That the castle was much older then recorded and had actually had ties to Arthurian myth. Supposedly it was so Strong of ties that the castle actually could answer many questions about the legend so said several people who claimed to be historians.

Of course those ties were given as the reason for its total destruction.

The one point out side of the government conspiracy that struck me was why destroy a castle/fortress so strong and leave others that would fall at the drop of an arrow, or the many as strong that was spared.

 

From a military view point something isn't right with all this but on the same token I can't see that the castle had any thing to do with Arthur and I may be wrong because I'm only a amateur researcher on that myth or any others.

I hadn't known about the Arthurian aspect.

 

As for destroying such a strong castle, it was apparently at the request of locals, who were fed up with attacking armies digging in and making their lives a misery. They asked the Crown if it could be destroyed in order that no-one might use it in the future, thus removing the disruption of attacking armies descending on the area. Attacking armies were notorious for making locals' lives hell, insisting that they provide food and shelter, and possibly the odd woman or three for soldiers' entertainment.

Now that reasoning I can go along with!

Basic description of the castle

 

The Norman castle comprised an egg-shaped bailey 120m by 95m occupying the whole summit of a low hill with a motte at the south end. In the late 14th century an outer bailey 60m wide and 100m long on the south-east side, extending down the hill, was enclosed with a curtain wall. This was a more modest affair than the inner curtain and very little of it remains, but its layout is clear from several old drawings which exist of the castle. It was divided into two lengthways by a wall, against the north-east side of which lay the stables.

 

Both outer wall and crosswall had simple gateways facing south-east. The inner part also had two more substantial gatehouses, the East Gate facing towards All Saints’ Church and the West Gate facing towards the town. The latter, which is probably the Receiver’s Tower mentioned in the 15th century, was 13th century in its lower parts and connected to the keep by a thick wall of that date. In a painting of the 1620s the two gatehouses are shown as lofty embattled towers. The curtain was embattled by the West Gate, but the south-east curtain and crosswall are shown as somewhat decayed, having lost their battlements. A passage about 15m long led to the West Gate from an irregular enclosure about 30m by 25m known as the barbican, on the site of what is now called Castle Chain.

 

The 12th century curtain wall of yellow magnesian limestone was of exceptional thickness, over 6m on the south-west side, and about 4m on the north-east side. The early towers, all rectangular, seem to have formed no more than minor projections from it or just parts rising higher than the main wall walk. On the south-east side was a gateway flanked internally by two rectangular towers about 10m by 9m in size, an arrangement not likely to be earlier than the 1190s. Part of the southern tower still stands high, with an external buttress. Polygonal fronts with solid bases were added in the 14th century to extend the gatehouse beyond the curtain wall, and a portcullis groove remains in the extended passage, but since there is no evidence of these parts on the painting of the 1620s, they may never have been completed above the bases.

 

On the west side a wall extended down the slope to the Swillington Tower, a building about 13m wide, erected in 1400-05 by Henry IV and partly demolished in the 19th century for road widening. Henry also rebuilt the upper parts of the Constable’s Tower, and probably also the King’s Tower and Queen’s Tower around the north-east end of the bailey, these works being executed with grey sandstone. Excavations have now cleared the lowest 4m of the Constable’s Tower which was filled with rubble when the castle was demolished. It measured about 12m square and projected about 6m beyond the curtain wall. The basement, with a latrine at its junction on the north side with the curtain wall, is 12th or 13th century.

 

Very little remains of the King’s Tower (in front of which was an arcaded gallery) and only the infilled base of the Queen’s Tower (with a latrine on the east side), which were also roughly 12m square and contained apartments for the people they were named after. A painting of around 1625 suggests these three towers each had five storeys, and, although their height is exaggerated on the picture, they must have been over 18m high. Against the angled curtain between these two lay a 15th century hall block, its western gable being once the eastern end of an older block beyond which then became the “privy kitchen”.

 

Between the King’s Tower and the Constable’s Tower lay an Elizabethan chapel built to replace the 11th century collegiate chapel of St. Cuthbert nearby. In the 12th century an east apse with pilaster buttresses was added to the original nave and chancel. Built against the south-east curtain wall is a 15th century service suite consisting of a kitchen with four fireplaces against the outer wall and, a bakehouse with a passage between the two backing onto the Treasurer’s Tower. The bakehouse has two ovens backing on to the passage. Above it lay the steward’s lodging. East of it is the base of the Gascoigne Tower.

