Download pdf - Clun Castle Conservation Management Plan - Report

Clun Castle, Clun, shropshire

Conservation Plan

for English Heritage

November 2012

CCCS10


Conservation Plan

for English Heritage

November 2012

ha Job no.: CCCs10

has no.: 917

nGr: so 29837 80941

local authority: shropshire

project Manager andy Boucher

authors luke Craddock-Bennett, richard K Morriss, andy Boucher & hilary smith

research assistant lise Brekmoe

Graphics Julia Bastek

approved by andy Boucher – project Manager

Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd Midlands & West

Headland ArchaeologyUnit 1, Premier Business Park, Faraday Road

Hereford HR4 9NZ01432 364 901

[email protected]

www.headlandarchaeology.com

Clun Castle, Clun, ShropshireCCCS10

Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd

Contents

1. introDuCtion to the plan 2

2. Clun: its settinG & outline historY 2

3. the Castle 3

4. the stanDinG BuilDinGs 8

4.1 the Great tower 8

4.2 perimeter Wall and Bastions 9

4.3 the south-east Fragment 10

4.4 the north-east Fragments 10

5. the MaJor earthWorKs 10

5.1 the Motte 10

5.2 the south Bailey 11

5.3 the east Bailey 11

5.4 the pleasance 12

6. arChaeoloGY anD historiC BulDinG reCorDinG 13

7. eColoGY 14

7.1 Methodology 14

7.2 results 14

7.2.1 Habitat types 14

7.2.2 Shropshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species 15

7.2.3 Protected mammal species 15

7.2.4 Other mammals 15

7.2.5 Birds 15

7.2.6 Amphibians and Reptiles 17

7.2.7 Invertebrates 17

7.3 summary of significant nature conservation features 17

8. assessMent oF siGniFiCanCe 17

8.1 evidential value 17

8.1.1 The standing structures 17

8.1.2 Buried remains 18

8.1.3 Documentary archives 18

8.1.4 Ecological assets 18

8.2 historical value 18

8.2.1 Associative 18

8.2.2 Illustrative 20

8.3 aesthetic value 20

8.4 Communal value 20

8.4.1 Commemorative and symbolic 20

8.4.2 Social 21

9. assessMent oF VulneraBilitY anD ConserVation neeDs 21

9.1 summary of works to date 21

9.2 Current vulnerabilities 22

9.2.1 Standing structures 22

9.2.2 Earthworks 22

9.2.3 Associated assets 23

10. assessMent oF ManaGeMent neeDs 23

10.1 Marketing 23

10.2 Visitor information 23

10.3 Working with the community 23

10.4 Maintenance checks 23

11. ConserVation anD ManaGeMent oF the site 24

11.1 policies 24

11.1.1 Evidential policies 24

11.1.2 Historical policies 24

11.1.3 Aesthetic policies 24

11.1.4 Communal policies 25

12. suMMarY list oF poliCies 25

12.1 evidential 25

12.2 historical 25

12.3 aesthetic 25

12.4 Communal 25

13. reCoMMenDations 26

13.1 Conservation 26

13.2 assessment of areas of erosion 26

13.3 Consider ways in which the grassland can be managed 26

13.4 Managing the pleasance 26

13.5 improving access 26

13.6 improving publicity, presentation and interpretation 26

13.7 improved understanding 26

13.8 Centralisation of archives 26

14. reFerenCes 26

15. list oF Consultees 27

16. Gazetteer 29

17. appenDiCes 57

appendix 1 english heritage internal documents 57

appendix 2 archives and sources 57



List of iLLustrations

Illus 1 xSite location

Illus 2 2Clun Castle from the north-east (2004)

Illus 3 3Engraving by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck - 1731

Illus 4 5Roque map of 1752

Illus 5 5Baugh’s map of 1808

Illus 6 5First Edition Ordnance Survey map - c.1820

Illus 7 6Ordnance Survey map - 1883

Illus 8 7Watercolour by Rev. Edward Williams – 1791

Illus 9 8Plan showing the layout of elements of the Castle

Illus 11 9The Great Tower c.1900

Illus 10 9Interior of the Great Tower (1993)

Illus 12 9The Great Tower, interior of the northern elevation (1993)

Illus 13 10The Perimeter Wall and Bastions, eastern elevation (1993)

Illus 14 11North-eastern fragments (1993)

Illus 15 11The Motte and Great Tower, eastern elevation (1993)

Illus 16 12The South Bailey, looking south from the south-east fragment (1993)

Illus 17 12The Pleasance, looking west from the perimeter walls (2010)

Illus 20 13Grading of deposits within the Great Tower (1993)

Illus 18 13Archaeological recording of the Great Tower (1991)

Illus 19 13Staircase and floor of the Great Tower revealed during excavation (1990)

Illus 21 16Location map – Ecology

Illus 22 18Clun Castle and The Pleasance (1950)

Illus 23–25 19Elevation drawings of the Great Tower interior. City of Hereford Archaeology Unit, 1990

Illus 26 21Repair of the wall tops (1992)

Illus 27 22Soft capping on the Great Tower

Illus 28a & 28b 23Desire-lines, February 2011



List of tabLes

Table 1 14English Heritage archaeological work at Clun Castle

Table 2 20Artistic impressions of the castle

3298

00

281000

C lun

G round

B ridge

R iv e r C lun

A 488

R ecreation

B 4368 LB

P C

P O

C G

C ottage

G reen

F a ir F ield

B owling

P

C ar P ark

P ark

Tel E x

EN

FIE

LD S

TRE

ET

B roo s ide

B eryldene

Hous e

C lun Va le Ho

Dean

C as tle Moat

S tone Walls

BU

FFA

LO

LA

NE

C as tle G ate

indrush

14

2

4

12

10

42

8

C as tle

8A 488

A 488

C ottage

A 488

3

3300

00

3298

00

281000

280800

Castleremains

The Pleasance

Key

scheduled monument area

land under guardianship

SiteSite

Clun CastleShropshireClun CastleShropshire

100km0 100km

Reproduced using 2011 OS 1:50,000 Landranger Series no. 137. Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 2012. All rights reserved. Licence no. AL 100013329

Scale 1:2,000 @ A4 0 100mN

Illus 1Location map

Illus 1Site location



1


Conservation plan for english heritage

Clun Castle is a motte and bailey castle established in the late 11th century on the Shropshire border with Wales. The site is valued by both its local community and the nation as a whole, and might be described as rural, remote and even romantic. Its location in the Marches embodies a landscape that has experienced times of conflict as well as more affluent periods since it was established. The property is unstaffed and open to the public all year round. Major consolidation of the standing masonry was carried out in 1991–1992 and the standing elements of the castle remain in relatively good condition. A programme of consultation with various stakeholders has identified issues for consideration in the future conservation of the site.

The earthworks suffer from human and natural erosion caused by vehicular access on the site, desire-lines caused by members of the public, and riverbank erosion. The Pleasance, a medieval water garden surviving as a series of earthworks on the west bank of the River Clun has suffered the effects of ploughing.

Clun Castle is set aside from many other similar sites across Britain by a number of attributes. It is relatively untouched (both by archaeologists and antiquarians); it contains well preserved earthworks, masonry structures survive in places; it shares a clear relationship with surrounding topographic features such as the River Clun and low lying ground to the north; it also possesses a strong geographical link with the village. All these aspects combine to create a monument that is easily interpretable, accessible, and has the potential to be visually striking.

The purpose of this Conservation Plan for Clun Castle is to set out a vision for its future management and to provide guidance on risks, opportunities and planning.

As with all heritage assets there are both future threats and opportunities that need to be managed. Through the conservation planning process key priorities relating to the site have been drawn up and these broadly encompass:

• Thecontinuedandimprovedconservationofthemonument.

• Thewayinwhichthemonumentispresented,includingappearanceandsetting.

• Improvingaccessibilityandcommunityuseofthemonument.

The vision for the future of this monument, which stands in one of the country’s more remote historical places, will ensure the ongoing conservation of the evidential and historic features of the site alongside the management of its aesthetic and communal values. This will involve: ensuring that the general management of the site can be undertaken in cost effective ways that are in keeping with its rural aspect; managing the natural processes of erosion (such as the evolving river bank); ensuring that public events can be held in harmony with the long term survival of its vulnerable but clearly defined physical form; and achieving a much wider public knowledge of its existence alongside improved access, orientation and interpretation.

2

introDuCtion to tHe PLan1.

English Heritage identified a need for a detailed conservation plan of Clun Castle. The monument which belongs to the Duke of Norfolk was taken into guardianship in 1991 and a programme of repairs and renovation was undertaken on the site.

Clun Castle is a motte and bailey castle believed to have been established in the late 11th century. The standing masonry structures including a square keep, perimeter wall and bastions are likely to date to the late 13th or early 14th century.

The assets in the guardianship of English Heritage include the earthwork and masonry remains of Clun Castle and low lying land to the north and south of the monument. The land to the north of the monument (adjacent to the confluence of the River Clun and River Unk) and the South Meadow are not within the Scheduled Area.

A series of medieval water management features (The Pleasance) associated with the castle is located on the west bank of the River Clun adjacent to the castle. These features are part of the Scheduled Monument but are not in the guardianship of English Heritage.

The site is managed by the Historic Properties Department of English Heritage and is open to the public free of charge.

This plan has been produced on the basis of the English Heritage publication Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment and following a detailed brief provided by English Heritage at the outset of the project.

The scope of the plan is:

to describe the setting and outline history of the castle;•

to provide a detailed understanding of the history of the •castle;

to describe the castle, its immediate environs and its •archaeological and ecological assets;

to identify the significance of the heritage asset;•

to produce policies for the asset and recommendations for •action.

The plan is based on the results of a broad documentary study of the site, site visits and consultation with twelve pre-selected stakeholders.

CLun: its settinG & outLine HistorY2.

The small town of Clun lies in the valley of the river of that name in the south-western corner of Shropshire, close to the Welsh border

Illus 2Clun Castle from the north-east (2004)

Reproduced by permission of National Monuments Record Ref: S027/80/ 55



3

but on the eastern side of Offa’s Dyke. This area was part of the fluctuating borderland between England and Wales until shortly after the unification of the two countries in 1536.

The earliest reference to the town appears in 1002 in the will of Wulfric who died ‘aet Clune’.1 Before the conquest it was a profitable place held by Edric, a free man – probably Edric Silvaticus.

The available evidence suggests that the early settlement was on the south bank, around the site of the present church. Silvaticus, probably the ‘Wild Edric’ of local tradition, led a rebellion against the Normans after the Conquest. In the aftermath of reprisals and perhaps Welsh attacks as well, the value of Clun dropped from £25 to just £3 and it was given to the Norman, Picot de Say who held it at the time of the Domesday Survey in 1086.

By that time its value was beginning to recover. Of particular interest is the mention of a ‘Molinum serviens Curiae’, usually thought to refer to a mill serving the manorial hall or court.2 However, there was a fulling mill just to the north of the present castle, out of use by the early-19th century, of which virtually nothing is known. There is no specific mention of a castle at Clun and it seems likely that both the manorial hall and the mill were of Saxon origin.

There is also no mention of a church in the Domesday Book, but this need not be seen as conclusive evidence that one did not exist. Indeed, some writers have considered there to have been in Clun the mother church of a large Saxon parish, possibly the successor of a Celtic one.3 The present church lies on the high ground to the south of the river

1 Bowcock, EW 1923 Shropshire Placenames. Shrewsbury. pp75-762 Eyton, R W 1864 Antiquities of Shropshire, ii, 227; Thorn, F & Thorn, C (eds) 1986

Domesday Book: Shropshire, pp.4–20.3 Anderson, J C 1864 Shropshire: Its Early History & Antiquities, p.465.

and was heavily restored in 1877. Several accounts of it before that time considered that parts of the nave were of pre-Conquest date.4 The fact that the church is still on the south side of the river and not in the later planted settlement to the north is evidently significant.

The rigid street pattern of the main part of the town appears to be associated with the castle at its western end and is in distinct contrast to the looser, nucleated, plan around the church. It is likely that the settlement around the church represents the site of Saxon Clun, with the later medieval town being laid out on the opposite side of the river next to the post-Conquest castle.

The fairly regular burgage-like plots on either side of Church Street, the road leading up from the river bridge towards the church, could, perhaps, represent an intermediate phase of development or a link between the two added in association with the development of the planned medieval settlement.

tHe CastLe3.

The first mention of a castle at Clun is not until 1140 but, given the strategic importance of the site in guarding the Clun valley, and in providing a base for Norman penetration through it, it is likely that a castle was established in the late-11th century by Picot de Say.

Picot, real name Robert, was one of the chief vassals of Roger de Montgomery and held 27 manors in 1086. Still alive in the 1090s, and calling himself the Baron of Clun, he was succeeded by his son, Henry de Say, who died in or around 1130.5

4 Hulbert, C 1837 The History and Description of the County of Salop, p.271.5 Sanders, I J 1960 English Baronies, pp.112–3.

