Great Maytham Hall, Rolvenden

WA Heritage
Great Maytham Hall

Rolvenden, Kent
Landscape and Building Study
Ref: 67240 November 2007

WA Heritage
GREAT MAYTHAM HALL
ROLVENDEN, KENT
Prepared for
Sunley Group
20 Berkeley Square
London
W1J 5LH
by
Wessex Archaeology
Portway House
Old Sarum park
SALISBURY
Wiltshire
SP4 6EB
Report reference: 67240.01
November 2007
© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007 all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786
Great Maytham Hall, Kent
WA Heritage
GREAT MAYTHAM HALL
ROLVENDEN, KENT
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background.................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims, scope and structure of the study...................................................................1
1.3 Site location and landscape setting ........................................................................2
2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................2

2.1 Prehistoric period ....................................................................................................2
2.2 Romano-British period ............................................................................................3
2.3 Saxon and Medieval period (410AD-1499).............................................................3
2.4 Early post-medieval period (1500-1699).................................................................4
2.5 18th century ............................................................................................................5
2.6 19th century ............................................................................................................6
2.7 Late 19th-early 20th century ...................................................................................7
2.8 Mid 20th century......................................................................................................9
2.9 Mid to late 20th century...........................................................................................9
3 GAZETTEER OF COMPONENTS .........................................................11

3.1 List of building and landscape components identified on Figs. 1, 8 & 9: ..............11
3.2 A.1 Service yard....................................................................................................12
3.3 A.1.1 West ‘pavilion’..............................................................................................14
3.4 A.1.2 East Coach House.......................................................................................16
3.5 A.1.3 Central garages ...........................................................................................18
3.6 A.1.4 West Coach House......................................................................................19
3.7 A.1.5 South garages .............................................................................................21
3.8 A.1.6 North garages ..............................................................................................22
3.9 A.1.7 Lean-to shelter (north) .................................................................................22
3.10 A.1.8 Chimney.......................................................................................................23
3.11 A.2 KITCHEN GARDEN........................................................................................24
3.12 A.2.1 Walls and hedges ........................................................................................25
3.13 A.2.2 Glasshouses ................................................................................................28
3.14 A.2.3 Apple Store ..................................................................................................31
3.15 A.2.4 Lean-to brick and timber structure (Gardener’s shed).................................32
3.16 A.3 Woodland Fringe ............................................................................................33
3.17 B.1 Main House.....................................................................................................35
3.18 B.2 East ‘pavilion’..................................................................................................38
3.19 C.1 WALLED GARDEN ........................................................................................40
3.20 Walled garden - General .......................................................................................40
3.21 C1.1. Garden walls................................................................................................42
3.22 C1.2 Garden House ..............................................................................................43
3.23 C.2 Paved Garden Terrace ...................................................................................44
3.24 C.2.1 Brick Gazebo (Garden terrace) ...................................................................46
3.25 C.3 Terraced Lawns..............................................................................................47
3.26 C.4 Lower Garden.................................................................................................50
3.27 D.1 Driveways .......................................................................................................52
3.28 D.2 Gatehouse Stable Block.................................................................................54
3.29 D.3 Other estate buildings.....................................................................................56
3.30 D.4 Parkland overview ..........................................................................................57
4 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................59
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

i Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
Figure List
Figure 1 Site location and plan showing major components of the former estate
Figure 2 Andrews and Herbert 1769
Figure 3 Tithe 1842
Figure 4 25” OS edition, 1870
Figure 7 Lutyens’ design for the gardens at Great Maytham, c.1909
Figure 8 Current plan of the existing property identifying individual components
Figure 9 Plan of Western Service Area and gardens identifying individual

components
Plate List – sections 1 and 2
Plate 1 View of house c.1890
Plate list – Section 3