 

Next lay a postern through the wall in the foot of the motte ditch, and beyond that is the probable position of the Piper’s Tower. Cutting off the motte slope is a medieval garden wall including a stone seat. In front of this wall lies the entrance to a rock-cut cellar used to house prisoners during the Civil War, and to store liquorice in the 18th century. It was originally reached by a still-surviving spiral staircase and is thought to mark the site of the old hall mentioned in 1246 as needing repair. If so, the motte ditch which must have been filled by the early 13th century.

 

The stone keep (known as the Round Tower in old surveys) enclosed rather than stood upon the motte and has a unique plan. Beyond the angle of the curtain wall projects three foils, the largest of them about 16m in diameter and still 7m high externally. On the evidence of Leland’s description of the keep as being “cast into 6 roundells, 3 bigge and 3 smaull”, it is thought that the destroyed inner part of the keep was in the form of three smaller foils. Overall, the keep measured 30m across externally. The only surviving features are a latrine pit on the east, a rectangular space on the west and a stair zig-zagging down in long flights from the motte summit to a postern and well.

 

Surveys of 1538 and 1643 indicate that the keep had three storeys. The 1538 survey mentions six rooms on the lowest level, whilst the later survey says each level contained five rooms. The top level was than known as the “artelere” and presumably had cannon mounted upon it. This suggests there were stone vaults. The top level at least was added in the 1370s and old drawings show round bartizans projecting at the points where the foils interlocked.

 

From "The Castles & Tower Houses of Yorkshire" by Mike Salter

From “Round the Yorkshire Castles” by Alfred Taylor

Reprinted from a series of articles appearing in the Yorkshire Evening Post, 1962

 

There is no charge to see Pontefract Castle and no official guide. So I was lucky when Mr. Ken Gardiner, secretary of Pontefract and District Archaeological Society, offered to take me round. Mr. Gardiner was born in sight of the castle walls and the place has fascinated him ever since he could toddle.

 

“I sit for hours in the ruins”, he said, “wondering what it must have been like in the past.” Many people would like to know that, for this was the biggest and strongest Norman fortress in the days of its pomp.

 

It was built by Ilbert de Lacy in the 11th century on a site picked by William the Conqueror. It was enlarged in the 12th and 13th centuries, strengthened in the 14th, and grew in time to the size of a palace. Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Charles I all enjoyed its hospitality. Richard II is supposed to have been murdered in one of its dungeons in 1399.

 

In Richard III (Act 3, Scene 3) Shakespeare refers to the crime:

O Pomfret, Pomfret! O thou bloody prison!

Fatal and ominous to noble peers!

Within the guilty closure of thy walls

Richard the Second here was hack’d to death.

 

To visit the dungeons, scene of so much horror in the past, you have to get permission from Pontefract Corporation. I wondered if I was wise as I signed a form in the Town Clerk’s office taking on myself full responsibility for the trip. If I broke a leg, or my neck, or vanished for ever from human ken, there was no-one to blame but myself. Within the next two hours I thanked heaven for Mr. Gardiner and his torch and candles.

 

A trapdoor (usually padlocked) covers the entrance to the main dungeons. It leads from the courtyard down 43 worn steps to cells cut in the rock 35 feet below ground. When the Royalists held the castle during the Civil War, a number of Cromwellian prisoners spent ten weeks in this living tomb and scratched their names on the walls.

 

There are no names dating back to the Norman times, which is scarcely surprising. Their prisoners would be chained and fettered and allowed no instruments with which to make their mark. As they lay in filthy squalor, pallid, long-haired and half blind, they must in time have gone mad. The dungeons are a monument to man’s inhumanity to man.

 

“Four years ago”, said Mr. Gardiner, “I allowed myself to be locked in here and spent eight and a half hours in one of the cells. It was terribly dark and I suffered intensely from the cold and damp. We took temperatures, and it was about 30 degrees colder down here than in the courtyard. Up there it was over 70 degrees, while down here it was a few degrees above 40.”

 

Even worse is the dungeon in the keep. Worn stone steps lead from the postern door to a landing, then fork – one going up the tower, the other leading down into the bowels of the rock. At the bottom a plank spans the mouth of the well, and beyond the well a cell has been cut in the rock, just big enough for a man to take two paces and lie down. A prisoner here would need no shackles for the darkness is so intense you can’t even see a white handkerchief close to your eyes. Once the plank was removed from the well, anyone in the cell would dare not move, for fear of falling down the well.