Illus 3Engraving by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck - 1731

Reproduced by permission of Shropshire Archives Ref: PR/3/64

4

It is likely that this first castle was a simple variation of the standard motte-and-bailey type, making use of the natural bank of high ground in a wide meander of the River Clun just below its confluence with the much smaller River Unk.

By the early 12th century the manors of Clun and Obley were taken out of the old hundred of Purslow and became the separate Honor of Clun - virtually a Marcher Lordship.6 The Honor eventually included Clun itself and the other five townships of the manor, along with the 23 townships of the larger manor of Tempsiter, which straddled Offa’s Dyke.

The Honor was neither wholly English nor wholly Welsh, and its laws were taken from both countries - though always subject to the whims of the ruling Baron. Despite their local importance, the de Says were not as successful in making territorial advances into Wales as were their more powerful neighbours to the north, the de Mortimers of Wigmore and the FitzAlans of Oswestry.

Helias de Say held Clun after Henry’s death and was still alive in 1142 when he was reputed to have killed the Welsh princes Howell and Cadogan in battle. His heir, probably his daughter, was Isabella de Say - the Lady of Clun - who held the Honor by 1145.7

Through her marriage to William Fitzalan of Oswestry in or around 1155, Clun came into the hands of the more powerful dynasty.8 William died in 1160, leaving an under-age heir of the same name, and the indefatigable Isabella then married Geoffrey de Vere, and after his death in 1170, William Botterel.9

When the younger William Fitzalan came of age it is likely that he lived at Oswestry, then a more important site, and allowed his mother and Botterel to hold Clun.

Isabella died in 1199 and donated the advowson of Clun and its dependent chapels, including the mysterious chapel of St Thomas (which may have been the castle chapel) to Wenlock Priory.10

William Fitzalan added the barony of Clun to his other estates on the death of his mother and although Oswestry remained the chief seat of the family, he did obtain permission from King John to hold an annual three-day fair in Clun.11

He died in 1210 leaving another under-age heir, another William, who died at Clun Castle in 1215 and was succeeded by John Fitzalan, presumably his uncle. John was implicated in a Welsh rebellion in the same year, and when Shrewsbury was taken, Llewellyn the Great’s ally, the bishop of Hereford, was employed ‘in the disposal of Clun Castle’.12

Whether the castle was taken again is unclear. Despite John’s reconciliation with the king after the rebellion, his loyalty was once again called into question in 1233 and Henry III installed his own

6 Eyton, op. cit., 228.7 Jones, H C 1932 A Border Fortress, p.2.8 Clark-Maxwell, W G ‘The Advowson of Clun in the 12th and 13th Centuries’, TSAS

4th Series, I, pp.342–3.9 Ibid.10 Ibid.11 Eyton, op. cit., p.230.12 Hulbert, op. cit., 273; Parry, E 1850 Royal Visits and Progresses to Wales, p.104.

garrison in the castle; this repulsed another Welsh attack during which the town was burnt.13

Nevertheless, John retained Clun until his death in 1240 when he was succeeded by his son, another John, who became Earl of Arundel through his mother, the sister and heir of Hugh d’ Aubigny who died without issue in 1243.14 Until the younger John came of age, the castle was one of several held for the king by John le Strange.

Clun then remained the Fitzalan’s main residence for most of the rest of the century and the town was probably at its most prosperous during this period. It was given a murage grant in 1277 and there is some evidence that defences were actually built around the new settlement on the north side of the river. It was only a borough by prescription, but did have two annual fairs, and it was bigger than Oswestry.

A survey of the castle in an inventory of 1272 gives a good idea of the state of the castle at that date:

At Clun there is a little castle competently built, but the top of the tower should be covered with lead, and the castle bridge should bet to be repaired; and outside the castle is a bailey enclosed in a ditch. And there is a gate there begun with a wall. And the part of the wall begun is 200 feet long. And there are houses in that bailey, viz., a grange, a stable and a bakery in poor condition. There are two gardens there, containing two acres, and the yield in both herbage and fruit is valued at 3s. yearly. There is a dovecot there valued at 12d. yearly.15

In June 1295 Edward I visited Clun, presumably staying at the castle, and in 1302 it was said that ‘great outlays’, actually around £20 per year, were needed for the maintenance of the castle.16 When Richard Fitzalan was a minor, his Clun possessions had been held in trust by his maternal grandfather, Roger de Mortimer, but despite their family ties, there was to be considerable friction between the FitzAlans and de Mortimers, especially during the later Roger de Mortimer’s rebellions against Edward II.

Edmund Fitzalan supported that king and lost the castle to Mortimer until he was exiled. When Mortimer returned, he, together with his lover, Edward’s queen, Isabella, deposed the king and effectively ruled the country. Edmund Fitzalan was executed and Mortimer took over his lands again. He was executed by the young Edward III in 1330 and the lands reverted to their rightful owner, another Richard Fitzalan.

This Richard also inherited the title and lands of his uncle, the Earl of Surrey, in 1347 and made his home in the south-east with Arundel as his main residence; he was the first of the family to be buried in Sussex.17 Although Clun Castle continued to be used as an administrative centre for the family’s local estates it was no longer a prime residence. Nevertheless, the castle was clearly kept in reasonable condition and was still used on occasion by the family.

13 Eyton, op. cit., vii, 252; Jones, op. cit., 3.14 Clough, M (ed) 1969 Two Estate Surveys of the Earl of Arundel, xxv; Kenyon, R L

‘The Borough Of Clun’, TSAS 4th series, VI, p.129.15 PRO: C132/42 no.5 (6), trans. Summerson, H 1993.16 Summerson, H 1993 quoting E149/3 no.1 and C133/l04 no.21.17 Clough, op. cit., xxv.



5

Illus 6 First Edition Ordnance Survey map - c.1820

Reproduced by permission of Shropshire Archives

Illus 5 Baugh’s map of 1808


Illus 4 Roque map of 1752


6

The castle was still a secure place in the 14th century. In 1370, for example, the Earl of Arundel had over 10,000 marks (over £6,666) at Clun and in the following year there was still £3,267 there–quite fabulous amounts of money for the late-14th century.18 The castle also appears to have been used as a hunting lodge.

In 1301 a survey had shown that up to 70 deer could be safely taken from Clun Forest without depleting the herd, and in 1362 Edward III stayed at Clun to hunt. Hunting deer called for large numbers of horses and the Arundels also bred them; in 1397 the Clun stud contained no less than 160.19

The Fitzalans again lost control of Clun during the reign of Richard II, Richard Arundel being executed in 1396, but regained it on the accession of Henry IV. It is not clear whether or not the castle was actively involved in the fighting during the Glendower uprising at the start of the 15th century, but the town certainly suffered and the church was damaged. In 1409 the Earl of Arundel himself led a force that captured Rhys Ddu, one of Glendower’s captains, near Clun and sent him to London for trial and eventual execution.20

The Inquisition Post Mortem (IPM) of Beatrice, Countess of Arundel, in 1440 gives some more clues as to the layout of the castle and its contents. It mentions a chapel, a well, a barbican, a castle gate, a great grange, a great chamber in the barbican, gardens within the bailey, ‘all those buildings on the right side at the entrance to the castle as far as the chapel’, ‘the chamber below the chapel’, and, perhaps of the most interest, ‘the newly built great house’.

The use of the castle by the family seems to have declined throughout the latter part of the 15th century and by 1540 Leland

18 Summerson, H 1993 quoting PRO E101/315/38; Davies, R R 1978 Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, p.195.

19 Davies, op. cit., 12020 Bradley, A G 1901 Owen Glyndwr, p.298.

described it as ‘sumewhat ruinus’. Henry, the last Fitzalan Earl of Arundel, had been involved in several plots of the age but was finally undone by those of his son-in-law, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, who was executed in 1572; Henry’s estates were forfeited to the Crown. He was succeeded by his grandson, and Thomas’ son and heir, Philip Howard, a Catholic convert who also fell foul of Elizabeth and died after over ten years imprisonment in the Tower of London in 1595.21

The family’s fortunes changed with the accession of James I. In 1603–4 the estates were handed to Thomas and Henry Howard, great-grandchildren of the last Fitzalan Earl.22 Thomas was restored to the Earldoms of Arundel and of Surrey and in 1644, became Earl of Norfolk; Henry, the younger brother, was created Earl of Northampton. Thomas’ grandson was restored to the Dukedom of Norfolk shortly after the Restoration in 1660; Henry died without an heir in 1614.

Before the English Civil War religious feelings had run high in the area, and the local curate and school teacher, the vicar’s nephew, was Vavasor Powell, an influential Puritan described by his contemporary, Richard Baxter, as ‘an honest injudicious zealot’.23 The ordinary locals supported neither King nor Parliament and, in and around Clun and Bishop’s Castle, bands of men grouped together known as ‘Clubmen’ to defend the area from both sets of combatants.

The manor of Clun was then held by Sir Robert Howard, a Royalist, who recruited locals for the Crown. Some troops were billeted in the parish church in 1644 and, though the reasons for the damage they caused is open to debate, at the time the locals were clearly convinced who was at fault.24

The parishioners of Clun complained in 1647 that ‘a great part of our Church and Steeple, which was covered with lead and furnished with four bells, were during these late Troubles, burnt by an Officer of the King’s party (lest it should be made a Garrison for the Parliament)…’ This could suggest that the church was considered to be more defendable than the castle – or that similar slighting works were undertaken on it.25

Whatever the case, Clun Castle, despite its size and defensive position, seems not to have figured prominently in the conflict and may not even have been garrisoned; this suggests it was in a fairly poor state of repair. It has been suggested that the castle was still used as an occasional residence up until 1653, but in 1677 the Howard family sold off the castle along with most of their still sizeable Clun estates.26

21 He was canonised by the Roman Catholic church in 1970 so is officially, in that religion, St. Philip Howard.

22 Ibid.23 Bracher, T & Emmett, R 2000 Shropshire in the Civil War, p.46.24 Op. cit., 7725 Op. cit., 6726 SRO 4066/1/7

Illus 7Ordnance Survey map - 1883




7

Family members still had some property, however; a large parcel of land was the subject of several leases and other deeds in the later 17th century. For example, in 1677 Thomas Morris of The Hurst was leasing ‘the great meadow called the Lower Poole Meadow, backside and fulling mill beneath The Parkes, the Castle Yard and castle ditch’.27

The proximity of this fulling mill to the castle and The Parks – the fields on the western bank of the Clun opposite it – indicate that the fulling mill was not the one shown on later maps at the eastern end of the Great Pool of Clun (not drained until the mid-20th century). Instead this must relate to the site of a fulling mill immediately north of the castle in the field labeled as ‘site of Walk Mill’ on the 1840s tithe map, and indicates that the large area with the raised bank around it was the Lower Pool.

In 1680 Mary Howard, widow of Henry Howard and thus presumably a relation of the Earls of Arundel, leased the same area of ground to Morris, apart from ‘The Clun Mills’ which were corn mills specifically excluded from the lease.28

One building that did continue in use at the castle was the Court House in the East Bailey, shown on the Bucks’ engraving of 1731, by which time it was owned by John Walcot. The Court House was described in 1669 as being ‘built in our late Queen Elizabeth’s time’ as a combined court house for the baronial and the king’s courts. It was probably pulled down sometime after the new Town Hall was built, in the market-place, in 1780. By this time Clun had declined in importance and in 1813 was described as ‘a small and neglected town ... [with] ... little worthy of note’.29

27 SRO 4066/1/328 SRO 4066/5/329 Nightingale, J 1813 The Beauties of England & Wales, XIII, part I, p.257.

In 1894 Henry Fitzalan-Howard (1847–1917), the 15th Duke of Norfolk, bought the castle, presumably as a symbolic gesture to his family’s ancestry, and by the start of 1895 had ‘practically completed the restoration of Clun Castle’.30

At that time the Duke was a widower, and shortly afterwards his only son died aged just 22. The Duke remarried in 1904 and had three daughters and a son, Bernard Marmaduke Fitzalan-Howard, who became the 16th Duke of Norfolk in 1917. After his death in 1975 without a direct male heir, the title passed to a relative, Miles Francis Fitzalan-Howard, who became the 17th Duke.

The castle and its grounds remained the property of the Dukes of Norfolk, managed for them by the local parish council. It was taken into guardianship by English Heritage in 1991 and subsequently the masonry structures were consolidated at considerable expense. Prior to this work, the City of Hereford Archaeology Unit was commissioned to produce an outline history of the site.31

This was followed by detailed survey work on the upstanding section of curtain wall and its two flanking towers on top of the motte between the summer of 1991 and the start of 1992 in advance of the repair work, followed by some watching brief work on groundworks; an updated interim report was produced in June 1993.32 A far more comprehensive documentary history of the castle was produced subsequently for English Heritage by Henry Summerson, much of which has been used in this account of the site.

30 Byegones, viii, 434; Byegones, 2nd ser., iv, p.3.31 Morriss, R K 1990 Clun Castle, Shropshire: An Outline History, (Hereford

Archaeology Series 69).32 Morriss, R K 1993 Clun Castle, Shropshire: An Interim Report, (Hereford

Archaeology Series 176).

