SECTION I: ANALYSIS - Caversham Court
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Caversham Court Analysis
SECTION I: ANALYSIS
1
Caversham Court Analysis
2
Analysis Caversham Court
1. INTRODUCTION
This document is a conservation management plan to support an application to the
Heritage Lottery Fund by Reading Borough Council for funding to restore Caversham Court.
It has been prepared by the Parks Team within the Arts and Leisure Directorate of RBC.
Caversham Court is owned by RBC. The gardens, which are a Grade II listed landscape,
were created in the 17th century as a private retreat surrounding the old rectory, which
was rebuilt in the 1840s and then demolished in 1933. Today the gardens have a strong
sense of history and of place. Although they are now in public ownership, intended for the
enjoyment of all, they retain something of the sense of intimacy of a private garden. They
are popular with the elderly, with carers of children and with young people as a place for
relaxation, although their potential to attract visitors from further afield has yet to be
tapped. It is proposed to restore most of the key elements of the gardens, and to develop
the wider visitor possibilities that exist.
2. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Historic: Caversham Court was originally the garden of the Old Rectory of Caversham, and
part of a much larger estate. Built in the 12th century, it was owned by the Augustinian
Abbey of Notley for four centuries before being passed to Christchurch College during the
Reformation. Over the next four centuries, the property was occupied by some of the
most influential families in Reading, who improved and enhanced the site. The structure
of the current garden was created in the 17th century. In the 1840s, the house and garden
walls were rebuilt to a design by A W Pugin (architect of the Palace of Westminster). The
park is listed as Grade II in the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens,
and contains a number of Grade II listed buildings and features (for details, see below).
Recreational: The gardens are popular with all age groups for passive recreation. It is
unique amongst Reading’s public parks for its sense of intimacy, and is the only public
garden (as opposed to meadow or woodland) on the Thames in Reading.
Ecological: The park forms part of an identified wildlife link in the Local Plan. Although its
prime function is as a garden maintained to a high standard of horticulture, it is a key site
in the chain of open space through Reading along the Thames.
3
Caversham Court Analysis
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location, size, access and context
Caversham Court is situated in the oldest part of Caversham, close to Caversham Bridge,
which gives access across the River Thames from Reading. Caversham is a residential
suburb to the north of Reading, the old county town of Berkshire (Figure 1) and the park is
about one mile from the town centre. The park’s Ordnance Survey reference is SU7074.
The 1.3 ha park lies on the north bank of the River Thames. The main access is via the
gate in the north east corner on Church Road (A4074), the main route between Reading
and Oxford. The nearest bus stop is about 200 metres away in Bridge Street (near
Caversham Bridge).
Figure 1 Location plan
Image produced from the Ordnance Survey Get-a-map service. Image reproduced
with kind permission of Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland.
St. Peter’s Church and churchyard is located to the north of the park, with the stable
block of the former house situated to the north east. The eastern boundary separates the
garden from St Peter’s rectory. To the west is the new Reading Boat House, owned by RBC
4
Analysis Caversham Court
(which has sold the leasehold to the Reading Canoe Club). Meadows south of the river
provide a rural outlook from Caversham Court, in contrast to the predominantly
residential setting of the park.
Figure 2 is a detail from the 1904 sales particulars for Caversham Court. The current
gardens are on the site designated as ‘Lot 1’. The house no longer exists.
Figure 2 Plan of Caversham Court
3.2 Physical characteristics and landscape character
The park lies at the bottom of a slope from the Chiltern Hills (to the north) to the River
Thames. The site has been dramatically terraced from the north boundary with the
churchyard, which is 4 to 5 metres higher than the gardens below.
The gardens themselves are laid out on three terraces. The lower two consist of lawn
dotted with mature trees; the upper terrace is the site of the now demolished house and
the original kitchen garden (now the allotment site). The tranquil, established sense of
place derives from the intimacy of its being a small, enclosed, ‘private’ garden, its
location on the Thames, the mature trees set in lawns, a large yew hedge, and the historic
garden walls and 17th century gazebo.
5
Caversham Court Analysis
The church dominates views to the north; to the south, the gardens overlook the river and
the former meadows beyond (now public open space).
3.3 Ownership and use
Caversham Court is in the ownership of Reading Borough Council, and is used as a public
park and allotments throughout the year. Public access to the gardens is free.
The site is an important local recreation resource, particularly important for the elderly,
and increasingly used by local youth. It is also a significant part of a more extensive
network of open space along the River Thames. The majority of the park is used for
passive recreation: there are no formal sports or play facilities.
Three events have affected visitor numbers in the past two decades. Historically, it was a
favoured site for the elderly and for carers of small children. However, in the early 1980s,
the full-time gardener was removed, and the previously high horticultural standards
declined. Also in the early 1980s, the Council stopped putting out deckchairs in the
summer. This not only took away a facility used particularly by retired people; it also
effectively removed a physical barrier to ball games on the lawn. Increasing use by local
youth of the grassed areas for football accelerated the withdrawal of older visitors to the
park. Then in 2002 the fountain in the rockery was turned off. Almost immediately, the
flow of child carers bringing small children to the park diminished. As the pond became
periodically stagnant or dry, this group stopped visiting the park, also deterred by the
growing numbers of groups of young people, who are perceived as intimidating. The
fountain was repaired and turned on again in June 2004, but it is too early to know
whether this will have any effect on visitors.
3.4 Planning context and designations
The relevant local authority planning policy document relating to the site is the Reading
Borough Council Local Plan (1998; currently being revised). Within the Plan, Caversham
Court is identified (i) as an important part of a major area of recreational open space, (ii)
as a wildlife link, (iii) as part of a major landscape feature (the Thames Valley), and (iv) as
an historic garden. RBC Local Plan LEI 2, NE3, NE4 and CUD 10: the Council will not
normally allow any development or change of use on or adjacent to these sites which
6
Analysis Caversham Court
would affect their character, the use or enjoyment of them or change any part of them or
their setting.