 

There is another railed-off dungeon in the floor of the keep. The roof has been demolished and it lies open to the weather. It is thought that Richard II was murdered here. But no-one can be sure of that, for the whole area is a graveyard. The ruined stump of the keep is 60 feet high, but it was once twice as tall, and as you wander round the bailey walls you can see the ruins of nine other towers.

 

In its prime it must have been a wonderful sight and the centre of stirring events. During the Wars of the Roses it was the scene of many executions. It seems to always have exercised a fatal spell. Though Henry VIII visited it only once, he never forgot the castle, for while he was there he discovered the liaison between Thomas Culpepper and Catherine Howard. Both were eventually beheaded.

 

The end came after the Civil War in which the castle was besieged three times. It was during the last siege that the famous Pontefract siege pieces were struck – coins of irregular shape minted from silver plate on the authority of the King to pay the troops’ wages. The commander at the time was Colonel John Morris, and even after the execution of Charles I on 30th January 1649, the garrison held out, proclaiming his son, Charles II, as King.

 

The first money coined in the kingdom bearing the name of Charles II was struck at Pontefract by Colonel Morris. The famous Pontefract shilling of this time bears the legend “Post Mortem Patris Pro Filio” (After the death of the father for the son). This is the motto on the borough coat of arms today.

 

The last garrison was starved into submission and in 1649, Cromwell, infuriated at the trouble it had caused him, required the Town Council to petition Parliament to have the castle demolished. They did so with relish, for they had been pillaged and robbed by successive garrisons for years and were glad to see the end of the bloodstained fortress.

 

It is a roofless ruin now, but one wonders with Mr. Gardiner what it must have looked like when the towers and walls of sandstone and limestone stood clean and white on the mound unsullied by industrial grime. Today it is a peaceful spot with fine views on a clear day from the wall tops.

I found a couple of old prints hiding on the internet.

The main academic study of Pontefract, at least the most recent, is the full report of the archaeological excavations at Pontefract during 1982 - 86. Only recently published by West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (Yorkshire Archaeology 8 - Pontefract Castle. by Ian Roberts).

 

An interesting aspect to this castle (and allied to my interest in the Castles of Spain) is the unusual 'Swillington Tower' - shown clearly on the plan posted by AJR. This tower is detached from the main curtain wall and very close in both style and purpose to the 'torre albarrana' detached towers common in Spanish (and Portugese) castles.

 

These detached towers are almost unique to Iberia (being a moorish introduction of the 12th C) and not seen in many other countries. This Swillington Tower is a rare exception. I am convinced the influence for this tower is from Spain as it was added to the curtain at Pontefract between 1399 and 1405 during the tenure of John of Gaunt. He had previously spent many years in Spain fighting various causes not least his own claim for the crown of king of Castile and Leon.

 

His familiarity with Spanish fortifications and detached 'torre albarrana' must have been strong. To bring such ideas back to England for his new works at Pontefract would have been quite natural.

 

Any other examples of detached towers outside of the Iberian Peninsula would be most welcome.

 

Peter

West Yorkshire

I'd seen the tower on the plans but knew nothing of its origins, very interesting.

Thanks much for the information and insights!

Thanks indeed PAB. Your information is enlightening and much appreciated.

The Castle Conservation Plan

 

Planning the future of the Pontefract Castle Area

Throughout 2004, a Conservation Plan has been in preparation on the castle area of Pontefract. The results of this work will shortly be available for all to consult, with full information provided though the web, events and displays.

 

Please take time to read the contents: your opinions count. This is an opportunity for you to comment on the policies that have been proposed and suggest changes or additions that could be made. The policies have been grouped into five different areas, some of which will be of greater importance to you than others, but all are designed to work together:

1. Regeneration and Development

2. Consolidation

3. Access and Interpretation

4. Unlocking the Heritage Potential

5. Management

 

What is this document?

This document summarises the challenges to be met, the opportunities that exist and the key policies that will shape the future of the cultural quarter surrounding Pontefract Castle, St. John's Priory and All Saints Church. The Conservation Plan, and its associated Condition Survey, has been prepared as a tool to understand and manage the significance of these sites. It also shows how any future development should take account of the existing significance and its setting, while promoting the opportunities it presents.