Illus 8Watercolour by Rev. Edward Williams – 1791

Reproduced by permission of Shropshire Archives REF: 6001/372/3

8

tHe stanDinG buiLDinGs4.

The Great Tower4.1 The Great Tower, often referred to as the Keep, is the dominant feature of Clun Castle. It was built onto the northern slope of the Motte, its northernmost corners rising from the ditch between it and the North Work (Illus 9: D) and quite close to the river bank. Despite its Norman appearance, a deliberate architectural anachronism, it was evidently built for high status accommodation at a later date, probably at the end of the 13th century.

The tower is built of lightly worked and reasonably well coursed local siltstone, except for decorative features, such as rear-arches and string courses, which are of a softer, green-yellow sandstone, also assumed to have been quarried in the local area.

There are no obvious construction breaks of any significance apart from those associated with much later repairs, so it therefore appears that the tower is of one single phase.

All but the south wall survives. The structure is rectangular, but with shallow turrets at the northern end, possibly once repeated at the southern end. Certainly at the south-western corner there is evidence of a generous stair tower.

The Great Tower provided accommodation on its four main floors. Except for the basement, each floor seems to have consisted of one large high status chamber, heated and well lit, accessed by the stair tower and, at first and second floor level, served by paired corner closets in the northern turrets. Status increased at each floor level.

The basement, probably divided into two sections by a screen, appears to have consisted of a low, dark store at the north end, and a small but relatively high status room at the south. This room effectively controlled the storeroom, the postern from the motte, and access from that postern up the mural stair to the ground floor.

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

J

L

3298

00

3299

50

3297

50

281000

280800

0 100m

1:2,500 @ A4

N

River Clun

A The MotteA1 The MoundA2 The Great TowerA3 Perimeter Wall and BastionsA4 South-East FragmentA5 North-Eastern FragmentsA6 Possible Gateway

B South (Inner) BaileyB1 South Bailey RampartB2 South Bailey TerraceB3 South Bailey Access Path

C East BaileyC1 The Bowling GreenC2 East Bailey East WallC3 East Bailey Path

D North WorkD1 North Work (East)D2 North Work (Central)D3 North Work (West)

E Walk Mill Pond

F West Meadow

G South MeadowG1 Access Bridge

H South Access Path

I South East Counter Slope

J North East Entrance Track

K Northern Footpath

L The Pleasance

Key

Illus 9Plan showing the layout of elements of the Castle



9

Perimeter Wall and Bastions4.2 Immediately to the south-west of the keep is a surviving section of perimeter wall and two half-round and solid towers, or bastions. Unfortunately, not enough of the masonry survives at the northern end to suggest how it related to the Great Tower and its stair turret.

The perimeter wall is l.4m/4ft 6ins wide. Bastions and wall were built of the same local rubblestone as the Great Tower, but the rubble is more roughly coursed. The south bastion rises from a stepped plinth footing and the walling in between has a low battered plinth.

The two bastions are half-round and project externally; they are of solid masonry and have flat backs forming the internal walls of a largely demolished building or buildings. There is no evidence of any loops in the bastions.

In the wall between them is a recently restored remnant of a primary window opening with a depressed two-centred arched head of thin voussoirs continuing the two-centred vaulting of the reveal.

Beneath the sill of the window opening, and thus presumably under the floor level of the building on the motte, is the narrow exit of a stone-lined drain. Within the thickness of the wall the drain is topped on both wall faces by the remains of a stone shouldered lintel.

It is clear that this section of curtain wall and its surviving bastions formed the outer wall of a building on the motte edge. In the internal masonry of the south bastion there appears to be evidence

of a possible upper floor but it seems likely that the range to the north in between the bastions was a high status heated single storey structure.

The limited dating evidence would indicate a late-13th to early-14th century date.

Illus 10Interior of the Great Tower (1993)

Illus 12The Great Tower, interior of the northern elevation (1993)

Illus 11The Great Tower c.1900

Reproduced courtesy of Shropshire Archives Ref: PH/C/27/4

10

The South-East Fragment4.3 The South-East Fragment is a remnant of a masonry structure built onto the south side of the Mound (A1), the raised portion at the south-east corner of the motte top. It is an amorphous section of straight masonry built into the side of a broken slope.

The outer face is some 6m/19ft 7ins high, the maximum visible length of the masonry is just over 4.2m/13ft 9ins, and its present width is just over 1.5m/5ft - although the north face is largely missing so it was presumably somewhat wider.

The ‘lump’ is built of the same rubblestone as the rest of the surviving buildings, but the stone is randomly coursed and apparently not particularly well built. The very limited evidence suggests that the south side was an inside wall, and there is a tenuous suggestion of a shallow chase some 0.5m/1ft 8ins high and 3.8m/12ft 6ins from ground level that could be associated with a former floor level.

One other feature of note is a large, and apparently deliberately cut, hole running into the east flank of the masonry. This is about 2m/6ft 7ins above the ground level to the south of the masonry, but roughly level with that to the north. It is at least 1.6m/5ft 3ins deep and about 0.5m/1ft 8ins tall.

The South-East Fragment was part of a masonry structure close to the highest part of the motte but it is impossible to properly assess on the limited available evidence. It is possible that it was part of a tower or simply another stone range, but dating is impossible.

The North-East Fragments4.4 There are the remnants of the footings of a perimeter wall close to the top of the Motte in its north-eastern quadrant. A section of this butts against the south-eastern corner of the Great Tower and a little to the east are other sections of thinly coursed rubblestone set into what appears to have been a footings terrace a little below the summit.

It is likely that more of the footings of this wall survive beneath the surface, and there is a strong possibility that it encircled the whole of the top of the Motte.

tHe MaJor eartHWorKs5.

The Motte5.1 The Motte is a steep-sided mound rising steeply on the west from the West Meadow and separated on the other three sides by deep artificial ditches from the two baileys and the Northern Rampart.

On the motte are the surviving standing buildings of the castle – the Great Tower, the Perimeter Wall & Bastions, and the South-Eastern Fragment – as well as other minor visible sections of masonry and possible earthworks associated with other structures.

The Motte is roughly oval in plan, its longer axis lying north-south. According to the English Heritage scheduling details at the base it

Illus 13The Perimeter Wall and Bastions, eastern elevation (1993)



11

is approximately 80m/262ft long (north-south) and 76m/249ft wide, reduced to around 50m/164ft by 40m/131ft respectively at the motte top; it is about 12m/39ft 6ins high. The top is undulating but broadly level, but there is a small and roughly round higher section at the south-eastern corner (the Mound, A1).

The steep sides are clearly artificial when associated with the ditches on three sides and it is also highly likely that the western slope down to the West Meadow is also the result of steepening an existing natural slope.

At the southern end of the motte top there are disturbances in the surface associated with a roughly circular depression that could be associated with a large masonry structure and the abutments of a drawbridge across the ditch separating it from the South Bailey. At this point the ditch has been partly infilled to provide easier access between the two.

Deep depressions in the earthworks on the south side of the motte top possibly relate to the position of a gateway guarding the main drawbridge access into the motte from the South, or Inner, Bailey (B).

The Mound is a small and roughly circular earthwork towards the south-eastern corner of the main motte top that rises higher than the rest and appears to have been deliberately constructed or scarped to provide an even higher position on the top of the earthworks.

It may have been built as part of the very earliest castle on the site and been topped by a timber tower or keep. Subsequently, any such timber structure was replaced by a masonry one – the South-East Fragment (A4) being part of what was evidently a fairly large structure.

The South Bailey5.2 The larger and higher bailey of the castle is to the south of the Motte and may have been, in effect, the inner bailey. It has a roughly pear-shaped plan form, with a rounded ‘base’ on the east side and a tapering point to the west; the top of the bailey is approximately 80m/262ft long overall and, at its maximum, 40m/131ft wide.

It is separated from the Motte and the East Bailey by steep ditches up to 10m/33ft wide, but these have been partly infilled to provide easier

access; it is assumed that in the medieval period access was by way of defendable draw bridges. There is also a deep ditch on the east side, cut into the natural terrain. The long southern flank rising from the South Meadow is clearly artificially scarped.

The top of the bailey is relatively level and laid to grass. There are indistinct indications in the topography that could indicate the possible positions of former structures but no archaeological investigations have yet been undertaken.

One obvious area of interest is on the northern side where the abutments for bridges to the Motte and the East Bailey seems to have been in close proximity and presumably well defended.

On the top of the bailey there is a well preserved section of earthen rampart along the eastern edge, with traces of this returning along the southern flank and, much less obviously, along the northern flank as well.

This was presumably the base of a timber palisade; there is no evidence of it being a masonry structure associated with a perimeter wall, but without proper archaeological excavation this hypothesis cannot be ruled out. However, there is no evidence of masonry ‘tumble’ on the slopes.

The East Bailey5.3 The East Bailey lies in the angle between the north side of the South Bailey (B) and the east side of the Motte (A). It is roughly rectangular

Illus 14North-eastern fragments (1993)

Illus 15The Motte and Great Tower, eastern elevation (1993)

12

in plan, approximately 42m/138ft long (west-east) and 40m/131ft wide; the present upper surface of the bailey is a little lower than that of the South Bailey.

It is separated from the Motte and South Bailey by formerly deep ditches. However, the ditch between it and the South Bailey is now a relatively shallow slope. Some of this is due to post-medieval alteration but the full extent of this has yet to be tested or assessed archaeologically.

There is also a less well-defined ditch along the north side between the bailey and the North Work (D), and the remains of a probable ditch on the east, though this area has been much altered. Maps of the 19th century show the southern boundary of the bailey to be more distinct than now, suggesting a degree of slope easing in this area.

At the east end of the bailey is the only vehicular entrance into the castle (K), and the main entrance gate. The modern track from this point that curves round the northern side of this bailey towards the north side of the Motte seems to have cut into the earlier slope; to the north-east of the track is a post-medieval revetment wall (C2) to an access track (K) to the fields to the north.

It is known that there were buildings in this bailey but there are no surface remains of them. The buried archaeological potential is likely to be high.

The Pleasance5.4 The Pleasance is not within the grounds of the castle and is, in fact, on the opposite, or west, bank of the River Clun. It is a large rectangular feature covering approximately 3 hectares bisected diagonally by a modern field boundary. On the south side the feature survives relatively intact; on the north side it has been damaged by ploughing. The scheduled area of Clun Castle was extended to include The Pleasance in 1995.

During the drainage and enclosure of the site of The Pleasance (c.1840) it was reported that ‘some thick oak posts were found buried upright deeply in the ground. Some of them were a foot in diameter. They were black with age, exceedingly hard and came from a wide area’. Some of those posts may well have been encountered when the field boundary was dug which bisects the site before running into the river. That boundary now separates the well preserved half of the monument, which lies to the south, from the less well preserved northern half.

The main element of the site appears to be a rectangular depression c.25m x 15m, surrounded by a level bank or platform c.15m wide. That is bounded externally by a narrow ditch, which defines a roughly square area. Beyond that lies

a further zone, again bounded by ditches, that to the south being much broader and resembling a garden canal and those to the north and east being almost wholly ploughed out. About 90m south of the canal-like feature is a sub-circular bank c.10m in diameter and with a sunken interior c.4m in diameter. Reputedly these are the remains of a stone hut, used by the keeper of the fishponds and gardens.

The whole complex is very reminiscent of the pleasance at Kenilworth, built for Henry V between 1414 and 1417 and as such a very rare survival of a high status medieval garden.

Illus 16The South Bailey, looking south from the south-east fragment (1993)

Illus 17The Pleasance, looking west from the perimeter walls (2010)



13

arCHaeoLoGY anD HistoriC 6. buLDinG reCorDinG

The majority of recorded archaeological works at Clun Castle took place during the renovation of the property by English Heritage in the early 1990s. These are scheduled below.

Illus 18Archaeological recording of

the Great Tower (1991)

Illus 19Staircase and floor of the Great Tower

revealed during excavation (1990)

Illus 20Grading of deposits within

the Great Tower (1993)

14

eCoLoGY7.

Methodology7.1 A search for records of protected species and other species of conservation importance at Clun Castle Castle and within a 2km radius of the site was commissioned from Shropshire Biological Records Centre.

An ecological assessment of the site was carried out by Hilary Smith and Martin Hales of Wildways on Friday 24th June 2011.

The assessment included:

General habitat survey to identify areas of particular •importance for biodiversity.

Examination of the grassland areas, noting general •communities and management issues.

Inspection of the remains of the built structure including •areas of interesting wall flora, opportunities for roost sites for bats or birds, nesting sites for birds and hibernation sites for amphibians or reptiles in crevices or holes.

Assessment of trees for evidence of holes, cracks or crevices •which could be used by bats, and nesting birds.

Records of birds seen during the visit.•

Results7.2

Habitat types7.2.1 A wildlife statement produced in 1999 states ‘The grassland on the steep banks of the motte and baileys is the most important habitat on the site. Although it is not known to support any rare species, it is fairly species rich’. The banks of the River Clun are also an interesting habitat that add to the nature conservation interest of the site.

The Topographical Survey of 1988 records the northern area of the site as grass.

