsequent change in technology and gun range by which artillery was instead
orientated out to sea is dramatically apparent in the late 19th and 20th century additions.
These are both largely external to the confines of the fort itself and built in reinforced
concrete, an evidentially different and modern material. Similarly, the beach fortifications are
testament to the re-use of the Landguard Peninsula as a defensive outpost during the Second
World War.
The Ravelin Block is of immense historic interest as the only surviving component of the
technologically pioneering Submarine Mining Establishment built at Landguard in 1879, one
of the earliest such establishments in the British Empire.
3.4.4 Other Interest
All of the above aspects of archaeological, architectural and historic interest contribute to the
background communal value of the Landguard Peninsula. Another contributor to this sense
of local significance is the Landguard Fort’s long-standing visual and functional relationship
with the Port of Felixstowe, which is an important local employer.
However, the Landguard Peninsula is of most importance for the local community not as a
place that testifies to centuries of military warfare but as a place of accessible recreation and
public outdoor space. The ecological significance of the Peninsula landscape as an important
natural habitat for rare local species and migrating birds grants it further interest for the
community at large, as well as for specialists and enthusiasts.
3.0 Assessment of Significance
Furthermore, during the long history of the Landguard Peninsula it has been notable for its
association with many significant historic figures and events: in fact, each phase is indicative
of a military conflict, whether the threat that prompted it was real or otherwise. The Dutch
assault of July 1667 is the most important of these, and remains an under-known aspect of
English history despite its indisputable status as an event of national historic importance.
The involvement of Dutch military engineers such as Simon de Cranvelt and Sir Bernard de
Gomme in the 17th century Landguard Fort is another key aspect of its historic importance at
the time.
3.5 Setting of the Landguard Fortifications
The Landguard Fortifications are given considerable significance by virtue of their setting, in
terms of both the beautiful natural land- and seascape and the dramatic man-made backdrop
of the Port of Felixstowe. It is important however to consider this setting not simply as how
the Landguard Fortifications sit in that context (as described in section 2.4.4) but how the
assets themselves are experienced. Due to its status as a defensive structure, the Fort’s interior
embodies a remarkable sense of isolation from the landscape it was built to protect. It is only
when one reaches the parapets that its strategic views of command and defence, as illustrated
in the following section, are realised.
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
33
3.5.1 Key Views
N
2
3.0 Assessment of Significance
1
3
4
6
5
8
7
1
North-west from roof of
Harwich Bastion
2
North-west from wall near
Chapel Bastion
3
West from roof of Casemated
Battery
4
South-west from roof of
Casemated Battery
5
South from roof of Casemated
Battery
6
From Fire Commander’s Post
7
North-west from Right Battery
8
South-east from Right Battery
English Heritage guardianship
34
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
3.0 Assessment of Significance
1
35
4.0
Issues and Opportunities
The purpose of this chapter is to identify ways in which the significance of the Landguard
Peninsula is vulnerable, as well as the ways in which it has the potential to be enhanced by the
Discover Landguard Proposals. This discussion is split into three sections: the general strategic
approach, centred on ownership, management and funding; and the specifics of the site itself
in terms of both the Fortifications and the wider Peninsula.