 

The area encompassing Pontefract Castle, St John's Priory and All Saints Church is an important historic place with high significance for the local community and at both national and international levels.

 

A Conservation Plan has been prepared in order to:

a) promote the understanding of the heritage significance of the sites through interpretation, education and recreation;

b) facilitate public understanding and enjoyment of the sites by promoting physical and intellectual access for all in a safe environment;

c) recognise the wishes, concerns and aspirations of the local community for the Castle area, through working in partnership.

d) secure the heritage, setting, character and significance of the

Pontefract Castle area for present and future generations by placing conservation at the heart of future planning and site management;

e) protect the significance and historic integrity of the site by implementing effective regimes for repair and maintenance in line with conservation best practice;

f) enhance the heritage assets and value of the Pontefract Castle area for public benefit without unacceptable physical or visual detriment to historically important features;

 

The Scope of the Conservation Plan

The Conservation Plan was originally intended to centre on the principal heritage assets of the Castle, priory site and church of All Saints. In its preparation, it became apparent that the route of the Pontefract Civil War siege works defined an area in which conservation and regeneration issues were interlinked. Although a detailed study of this larger area has not been undertaken at this stage, this document is intended in part to draw attention to how action can be taken which will have a complementary effect on this wider area.

 

The Conservation Plan Issues and Policies

The following 5 sections of the Conservation Plan Summary present an overview of the key issues and policies provided in the Conservation Plan. This information is divided into 5 key themes; within each theme a brief discussion of the key issues and opportunities is provided, followed by an outline of the main policies associated with these issues. The policies outlined in this document are numbered (e.g. policy E3, or policy D2) as they appear in Volume 2 of the Conservation Plan, where more information can be found about them. Not all policies have been described within this summary.

 

An integrated Approach

The challenges, opportunities and policies summarized here may appear a daunting list, but some simple solutions will lead directly to the resolution of more fundamental problems. Effective vegetation management, for example, provides a solution to the visibility of the castle, whilst the renewed visibility of the castle can, in turn, be used to determine and guide planning controls on the height, scale and form of new buildings, appropriate to the wider castle setting. This will improve the quality of development and further, will re-establish the visual links with the positions of the Civil War siege works, providing a broader framework in which regeneration can now be carefully planned. Many solutions to the issues affecting the Pontefract Castle area and its wider setting cannot be resolved in the short term, but can be addressed by a long-term strategy designed to inform, guide and assist collective decision making on the future of this area of Pontefract.

 

1. Regeneration and Development

It will be critical in the future that local planning respects the historic environment in this area of Pontefract, particularly the known presence of the Civil War siege works. The siege works (their route determined by military necessity, but now defining a circle of viewpoints facing the Castle) provide an opportunity to highlight the wider historic importance of Pontefract, while the impact of an enhanced Castle on the local environment will make a massive contribution to the regeneration of this part of the town.

Even in its ruined state, the Castle has the potential to be a key landmark in the town, contributing directly to the image and identity of Pontefract. The setting of the Castle is critical in liberating the value of this landmark and in providing a reinvigorated focus for regeneration

The height, scale and form of new buildings would ideally not dominate historic buildings and streetscapes.

The layout and positioning (relative to the historic street pattern) of new buildings will be critical to the integrity and character of the Castle's setting.

The line of the Civil War siege works defines an area which is of historic significance, and, as such, regeneration efforts should seek to unlock its heritage potential.

 

Key Policy Areas:

• A Conservation Area Appraisal and a regular review of the various statutory controls should be carried out to examine the current boundaries of the designated areas, informed by current research (Polices S3; MI1).

• The route of the Civil War siege works is not clearly understood, and research into their surviving extent should be encouraged to aid understanding, interpretation and appreciation of their significance (Policy CE1).

• Vegetation thinning would open up the presently obscured views of the castle whilst not resorting to clear felling (Policy E3).

• Any major scheme likely to have a significant impact on the area should be discussed in a public forum before any action is taken (Policy MI2).

• Any development in proximity to the Scheduled Monuments should be sensitive to their historic setting, and should respect their known extent (e.g. height, massing and position of new build and roads) (Polices CE2; OBEG3).

• Development proposals should be based on an understanding of their potential and archaeological and historical importance, and should be sensitive to their historic setting and character (Polices CE2; CE3).