GrasslandGrassland areas include the riverside meadow, the earthworks and castle area.

Riverside grassland: this is a flat area, possibly occasionally flooded. It is relatively species poor for herbs when compared with the rampart areas and may have been improved at some time in the past, or it is affected by nutrient enrichment from flooding. It does contain some sweet vernal grass, crested dogstail, bents and fescues, and herbs including cuckooflower, burnet saxifrage, stitchwort, and yarrow. It appears that this area is mowed occasionally and is used recreationally for dog walking, picnics, and organised events. The recreational use is likely to have an effect on the vegetation community. The small area in the next meander is similar, but with a greater abundance of taller herbs and grasses.

Rampart grassland a) Species rich The grassland in these areas is generally herb rich, with species indicative of nutrient poor, well drained soils including milkwort, bird’s foot trefoil, harebell, black knapweed, lady’s bedstraw, common sorrel and burnet saxifrage. There is bare ground in places due to erosion from feet and ant hill disturbances. In other places there is a build-up of thatch of dead leaf litter. There is some evidence on the edge of the top of the mounds that species rich grassland was once common, but recreational use and management has changed the species composition and has increased the abundance of grasses.

On the north east corner of the smaller castle mound the grassland composition is slightly different with tormentil, wild thyme and crosswort.

Hemlock was found next to the tower.

b) Species poor Some parts of the ramparts are relatively species poor especially on the eastern and northern ramparts of the castle. Here there may have been more trees, possibly deeper soil and less dry conditions leading to the development of coarser

1990 Survey Stone by stone record of the ‘fragment’ and detailed record of the portions of the keep which were within reach from the ground surface. An outline set of drawings of the rooms built within the north wall of the keep was also made. City of Hereford Archaeology Unit HAS 89.

1990 Excavation Two trenches excavated through layers of debris which had built up within the keep. Evaluation exercise to establish the best way of presenting the keep to the public. Throughout the depth, the material was a mixture of earth and rubble with 19th and 20th century finds. The cellar floor of the keep, as exposed at the bottom of a newly exposed stairway, consisted of broken flagstones with some mortar. The lowest level of fill could well represent the initial silting. Such silting would probably occur before there was any masonry collapse and possibly whilst parts of the timber infrastructure were still in place. The finds from this layer included fragments of wall plaster and a few sherds of pottery which were probably of 13th century date. City of Hereford Archaeology Unit HAS 89.

1992 Watching Brief

A series of nine postholes and six shallow trenches were excavated around the standing buildings. None of the trenches penetrated significant archaeological levels. During the same period the interior of the Great Tower was graded in preparation for the laying of scalpings. A mortar floor was revealed in the eastern half of the tower. City of Hereford Archaeology Unit HAS 165.

1993 Watching Brief

Watching brief during the excavation of post holes for display panels. A previously unknown wall was revealed at the eastern side of the bowling green. This may have been associated with an entry to the castle. City of Hereford Archaeology Unit HAS 189.

1998 Geophysical Survey

Magnetometer, Resistivity and Ground Penetrating Radar surveys carried out on both Baileys as part of Science, Engineering and Technology Week. Ancient Monuments Laboratory – No report issued.

Table 1English Heritage archaeological work at Clun Castle



15

grasses such as false oat grass and cocksfoot, which out-compete the flower species. In areas this is quite tussocky, with evidence of enrichment in the form of nettle patches, and the establishment of a scrub habitat of hawthorns and brambles.

Riparian zone and tall ruderal vegetationThis stretches along the river bank, and into the area around the earthworks at the north end of the site. It is tall ruderal vegetation of false oat grass, cocksfoot and nettle. The northern area appears possibly to have been a pond/moat as it is very damp with silverweed, mosses, nettles and cleavers.

Walls and stonework habitatThere is very little remaining of the stonework of the Castle. It has been stabilised and it appears that virtually all the crevices which could potentially be used for bat roosts or bird nesting sites have been mortared in 2010. There may still be some roost sites, which were not visible from ground level.

The stonework was also clear of ferns, mosses or other wall plants. It did support some lichens. Soft capping of turfs has been used in recent repairs.

There were some stretches of dry-stone wall along the eastern boundary of the site which do support a variety of lichens and bryophytes and are likely to be used by small mammals and amphibians.

Trees and shrubsThe main area of trees is along the riverbank. This includes a large Black Poplar and coppiced alder, some of which appear to be dying. At the northern end of the earthworks are alder, ash, cherry, wych elm, hawthorn, elder, black poplar and holly.

There are two veteran ash trees at either end of the ramparts, with evidence that another one or two trees of similar age have fallen over or been felled. There is also field maple and elm on the edge of the eastern ramparts of the castle,

HedgerowsThere is a planted mixed species hedge which is double fenced, and a hawthorn hedge growing along the eastern boundary wall.

Shropshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species7.2.2 The records identified 30 species of plants from Clun Castle, with dates from 1994 to 2004. These include 2 sedges, 2 grasses, a club rush and 25 flowering species. The species are either related to dry grassy sites, or damp woodland. There are also three species noted from the river at Clun Castle. These are hairy lady’s mantle, goldilocks and river water crowfoot.

Protected mammal species7.2.3 Records of bats in the Clun tetrad are brown long-eared, common pipistrelle and Myotis species of bats from 1990 and 2007, with no information on roost types or numbers. Records of other protected species of mammals in the Clun tetrad are for otter on the River Clun (records from 1997–1999).

BatsAn assessment for bats in the Castle was carried out on Friday 19th February 2010 by John Morgan. This was done when scaffolding was in place in readiness to carry out repair works. This examination concluded that there was no evidence of bats in the locations inspected, with limited potential roost sites. It also noted that the castle is in a very exposed position, with more suitable roosting places available close by in mature trees and in the village. No mention was made of the potential for hibernation roosts.

The castle structure has now been recently repaired with no visible crevices suitable to be used as bat roosts.

There are potential roost sites in the mature trees on site, and good foraging habitat along the river corridor.

OttersThe site is alongside the River Clun and it is likely that otters will pass through the castle grounds along the river corridor. No signs were seen during the survey. There were no signs of water voles.

BadgerThe presence of badgers was noted in the 1999 Wildlife Statement, ‘probably mainly for feeding, but there is also some evidence of tunnelling’.

The assessment in 2011 identified an active badger sett under a veteran ash tree immediately north of the stone tower with paths leading north into an adjacent field.

Other mammals7.2.4 There was evidence of moles, rabbits and wood mice on the site.

Birds7.2.5 Records for Shropshire BAP species within the Clun tetrad are dipper, yellowhammer, spotted flycatcher, Eurasian curlew, common bullfinch, northern lapwing.

Birds recorded during survey:

Blackbird• Goldfinch• Skylark•

Blue Tit• House Martin• Swallow•

Carrion Crow• House Sparrow• Swift•

Chiffchaff• Long-tailed Tit• Wren•

Dunnock• Robin•

It was noted that there appeared to be no nests of house martins, swallows or swifts at Clun Castle.

There are some nesting sites in trees, hedges and shrubs but the amount of recreational use may disturb birds.

16

3299

50

3298

00

281000

280800

0 50m

1:1,500 @ A4

N

Key

riparian habitatspecies rich grassland and ant hillsbowling greendry-stone wallsboundary wallmain footpathsplanted mixed hedge andyoung trees fencedveteran tree

Illus 21Location map – Ecology

Black Poplar

Ash Tree

River Clun

Otter andother wildlife

Badger sett

Ash Tree

dump mossy nettlesand cleavers

meadow recreationaluse with some wild �owers

Castleremains

Illus 21Location map – Ecology



17

Amphibians and Reptiles7.2.6 There are no records for reptiles and amphibians in the Clun tetrad.

The damp area in the north of the site, and dry-stone boundary walls are suitable for amphibians, and the south facing sunny ramparts with ant hills are ideal habitat for reptiles. It is not known if they are present on site without further detailed surveys.

Invertebrates7.2.7 Records for the Clun tetrad for UK BAP species which may be found are white-clawed crayfish with records in the river from 1988–94 and the wall butterfly from 2003. The wall butterfly breeds in short open grassland where the turf is broken and stony, the caterpillar feeding on a variety of tussocky grasses.

There were numerous yellow meadow ant hills, some probably very old. Also noted were small tortoiseshell butterflies, moths and shield bugs.

Summary of significant nature conservation features7.3 The unimproved, species-rich grassland habitat on the •ramparts, together with associated invertebrates including ant hills, is of local and national significance, as this type of habitat is declining nationally. It needs specific management to retain the community, and there is potential for management of all the rampart areas to improve them for wildlife diversity and protected species.

Riparian habitat with potential for management and •improvement for wildlife diversity and protected species. Any work along the river bank must take into account the possible presence of legally protected white clawed crayfish.

Mature trees with bat roost and bird nest potential.•

Stone boundary and other walls with potential for use by •small mammals and amphibians.

Badger sett: Badgers and their setts are protected under the •Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. The 1992 Act specifically defines a sett as “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”. Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way. There is, however, provision within the legislation to permit activities affecting badgers or their setts where there is suitable justification and a problem cannot be resolved by alternative means. Such activities are authorised under licences.

Otters: Otters are currently increasing in number and •distribution after a prolonged period of decline. They receive protection under both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Otters and their resting places are fully protected; it is an offence to deliberately, capture, injure or kill them or to damage, destroy or obstruct their breeding or resting places. It is also an offence to disturb otters in their breeding or resting places.

assessMent of siGnifiCanCe8.

This section of the report assesses the significance of Clun Castle and the features associated with it.

The assessment of value of a heritage asset is encompassed within perceptions of that asset, its relative importance (through designation) and its use. The castle’s designation as a Scheduled Monument and Grade I listed building places the asset at a national level of importance. Many of the values now recognised as contributing towards the significance of a heritage asset are not incorporated into its designation and need to be considered alongside this. Not all of the site falls within the guardianship of English Heritage. The medieval gardens and associated water management features of the Pleasance are owned and managed by a private landowner. Any conservation measures adopted for this part of the site will require the co-operation of both parties.

The following values provide the benchmark against which conservation policies are set.

Evidential value8.1

The standing structures8.1.1 The castle by its nature attests to the need to protect and defend. The artificial steep-sided motte is evidence for both the need to defend and for the ability of the ruling elite to summon large amounts of labour.

The Great Tower was evidently built for high status accommodation, probably at the end of the 13th century. The Norman appearance of the building suggests a desire to project an image of power and control symptomatic of the Norman period. The Great Tower provided accommodation on four floors, and status appears to have increased with each floor level.

The surviving section of perimeter wall and two bastions to the south-west of the keep are believed to have formed the internal wall of a high status heated structure.

The North Work embankment and the Walk Mill Pond could be of historical significance, combining to form a defensive barrier against attacking forces and potentially acting as a fish pool for food supply.

The Medieval Pleasance situated on the west bank of the River Clun is a large rectangular complex of earthworks comprising moats and fishponds, fed or drained by the river. Its location outside the castle defences is evidence for a more peaceful period in the castle’s history. It has been suggested that the castle would originally have been approached through the gardens. The gardens would have made a powerful visual statement about the status of their creator and are similar in nature to the pleasance at Kenilworth, built for Henry V in the early 15th century.

18

Buried remains8.1.2 The potential for buried remains of archaeological importance at Clun Castle is high. To date very little excavation work has taken place.

Close to the top of the motte are the remnants of a perimeter wall abutting the south-east corner of the Great Tower. It is likely that more of the footings of this wall survive beneath the surface, and it is possible that it encircled the whole of the top of the motte.

A number of earthworks within the site have high archaeological potential to inform us about the layout and history of the castle.

On the south side of the motte, earthworks potentially relating to a gateway on the south side of the motte are present. Indistinct indications of former structures are present in the topography of the Inner Bailey, and there is a high potential for buried buildings in the East Bailey.

A geophysical survey was carried out by the Ancient Monuments Laboratory in 1998 to try and detect buried features on both baileys. Resistivity, magnetometry, and ground penetrating radar surveys were conducted as part of a public demonstration event. A report was never produced, but the personnel involved do not recall any significant findings.

Documentary archives8.1.3 Various documents relating to the castle are held by Shropshire Archives Service. The earliest document is a reversionary lease of

Clun Castle and other manorial property, between Lord Lumley and John Knottesforde of Much Malborne, dated 1563.

Historic maps, watercolours and engravings dating between the early 18th century and the late 19th century are also held by the Shropshire Archives Service.

The National Monuments Record in Swindon holds the documentary archives for a number of archaeological projects carried out on the castle by the City of Hereford Archaeology Unit during the 1990s:

An Outline History, 1990 (Hereford Archaeology •Series 69).

Recording and Excavation Works, 1990 (HAS 89).•

An Interim Report, June 1993 (HAS 176).•

Watching Brief on Minor Excavations for Display •Panels, Oct. 1993 (HAS 189).

Further material relating to these projects is currently held by the former Unit Director, Ron Shoesmith, who is currently taking steps to deposit the material with English Heritage.

A summary list of archives relating to the castle is included as Appendix 2.