A.1 Service yard
A.1.p1 Bird’s eye view of Western Service Yard looking north-west
A.1.p2 View of rear elevation of service yard viewed from kitchen garden
A.1.1 West ‘pavilion’ (Bothy House)
A.1.1.p1 View of west ‘pavilion’ looking north-west
A.1.1.p2 View of west ‘pavilion’ in context of main house, looking east
A.1.1.p3 South-west facing elevation of west ‘pavilion’
A.1.1.p4 North-east facing elevation of west ‘pavilion’
A.1.1.p5 North-west facing elevation of west ‘pavilion’
A.1.1.p6 Paved area and steps between main house and west ‘pavilion’
A.1.1.p7 Roof form of west ‘pavilion’
A.1.2 East Coach House
A.1.2.p1 Front (north-east facing) elevation of East Coach House
A.1.2.p2 Bird’s eye view of East Coach House in context of service yard
A.1.2.p3 Interior of coach house doors showing supplementary steel structure
A.1.2.p4 Internal view of ground floor window in south-east elevation
A.1.2.p5 North-west elevation at first floor, viewed across garage roofs [A.1.3]
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

ii Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
A.1.2.p6 External view of first floor window
A.1.2.p7 Internal propping in east room at first floor
A.1.2.p8 Detail of internal joinery at first floor
A.1.3 Central garages
A.1.3.p1 Central garages looking south-west
A.1.3.p2 Rear wall of East Coach House and central garages, looking north
A.1.3.p3 Flat brick arch of former opening in parapet, looking north-east
A.1.4 West Coach House
A.1.4.p1 Front (north-east facing) elevation of West Coach House
A.1.4.p2 Brickwork of south-east wall of coach house showing change in build
A.1.4.p3 Detail of coach house doors
A.1.4.p4 Interior of room at first floor
A.1.5 South garages
A.1.5.p1 Front elevation of south garages, looking west
A.1.5.p2 Paint ‘shadows’ of former lean-to buildings
A.1.5.p3 Detail of repair following creation of garage openings
A.1.6 North garages
A.1.6.p1 Front elevation of garage block, looking north
A.1.6.p2 Rear wall of garage block, looking south
A.1.7 Lean-to shelter (north)
A.1.7.p1 Lean-to structure, looking south-east
A.1.8 Boiler chimney
A.1.8.p1 North-west end of Service Yard, showing chimney and steps down to
Woodland fringe
A.2 Kitchen Garden
A.2.p1 Overview of Kitchen and walled gardens. Looking South West.
A.2.1 Walls and hedges
A.2.1.p1 View along north-east wall of Kitchen Garden including rear of eastern
coach house. Looking east.
A.2.1.p2 View along south-western wall of Kitchen Garden showing footprint of
former structure in the foreground. Looking south-east.
A.2.1.p3 View along hedge which defines the north-western boundary of the
Kitchen Garden. Looking south-west.
A.2.2 Glasshouses
A.2.2.p1 View of extant glasshouses with Kitchen Garden. Looking north.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

iii Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
A.2.2.p2 View of former glasshouses within Kitchen Garden. Looking north-
east towards service area
A.2.3 Apple Store
A.2.3.p1 Apple Store within the Kitchen Garden. Looking west
A.2.4 Lean-to shelter/store (south)
A.2.4.p1 Lean-to shelter/store at eastern corner of Kitchen Garden. Looking
north-east
A.3 Woodland Fringe
A.3.p1 View along Woodland Fringe, looking north-east towards Service
Area
A.3.p2 View along Woodland Fringe, looking south
B.1 Main house
B.1.p1 Main house viewed from entrance drive
B.1.p2 Main house viewed from former east driveway, with East ‘pavilion’ to
fore
B.1.p3 Garden front of house, looking north-east
B.1.p4 Garden front with steps to paved terrace
B.2 East ‘pavilion’ (former laundry)
B.2.p1 North-east facing elevation of the East ‘pavilion’
B.2.p2 South-east facing elevation of the East ‘pavilion’
B.2.p3 Rear of East ‘pavilion’ showing bridge to paved garden terrace [C.2]
B.2.p4 Rear of East ‘pavilion’ at upper level
C.1 Walled Garden
C.1.p1 General view of interior of Walled Garden. Looking north-east towards
the main house.
C.1.p2 View through pergola running south-west to north-east across interior
of Walled Garden. Looking north-east.
C.1.1 Walls
C.1.1.p1 View along north-east wall of Walled Garden. Looking east.
C.1.1.p2 View of blocked up opening in north-west wall of Walled Garden.
Looking north-west from interior of garden.
C.1.1.p3 Western gate into the Walled Garden. Looking south-east.
C.1.1.p4 Niche containing ornamental statue within north-eastern wall of walled
garden. Looking north-east.
C.1.2 Garden House
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