The Borough Council will encourage the conservation, maintenance and, as appropriate
restoration of historic parks and gardens at Caversham Court, Forbury Gardens, Prospect
Park, Caversham Park and elsewhere in the Borough, and will not normally permit any
development which would adversely affect any part of them or their setting. (CUD 10)
The park lies within the St. Peter’s Conservation Area, where Policy CUD 8 applies, in
which the Council reaffirms its commitment to the Borough’s existing conservation areas
and historic parks and gardens, and, where such areas are identified, to protecting their
environments. Policy WAT 10 specifically identifies Caversham Court as a site prioritised
for ongoing improvement, with particular reference to the gazebo.
The park is listed as Grade II in the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens
(No. GD 1572), and contains a number of Grade II listed buildings and features: the
riverside garden pavilion (gazebo) (C17), the retaining walls to the raised walk of riverside
garden pavilion (causeway) (C17), the screen wall along the north east boundary (early to
mid C19), the retaining walls of axial east-west garden terrace walk (C17, probably rebuilt
C18), the stables (C17), and the retaining wall of St. Peter’s Churchyard and Church of St
Peter (the crinkle-crankle wall) (C18). The full Register entry is in Appendix A.
There are no features designated for their archaeological importance in Caversham Court.
The park forms part of an identified wildlife link in the Local Plan. Policy NE3 seeks to
consolidate, extend and enhance the network of wildlife links and to protect such links
from anything that would threaten its integrity. This designation applies to the area of the
park along the water’s edge.
3.5 Leases and covenants
The kitchen gardens were converted to allotments during World War II. There are about 20
allotment holders at Caversham Court, and a long waiting list of people wishing to acquire
a plot. Leases are renewable annually, and there is no limit to the number of years an
allotment may be leased to one individual. Under allotment law, holders may be given 12
months’ notice to evacuate an allotment.
7
Caversham Court Analysis
The stable block is leased at commercial rates to a long-term tenant, GreenSpace, a
charitable trust, promoting better planned, designed and managed public open spaces.
3.6 Management and maintenance arrangements
The existing management structure of the Caversham Court site is as follows:
Parks Manager
Parks Development Manager Parks Operations Manager
Parks Supervisors: Gardens Supervisor
mobile task teams
All grounds maintenance is overseen by the Operations section of the Parks Department.
The Gardens are maintained by mobile teams, which are scheduled to visit the site to
perform specific tasks, like litter collection, grass cutting, weeding, maintenance of
planting, and repair of furniture. It is recognised that these tasks are not performed to a
particularly high standard, and that the appointment of a dedicated member of staff to
manage the site is essential to delivering and maintaining the restoration of the Gardens.
Due to the current lack of storage, all equipment has to be transported to the gardens
when needed, creating an expense for the Parks Department in terms of both staff time
and money.
3.7 Financial arrangements
Annual maintenance of Caversham Court costs the Parks Department of RBC about £14,200
(at 2003 prices). This is paid for out of the general budget. There is no dedicated budget
for capital works. The Council as a whole has a capital budget for ad hoc works, but this is
distributed across all departments, and must be applied for. Since Borough-wide demand
for capital improvements far exceeds the annual budget, applications are by no means
always successful, and no capital funding has been allocated to Parks and Open Spaces for
the past 3-4 years. The annual rental of £25,000 received from letting out the stable block
is not being spent on maintenance, but is being set aside for urgent works to the buildings.
8
Analysis Caversham Court
3.8 Public involvement
There is at present no Friends of Caversham Court (FoCC) group, although there is a
community group in the form of the Caversham Court Gazebo Trust (CCGT).
Historically, a FoCC existed, established in the early 1990s. The group was formed
primarily to see the site better protected from misuse and vandalism, which was a
significant problem at the time. Its contribution soon became almost exclusively locking
and unlocking the gates at dawn and dusk and the reporting of incidents to the Council
and the local police. In theory, the group would also have provided RBC with a
consultation mechanism for any development initiatives. However, as this was a period
during which very little development took place, there was virtually nothing of interest to
consult the group about. It is perhaps not surprising that interest in membership of the
group quickly faded, and it soon disbanded.
The main reasons for the failure of the group were (i) frustration at RBC’s inability to
react to problems and initiatives; (ii) boredom with the role of locking and unlocking
gates; and (iii) stress arising from verbal abuse from youths who refused to leave the
garden in the evening.
Some continuing volunteer involvement in Caversham Court has come from the CCGT,
formed in 1973 by local historians and members of the Civic Society to save the gazebo
and, if possible, to restore it to its original condition. The Trust has lobbied the Council
for three decades to conserve and improve the structural condition of the gazebo, and has
sought ways to bring about its restoration. In 1979-80, after several years of successful
fund-raising, the Trust was able to carry out a partial restoration of the building, leaving it
secure and weather proof. Since then, the activities of the CCGT have been more limited.
3.9 Public perceptions
3.9.1 Methodology
A questionnaire was developed in consultation with GreenSpace to assess user perceptions
and needs in August 2003. It was administered within the Gardens, in central Caversham
9
Caversham Court Analysis
and in other Thames parks, and it was distributed at St Peter’s Church and in other local
community spaces.
Of 200 questionnaires distributed, 121 (60 percent) responses were received, two thirds of
which were solicited by face-to-face interviews. An assessment of survey responses
follows. The questionnaire and detailed responses are in Appendix B.
3.9.2 User characteristics
Eighty percent of respondents visit the park. Of the 20 percent who said they do not, most
were unaware of its existence. The majority of responses (80 percent) were received from
local Caversham residents, nearly 40 percent of whom were over 60, and only 14 percent
of whom were under 25. In part, the structure of the user population is the result of the
survey methodology. In order to ensure a greater number of responses, a large proportion
of questionnaires was handed out in the local library and to adults in the gardens (in part
because of a concern about approaching unaccompanied juniors). Moreover, teenagers are
less likely to return questionnaires. For this reason, the survey results may be
unrepresentative. Indeed, from casual observation of the gardens, it is clear that a very
high proportion of the users are young, of which a sizeable minority are Asian.
3.9.3 Use patterns
Most visitors use the park for a variety of reasons, although the overwhelming majority do
so for personal relaxation, either alone or with friends or children. About 30 percent of
users do so daily or weekly, 30 percent at least monthly, and the rest more infrequently.