Ecological assets8.1.4 The ecology report commissioned as part of this

Conservation Plan identified a number of significant conservation features.

The unimproved, species rich grassland habitat on the ramparts, together with associated invertebrates including ant hills, is considered to be of local and national significance, as this type of habitat is declining nationally.

Although repair works to the Castle structures have sealed off crevices suitable for roosting and nesting animals, the mature trees around the site have bat roost and bird nest potential, and the stone boundary and other walls have the potential to be used by small mammals and amphibians.

There is further potential within the site to enhance its ecological value.

Shropshire Museum Service holds only one archive relating to Clun Castle – a moss sample collected in 1864 is stored in their Botanical Specimens Collection.

Historical value8.2

Associative8.2.1 The castle has strong associative links to the Marcher Lords and the disputed territory of the Welsh Marches. On the front line of the battle

Illus 22Clun Castle and The Pleasance (1950)

Reproduced courtesy of Cambridge University Collection of Aerial Photography, Ref: RAF/A/213



19

Illus 23–25Elevation drawings of the Great Tower interior. City of Hereford Archaeology Unit, 1990

corbels

flue

roof string fragmentroof line

base of Watch Tower

Second Floor Level

Second Floor

First Floor

Ground Floor

CLUN CASTLE:NORTH INTERNAL ELEVATION

CLUN CASTLE:WEST INTERNAL ELEVATION (II)

corbels

corbels

flue

Wall Plate Level

CLUN CASTLE:EAST INTERNAL ELEVATION

Second Floor

First Floor

Ground Floor

20

between the kingdoms of England and Wales, the castle evokes the friction of an important period of English, Welsh and British history.

Many of the key historical figures associated with the castle are associated with the establishment of borders between the two nations. Three English Kings are known to have stayed at the castle. Henry III in 1233 installed his own garrison in the castle, which subsequently repulsed a Welsh attack during which the town was burnt. Edward I and Edward III both stayed at the castle, but certainly in the case of Edward III the purpose was to hunt rather than fight.

Believed to have been established by Picot de Say, one of the chief vassals of Roger de Montgomery, the castle has since 1155 belonged to the Fitzalans and their descendants the Howard family. After selling the estate in 1677 the Howards brought the property back into their ownership in 1894 when the then Duke of Norfolk bought the castle. The association between the castle and the Fitzalan-Howard family is therefore great and amounts to over 600 years of ownership.

Although the castle no longer functions as a defensive building, the cessation of its original purpose does not diminish its historical value. The fact that it has not been turned to an alternative use, gives it value as a monument to past conflict and a very different social structure to the present day.

Illustrative8.2.2 Clun Castle clearly illustrates the intention of its creators. The structure dominates the town of Clun (which was planned at the same time) and reflects the power of the baron over his subjects. The presence of strong fortifications along the constantly changing Welsh/English border territory testifies to the unsettled nature of these territories. The castle reflects power over subjects but also presence and might in the face of incursions from over the border.

The fact that the later 13th century keep at Clun is reminiscent of a Norman structure testifies to the struggle for power in the territory of

the Marcher Lords that began in the pre-conquest period and persisted into the 15th and 16th centuries. The structure is clearly built for defence and commands the surrounding territory with far reaching views.

A number of distinctive features increase the illustrative value of Clun Castle. Although not unique, the presence of two baileys is not typical for a marcher castle. The positioning of the keep, cut into the side of the motte is also atypical. Perhaps the greatest attribute of Clun Castle though is the Pleasance, a rare example of late medieval gardens.

Aesthetic value8.3 The purpose of a castle by its very nature is to achieve prominence both visually and politically. Clun Castle is designed to be imposing. The design is reminiscent of Norman architecture, which carries with it a message of permanence and dominance. The fact that much of the town below was planned at the same time as the castle illustrates that the castle was designed to be on top both spatially and politically. Viewed from below it is awe inspiring; looking out from its ramparts it feels impregnable. Clun Castle is instantly recognisable as a medieval castle, its design and layout greatly adding to its heritage value.

The ravages of time have had fortuitous consequences on the aesthetic appeal of Clun Castle. The ruinous nature of the site has created an atmosphere of faded grandeur that has appealed to artists and visitors alike. The fading of the political value of the site has increased its heritage value.

Communal value8.4

Commemorative and symbolic8.4.1 Clun Castle stands as a symbol of the liminal nature of the border region and the struggles that have occurred in the past. Due to the passage of time since the cessation of hostilities in the border region, the symbolic value of the castle is no longer particularly high.

Date Subject Medium Artist

1741 The North West view of Clun Castle, in the County of Salop Copper engraving Samuel & Nathaniel Buck

1784 Clun Castle Watercolour Thomas Dukes

1791–1823 Clun Castle Watercolour Rev. Edward Williams

1792 Clun Castle and the North West view of Clun Castle in the County of Salop Steel engraving of drawing David Parkes

1824 Clun Castle Etching William Pearson

1860 Clun Castle Sketch Mrs Stackhouse, Acton

19th C Clun Castle Watercolours and prints Unknown

Late 19th C Clun Castle (Duke of Norfolk) Lithograph Unknown

c.1900 View of Clun from south-west. Drawing Harmsworth, J

c.1900 Clun Castle Drawing Roberts, K M

Table 2Artistic impressions of the castle



21

Social8.4.2 The castle is a source of identity to the people of Clun. The Chairman of the Parish Council believes that the castle is central to the community. Local events such as the Green Man Festival in early May, and Clun Carnival in August utilise the castle grounds and are important to tourism in the town. During the summer months bus loads of up to fifty people arrive at the castle car park, walk the grounds and spend money in the local shops and businesses.

A small independently run museum operates in the town. The Curator is keen to work alongside English Heritage to promote the castle and has created a dedicated display within the museum.

The fact that the castle is a free site increases its social value. Local residents walk in the grounds, picnic and use the castle as a meeting place. The castle has a very high social value.

assessMent of VuLnerabiLitY anD 9. ConserVation neeDs

Major consolidation of the standing masonry was carried out in 1991–1992 and a formal certificate of completion was issued on 16 April 1993. Periodic Condition Surveys are conducted every four years. The most recent survey in 2009 identified a number of conservation issues affecting Clun Castle.

Summary of works to date9.1 A full list of survey and maintenance documents is included as Appendix 1.

A high level survey carried out in 2005 identified that the wall tops of both the keep and curtain wall towers were in a very poor state. The wall capping had broken down almost completely and in many areas the mortar had washed away to reveal stainless steel stitching rods and damp proof membrane. Possible reasons for the failure of the wall capping were that the French binder used was either too weak for the conditions which it was exposed to, or that it failed to set properly, perhaps due to frost damage.

A Periodic Condition Survey was carried out in 2006. The overall condition of the monument was considered fair. However, the nature of the friable stone is such that it is impossible to prevent natural deterioration. The only significant area of fabric deterioration was to the wall tops.

In 2009 a further Condition Survey was undertaken. In the three years since the previous survey a number of works had taken place. The most significant of these works included the reconsolidation of the keep wall tops and interior wall surfaces, and the reconsolidation of both the stone bastions and isolated section of curtain wall.

Further defects to the keep were identified at this time. Deterioration to the stonework had exposed the core work in places, one of the upper arches to the keep was structurally unstable, and potentially damaging vegetation was growing out of the keep stonework.

Illus 26Repair of the wall tops (1992)

22

A roped access stonework condition survey was conducted on the internal elevations of the keep in February 2010. The survey revealed that the wall capping was new and in good order but this had led the pointing directly below it to suffer as it was now taking all the runoff from the wall tops. The pointing of the structure was in generally poor condition. The mortar used during the 1991–92 consolidation works had set firm on the surface and was seemingly sound, but further probing revealed the mortar in the joints to be mainly sand. The report recommended the use of mortar containing a high proportion of porous aggregate in future works.

Paul Daniels of Treasure and Son confirmed that the repair works on the standing structures had been completed in the winter of 2010, and that no further major works were needed at present. Soft capping (turf) is now being used on the top of the structures. During a four year trial by English Heritage33 soft capping was found to provide a better thermal blanket than hard capping, reducing the risk of frost damage.

33 Lee et al. 2009

Current vulnerabilities9.2

Standing structures9.2.1 The masonry elements of Clun Castle are currently in a good state of repair. Regular monitoring of the condition of the structures is needed to make sure that defects are identified at the earliest opportunity.

Earthworks9.2.2 The most recent Periodic Condition Survey Report (2009) identified erosion as a significant threat to the site.

Desire-linesThe motte and ramparts at Clun Castle are subject to erosion caused by visitors walking along desire-lines rather than official routes. This activity is creating tracks in the monument which impact upon its aesthetic significance and could potentially affect the archaeological resource. The desire-lines are very steep in places and members of the public using them are exposed to a significant risk of falling.

River bank erosionWater erosion is also an issue. At the point where the River Clun passes closest to the western side of the Inner Bailey, the river bank is suffering from erosion which is leading to a narrowing of the (already narrow) path between the River and the Inner Bailey embankment. This has the potential to cause damage to the monument and also has the potential to be a health and safety risk.

EventsTwo major public events are held at the site each year. As part of the Clun Carnival a static display of classic cars is held on the Inner Bailey. Damage to the monument is minimal.

The north east entrance track provides a suitable surface for the vehicles to enter the monument and they remain stationary during the event.

More problematic is the use of the South Meadow for the Green Man festival. Although the field is not scheduled, vehicular access to the site is through the scheduled area. Entering the north east entrance, vehicles travel across the East Bailey and down an unmade track which cuts through the profile of the ditch and sloping sides of the South Bailey. The undulating, pot-holed nature of the track means that the potential for damage to the monument is high.

MaintenanceVery little grounds maintenance is undertaken at present. The grass in the South Meadow is cut once a year, just before the Green Man festival. A limited amount of weed control is undertaken immediately beneath the Great Tower, and invasive weeds are controlled when required. The trees on the site are inspected every fifteen months. A number of Alders have been coppiced along the river bank in the past three years and a number of dead trees have been felled.

Sheep have been used to graze the site in the past but there were issues with controlling their movement and they often strayed into

Illus 27Soft capping on the Great Tower

Reproduced courtesy of English Heritage



23

neighbouring fields. Any attempt to improve stock control with the use of fences or other barriers must be considered in relation to the impact this may have upon the aesthetic value of the monument. The presence of dog walkers within the site has been raised as a potential danger to livestock. Any restrictions imposed upon dog walkers on the monument may have a negative effect on the communal value of the site.

The PleasanceThe area of medieval gardens on the west bank of the River Clun does not fall within the English Heritage guardianship area. Although it forms part of the Scheduled Area it must be considered highly vulnerable. The area of visible earthworks is divided by a fence line. The earthworks are barely visible in the field to the north of this line as the field has been ploughed and much of the resource lost. In the field to the south the earthworks are clear but are vulnerable to damage from the livestock in the field and the erosive action of the River Clun.

Associated assets9.2.3 Archives generated from archaeological projects relating to the site appear to have become rather fragmented. Of the archive generated from work by the City of Hereford Archaeology Unit in the early 1990s, part of it is held by the NMR and further parts are held by Headland Archaeology and the former Director of the Unit Mr. Ron Shoesmith. There is the potential for archives relating to Clun Castle to be in the possession of Marches Archaeology. The company is no longer trading and its archives are now held by Cotswold Archaeology. The author contacted Mark Collard of Cotswold Archaeology but he was unable to find any material relating to the site.

assessMent of ManaGeMent neeDs10.

Marketing10.1 The castle is important to the identity of Clun. At present there is no active marketing of the site by English Heritage or Shropshire Tourism. English Heritage’s current marketing policy is to prioritise the promotion of sites that generate an income.

Chief Executive of Shropshire Tourism Simon McCloy identified a need for high quality images of the site involving people and activities taking place. This would aid promotion of the site on the Shropshire Tourism website. Local residents felt that a leaflet or small booklet explaining the history of Clun Castle would be of benefit in promoting the site.

Visitor information10.2 Signposting is generally considered to be poor at the site. The Periodic Condition Survey (2009) highlighted that after crossing the footbridge from the car park, there is no stoned footpath and no directional sign to indicate to visitors any route. This issue was also raised by a local resident during consultation. Undoubtedly, the lack of directional signs or clear footpaths is contributing to the creation of desire-lines. A set route around the monument needs to be established and signposted appropriately. The provision of stoned footpaths should be considered, but the negative impact of creating stoned paths (both aesthetically and evidentially) needs to be weighed against the potential success of directing people

away from desire-lines. This should be done in conjunction with a programme of repair and removal of existing desire-lines.

Working with the community10.3 Clun Castle plays an important role in the local community. It is a place for leisure and a symbol of the town itself. It is important that this relationship is maintained. Any changes in the management of the site should be sympathetic to local wishes. Use of the site for local events should be encouraged but not to the detriment of the monument itself.

Maintenance checks10.4 The condition of the site should be checked on a regular basis and any defects reported immediately. Repairs should be carried out promptly.