iv Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
C.1.2.p1 Garden House at south-eastern corner of Walled Garden. Looking
south-east.
C.2 Paved Garden Terrace
C.2.p1 View along paved Garden Terrace running along south-western
façade of house. Looking north-west.
C.2.p1 Steps leading to western side of paved Garden Terrace. Looking
north-west towards Service Area
C.2.1 Brick Gazebo
C.2.1.p1 View of Brick Gazebo from paved Garden Terrace. Looking north-
east.
C.2.1.p2 View of Brick Gazebo accessed from paved Garden Terrace. Looking
south-east from Service Area.
C.3 Terraced Lawns
C.3.p1 View of Terraced Lawn. Looking north-east towards house.
C.3.p2 View from Terraced Lawn towards Service Area. Looking north.
C.3.p3 View of Terraced Lawn from Paved Garden Terrace. Looking south-
west.
C.4 Lower Garden
C.4.p1 View across Lower Garden towards Walled Garden and Service Area.
Looking north-east.
C.4.p2 Detail of south-eastern wall of Lower Garden showing Lutyens design.
Looking north-east.
D.2 Gatehouse Stable Block
D.2.p1 Gatehouse stable block viewed from the north-east
D.2.p2 Gatehouse stable block viewed from the main house
D.2.p3 North wing of stable block with The Barn [D.3] beyond
D.3 Other Estate buildings
D.3.p1 West Lodge
D.3.p2 East Lodge
D.3.p3 Water Tower
D.3.p4 The Barn
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

v Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
GREAT MAYTHAM HALL
ROLVENDEN, KENT
SUMMARY
WA Heritage, a specialist division of Wessex Archaeology, was commissioned by

Huw Owen Architects on behalf of Sunley Group to carry out a landscape and
building study of their property at Great Maytham Hall, Rolvenden, Kent (NGR TQ
84819 30620). The work was commissioned in order to provide a detailed
understanding of the chronological development of the property, and to assess the
relative significance of its component parts, in order to inform the preparation of
development proposals for selected areas of the site.
Great Maytham Hall lies between the settlements of Rolvenden and Rolvenden
Layne, some 4km to the south-west of the small market town of Tenterden, in the
gently undulating landscape of the eastern end of the Kentish Weald.
Great Maytham Hall, which results from the extensive remodelling and enlargement
of an 18th century house by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens in 1909-10, is a Grade II*
listed building, as is the contemporary gatehouse stable block at the entrance to the
property from Maytham Road. An estate has existed at Maytham since the Saxon
period, and a 44 hectare portion of this historic estate is listed Grade II on the EH
Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.
Following a period of disuse and decline in the mid 20th century, the property was
purchased by the Mutual Households Association (later the Country Houses
Association) who repaired, refurbished and converted the property into a number of
self-contained apartments. This work continues, with the conversion of ancillary
buildings to residential use, and the upgrading of the accommodation. The focus of
current proposals to upgrade the property and extend the accommodation is a former
service area to the south-west of the main house, which is currently occupied by
former coachhouses, garages and a former kitchen garden.
In view of these development aspirations, the focus of this study has been on the
area likely to be affected, which includes one of the surviving detached ‘pavilions’
which provided service functions to the original 18th century house. However, in order
to set this service area within its historical and functional context, and thereby to
understand its relative significance within the estate as a whole, the study has
included a brief assessment of the historic estate as a whole, with particular
emphasis of that portion of the estate which is retained in the same ownership as the
main house.
With the exception of the 18th century pavilion, which was originally the stable block
to the main house, the western service area, which is under particular consideration,
developed from the mid 19th century onwards. The existing service area and kitchen
garden to its south-west were originally part of the same functional area, which was
sub-divided into a number of discrete yards with associated buildings including
piggeries, a dairy, stores and glass houses. The kitchen garden as it survives today
was created as part of Lutyens’ extensive redevelopment of the estate in the first
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