 

2. Consolidation

Pontefract Castle is a valuable heritage asset, both locally and nationally. To ensure that the significance of this asset is maintained and enhanced for present and future generations, a phased strategy of physical conservation needs to be implemented. To inform this strategy, a detailed Condition Survey has been undertaken for the castle as part of the Conservation plan. This has identified all of the areas of the castle’s fabric which require conservation attention, and this work should be spread over a number of years. The detailed Condition Survey is included within the full Conservation Plan.

 

Previous conservation practice, particularly the use of hard cement mortars, has led to many problems which will need to be fully addressed in the repair programme.

Some erosion to historic earthworks is preventable through the implementation of a good management regime.

Management of tree cover and general vegetation coverage will provide an opportunity to improve the setting of the monument.

 

Key Policies:

• A phased programme of repair and consolidation should be undertaken on those areas of standing remains which are suffering from erosion, collapse, etc., in order to secure their future survival (Policies S3; CE5).

• Where possible, historic stonework, which has recently been removed or displaced from the structures by vandalism, should be reinstated in their original locations (Policy CE4).

• Where practicable, any structural archaeological features discovered during consolidation works should be conserved as found (Policy AP6).

• Where appropriate, levelling of the ground surface, for access reasons, should be achieved by the addition, rather than removal, of soil (Policy AP3).

• Woody vegetation must be removed from exposed stonework in order to prevent further damage, and future management policies implemented (Policy CE3).

 

3. Access and interpretation

There are many opportunities for improving access for all in the castle grounds and for enabling Pontefract’s residents and visitors to explore fully the fascinating story of the site. In addition to providing more exciting and dynamic interpretation, part of the castle’s future conservation programme should also include improved physical access across the site. Safe visitor access to the standing remains and into the more substantial surviving structures should be provided, including a full schedule of disabled and less-abled access.

a) Provision of an education room and interpretation space within the castle grounds.

b) Intellectual access to the history of the site through different media (e.g. a virtual tour of different periods in the site's history, remote-controlled cameras mounted in less physically accessible parts of the monument, etc.).

c) Addressing the invisibility of the Civil War period through flags showing the approximate position of Civil War forts, thus reinforcing viewpoints to and from the Castle.

d) Structured trails and walks to enable the public to appreciate the historic richness of Pontefract (perhaps along the route of the Civil War siege lines).

e) In the future, it may be possible to re-excavate the substantial remains of St John's Priory and place them on public display. In the short- to medium-term, the significance of the site will be better understood with the full publication of the results of the excavations, and the presentation of these results to the general public in an intelligible way, through on-site interpretation.

 

Key Policies:

• Where safe, the historic structures within the castle site (such as the passages in the keep, the sally port and the Constable Tower) should be made accessible to visitors.

• Disabled visitor access must be achieved, where reasonable, in accordance with current legislation (Disability Discrimination Act of 1995) (Policies AP1; K1, SWCW1; CT1).

• Before any public access policies are implemented, their impact on sensitive areas should be assessed (Policy AP2).

• Where possible, repair schemes should incorporate elements which allow greater visitor movement around the surviving structures, with opportunities taken for opening up previously closed areas (Policies AP5; K1; SWCW1; CT1; PT1; SP1; ST1).

• Interpretation should be provided at a number of levels, utilising a variety of sources in order to provide a high quality of information about the Castle, and to enhance visitor experience and understanding. In particular, interpretation could be widened to include the Civil War siege works and other historic sites bounded by them (Policy AP7).

• Improved visitor facilities should be provided and adequately staffed, including the provision of refreshments, appropriate toilet facilities, an interpretation centre, shop and car parking (Policies AP12; AP11).

• The castle should be regarded as a cultural resource or asset for the local community as well as a Scheduled Monument, and its varied use by the general public should be actively encouraged (Policy AP10).

• The writing up and publication of the priory excavations should be undertaken (Policy CE4).