70 percent of visitors stay for up to one hour; the rest for longer periods, and peak periods
of use are morning and early afternoon. Few respondents use the gardens for the
lunchtime period.
3.9.4 Perceptions of importance
Caversham Court is regarded as very important on a local scale but less important
regionally or nationally. When assessing importance at any scale, 72 percent of
respondents rate the gardens as important or very important. Reasons were not sought.
10Analysis Caversham Court
3.9.5 Sources of particular approbation
The beauty and tranquillity of the site was singled out for particular praise. The landscape
was described as ‘pretty’ or ‘beautiful’ by many users, even those who disclaimed all
knowledge of plants. The sense of history of the site is also appreciated.
Of those features rated by interviewees, the quality of the trees and grass scored most
highly. Indeed, with very few exceptions, the trees scored consistently well. Footpaths,
benches and litter clearance were also generally, but not universally, rated highly.
3.9.6 Sources of disapproval
The most consistent complaint about Caversham Court is that ‘it is not what it was’; users
believe that the standards of maintenance and of planting have declined. Although the
trees and grass were appreciated, the general level of horticulture received low scores.
Other problems with the park were identified as being the condition of the toilets (the
worst-rated feature), a poor sense of security, and the condition of the built features and,
in some cases, the furniture. The problem of security arises from the use of the parks by
groups of youths, who make the elderly and women in particular feel unsafe. Parking
scored badly, but it is not clear from the scores whether the problem is the lack of parking
or the use of the park entrance for car parking. During interviews, however, several
respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with the use of the entrance area for parking.
3.9.7 Desired facilities
Additional facilities that users would like to see provided in the gardens, in descending
order of importance, are:
• Park keeper/on-site gardener (55%)
• Access to the gazebo (36%)
• More information about the site’s history (35%)
• More information about the site’s ecology (35%)
• Improved seating areas (32%)
• Refreshment kiosk (24%)
• Community meeting space (23%)
11Caversham Court Analysis
• Access to the stable block courtyard (15%)
• Guided walks (7%)
The catch-all question of further comments requested, in addition,
• A ban on car parking in the gardens
• Improved maintenance
• A curb on undesirable behaviour
• A curb on all forms of sport
• A limit or ban on dogs
There is considerable interest in the restoration of the gardens. During interviews, many
people asked about progress with the restoration programme. One third of respondents
would like to attend restoration demonstrations, and almost half (47 percent) expressed
an interest in joining a Friends group.
3.9.8 Summary
Caversham Court is a popular local park, regularly visited by people from a range of age
groups. Current visitors come to the gardens primarily for quiet relaxation. The frequent
visitors have a keen interest in the development of the gardens and support their
restoration. A high proportion wishes to see a full-time park keeper/gardener on site, to
improve both maintenance and the sense of security. Many people are interested in
receiving more information about the history and ecology of the site, in having access to
the old buildings, and in being able to purchase refreshments in the gardens.
4. THE HISTORY OF THE PARK
Caversham Court was originally the garden of the Old Rectory of Caversham, and part of a
much larger estate. Constructed in the twelfth century, it was owned by the Augustinian
Priory of Notley for 400 years before being passed to Christchurch College during the
Reformation. Over the next 400 years, the property was occupied by some of the most
influential families in Reading, who improved and enhanced the site. In 1933 it was sold to
the Reading Corporation, who demolished the house and opened the gardens to the public.
A tabulated chronology is in Appendix C. Successive Ordnance Survey maps are appended.
12Analysis Caversham Court
The history recounted below is sourced from original archival material, published work
(see list of references), the archaeologist’s report (contained in Appendix D), and an
earlier report by Scott Wilson Resource Consultants.
4.1 Early history
The site of Caversham Court lies in an area rich in prehistoric history. The number of
archaeological finds, particularly to the north and along the banks of the River Thames,
suggests that there was pre-Roman activity in the area (Wing: 1894:2). Indeed, at
Caversham some of the earliest evidence of human activity anywhere (including ‘several
hundreds of worked flints’) has been found (Kift, 1980:9, 10).
In 1931 remains of a human skeleton were found at Caversham Court. A report published
the following year indicated that it was that of an old man, the face and skull of which
were damaged. It was estimated to be late Neolithic (BBO Arch J, 1932, Vol. 36, p.93).
The first written description of Caversham appeared in the Domesday Book. This entry
indicates that a sizable and organised community had developed soon after the conquest:
Walter Giffard [later Earl of Buckingham] holds of the King 20 hides of the Manor of
Caversham. Land for 21 ploughs. Now in lordship 4 ploughs, 2 serfs, 28 villagers, 13
smallholders having 13 ploughs. A mill at 20 shillings; meadow; 13 acres of meadow wood 1
league and 2 furlongs long and 1 league wide. Value before 1066, later and now £20. Swein
held freely before 1066.
A hide of land was 120 acres, so Giffard’s holding was 2,400 acres; a plough was a team of
oxen, sometimes as many as eight. This suggests that, at the end of the 11th century,
there was a settled community at Caversham as well as a considerable amount of land
under cultivation.
4.2 Medieval history
The medieval community was clustered on the north side of Caversham Bridge to the east
of St. Peter’s Church, which was built in the 12th century. The third Earl of Buckingham
donated the land for the church and neighbouring rectory, together with a considerable
amount of land around it, to the Augustinian Abbey of Notley in Long Crendon,
Buckinghamshire. Soon after the construction of the house, also in the 12th century, it was
found to be more profitable to lease the rectory to a layman, who became known as the
13Caversham Court Analysis
lay rector of Caversham, although the monks continued in charge of the Church. It became
the practice for the lay rector to provide ’a sufficient, able priest to serve the church’.