4.1 Ownership, Management and Funding
Issues
• The Landguard Peninsula is owned and managed by many different stakeholders (as set
out in 2.3.5), resulting in many simultaneous and often conflicting aspirations for the future
of the site
4.0 Issues and Opportunities
• The annual payments secured through the Section 106 agreement with the Port due to its
expansion programme are due to cease in 2018
• If successful, a HLF grant may cover one-off repairs, but it will not fund ongoing
maintenance
• The organisations that run the site at present are over-dependent on volunteers
• The renewal and maintenance of Landguard’s heritage assets will require considerable
funds
Opportunities
• The overall management provided by the Landguard Partnership should result in the
coherent, co-ordinated and long-term vision that the HLF will expect
• There is considerable potential for additional revenue-generating uses for the site, which, if
properly explored, mean that the self-sustaining funding that the ongoing maintenance of
the Landguard fortifications requires should be achievable in the long term
4.2 Landguard Fortifications
Issues
• Due to inadequate maintenance and the harsh environmental conditions of the site,
Landguard Fort is in a generally poor state of repair at present. The ground floor rooms
and corridors are damp, and there is a need to update the flood defence strategy for the
site (especially the Ravelin Block)
• From April 2015 English Heritage will operate under its New Model, by which the
ownership of historic sites will fall under the responsibility of a charity (to be called English
Heritage). This could bring uncertainty to the status of the Landguard Fortifications as an
‘unmanned’ site in English Heritage guardianship
• If the Port of Felixstowe carries out phase 2 of its proposed reconfiguration, there will be a
large impact on the setting of the Landguard Fort. Any proposals will need to be conceived
with the possible effects of this phase in mind
36
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
• The Fort contains many large, empty spaces which seem disproportionate when
compared with its small collection of exhibits
• The impressive and historically-significant views out from the Fort to the land- and
seascape of the Haven are not currently publicly accessible
• It is not currently possible to walk around the exterior perimeter of the Fort’s curtain walls,
and is thus difficult to get a sense of its scale and standing in the landscape
Opportunities
• The Fort is a robust engineering structure which can withstand an increase in footfall
• Improve interpretation and re-organise the Fort’s internal exhibition spaces into a
coherent narrative for the visitor
• Open up an external access route around the perimeter of the Fort
• There is a huge, untapped market of potential visitors, as demonstrated by the disparity
between the number of visitors to the car park and to the museum itself. Almost 200,000
cars used the car park in 2004, and, due to the opening of the Viewpoint Café, there is
reason to suspect that it has increased significantly since then. In comparison, there were
just under 15,000 visitors to the Fort that year (this has since risen to just over 23,000 in
2013)
• Establish a viewing point for shipping approaching and entering the Haven. The
fortifications have the potential to host the best view on the Peninsula, for example from
Darell’s Battery or the Fire Command Post on the roof of the Fort
• Create a Heritage Partnership Agreement between English Heritage and the Landguard
Fort Trust to agree a suite of standing consents for maintenance tasks
4.0 Issues and Opportunities
• Consider the creation of Landmark Trust-style holiday lets in the Fort’s under-used and
atmospheric rooms, such as the first-floor casemates, or even the beach fortifications
• Establish an on-site Heritage Skills Programme to carry out conservation and maintenance
• Make use of unoccupied rooms in the Fort to provide overflow exhibition space for
Felixstowe Museum
• Provide interpretation boards to increase public engagement as maintenance work is
carried out
• Develop ‘Augmented Reality’ interpretation technology to bring the Fort’s empty rooms to
life
4.3 Landguard Peninsula
Issues
• If visitor numbers increase, then some archaeological and ecological aspects of the wider
Peninsula may be put at risk. The combined high significance of different aspects of the
site as a whole must be preserved
• Different aspects of the site’s significance may result in conflicts of interest, for example
between the conservation requirements of ecology and archaeology
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
37
• There is a risk of the broader context of Felixstowe’s naval history, for example the
Seaplane Experimental Station and HMS Beehive, being forgotten because there are no
standing architectural remains
• At present there is poor circulation around the site, with physical internal barriers
separating the Fort, Ravelin Block, external batteries and wider Peninsula. This leads to a
confusing and fragmented visitor experience
Opportunities
• Create a singular, joined-up visitor experience: encompassing the Fort, the Museum,
Viewpoint Café and car park and the wider Peninsula, and combining the many types of
significance which make the site so special
4.0 Issues and Opportunities
• Provide interpretation throughout the wider site to ensure the inclusion of the many
different events and associations which contribute to the historic significance of the
Landguard Peninsula
• This could be positioned as part of the wider drive for the regeneration of Felixstowe (for
example the Seafront Gardens, which received HLF funding in 2011)
38
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
• Better utilise the archaeological significance of the site by hosting community digs and
offering interpretation for visitors as the site is investigated in ongoing stages
• Consider charging for use of the car park to create a stable income stream for the
Peninsula
Alan Baxter
5.0
Conclusion
This Outline Conservation Plan has identified that the significance of the Landguard Peninsula
cannot be isolated as one or two distinct factors. By its very nature, this document has been
centred on the built heritage assets of the Landguard fortifications, but it concludes that,
above all, it is significant as a cumulative collection of high-quality assets: archaeological,
architectural and historic, but also of manifest importance in terms of ecology, community
value, and the bustling commerce of the adjacent port.