vi Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
decade of the 20th century, though the linear service yard to its north-east, which now
includes three rows of garages, was not created until the property was sub-divided
into apartments in the 1960’s.
The property as a whole now derives greatest significance from the involvement in
the first decade of the 20th century of the prominent and prolific architect, Sir Edwin
Lutyens. He carried out a major redevelopment of the estate, including the
comprehensive remodelling, over-cladding and extension of the main residence; the
creation of a new formal approach to the house through an impressive new
gatehouse stable block, and he prepared ambitious designs for the landscaping of
the gardens, though these were only partially implemented.
In contrast to the comprehensive single phase of redevelopment to which the main

house was subject, the area under particular consideration in this study – that is, the
service area to the south-west of the main house – was never part of any
comprehensive ‘set-piece’ design, but developed incrementally. Always an area
accommodating the ancillary functions of the country estate - fruit and vegetable
production, animal rearing, stabling and coaching – the number and form of the
enclosures and structures of the area evolved as changing pragmatic function
dictated.
In terms of the relative significance within the property as a whole, this area is
considered to be of considerably lesser significance. The service yard retains only
one building relating to the 18th century occupation of the site, and this has been
radically altered to remove all trace of its original function. The present configuration
of the yard bears only scant comparison to the space which resulted from Lutyens’
interventions, and therefore derives little significance from association with the
illustrious architect.
The area and its buildings generally survive in poor condition, and fail to contribute
positively to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. It is therefore considered that
redevelopment of the service area has the potential to provide a positive benefit.
However, proposals for any redevelopment of the area must be observant of the
need to enhance the setting of the listed buildings, and must be appropriate to the
location of the area within that part of the historical estate included on the Register of
Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

vii Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
GREAT MAYTHAM HALL
ROLVENDEN, KENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project was commissioned by Huw Owen Architects on behalf of Sunley Group,
and the assistance of Simon Wright of Huw Owen Architects is gratefully
acknowledged. Wessex Archaeology would also like to thank the property manager,
Roger Watts, for his help during the site survey, and for the provision of documentary
material held at the house. The assistance of staff at the Centre for Kentish Studies
and the National Monument Record aerial photograph collection is also gratefully
acknowledged.
Documentary research, and the historical narrative were carried out by Katharine
Barber, who also carried out the assessment and reporting of the components of the
parkland and gardens. The assessment and reporting of the buildings and other
structures was carried out by Anne Upson, who also managed the project on behalf
of Wessex Archaeology. The photographic survey was carried out by Elaine
Wakefield and the illustrations prepared by Ken Lymer.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

viii Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
GREAT MAYTHAM HALL
ROLVENDEN, KENT
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
1.1.1 WA Heritage, a specialist division of Wessex Archaeology, was

commissioned to carry out a Landscape and Building Study of the Great
Maytham estate near Rolvenden, Kent.
1.1.2 At its peak, the historic estate extended to over 1300 acres, but the majority
of that land was sold off during the 1950’s and 1960’s. The core of the
estate, which includes the main house and gardens and a limited area of the
former parkland, now belongs to the Sunley Group.
1.1.3 The main house and a number of the ancillary buildings within the estate
core have been converted into privately owned apartments, and the majority
of remodelling, alterations and repair associated with this move towards
multiple occupancy have now been completed. Any future works to the main
house complex are now considered likely to be of an extremely minor
nature.
1.1.4 One area of the estate core which remains largely undeveloped is the
Western Service Area (Fig. 1 – A), which lies immediately to the north-west
of the main house. As this is the area of the site which has greatest potential
for future alteration or redevelopment, the present study has focussed its
attention more closely on the buildings and landscape features of this area,
set within a less detailed appraisal of their wider context.
1.1.5 For the purposes of this appraisal, the study area has been based on the
extent of the former estate included within the designated boundary of the
Registered Park (Fig. 1).
1.2 Aims, scope and structure of the study
1.2.1 The purpose of the study is to provide, in a single document, an