Prior to the Reformation in 1538, when the Abbey was surrendered to the Crown, the
estate surrounding the rectory extended well beyond the current park. The last tenant of
the Rectory to be appointed by the Abbott was William Rolte, Sergeant-at-Arms to Henry
VIII. After the Dissolution, the Notley Abbey lands were given to Christchurch College,
Oxford, which continued to let the property. The extent of the late 16th century estate
was described in Chancery proceedings of the time:
The mansion or dwelling house, the lesser barn called the wheat barn, the stable, the brew
house, the malt house, the tenement where one William Hunt there dwelt, the dove or
culver house, the barn adjoining the churchyard, the orchard and gardens and all the
glebelands, the mount, the warren, being severally bounded and enclosed, the barn
adjoining the warren, the chancel, the churchyard, the hides, the Great Mede with the tithes
of the same hides and the glebe and tithes of all such grounds as the complainant’s tenure.
4.3 The 17th century
The Old Rectory was damaged during fighting at Caversham during the Civil War. The vital
bridge over the Thames at Caversham linked Oxford and the routes to the north with
London, Southampton and the West Country, and it was inevitable that there would be a
struggle to control it. Within six months of the beginning of the War, Caversham was
caught between the opposing armies. Canon fire destroyed the tower of St Peter’s church,
and bullet holes marked the fine staircase (dated 1638) at Caversham Old Rectory, part of
which still exists (Figure 3), and is stored by the Museum of Reading.
Figure 3: The newel post recovered from Caversham Old Rectory
14Analysis Caversham Court
During this period the house was inhabited by the Alexanders and the Brownes, both
Royalist families. The Alexanders were linked (tenuously) with the Gunpowder Plot,
through their friendship with Robert Newport, who was ‘investigated’ after the attempt
on the Houses of Parliament in November 1605 (Hadland, 1992). It has been suggested that
the house was rebuilt either completely or partially not long before the Civil War.
Stonework in the walls and stairs is believed to have been salvaged from Reading Abbey
(Appendix E). In a lecture given in 1894, William Wing, an amateur historian noted:
Of the other houses in Caversham the Rectory is by far the oldest, and the staircase, dated
1638, is in perfect preservation. It is a remarkably fine example of the woodwork of the
period … In addition to the staircase there are some interesting remains of Gothic
architecture built into the walls of the Rectory premises. I am inclined to think, however,
that no part of the present structure was actually built before 1638. … Thomas Loveday …
became lessee of the Rectory in 1665, the house having been previously occupied by families
named Browne and Alexander, by one of whom the staircase and old part of the house must
have been built. (Wing, 1894:6)
However, decorated plasterwork, removed when the house was demolished in 1933 and
now stored by the Museum of Reading (Figure 4), has been dated as 16th century (BBO Arch
J, 1933, Vol. 37, p.161). Moreover, Sarah Markham, a descendent of the Lovedays, notes
When Thomas Loveday moved to the Old Rectory in Caversham in 1666 (having signed a lease
with Christ Church the previous Michaelmas) the timber and stucco house was even then very
old. It had belonged to the Augustinian priory of Notley before the Reformation. It was built
around inner and outer courts and partly balustrated, and its chief feature indoors was a low
gallery running the whole length of the house. The grounds sloping down to the river had only
a few trees, but the view of Reading was partly obscured by a thick hedge along the
riverbank. Two years before the lease was signed, a summerhouse with a boathouse below
had been erected; it weather vane bore the date 1663. (Markham, 1984:2)
Figure 4: Plasterwork, with the Alexander coat of arms, recovered from Caversham Court
15Caversham Court Analysis
4.4 The Lovedays
In 1665, after the Restoration of the monarchy, the Old Rectory was leased to Thomas
Loveday, a wealthy London goldsmith. The Loveday family, including John Loveday
(Thomas’s son), the celebrated philosopher and antiquary, was to live at Caversham Court
for the next 134 years.
In Caversham village the house was known as ‘the Striped House’ because of the many
upright beams set in the exterior walls. It is not known when this building was constructed
(see above), but it was illustrated (Figure 5) and described by descendants of the
Lovedays:
The Striped House, as Caversham Rectory was generally called, was built round an inner or
outer court or quadrangle, the fourth side of the outer one enclosed by a lower range of
battlemented buildings in the centre of which was the large gateway. Carriages drove
through this first quadrangle or Fore-Court. It was divided from the next by a low range of
buildings which were offices and here was a wicket gate, through which you passed before
reaching the actual entrance. There was a long low room upstairs, running the whole length
of one side, which was called the Gallery. There were two fireplaces and at the end of the
Gallery nearest the Church was a glass door from which steps led down to the garden.
Through this Gallery, by a private door in the garden wall, the family always passed to and
from Church. (Quoted in Markham and Arnold, undated, p.6)
Figure 5: A drawing of the original house by Barbara Seton, 1792
16Analysis Caversham Court
A plan of the ‘Striped House’ – Caversham (Old) Rectory - is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Plan of the Striped House (Caversham Old Rectory)
The house was located on the upper terrace of today’s park with the 17th century stable
block, which still stands, to the north. Gardens stretched from the back of the house down
to the river and along the river bank. The exact layout of the grounds during the 17th and
18th centuries is unknown, but contemporary prints show at least that there were fewer
trees than there are now (Markham and Arnold, undated, p.6). A cousin of John Loveday’s
son (also John) refers to the Thames as being ‘carefully shut out by a thick hedge’ and to
‘the yew hedge and the limes planted by your excellent Father’ (quoted in Markham and
Arnold, undated, p.8). The upper terrace and western gardens were the working area of
the gardens, with a kitchen garden and barn adjacent to the Church and enclosed by the
17Caversham Court Analysis
yew hedge and brick walls. To the south was a terraced path running parallel with the
river, and the gazebo (Figure 7). Partially visible from the river, the southern terrace
would have displayed the wealth and taste of the owner: planted formally and
ornamented with statutory, to reflect current fashion and provide a stage for promenading
and entertaining.
Figure 7: The gazebo and riverside path at the beginning of the 20th century
Even though the gazebo was built prior to the Lovedays’ acquiring the Old Rectory, it was
an important part of the remodelled gardens, forming, together with its raised causeway,
a formal division and entranceway between the formal terrace garden in the east and the
productive western gardens. The upper storey was a retreat from which to enjoy the view
in warm weather; the lower storey gave access to the boat house (Markham and Arnold,
undated, p.7).