Illus 28a & 28bDesire-lines, February 2011

24

ConserVation anD ManaGeMent of 11. tHe site

Policies11.1

Evidential policies11.1.1 Policy E1 Assessing proposalsProposals affecting the heritage asset should take account of the significance and value of elements that they affect, and set these alongside the benefits of any such proposals.

Policy E2 Recording changeDetailed records will be made of any alterations or repairs to the structures forming the heritage asset or ground disturbances within it and a copy of these will be deposited with the National Monuments Record at Swindon.

Policy E3 Identifying decayEnglish Heritage should continue to ensure that defects surveys are undertaken, ideally on a four yearly cycle (the next in 2013). Less rigorous defect checks should be made on a six monthly cycle.

Policy E4 Identifying decay during high wear periodsAny inspection schedule should take into account the timing of community events. Inspections of the monument should be carried out in the aftermath of such events to check the asset for signs of decay.

Policy E5 Conserving the assetEnglish Heritage should consider drawing up a schedule of repairs and identify available resources for the implementation of these.

Policy E6 Protecting the assetProtective matting should be laid down along all vehicular routes within the scheduled area prior to vehicular movements.

Policy E7 Assessing the buried assetThat any work proposed to be undertaken on the standing fabric or within the grounds of the asset is preceded by an assessment or evaluation of the impact of such work on the values and significance of those elements affected.

Policy E8 Repairing the assetEnglish Heritage will consider the best approach to repairing damage to the asset caused by human erosion (desire-lines).

Policy E9 Managing river erosionAn assessment should be made of the level of damage caused to the monument by river erosion. A long term solution to the problem should be discussed in consultation with the Environment Agency and the Shropshire Hills AONB.

Policy E10 Managing The PleasanceEnglish Heritage to consider consultation with the appropriate landowner to discuss how the medieval gardens can be managed to reduce further deterioration of this asset.

Policy E11 Ecological enhancementEnglish Heritage should consider opportunities and methods for enhancing the biodiversity of the site.

Policy E12 Assessing the impact of ecological enhancementAny programme of enhancement of biodiversity will weigh up the value of the heritage asset and its future management against the perceived value of any such enhancement before implementing it.

Policy E13 Managing bats and birdsEncourage the presence of roosting and nesting animals in the mature trees around the site.

Policy E14 Enhancing understandingEnglish Heritage to consider further geophysical survey of both baileys to better understand the buried archaeological resource and inform the management of these areas.

Policy E15 Documenting lossAny work undertaken on the standing fabric or within the grounds of the asset is complimented by a scheme of recording and analysis where such work might result in the loss of historically significant information.

Policy E16 Protecting the recordAll archaeological archives relating to the site to be identified, reunited and stored at the National Monuments Record, Swindon.

Policy E17 Enhancing the recordWhere opportunities arise then research into elements of the archaeological and historic resource be encouraged; and as far as practical supported.

Historical policies11.1.2 Policy H1 Preserving unique historic featuresEnsure that those features that are unique to the site are conserved.

Policy H2 Identifying unknown historic connectionsIdentify new historic connections or unique features or associated artifacts.

Aesthetic policies11.1.3 Policy A1 Promoting understanding and appreciationThat English Heritage will endeavor to promote and develop as wide an understanding and appreciation of Clun Castle as possible.

Policy A2 Maintaining aesthetic value of siteAny proposals for alterations or new elements will be discussed with English Heritage, the Local Planning Authority and the local community.

Policy A3 Ensuring quality workmanshipOnly appropriately qualified and experienced contractors should undertake work on the heritage asset under proper supervision and instruction.

Policy A4 Ensuring quality materialsOnly materials capable of performing in an exposed setting should be considered appropriate for the maintenance and repair of the Castle.



25

Policy A5 Consideration of livestock grazingEnglish Heritage will consider reintroducing livestock to the site to keep grass levels under control. Appropriate stock control measures will be considered as well as appropriate signage.

Communal policies11.1.4 Policy C1 Developing awareness within English HeritageThat relevant departments within English Heritage are kept aware of the nature and potential of the site.

Policy C2 Adhering to relevant heritage legislationAll works undertaken on Clun Castle will be done so with due regard to legislation relating to planning, listed buildings and scheduled monuments. This will include recognition under any new designation that might arise from new Heritage legislation.

Policy C3 Adhering to relevant health and safety legislationHealth and Safety issues relating to the heritage asset will be monitored and prioritised where necessary in any maintenance schedules.

Policy C4 Maintaining community involvementEnglish Heritage will continue to support the local community’s use of the site for the Clun Carnival and Green Man Festival.

Policy C5 Encouraging public accessEnglish Heritage will actively seek to encourage public access to the site where this does not compromise current site operation or security.

Policy C6 Controlling public movementEnglish Heritage to look at ways to encourage people to stick to paths. Consideration of the laying of stoned paths around the site. Address the need for directional signage at the site.

Policy C7 Considering vehicular accessEnglish Heritage to consider alternatives to the current vehicular access to the South Meadow.

Policy C8 Enhancing educational useEnglish Heritage and the local museum will consider areas where they can pool resources for the use of the asset as an educational tool. This to include the production of site literature and potential for jointly run educational events.

Policy C9 Display and interpretationEnglish Heritage should review the siting and number of display panels as well as the adequacy of site interpretation literature available through the site and other Tourist Information centres. Future literature should accommodate the communal values of the site included in the plan above.

Policy C10 Controlling unauthorised accessBarrier fencing around the masonry structures of the site will be monitored on a regular basis and repaired when necessary.

suMMarY List of PoLiCies12.

Evidential12.1 Policy E1 – Assessing proposals•

Policy E2 – Recording change•

Policy E3 – Identifying decay•

Policy E4 – Identifying decay during high wear periods•

Policy E5 – Conserving the asset•

Policy E6 – Protecting the asset•

Policy E7 – Assessing the buried asset•

Policy E8 – Repairing the asset•

Policy E9 – Managing river erosion•

Policy E10 – Managing The Pleasance•

Policy E11 – Ecological enhancement•

Policy E12 – Assessing the impact of ecological enhancement•

Policy E13 – Managing bats and birds•

Policy E14 – Enhancing understanding•

Policy E15 – Documenting loss•

Policy E16 – Protecting the record•

Policy E17 – Enhancing the record•

Historical12.2 Policy H1 – Preserving unique historic features•

Policy H2 – Identifying unknown historic connections•

Aesthetic12.3 Policy A1 – Promoting understanding and appreciation•

Policy A2 – Maintaining aesthetic value of site•

Policy A3 – Ensuring quality workmanship•

Policy A4 – Ensuring quality materials•

Policy A5 – Consideration of livestock grazing•

Communal12.4 Policy C1 – Developing awareness within English Heritage•

Policy C2 – Adhering to relevant heritage legislation•

Policy C3 – Adhering to relevant health and safety legislation•

Policy C4 – Maintaining community involvement•

Policy C5 – Encouraging public access•

Policy C6 – Controlling public movement•

Policy C7 – Considering vehicular access•

Policy C8 – Enhancing educational use•

Policy C9 – Display and interpretation•

Policy C10 – Controlling unauthorised access•

26

reCoMMenDations13.

Conservation13.1 There is a significant need to ensure the continued and enhanced conservation of the monument, this being emphasised when weighing its heritage values against sensitivity to change. English Heritage must continue to play the lead role in this respect.

Assessment of areas of erosion13.2 English Heritage needs to assess the level of current and potential future damage caused to the monument by erosive forces. Current parts of the monument affected include those in contact with the River Clun, as well as internal sections where paths or tracks have been formed. It is suggested that any future mitigation measures may need to be designed through consultation with the local community, Natural England, Environment Agency and representatives of the Shropshire Hills AONB.

Consider ways in which the grassland can be 13.3 managedThe aims of any such management plan should be to improve bio-diversity, sustainability as well as the visual aspects of the site.

Managing the Pleasance13.4 The Pleasance is perhaps an important element related to the site. Close liaison should be developed with the landowner to assist in managing and conserving this part of the monument.

Improving access13.5 The communal value is a key aspect of the site and therefore any future land management practice needs to take into account of how the community wants to enjoy the monument. There needs to be consideration of orientation, circulation, disabled access and operational needs relating to occasional events within the site. There needs to be improved levels of communication between English Heritage and the local community, a two way process providing information relating to local events and seeking local opinion with respect to English Heritage’s proposed future activities on the site.

Improving publicity, presentation and 13.6 interpretationEnglish Heritage should identify, and when resources permit implement, opportunities to publicise the site more widely (perhaps in partnership with other organisations). Broader publicity will be difficult when the site is seen in isolation. Consideration might be made to leaflets, short guides, internet tours etc.

Improved understanding13.7 It is clear that one of the values of this site is its relatively undisturbed buried archaeological resource. This should be respected and a non-destructive means or documentary method of obtaining more information about the site to assist with public presentation as well as general site management be prioritised.

Centralisation of archives13.8 Archives relating to archaeological investigations on the site appear to have become fragmented. Every effort should be made to locate archives relating to the site and to bring them together in an ordered storage facility.

referenCes 14.

Anon (ed), various, Byegones.

Anderson, J C 1864 Shropshire: Its Early History & Antiquities.

Ann Scard, M 1990 The Building Stones of Shropshire.

Auden, A M 1908 ‘Clun and its Neighbourhood in the First Civil War’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, 3rd ser. VIII.

Bigglestone, P 2000 ‘The Civil War’ in Leonard, J, Preshous, D, Roberts, R, Smyth, J & Train, C (eds) The Gale of Life: Two Thousand Years in South-West Shropshire.

Blakeway, J B 1831 The Sheriffs of Shropshire.

Bowcock, E W 1923 Shropshire Placenames, Shrewsbury. pp75–76.

Bracher, T & Emmett, R 2000 Shropshire in the Civil War.

Bradley, A G 1901 Owen Glyndwr.

Clark-Maxwell, W G ‘The Advowson of Clun in the 12th and 13th Centuries’, Transactions Shropshire Archaeological Society 4th Series, I.

Clough, M (ed) 1969 Two Estate Surveys of the Earl of Arundel.

Curnow, P 1989 ‘The Tower House at Hopton Castle and its Affinities’, in Harper-Bill, C (ed) Studies in Medieval History Presented to R Allen Brown.

Davies, R R 1978 Lordship and Society in the March of Wales.

English Heritage, 2008 Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment.

Eyton, R W 1864 Antiquities of Shropshire Vol.II.

Eyton, R W 1860 The Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol XI.

Harper-Bill, C (ed) 1989 Studies in Medieval History Presented to R Allen Brown.

Hulbert, C 1837 The History and Description of the County of Salop.

Jones, H C 1932 A Border Fortress.

Kenyon, R L ‘The Borough Of Clun’, TSAS 4th series, VI.



27

Lee, Z, Viles, H A & Wood, C H (eds) 2009 Soft capping historic walls: A better way of conserving ruins?, English Heritage Research Project Report, p. 69.

Morriss, R K 1990 Clun Castle, Shropshire: An Outline History, (Hereford Archaeology Series 69).

Morriss, R K 1993 Clun Castle, Shropshire: An Interim Report, (HAS 176).

Morriss, R K 2006 Hopton Castle, Shropshire: An Architectural & Archaeological Analysis of the Tower (Mercian Heritage Series no.270).

Nightingale, J 1813 The Beauties of England & Wales, XIII, part I.

Parry, E 1850 Royal Visits and Progresses to Wales.

Rees, U 1983 Cartulary of Haughmond Abbey.

Rees, W (ed) 1975 Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales.

Remfry, P 1995 Hopton Castle, 1066–1305.

Remfry, P M 1996 Castles of Radnorshire.

Salter, M 1988 The Castles & Moated Mansions of Shropshire.

Sanders, I J 1960 English Baronies.

Saxbee, J 2000 ‘Anglo-Saxon Churches and Settlements’, in ‘The Civil War’ in Leonard, J, Preshous, D, Roberts, R, Smyth, J & Train, C (eds) The Gale of Life: Two Thousand Years in South-West Shropshire.

Spurgeon, C J 1987 ‘Mottes and castle-ringworks in Wales’, in Kenyon, J R & Avent, R (eds) Castles in Wales and the Marches.

Thorn, F & Thorn, C (eds) 1986 Domesday Book: Shropshire.

Toulmin Smith, L (ed) 1907 The Itinerary of John Leland.

Watkins-Pitchford, W (ed) 1949 The Shropshire Hearth-Tax Roll of 1672.

Williams, A & Martin, G H (eds) 2002 Domesday Book: A Complete Translation.

Wilson-North, W R 1989 ‘Formal Garden Earthworks at Moreton Corbet Castle, Shropshire’, in Bowden, M, Mackay, D & Topping, P (eds) From Caithness to Cornwall: Some Aspects of British Field Archaeology, Papers Presented to Norman V Quinnell.

List of ConsuLtees15.