 

4. Unlocking the Heritage Potential

It is desirable to generate a sustainable visitor attraction which could be a valuable tourist destination across the UK and for the people of Pontefract. Income could be generated for consolidation and maintenance by the provision paying visitor facilities such as a tea shop, restaurant, expanded visitor shop and other appropriate commercial activities. These developments will bring greater life and activity to the site both within and, potentially, outside current opening hours. An enhanced castle will make a massive contribution to the regeneration of this part of Pontefract and the local environment, providing a monument that the people of Pontefract can feel proud of, whilst safeguarding the future of the castle.

a) The Castle already provides an excellent open event space; investment in the infrastructure would expand the range of events that could be held.

b) A café and restaurant would provide attractive facilities for the visitor whilst providing additional income. Evening opening of a restaurant facility would bring legitimate activity to the site at a time of day often dominated by inappropriate use.

c) New facilities could be used for additional income generating events, such as weddings and conferences, on selected days and at suitable times.

d) Facilities could be expanded to include, for example, craft shops, a skills centre, a new centre for the blacksmith's shop, children's adventure area and the recreation of a medieval garden, providing further reasons to visit Pontefract Castle.

e) An on-site museum could be used to interpret the site fully and could house some of the more robust artefacts (such as architectural fragments).

f) Suitable toilet facilities would be required with the increased demand.

g) A new pedestrian approach to the inner bailey through the original gatehouse could be created, making the site more intelligible to the visitor.

h) Removal of the veteran's shelter could be an opportunity to build a more sympathetic structure, perhaps representing part of the layout of the castle.

i) A number of areas in the castle would benefit from further archaeological investigation for their better presentation to the public (e.g. the inner bailey gatehouse, keep and possible position of the hall).

 

Key Policies:

• To allow appreciation of the surviving facade details, the informal footpath, which currently runs along the top of the curtain wall, should be closed, moved or formalized in a robust material, and a formalized route should be provided along the exterior of the curtain wall.

• Similarly, reinstating the existing stair from the north-west curtain wall would provide the opportunity to link the inner bailey and Swillington Tower (Polices NWCW(1)1; NWCW(2)1; ST1).

• The inner bailey gatehouse, currently masked by Victorian steps, should be utilized to provide a focus for entry into the inner bailey (Policy GPL3).

• The route of the Civil War siege works is poorly understood, and research into their surviving extent should be encouraged in order to enhance the understanding, interpretation and significance of these elements (Policy CE1).

• Any development proposals for the areas should be based on an understanding of their archaeological and historical importance and be sensitive to the historic setting and character of the castle and Conservation Areas (Polices CE2; CE3).

 

5. Management

Despite the importance of the castle and the efforts of staff, parts of the monument are in a poor state of repair, and have become the target of vandalism and undesirable behaviour, whilst other areas of the site are not easily accessed by the public, with little sign of maintenance. As such, conservation, security and maintenance will be of primary importance in all future works, with the castle's long-term conservation being an overriding concern.

a) Security is a key concern and needs to be addressed to make the site safe and attractive for staff and visitors.

Security could be improved by, for example, dealing with illicit entry over the northern wall of the site, by securing the perimeter and by adding additional security features to the site gates.

b) Involving relevant local societies and volunteers in some of the site work would make a major contribution and would achieve real community involvement.

c) The preparation of a Management Plan would be instrumental in guiding the site's future treatment.

d) A sustainable budget level will need to be defined and maintained for the site's general management requirements.

e) Current and future car parking for the site, particularly for events, will need to be addressed.

f) Sustainable and appropriate staffing levels need to be addressed; a single member of staff cannot physically cover the existing shop, interpretation facility, toilets, provide tours and patrol the site.

 

Key Policies:

• Sustainable long-term financial provision should be sought and encouraged for the repair and upkeep of the site (Policy AP9).

• Scheduled Monument Consent must be sought for all future events organised to take place on the site (Policy AP13).

• The perimeter of the castle should be secured, thereby providing safe access and discouraging illicit entry to the site (Policy AP8).

• Rather than tidying up the entire site, some areas of long unmanaged grass should be left, particularly along the margins of the woodland. This would be beneficial to a range of invertebrate, mammal and bird species (Policy E1).

• An integrated ecological management plan for the areas is recommended (Policy E1).

• Better provision for visitor car parking should be made, and a regular review of car parking requirements should be undertaken for the castle site (Policy AP11).

• A management plan must be prepared for the site at the earliest opportunity, and should be reviewed at regular intervals, whilst regular reviews of the condition of all elements should be undertaken in order to identify repair and consolidation requirements (Polices MI1; MI2).

• The boundary of the various statutory controls for the area should be reviewed regularly, informed by current research (Policy MI1).

• Any major scheme likely to have a significant impact on the area should be discussed in a public forum before any action is taken (Policy MI2).

 

The preparation of the full Conservation Plan and Condition Survey was commissioned by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, and part funded by English Heritage.