4.4 The Simondses
Very few alterations were made to the house by the Lovedays, and by the mid 18th century
it was described as ‘very uncouth’ and was believed to be haunted. In 1799 William
Blackall Simonds, a local brewer and banker, leased the property. Over the next 40 years,
the house was remodelled. Much of the old Striped House was demolished. Only the west
wing and stable block survived and were incorporated into the new residence (Figure 8).
Around 1840, the Simondses employed the celebrated architect Augustus Welby Pugin to
create a house worthy of their fortune. A splendid gothic mansion was created, and the
Old Rectory was renamed Caversham Court.
18Analysis Caversham Court
Figure 8: Plan of the Pugin mansion at Caversham Court
The new house stood partially on the footprint of the original residence on the upper
terrace of the gardens. Photographs of the property in the early 20th century show the
splendour of the mansion with its imposing entrance tower (Figure 9) and crenulated south
façade (Figure 10). Sale particulars in 1909 briefly described the building:
The house is built of partly faced red bricks, the walls being capped by battlements, fretted
balustrading, and tiled roof. A fine old porch of Norman design, surmounted by a carved
figure of Cardinal Wolsey in a niche, opens into the hall, which is lighted by old painted glass
windows depicting saints, &c., and from which open the reception rooms.
19Caversham Court Analysis
Figure 9: The main entrance of the mansion at Caversham Court
Figure 10: The south façade of the Pugin mansion
Pugin also added a ‘fortified’ wall’ across the main entrance to create an impressive
gateway into the site (Figure 11). This featured large, solid oak double gates for carriages
and two pedestrian gates, one either side. Above the gateway was a stone arch.
20Analysis Caversham Court
Figure 11: The ‘fortified’ gate to Caversham Court
The first edition 25-inch OS map of 1879 provides the earliest clear layout of the gardens
(Appendix F), including the terraces with the ‘crinkle crankle wall’ along the kitchen
garden’s northern boundary. A yew hedge formed the southern boundary to the kitchen
garden. In the western gardens were greenhouses, and an ornamental glasshouse had been
built against the retaining wall to the south of the house. The gazebo and boathouse are
clearly marked. The garden was densely covered with a mixture of deciduous and
coniferous trees. A row of substantial trees occurred along the riverbank. These probably
allowed only glimpsed views of the gardens from the river, without obscuring views from
upper windows in the house of the river and meadows beyond. A plan of the site formed
part of the 1911 sale particulars, and shows many of these features (Figure 12 below).
A verandah ran along the southern face of the house (Figure 10), allowing ‘an
uninterrupted view straight down to the furthest end of the garden along the magnificent
old yew hedge, which is in a line with the front of the house, and a grass walk all the
length of it – quite a long distance. Fine trees at last shut in the vista.’ (Quoted in
Markham and Arnold, undated, p.9.) Another quotation (p.10) refers to the yew hedge as
being ‘twenty or more feet high’ in 1890, and comments that ‘in the drawing by Miss
Seton [not that shown in Figure 5 above] it looks as if there were two yew hedges running
parallel with each other a few yards apart. If so, one must have been cut down.’
21Caversham Court Analysis
Portions of the estate were gradually sold off. A comparison of plans accompanying sale
particulars in 1904 and 1911 show the successive breaking up of the old estate (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Caversham Old Rectory, 1904, 1911
In 1909 Major Henry Caversham Simonds put the family home up for auction. The sale
particulars listed a ‘Mulberry Court’, a ‘Walled Kitchen Garden’, a ‘Well Stocked Orchard’,
‘Two Small Islands’, a ‘Peach House’, a ‘Palm House’ and a ‘Gardener’s Cottage’. When
the house was sold two years later, the ‘beautiful old-world pleasure grounds’ was one of
its chief selling points (Figure 13).
Figure 13: The 1911 sale particulars
22Caversham Court Analysis
The house passed through several hands over the next few years, and for periods lay
empty. Gradually, the structure declined, and, during the 1920s, an ancient barn in the
grounds was demolished and the stables were used as kennels. In 1933 the property was
sold for ‘a satisfactory figure’ to the local authority, Reading Corporation. A drawing
dated 1932 shows the layout of the gardens at the point at which the site was transferred
to public ownership (Figure 14).
Figure 14: The layout of the gardens at Caversham Court in 1932
4.5 The public park
The new owners had no clear plan for the property and local newspapers reported several
months of wrangling between various committees:
The Highways Committee are considering cutting a road through the charming grounds and it
has even been suggested that the house should be pulled down to make room for modern
villas.
The Parks Committee would like the grounds preserved as an open space and it has been
suggested to them that Caversham Court is the ideal place for a bathing ‘Lido’.
The Museum Committee have store houses full of exhibits which they have no room to display
and they would like to see part of Caversham Court turned into a museum.
23Caversham Court Analysis
Within 12 months of acquisition, the house, the derelict palm house and main gate were
demolished, and only the stable block and gazebo remained. This kept open the option for
a revised road building scheme with a route running along the upper terrace, and allowed
the rest of the gardens to be used for any of the other proposals. Fortunately for the
gardens, the economic climate of the period precluded any costly development and
resulted in the opening of the gardens to the public at Easter 1934.
Since 1909 there had been little investment in the property, and this meant that the new
public park was very much the remnants of the 18th century gardens of the Lovedays,
improved and enhanced by the Simondses in the 19th century. By the time the 1936 OS
map was published, the gardens had been renamed ‘Recreation Ground’, and, with the
removal of the house, the layout resembled the plan of today’s park.
During World War II part of the gardens - formerly the kitchen garden - was converted to
allotments in the ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign. The allotments preserved the boundaries of
the original kitchen gardens with its ‘crinkle–crankle’ wall and tall yew hedge, but
destroyed the layout of the fruit and vegetable beds. Public air-raid shelters were
constructed in the gardens, one of which now houses the Thames Water pump used to
pump water up St Peter’s Hill.
The public park reached its height of popularity in the 1950s and early 1960s, when the
gardens were well maintained, providing an inviting area of open space. The layout still
followed the Lovedays’ gardens, with the necessary additions of seating and an ornate
toilet block to service the new visitors.