In our view, then, some of these fundamental governing principles should be to remove
barriers between the different elements of the site – both paid and physical – and to establish
a viewing platform from the Fort that offers the best panorama of both the beautiful natural
land- and seascape and the industrial spectacle of the comings and goings of container ships
using the Port of Felixstowe. In light of the future loss of funding from the Port, there is also a
very imminent need for bold and ambitious proposals to ensure the financial self-sufficiency
of the Landguard Peninsula, which will be the long-term key to its success.
Ultimately, therefore, this Outline Conservation Statement not only attempts to explain and
discuss the history and significance of the assets on the Landguard Peninsula, but to set the
Landguard Partnership a challenge regarding their Round One HLF bid: to ensure reasonable
and appropriate development of the nationally-important and often fragile site, but also –
and just as importantly – to make the most of its considerable and at present under-utilised
potential.
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
5.0 Conclusion
This holistic vision of the Landguard Peninsula is also its ‘unique selling point’ as a rare
visitor experience that encompasses all of the above. There is, however, much to be done
in order to realise its potential in this respect. This Outline Conservation Statement has set
out some important first steps and overall ambitions as to how it can be achieved. First, and
most crucially, there is a need for coherent management of the many stakeholders that own
and run the Peninsula, with agreed objectives as to what will be achieved by the Discover
Landguard project proposals.
39
6.0
Key Sources
Alan Baxter & Associates, Felixstowe South Reconfiguration. Archaeological and Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment (unpublished, 2003)
Brown, Moraig, et al, English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Series. Landguard Fort report
no 3: Right Battery (unpublished, 2004)
English Heritage, Landguard Fort and the Artillery Defences of the Landguard Peninsula. A
Conservation Plan (unpublished, 2000)
Hussey, Frank, Suffolk Invasion (Lavenham: Terence Dalton Limited, 1983, 2005 edn.)
Pattison, Paul, Landguard Fort (London: English Heritage Guidebooks, 2006)
–et al, English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Series. Landguard Fort report no 4: Darell’s Battery (unpublished, 2005)
Stewart, Graham, Time & Tide: The History of the Harwich Haven Authority 1863-2013 (London:
Wild ReSearch, 2013)
6.0 Key Sourses
Wood, D.A., Landguard Fort, Felixstowe (unpublished)
–Landguard Fort, Felixstowe. List of books, reports, papers & other research material for Landguard Fort (unpublished, 2013)
–Drawings of Landguard Fort, Felixstowe. A guidance to the available drawings & maps for Landguard Fort, Suffolk (unpublished, 2010)
– I. Scrivner and A. Lockwood, Gazetteer of the Landguard Peninsula (unpublished, 1999)
40
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Appendix List Entry
Summaries
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
41
Appendix 1
42
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
43
Appendix 1
44
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
45
Appendix 1
46
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
47
Appendix 1
48
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
49
Appendix 1
50
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
51
Appendix 1
52
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
53
Appendix 1
54
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Appendix 1
Alan Baxter
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
55
Appendix 1
56
Landguard Peninsula Outline Conservation Statement / July 2014
Alan Baxter
Alan Baxter
Prepared by Tom Brooks and William Filmer-Sankey
Reviewed by Reider Payne
Draft Statement of History & Significance issued March 2014
Draft issued May 2014
Final issued July 2014
T:\1339\1339-027\DTPData\2014-05_ConservationStatement\1339-27_LandguardPeninsula_OutlineConservationStatement.indd
This document is for the sole use of the person or organisation for whom it has been prepared under the terms
of an invitation or appointment by such person or organisation. Unless and to the extent allowed for under the
terms of such invitation or appointment this document should not be copied or used or relied upon in whole or
in part by third parties for any purpose whatsoever. If this document has been issued as a report under the terms
of an appointment by such person or organisation, it is valid only at the time of its production. Alan Baxter &
Associates LLP does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from unauthorised use of this report.
If this document has been issued as a ‘draft’, it is issued solely for the purpose of client and/or team comment and
must not be used for any other purpose without the written permission of Alan Baxter & Associates LLP.
Alan Baxter & Associates LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England, number OC328839.
Registered office: 75 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6EL.
© Copyright subsists in this document.
75 Cowcross Street
London EC1M 6EL
tel 020 7250 1555
fax 020 7250 3022
email aba@alanbaxter.co.uk