Mark Badger

English Heritage – Area Manager

George Baugh

Shropshire Archaeological Society – Secretary

Heidi Briggs

English Heritage – Marketing

Brian Clarke

English Heritage – Landscape Manager

William du Croz

English Heritage – Estates Surveyor

Paul Daniels

Treasure & Son – Director

Bill Klemperer

English Heritage – Inspector of Ancient Monuments

Simon McCloy

Shropshire Tourism – Chief Executive

Colin Pendy

Clun Parish Council – Chairman

Heather Sebire

English Heritage – Property Curator (West Territory)

Kent Tomey

Clun Museum – Curator

Richard Zeizer

English Heritage – Technical Manager



29

Name The Motte

Identifier Area A, Feature A

History The motte makes use of the natural bank of high ground present in a meander of the River Clun. It is likely that the motte was created by Picot de Say in the late 11th century.

Description The motte is a steep-sided mound rising sharply on the west from the West Meadow and separated on the other three sides by deep artificial ditches from the two baileys and the Northern Rampart.

On the motte are the surviving standing buildings of the castle – the Great Tower, the Perimeter Wall & Bastions, and the South-Eastern Fragment – as well as other minor visible sections of masonry and possible earthworks associated with other structures.

Significance Nationally important

Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument. Part of setting of Grade I Listed Building

Management issues Visitors walking directly up the motte have created desire-lines in the surface. Steep sides make cutting grass difficult. Option of sheep grazing to be considered.

Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9, C10

Sources Periodic Condition Survey 2009

Gazetteer16.

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

The Motte from the east

A

30

Name The Mound

Identifier Area A, Feature A1

History Date unknown. It may have been built as part of the very earliest castle on the site and been topped by a timber tower or keep.

Description The Mound is a small and roughly circular earthwork towards the south-eastern corner of the main Motte top that rises higher than the rest and appears to have been deliberately constructed or scarped to provide an even higher position on the top of the earthworks.



Management issues Erosion



E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

The Mound from the south-west

A1



31

Name Great Tower


History Despite its Norman appearance, a deliberate architectural anachronism, it was evidently built for high status accommodation at a later date, probably at the end of the 13th century.

Description The Great Tower, often referred to as the Keep, is the dominant feature of Clun Castle.

The tower is built of lightly worked and reasonably well coursed local siltstone, except for decorative features, such as rear-arches and string courses, which are of a softer, greeny-yellow sandstone, also assumed to have been quarried in the local area.


Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument. Grade I Listed Building

Management issues Continuous monitoring of the fabric necessary.

Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E11, E12, E15, E17, H1, A1, A2, A3, A4, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9, C10

Sources High Level Report 2005

Periodic Condition Survey 2009

Specification and Schedule for wall repair works 2009

Roped Access Stonework Condition Report 2010

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

Great Tower from the south-west

A2

32

Name Perimeter Wall & Bastions


History Immediately to the south-west of the keep is a surviving section of perimeter wall and two half-round and solid towers, or bastions. Unfortunately, not enough of the masonry survives at the northern end to suggest how it related to the Great Tower and its stair turret.

The limited dating evidence would indicate a late-13th to early-14th century date.

Description The perimeter wall is 1.4m/4ft 6ins wide. Bastions and wall were built of the same local rubblestone as the Great Tower, but the rubble is more roughly coursed. The south bastion rises from a stepped plinth footing and the walling in between has a low battered plinth.






E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

Bastions and curtain from the east

A3



33

Name South-East Fragment


History This was part of a masonry structure close to the highest part of the motte but it is impossible to properly assess on the limited available evidence. It is possible that it was part of a tower or simply another stone range, but dating is impossible at present.

Description The South-Eastern fragment is a remnant of a masonry structure built onto the south side of the Mound (A1), the raised portion at the south-east corner of the motte top. It is an amorphous section of straight masonry built into the side of a broken slope.

The ‘lump’ is built of the same rubblestone as the rest of the surviving buildings, but the stone is randomly coursed and apparently not particularly well built. The very limited evidence suggests that the south side was an inside wall, and there is a tenuous suggestion of a shallow chase some 0.5m/1ft 8ins high and 3.8m/12ft 6ins from ground level that could be associated with a former floor level.






E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South-East Fragment from the south

A4

34

Name North-Eastern Fragments


History Remains of a potential perimeter wall encircling the motte.

Description There are the remnants of the footings of a perimeter wall close to the top of the Motte in its north-eastern quadrant. A section of this butts against the south-eastern corner of the Great Tower and a little to the east are other sections of thinly coursed rubblestone set into what appears to have been a footings terrace a little below the summit.

Significance Important to the understanding of the castle’s form, particularly if more wall is revealed.


Management issues None


Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

North east fragments

A5



35

Name Possible Gateway


History Unknown

Description Deep depressions in the earthworks on the south side of the motte top possibly relate to the position of a gateway guarding the main drawbridge access into the motte from the South, or Inner, Bailey (B)..

Significance Important to the understanding of the castle’s form. Potentially buried remains of great importance.



Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E8, E11, E12, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9,

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

Possible Gateway

A6

36

Name South (Inner) Bailey

Identifier Area B, Feature B

History The larger and higher bailey of the castle is to the south of the Motte and may have been, in effect, the Inner Bailey.

Description Roughly pear shaped in plan, with a rounded ‘base’ on the east side and a tapering point to the west; the top of the bailey is approximately 80m/262ft long and, at its maximum, 40m/131ft wide.

Significance High potential for buried structural remains within Bailey.


Management issues Grass cutting

Use of the Bailey for community events. Cars parking on Bailey

During events at the South Meadow (G), spectators use the slope of the South Bailey for sitting on and sliding down. This has the potential to cause erosion..

Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E11, E12, E14, E15, E17, H1, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South Bailey from the Motte

B



37

Name South Bailey Rampart

Identifier Area B, Feature B1

History On the top of the Bailey there is a well preserved section of earthen rampart along the eastern edge, with traces of this returning along the southern flank and, much less obviously, along the northern flank as well.

Description This was presumably the base of a timber palisade; there is no evidence of it being a masonry structure associated with a perimeter wall, but without proper archaeological excavation this hypothesis cannot be ruled out. However, there is no evidence of masonry ‘tumble’ on the slopes..

Significance Important in understanding the defensive role of the castle.


Management issues Grass cutting


Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South or Inner Bailey, East Rampart from the south-west

B1

38

Name South Bailey Terrace


History Towards the base of the south slope of the South Bailey is a berm or terrace approximately 4m/13ft wide; this probably represents the change between the base of the natural slope and the steeper artificial slope above.

Description It could also have been used as a defensive terrace and possibly defended on the outward side. It continues round to the north-west to almost meet the junction between the Bailey and the Motte; to the east, it also continued but is cut by the access path.

Significance Potentially important for understanding how the Bailey was originally constructed.


Management issues During events at the South Meadow (G), spectators use the slope of the South Bailey for sitting on and sliding down. This has the potential to cause erosion.


Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South Bailey terrace, looking west, Access track (B3) in foreground

B2



39

Name South Bailey Access Path


History At the south-eastern corner of the South Bailey the slopes have been been complicated by the creation of sunk holloways for vehicular access which cut through the profile of the ditch and the sloping sides.

Description One of these, rising north-eastwards from the South Meadow, has been upgraded and is in use to provide access to activities on the meadow; it is accessed by the entrance at the north-eastern corner of the castle, close to the East Bailey.

A smaller ‘desire-line’ leads off it down the slope in a south-easterly direction and is used by pedestrians either from the meadow or from a narrow footpath to the east. It is impossible to assess the dates of these features.

Significance Significant only in terms of negative impact upon monument

Designation Part of Scheduled Ancient Monument. Part of setting of Grade I Listed Building

Management issues During wet weather this track can be churned up causing damage to the monument.


Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South Bailey, South Access track from the north-east

B3

40

Name East Bailey

Identifier Area C, Feature C

History It is known that there were buildings in this bailey but there are no surface remains of them; the buried archaeological potential is likely to be high.

Description The East Bailey lies in the angle between the north side of the South Bailey (B) and the east side of the Motte (A). It is roughly rectangular in plan, approximately 42m/138ft long (west-east) and 40m/131ft wide; the present upper surface of the bailey is a little lower than that of the South Bailey.

It is separated from the Motte and South Bailey by formerly deep ditches; however, the ditch between it and the South Bailey is now a relatively shallow slope. Some of this is due to post-medieval alteration but the full extent of this has yet to be tested or assessed archaeologically.

Significance High potential for buried structural remains within Bailey.


Management issues To access the South Meadow vehicles must drive across the southern part of the Bailey, potentially causing damage.

Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E11, E12, E14, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

East Bailey from the Motte.

C



41

Name The Bowling Green

Identifier Area C, Feature C1

History The nature of the surface means that there are no indications of earlier structures, even though it is known that a 16th century court house stood in this area until the end of the 18th century.

Description The top of the East Bailey is used as a bowling green and is, as a result, very flat and laid to well-cut grass. It is surrounded by a simple palisade fence and at the eastern side is a small timber pavilion.

Significance The Bowling Green itself is not particularly important. However, there is a high potential for buried remains of high significance in this area.



Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E14, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, C2, C3, C5,

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

East Bailey and the Bowling Green

C1

42

Name East Bailey East Wall


History Post-medieval

Description At the north-eastern corner of the East Bailey is a low section of rubblestone walling that is partly a boundary wall and partly a low revetment to the base of the bailey slope. It forms the west wall of the access track leading to the fields, and the former Walk Mill pond (E) to the north. The wall was presumably built at the base of the original ditch but is now just outside the castle boundary. .

Significance Significant in understanding the post-medieval use of the site.



Policies E1, E2, E7, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, C2, C3

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

East Bailey north-east revetment wall, looking north-west

C2



43

Name East Bailey Path


History The path is assumed to be of fairly modern date.

Description A path from just inside the north-eastern entrance into the castle runs around the north-eastern corner of the bailey and has been cut into the base of the slope. It could be associated with the low revetment wall (C2) just outside the castle boundary which, in the north-east section, is almost parallel to it.

The path continues in the ditch between the East Bailey and the North Work (D) to a former works area to the south-east of the Great Tower (A2) on the Motte.

Significance Not enough information is available to assess the significance of this feature.



Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E11, E12, E13, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

East Bailey Path looking west.

C3

44

Name North Work

Identifier Area D, Feature D

History The North Work is a little understood and fairly thin area of higher ground separated from the Motte by a ditch. It is presently overgrown and there are several post-medieval ‘desire-line’ paths forming miniature holloways, making assessment difficult.

Description The feature appears to be part of the natural terrain which has been landscaped as part of the castle’s defences. It could have overlooked the large area to the north, now outside the boundaries of the castle and possibly once a large pond.

It is fairly irregular in height but seems to have continued eastwards beyond the Motte, possibly as far as the north-eastern corner of the site. It is thus approximately 80m/262ft long, up to 8m/26ft wide and up to 3.6m/12ft high in places, but it also appears to continue to the west of the Motte. It can be divided into three connected sections which may have had three separate, albeit associated, functions

Significance A greater understanding of this feature is needed to assess its significance



Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E8, E11, E12, E13, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

North Work, looking west.

D



45

Name North Work (East)

Identifier Area D, Feature D1

History The combination of water feature and embankment could be of historical significance, bearing in mind the nature of the defences of castles such as Kenilworth and Caerphilly, but little is known about the archaeology of this area.

Description The eastern section of the North Work forms an embankment between the East Bailey and the Walk Mill Pond. It appears to be partly artificial and partly scarped from the natural and could have formed a good defensive boundary at this side of the castle. However, it may also have been associated with the mill pond, forming part of a raised rampart dam on its south side.





Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

North Work (East), looking west

D1

46

Name North Work (Central)


History The central section of the North Work may also be associated with the creation of the adjacent mill pool but may also have served as a defensive platform immediately to the north of the Great Tower on the Motte.

Description There is some evidence of a deliberately levelled top to this part of the embankment, suitable for a structure of some kind or at least a defensive position.





Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

North Work (Centre), looking north-west

D2



47

Name North Work (West)


History The regularity of this feature, and the indication of a possible fording or bridging point across the river directly opposite the Pleasance (L) could suggest that this was associated with a postern gate in the outer defences of the castle.

Description The tapering western section of the North Work merges with the artificially-scarped north-western slope of the Motte and is heavily overgrown on its western slope, making assessment difficult.

It does incorporate a well-established holloway of some antiquity that follows the line at the foot of the merging slopes, descending in a south-westernly direction towards the West Meadow (F).





Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun North Work (West), looking north-east

D3

48

Name Walk Mill Pond

Identifier Area E, Feature E

History The North Work (D) seems to be associated, in part, with a very large enclosure now mainly outside the boundaries of the castle site but within the area of the scheduled ancient monument. This is edged on the other three sides by what may be a partly landscaped area of high ground, but closer study has yet to be made.

DescriptionThe main part of this area, roughly triangular in plan, between these banks of higher ground is much lower. Overall, this area is about 60m/197ft long (north-south) and the same across on its widest, southern, side.

On a not particularly reliable mid-19th century plan it is labelled ‘The Pool’ – and such a purpose seems totally plausible. On the tithe map of the 1840s it is labelled as ‘Site of Walk Mill’, and a walk mill in this vicinity, together with the Nether Pool, is mentioned in deeds of the 1670s and 80s. Such a pool would have been fed by a leat off the Clun and such a feature is shown on early mapping.