Unfortunately in the 1970s Caversham Court suffered from the general decline of public
parks and the shifting interest away from formal gardens. They were vandalised, and the
high level of maintenance was reduced.
For many years the gazebo was in a semi-derelict condition, almost lost in the surrounding
vegetation. It had narrowly escaped demolition several times when, in 1973, the ‘Gazebo
Trust’ was formed by local historians and members of the Civic Society to save the gazebo
and, if possible, to restore it to its original condition. In 1979-80, after several years of
successful lobbying and fund-raising, the Trust was able to carry out a partial restoration
of the building. This included measures to prevent further subsidence, repairs to the brick
24Analysis Caversham Court
panels where extensive cracks had occurred, and the reconstruction of the original roof.
This left the gazebo secure and weather proof, and avoided the total loss of the structure.
Since 1980 the Trust has attempted to raise funds to complete the restoration process and
to persuade various buildings museums to accept the gazebo as an exhibit. This would
have entailed its removal from Caversham Court. Perhaps fortunately, none of the
museums that were approached were able to accept the offer.
Today, the building is secured with steel security doors and boarded windows. The Trust’s
efforts are now concentrated on lobbying the local authority to allocate funds towards the
continued restoration. Most of the available funds have been used to further secure the
building and to repair part of the causeway.
Apart from the minor work to the gazebo, two new features have been added to the
gardens: the rockery and waterfall adjacent to the stable block and the terrace garden
near the gazebo were created in the 1980s, and are the first major alterations to the
layout since the house was demolished.
5. SITE SURVEY
A landscape survey of the park was carried out in 2001 by Scott Wilson Resource
Consultants to determine the location and the condition of the various elements and
structures. The survey examined both the hard and soft landscape, and included site
observations of historic parkland features. The survey identified features that are in need
of conservation, repair or removal as part of the restoration proposals. The report has
been updated below to take account of works maintenance and repairs done since the
survey was undertaken.
5.1 Hard landscape
5.1.1 Perimeter walls and boundaries
Parts of the northern and eastern boundaries feature a ‘fortified wall’ with arrow slits, of
a flint stone and brick pier construction with stone facing. It is approximately 2.5-3.0m in
height. A W N Pugin is believed to have been the architect. The approximate date of
construction is 1830-1840. The original Pugin design also featured an impressive entrance
that incorporated double gates and pedestrian gates (Figure 11). This is now much
25Caversham Court Analysis
modified, with only a single set of wrought iron gates and the loss of the stone archway
(Figure 15).
Figure 15: The current entrance to Caversham Court
The majority of this walling is intact and in good condition. However, there is some
evidence of structural problems. The lime mortar around the flint stones is now very soft
and requires expert raking out and re-pointing work. Many of the decorative stone
features are either badly damaged by vandalism or eroded by the effects of weather.
Many of the capping stones are either damaged or covered by moss and vegetation, and
this has rendered the rain channels on the underside of the stones ineffective. The
consequence of this is that rainwater no longer drips clear of the wall; instead it runs
down the surface adding to the deterioration. In addition, there is a line of mature trees
beside the wall, which may be undermining its foundations.
The ‘fortified’ wall runs for 80m along the eastern boundary. Where it ends, and the park
borders privately owned gardens, the boundary is marked by chain link fencing (30m) and
then close board timber fencing for the remaining 20m to the river edge. The wire mesh
garden fencing is fairly well hidden by thick shrubs. The condition of this fence is
generally poor; the timber close-boarded fencing is in good condition but is unattractive in
this setting.
26Analysis Caversham Court
The northern boundary, between the allotment site and the elevated St Peter’s
churchyard, features a 4m high, 80m long brick ‘crinkle-crankle’ wall, frequently
buttressed with concave elliptical recesses between the buttresses. The wall is of a very
high quality and extremely strong.
Superficially, the crinkle-crankle wall appears to be in good condition, but it is likely that
the majority of the wall will require re-pointing, and defective or porous bricks removed
and replaced with similar old bricks. There are also one or two large cracks that run
almost the full height of the wall. Any damage to the mortar will need to be made good.
Some parts have been repaired in the past, and the standard of repair and materials used
is inadequate. A condition survey undertaken in June 2004 is in Appendix F.
Along the western boundary line, between the allotment site and the newly extended and
improved canoe club, is a secure wire fencing system. This is harsh and ugly, and detracts
from the landscape. The new clubhouse is of a very modern construction, and is also at
odds with the surroundings.
The River Thames forms the southern boundary of the park. Concrete bag work has been
used to reinforce and stabilise the bank edges. This is generally in good condition, but
some isolated areas require renovation. Whilst this type of river edge treatment does
provide a neat and defined edge, it also has weaknesses. The structure is strong enough to
retain the earth banks behind it, but not strong enough to allow boats to moor to it. The
bags appear to prevent erosion of the riverbank, but often the erosion simply takes place
beneath the water level and the bottom edge of the bags, opening up holes and dragging
away soil from behind the bags. Historically, the banks of Caversham Court appear to have
been much less structured, with more natural, grassed earth banks sloping to meet the
waterline and reinforced with willow planting.
5.1.2 Internal walls
The terraced nature of the park means that there is a requirement for retaining walls
between the different levels. The main one of these is found between the upper and
middle terrace. The upper path abuts this wall for most of its length. The terrace wall has
been patched and rebuilt but substantial areas are made of hand-made brick and may be
contemporary with or earlier than the crinkle crankle wall. Steps half way along the wall
27Caversham Court Analysis
and their stone piers are made of modern materials. The wall may be a replacement for
an earlier terrace represented by the slope below the wall.
Viewed from the middle terrace, the wall is approximately 1.5m high for most of its
length. The western end of this wall is quite low (approximately 0.75m); the eastern end
of the wall is higher. The wall is mostly of a simple brick construction with some buttress
work and some stone facing. In parts it is covered with wisteria, honeysuckle and ivy; in
others it is clear and visible (Figure 16). Generally, the condition of this wall is very poor:
in parts it is heavily bowed and seems to be in imminent danger of collapse.
At some point in recent history, it appears that the height of this wall was raised and the
level of the path lowered. When the path was lowered, some of the foundation bricks
designed to key into the earth were left exposed. When additional layers of brick were
then added to the original wall, the extra weight combined with the weakened
foundations resulted in the movement that is now clearly visible. Some tie bolts have
recently been fixed to the lower part of the wall.
Figure 16: Detail of the retaining wall below the main path
At the eastern end of the terrace wall, it has been dug away to provide a level area for a
(now vanished) greenhouse (Figure 17).
28Analysis Caversham Court
Figure 17: Location of the ornamental glasshouse
The wall and path are intercepted at four points by steps leading to the middle terrace.
The condition of the steps varies, but all need restoration or replacement. At the top of
the middle set of steps there are two stone faced pillars, which supported stone griffins
and other decorative features. One of the griffins is now missing, and the pillars and
adornments are generally in poor condition and in need of restoration (Figure 18).
Figure 18: The remains of the stone griffins
29Caversham Court Analysis
In the south west corner is a short stretch (10m) of original 18th century retaining wall
between the middle and lower terrace. This is in very poor condition and has virtually
collapsed. Further southwest is a retaining wall in the style of the 1960s. It is in good
condition, but the materials are inappropriate (Figure 19).
Figure 19: 20th century retaining walls near the gazebo
The remains of the brick and flint retaining walls of the elevated causeway that connects
the gazebo to the yew hedge and allotment site are also in very poor condition. The
southernmost panels have been rebuilt as part of the restoration programme. The
remainder is being temporarily shored up with timber supports. The presence of ivy,
brambles and self-seeding sycamore causes additional mortar and structure problems.
When the gazebo was partially restored in 1979/80, part of the restoration works included
measures to prevent movement of the causeway from further disturbing the gazebo
foundations. A reinforced concrete section was installed as a barrier protection device.
This was intended to prevent the causeway from moving forward towards the river pushing
the gazebo with it. However, it effectively isolates the gazebo from the causeway.
Moreover, it probably has no positive effect on the structures of the side retaining walls of
the causeway, which have continued to collapse and degenerate.
30Analysis Caversham Court
5.1.3 Gates
The main gates are wrought iron in a mock Victorian style. Even when locked, they are
ineffective at keeping out intruders (Figure 15).
In the northern section of the fortified wall, the original early 19th century oak gates are
intact but in need of restoration. These were removed in 2003 to prevent further decay.
The current layout of the entrance to the stable block, the position of the associated
outbuildings, and the main entrance to the gardens do not ideally facilitate use of these
gates. Restoring them and using them as an entrance is, however, desirable, (i) to enable
the park to be locked, and (ii) because they provide an opportunity to re-establish an
attractive view from within the gardens to the edge of St Peter’s churchyard and two
cottages that are situated on the north side of Church Road.
The remaining entrances include two for pedestrian access from St Peter’s churchyard and
from the stable block courtyard. These gates are in reasonable condition, but their
appearance and effectiveness could be improved. The gate from the main gardens to the
allotments is inelegant and out of keeping with the character of the park (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Gate to the allotment gardens
31Caversham Court Analysis
5.1.4 Paths
The internal paths are generally in reasonable condition, although the connecting steps
are in need of repair. The position and routes of the paths appear to have remained
substantially unchanged from the original layout. They are mostly of gravel or shingle that
is topped up on an annual basis. The loose stone surface tends to be kicked around the
gardens, and can spoil the lawn areas and cause difficulties for mowing. Just after they
have been topped up, the depth of stone can also cause problems for visitors with
restricted mobility or pushing buggies.
5.1.5 Gazebo
Built in 1663, the two-storey gazebo, positioned close to the river’s edge, is one of the
oldest remaining examples in the country and is listed Grade II (Figure 21). It has been
described as a ‘monks retreat’ but this is not accurate, as the house had already been sold
into lay ownership before the gazebo was built.
Figure 21: The 340 year old gazebo at Caversham Court
32Analysis Caversham Court
The gazebo is a timber construction with flint and brick infill. It has a red clay tile roof,
and was originally fitted with diamond pattern leaded light windows that provided views
of the river and of the gardens. Access to the first floor is via the raised causeway, whilst
access to the ground floor is via a door that is level with the lower path. The gazebo
requires restoration, and the condition survey in Appendix D lists faults.
5.1.6 Rockery and water feature
The rockery and waterfall were built in the early 1980s on a steep bank that rises from the
upper terrace to the elevated entrance to the churchyard. When it is clean and
functioning, the fountain and pond are well liked, especially by children. However, its
design and the material used appear incongruous in the 18th century gardens. The planting
in the rockery has declined considerably, and now looks unkempt (Figure 22).
Figure 22: The rockery, looking towards St Peter’s Church
5.1.7 Car park
The car park area on the upper terrace at the main entrance is surfaced with gravel.
Vehicular access is via the main gates and is shared with pedestrians. Once inside the
gate, there is little control of where the cars go. As a result of growing problems with drug
dealing from cars parked at Caversham Court, the site was closed to cars from June 2004.
33Caversham Court Analysis
There is an ugly mound situated just inside the main gates (Figure 23). This intrusive
‘bunker’ is probably a WW2 air raid shelter, now used to house Thames Water equipment
to pump water up St Peter’s Hill.
Figure 23: Thames Water pumping equipment
5.1.8 Toilet block
The toilet block on the middle terrace is open, and the fabric is sound (Figure 24).
Figure 24: The exterior of the toilet block
34Analysis Caversham Court
The building is quaint, having been constructed of brick and stone in the style of a
‘cottage ornée’. Although the exterior is attractive and liked by park users, it needs
internal refurbishment (Figure 25). Some abuse occurs, especially graffiti, but there is
currently no problem with drug abuse inside the toilets.
Figure 25: The interior of the toilet block
5.2 Soft landscape
Caversham Court contains a remarkable number of fine tree specimens for a park of this
size. A full tree survey is reported in Appendix G. Of particular note are the large
Wellingtonia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), an ancient layered yew (Taxus baccata), a
Weymouth pine (Pinus strobus), a cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani), and an Atlas cedar
(Cedrus atlantica). Massive yew hedges surround the allotment gardens in the north west
of the park. Interestingly, these species are all conifers, and the park thus maintains its
colour throughout the winter.