A walk mill was a water-powered fulling mill used to process woollen cloth. To the north east was a larger artificial pool which served as a fish pond and powered mills at the eastern end of it; it was accidentally drained in the mid-20th century. This could well have been the ‘Upper Pool’ and have been associated with the lost pool north of the castle.

As well as powering the lost fulling mill, the pool by the castle could have been ornamental and a fish pond for food supply, but it would also have had a secondary benefit of providing a line of defence on this side of the castle.




Policies E1, E2, E3, E5, E7, E11, E12, E13, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, C2, C3, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

Walk Mill Pool from the south

E



49

Name West Meadow

Identifier Area F, Feature F

History The West Meadow occupies the area between the western flank of the Motte (A) and the river. It is a triangular piece of ground with narrow approaches at either end and is largely grassed over.

Description At the south-eastern end there is access down a well-established but unmetalled holloway formed in the ditch between the Motte and the South Bailey (B), the nature and antiquity of which is unclear.

Another holloway rises at the north-eastern end of the area and rises to the ditch base between the Motte and the North Work (see D3). Further ‘desire-line’ paths have also been established which confuse the historical topography.

On the opposite bank of the river is the medieval pleasance (L); the river is shallow at this point but in the medieval period there may have been a bridge or stepping stones across it to provide access from the castle to the pleasance. There was a small footbridge of unknown date just downstream of the pleasance until the mid-20th century of which no traces survive.

Significance The area may contain buried information regarding access from the castle to the pleasance.


Management issues Erosion of riverbank

Policies E1, E2, E3, E5, E7, E9, E11, E12, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9


E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

West Meadow from the Motte

F

50

Name South Meadow

Identifier Area G, Feature G

History The South Meadow is a large flat area between the base of the southern slope of the South Bailey (B) and the river; it is roughly rectangular in plan and laid to grass. This area is used for local events such as the annual Green Man Festival in May.

Description It is not included in the scheduled area, presumably because it was considered that there would be no significant archaeological deposits in such a low-lying and defensively weak area outside the main castle defences.

It is linked to the West Meadow (F) by a narrow riverside path that runs at the foot of the western tip of the South Bailey, and to the main car park on the opposite side of the river to the east by a modern footbridge.

There is also temporary vehicular access by way of a track (B3) running in a holloway cut into the south-eastern slope of the South Bailey and leading to the main castle entrance at the east end of the East Bailey (C).

Significance Low significance

Designation Part of setting of Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade I Listed Building

Management issues Local events and festivals are held on this site.

Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South Meadow from the east

G



51

Name Access Bridge

Identifier Area G, Feature G1

History Constructed at the end of the 20th century

Description A modern timber pedestrian bridge was built by English Heritage to provide access to the castle grounds from a car park just upstream of Clun’s medieval bridge.

Significance Provides access to site

Designation Part of setting of Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade I Listed Building

Management issues Requires regular maintenance.

Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E9, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, C2, C3, C5, C6, C7, C9


E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

Access Bridge

G1

52

Name South Access Path

Identifier Area H, Feature H

History Terraceway of unknown date

Description There is a pedestrian access path to the castle from Buffalo Lane to the east. This passes the backs of gardens between the lane and the gateway into the castle, which is situated at the south-eastern extremity of the South Bailey.

Significance Unknown. Original access path to the castle or modern creation?

Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument and part of setting of Grade I Listed Building



Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South Access path from the west

H



53

Name South East Counter Slope

Identifier Area I, Feature I

History Unknown

Description From the base of the south-eastern slope of the South Bailey (B) there is a counter slope to the east still within the present boundary of the castle. This rises up to the backs of the gardens of private houses outside the scheduled area; these were not examined and the precise medieval parameters of the castle in this area are unclear.

At the foot of the two slopes is the vehicular access track linking the North-East Entrance (J) and the South Meadow (G)..

Significance Low. This is likely to have been created for access to private houses.

Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument and part of setting of Grade I Listed Building


Policies E1, E2, E7, E17, C2, C3

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

South-east counter slope (right) from the south

I

54

Name North East Access Path

Identifier Area J, Feature J

History Until the creation of the new car park and access bridge at the south-eastern corner of the castle, the main entrance into it – and still the only one with vehicular access – was in the north-eastern corner of the site.

Description The relatively new wooden gate and stile are close to the east end of the East Bailey (C) and is reached by a track – also serving private properties on either side – from the main road to Bishop’s Castle.

Significance Low. Modern tarmac lane.

Designation Part of setting for Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade I Listed Building


Policies E1, E2, E6, E15, E17, A2, C2, C3, C5, C7

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

North-East Access Path, looking west

J



55

Name North Path

Identifier Area K, Feature K

History Unknown

Description There is a track, with a public right of way, running northwards from just outside the North-East entrance gateway towards the Walk Mill Pool (E). It is just outside the East Bailey (C) but probably within the medieval perimeter of the castle. On the west side is a low revetment wall associated with the adjacent bailey (C3).

Significance Low

Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument and part of setting for Grade I Listed Building


Policies E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E11, E12, E13, E15, E17, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C5, C6, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

North Path

K

56

Name The Pleasance

Identifier Area L, Feature L

History A medieval pleasance with water channels fed by the river and as such a very rare survival of a high status medieval garden, worthy of further study.

Description The Pleasance is not within the grounds of the castle and is, in fact, on the opposite, or west, bank of the River Clun. However, it is far too important a feature to exclude from any gazetteer or account of the castle and is included within the scheduled ancient monument.

It is a large rectangular feature bisected diagonally by a modern field boundary. On the south side the feature survives relatively intact; on the north side it has been damaged by ploughing.

Significance Nationally inportant.

Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument and part of setting for Grade I Listed Building

Management issues The Pleasance is not under the guardianship of English Heritage and therefore management requires liaison with the land owner.

Policies E1, E2, E3, E5, E7, E9, E10, E15, E17, H1, A1, A2, C1, C2, C3, C9

Sources None

E

F

B

G

DD3

A

H

I

C

K

D2

D1

C1

B3

B1

B2

A2

A5A3

A4A6

A1

C3

C2

G1

JL

0 50m

1:2,500 @ A4

photo direction

N

River Clun

The Pleasance from the Motte

L



57

aPPenDiCes17.

English Heritage internal documentsAppendix 1

Year Title Author Summary

2005 High Level Report Joe Picalli Revealed a general failure of the wall capping of the castle. The cause was believed to be the use of inappropriate binder in the mortar during earlier repair works.

2006 Periodic Condition Survey Report No. 1. Tolley, R J, Walker, S T & Duckham

The overall condition of the monument was fair as all structural defects were attended to during the major repair contract (1991–92). The only significant area of fabric deterioration was to the wall tops.

2006 Grounds Maintenance Specification. West Midlands Group.

English Heritage Details of grass maintenance, grass cutting standards, rubbish disposal, weed control, maintenance of trees etc

2009 Periodic Condition Survey, Clun Castle. Report: 168/2009

Donald Insall Associates Ltd.

The survey concluded that erosion caused by visitors and the river represented a significant threat to site. Preferred routes around the site should be surfaced in stone, and incorporate properly formed steps. Where appropriate, the riverbank should be lined with gabions.

2009 Specification and Schedule Works for Wall Repair Works at Clun Castle.

Weston Allison Wright Ltd

Specifies permitted tools, types of replacement material, pointing finish and mix proportions for mortar.

2010 Roped Access Stonework Condition Report on Clun Castle Keep Internal Elevations.

Conservation Solutions The wall capping was new and in good order. However the pointing directly below it had suffered because it was now taking all the runoff from the wall tops. As a general rule the condition of an elevation improved as it was descended and with distance from a corner.

Archives and sourcesAppendix 2

Location Reference Title Description Date

Shropshire Archives 5981/B/2/2 Reversionary lease of Clun Castle and other manorial property, Lord Lumley to John Knottesforde of Much Malborne [Great Malvern] co Worcester, esq

The castle site and chief house of the manor of Clunne and two mills in Clunne, in lease to Symon Mucklowe of Erdington, gent; two pools and a close nearby, adjoining the castle on the west side of the river, and Spade [Spoad] Meadow in Hudcote Kysett, in lease to William Gatager; demesne lands in lease to John Vauhgan and Moryce Vaughan.

18 Oct 1563

552/15/104 Memoranda as to the history and development of Clun Castle, and of the Mansion House of Shadwell

‘Clun Castle was built by Fitzalan a descendant of Alan, son of Harold the Norman afterwards Earl of Arundel.’ (Extract)

19th C

552/15/130–172 Papers re exchange of land at Clun Castle Including maps 1822–1899

552/30/109 Sale particulars - Clun Sale particular for the Freehold property, consisting of the Castle of Clun with the rich Pasture land adjoining called the Parks. Also the Castle Farm. The owner of the property is Philip Morris Matthews.

29 Oct 1850

552/30/160–162 Sale particulars - Clun Sale particular for Freehold property consisting of the ancient castle of Clun with the rich pasture land adjoining called the Parks, situated on the Banks of the River Clun; Castle Farm comprising the Farm house and buildings with land; also two Dwelling Houses and gardens in the town of Clun.

20 Oct 1850

PH/C/27/4 Clun Castle Photograph of the keep c.1900. c.1900

6001/297 Ancient earthworks of Shropshire Hill forts, castles etc surveyed and drawn by Edward Andrews 1906

6001/372/3 Watercolours of Shropshire churches, chapels etc by Rev. Edward Williams

Fo.28 Clun Castle 1791–1823

6001/3065 Watercolours and prints (290) Clun Castle. 19th C

6805/7 Vol VII: Bishop’s Castle, Church Stretton and Various [non-Shropshire]

Clun Castle, from a sketch by Lady Leighton, no date 1861–1900

SA-IMG402 Clun Note on Clun Castle (from Camden) 18th C

D3651/B/1/3/6 Particulars of Clun Castle estate for sale 29 Oct 1850, with plan

1850

PC/C/22/3 Clun/Castle File of photographs –

58

Location Reference Title Description Date

PR/1/127 Clun Castle Etching by William Pearson early 19th C

PR/1/128 Clun Castle and The North West view of Clun Castle, in the County of Salop

a) Steel engraving of drawing by David Parkes July 1792 Fig 2. p.18 from unknown publicationb) Anonymous steel engraving from unknown publication Vol VIII p.37.

1792

PR/1/129 Clun and Clun Castle a) View of Clun from S-W drawn by J. Harmsworth from unknown publication b) Clun Castle Drawn by K M R[oberts] from unknown publication

c.1900

PR/2/108 Clun Castle Etching by William Pearson. Published in Pearson’s A selection of antiquities in the County of Salop. 1824

1824

PR/2/109 Clun Castle (Duke of Norfolk) Lithograph late 19th C

PR/3/64 The North West view of Clun Castle, in the County of Salop

Copper engraving by Samuel & Nathaniel Buck 1731

6004 Lily Chitty collection See printed index –

4066 Deeds of The Hurst, Clun & Pentremant, Churchstoke & the Norris Farm

Includes material relating to castle yard and ditch. Printed list only. –

Shropshire Museum Service

B.02311 Botanical Specimens Collection Dried specimen of moss from Clun Castle 1864

NMR DSCF2014-2022 Clun Castle Seven early B&W photographs. Red Box Collection. –

DSCF2006-2013, ref: 12114–4

Clun Castle Four B&W aerial views taken by Country Life. 1947

BF081299 Clun Castle A building file containing three reports by the City of Hereford Archaeology Unit – HAS 69, 89 & 176

1990–1993

Plans Room Clun Castle Folder of 29 uncatalogued drawings. 1988–1996

Clun Castle – original drawings relating to work by CHAU during the 1990s

Approx 30 A3 drawings and 30 A0 drawings deposited with NMR on 15/04/11 by Headland Archaeology Ltd.

1990–1993

Aerial photographs

Clun Castle + 500m radius 154 oblique

17 vertical

–

Treasures & Sons Clun Castle Clun Castle Photographs and drawings generated from repair works to castle. 1990 – present day

Ron Shoesmith Clun Castle Partial archive relating to CHAU excavation & HBR 1990-1993

Correspondence file, Site notebook, Project proposals for a publication, Box of site drawings, Box of mortar samples.

1990–1993

Headland Archaeology

Clun Castle Partial archive relating to CHAU excavation & HBR 1990–1993

Inked elevation drawings of keep, inked plan of site showing 1993 monitoring trenches.

1990–1993

Clun Castle Drawings relating to publication project Artist impressions of life in Clun Castle c.1993


Midlands & West

Headland ArchaeologyUnit 1, Premier Business Park, Faraday RoadHereford HR4 9NZ01432 364 [email protected]

South & East

Headland ArchaeologyTechnology Centre, Stanbridge RoadLeighton Buzzard LU7 4QH01525 [email protected]

North East

Headland Archaeology13 Jane StreetEdinburgh EH6 5HE0131 467 [email protected]

North West

Headland Archaeology10 Payne StreetGlasgow G4 0LF0141 354 [email protected]

www.headlandarchaeology.com