35Caversham Court Analysis
The layered yew is of particular interest. It is a feature that was popular in the
seventeenth century, whereby a ‘family’ was created by layering. The yew at Caversham
Court has a complete ring of ‘offspring’, although inappropriate maintenance has severed
the link with the central ‘parent’ in two of these. The nearest example of this type of
feature is at Nuneham Courtney (near Oxford), where a beech has been layered, although
this is not a complete ‘family’, having only two ‘offspring’.
The yew hedge is severely overgrown but is otherwise in good condition (Figure 26).
Figure 26: The yew hedge bordering the old kitchen garden
Other than several young yews, the only young conifer is a Himalayan white pine (Pinus
wallichiana) planted near the giant sequoia. This sapling has been snapped at the apex,
and should be removed or replaced.
The deciduous tree of particular interest on the main lawn is a massive old purple beech
(Fagus sylvatica f. purpurea), next to the giant sequoia. The old beech is now riddled with
decay, its branches supporting one another by means of cable braces. It will have to be
felled in the near future, and a replacement has been planted nearby. A magnolia
(Magnolia soulangeana), planted near the toilet block, is now mature. A number of
younger trees has been planted, giving the tree population a diverse age structure and the
capacity to develop in the future, although the variety of species makes the collection
36Analysis Caversham Court
appear somewhat ‘spotty’. Most of the young trees are deciduous, including an ash
(Fraxinus excelsior) and an oak (Quercus robur), and the character of the park may change
in the future.
Unusual tree species add to the interest of the park. These include an old black mulberry
(Morus nigra) near the main entrance, which, though severely decayed, poses no
immediate public danger. A bushy strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) grows in the main
herbaceous border.
The trees are generally well maintained and in good condition. Some attention should be
paid to the ancient yew near the gazebo. This tree ensemble appears neglected and
untidy, and is in danger of being lost. It is difficult to photograph the entire family
because of its extent, but an indication of its condition is shown in Figure 27.
Figure 27: The condition of the yew family
Apart from the fine tree collection, borders and island beds are filled with shrubs and
perennials. In general the borders are poorly maintained, and pruning has often been
inappropriate, leaving the stock appearing depleted and in need of renovation. There are
large areas of bedding on the upper terrace, where a young knot garden has been
established. These new additions, particularly the island beds, are inappropriate in terms
of shape and position.
37Caversham Court Analysis
The marginal planting in the south-west corner is neglected, and the attempt to establish
a Mimulus collection has failed. The entire corner, including the adjacent terrace
planting, is in a poor state of repair.
5.3 Reasons for needing restoration
Until the mid 1980s, two full-time Council gardeners were employed at Caversham Court,
and the standard of maintenance was high. In the interests of cost saving, the number of
full-time staff was gradually reduced until 1989, when Compulsory Competitive Tendering
(CCT) was introduced. All static grounds staff were mobilised into task teams, which then
tendered for as much work as possible in competition with private companies. Since there
was no change in the size of the workforce, the mobile teams were overstretched.
The decline in quality of maintenance began during the period of CCT. The consequences
of CCT have been similar nationwide. Not only did contractors have an incentive to
undertake as much work as possible and consequently to get through it as quickly as
possible, but the shift away from site-dedicated staff reduced motivation to take pride in
work done. The Council did not have a sufficiently strong supervisory structure to monitor
maintenance teams, structures were inflexible, and the Parks Department was
increasingly under-resourced.
Under CCT, programme training disappeared. Because it was difficult to release staff for
skills training, general skills were not developed. A task-oriented approach to working
concentrated expertise and reduced skills acquisition to what was strictly necessary to get
the work done. The erosion of the skills base caused falling standards of maintenance. The
effects of the period of no training under CCT are still being felt.
At the same time, cost-cutting by central government has forced local authorities to seek
savings wherever possible. The result has been a reduction in capital budgets allocated to
parks across the country, under-investment in maintaining the fabric of parks, and, in
effect, insufficient funds for maintenance. Reading has been under the same pressures as
other local authorities, with similar outcomes.
Recent management of Caversham Court has therefore concentrated on essential upkeep,
with little available for structural maintenance. As a result, many features are in a poor
38Analysis Caversham Court
condition; retaining walls require stabilisation; and paths and steps need repair. Some
original features, like the gazebo and its causeway, and the griffins, have disintegrated.
These have either never been restored, or previous restoration is so poor that remedial
work needs to be carried out. Some later additions, like the rockery, are inappropriate.
Aspects of the maintenance of the planting have been unsuitable: for example, the old
layered yew has been badly pruned and its shape and some connecting trunks are lost; the
yew hedges around the old kitchen garden have been allowed to grow too high and wide;
and the new box hedging on the upper terrace is unevenly clipped. Kidney-shaped yin-yang
island beds have been created in the main lawn. Memorial trees have been planted
without thought being given to a systematic renewal programme for the tree canopy.
Vandalism of the site is limited, although some benches have been damaged.
Finally, there is some - limited - need to improve the design, especially to recreate some
views. There is no designed vista right through the gardens, nor any view of the crinkle-
crankle wall. Parts of the garden are difficult for the physically impaired to access.
The original layout of the site remains, and most of the original ornate features are still
intact. Restoration is therefore not only necessary but rational, to preserve a resource and
to arrest further decline.
Historically inappropriate changes to the structure of the gardens will be dealt with by the
restoration programme. Basing a full-time site manager in the gardens should raise
standards considerably.
6. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
6.1 Historic summary
Formerly the garden of the Old Rectory and part of a much larger estate, Caversham Court
was established in the 12th century. Over the next eight centuries the site was linked to
some of the most influential families in Reading. After the Restoration of the monarchy in
1660, two families occupied the site for the next 250 years. They developed the house and
gardens following the current fashions of the time. By the 1930s, when the site was bought
by the Reading Corporation, much of the former estate had disappeared, and only the
39You can also read