understanding of the historical development of the Great Maytham estate
from prehistoric times through to the present day.
1.2.2 As noted in 1.1.4 above, the level of detail of the appraisal of different parts
of the study area will vary according to their potential to be the subject of
future alteration or development. The purpose of the more detailed appraisal
of selected areas of the site is in order to provide a baseline of
understanding, both to inform the preparation of development proposals,
and against which the appropriateness of future development proposals can
be judged within the planning and listed building application process.
1.2.3 The study area (see 1.1.5 above) has been sub-divided into a number of
major components, which are:
A. Western service area
B. Main house
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

1 Landscape and Building Study
WA Heritage
C. Gardens
D. Historic Estate
1.2.4 These have, where appropriate, been sub-divided into their individual minor
components, where it is considered appropriate to discuss individual
structures or garden features in detail.
1.2.5 As works to the main house are largely complete, the main house has been
treated as a single component. By contrast, each individual structure
comprising the western service yard has been assessed in detail, with a
view to identifying their date of construction and the function for which they
were originally created; providing a relatively detailed description; assessing
the quality of their survival, or integrity; and assessing their relative
significance within both their local and wider context.
1.3 Site location and landscape setting
1.3.1 Great Maytham Hall lies between the settlements of Rolvenden to the north
and Rolvenden Layne to the south, east of the Ashford to Hastings road
(A28).
1.3.2 The Registered Park and Garden comprises forty-four hectares of
landscaped gardens and parkland incorporating woodland. Three hectares
of the inner estate are laid out as formal and ornamental gardens set within
the parkland setting. The estate is sited at the eastern extremity of the
Kentish Weald in a gently undulating landscape characterised by small fields
enclosed by hedgerows interspersed with pockets of woodland.
1.3.3 The house itself is located on level ground on the crest of a natural ridge.
From the south-west front of the house, the land falls away to the south-west
and south-east affording extensive views across the Weald. The garden
terrace and lawns to the south-west of the property manipulate the natural
land form to take advantage of these views.
1.3.4 The land continues to rise to the north-west of the house towards the former
boating lake, and beyond towards the Hastings Road. Here individual
dispersed mature trees define the parkland setting.
2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Prehistoric period
2.1.1 Sparse evidence for prehistoric activity in the Rolvenden locality is

documented to date. The topography of a location can however be a
determining factor in the archaeological potential of a site. Great Maytham
Hall is sited close to the former salt water estuary of the River Rother and
north of the northern extent of present day Romney Marsh, which was not
drained until the late 17th century. Prior to this date, the area was located in
a maritime setting with trade, transport and subsistence influenced by this
proximity to water.
2.1.2 Waterways historically served as routeways, territorial and defensive
boundaries and ritual sites. In addition estuaries and flood plains may
contain archaeological features such as fording and bridging sites and
evidence for waterside industry including mill sites, tool production and
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
subsistence activity. Furthermore, there is an increased potential for the
recovery of individual finds within proximity to a riverine environment,
including those discarded by accident and those deposited by design, for
example as votive offerings.
2.1.3 The Sites and Monuments Record does not reference any confirmed
evidence of Prehistoric activity within 2km of Great Maytham Hall. Indeed, a
scarcity of evidence across the Kent and Sussex Wealds dating from this
period suggests that widespread occupation of these forested areas was not
undertaken by Prehistoric peoples. Generally speaking, the archaeological
record reflects that the higher ground defined by the North Downs to the
north of the county was preferred for settlement.
2.2 Romano-British period
2.2.1 During the Romano-British era, the heavily wooded Weald was known by
the name of ‘Anderida’ (Bowen 1939,1). During this period, settlement was
again focused away from the forested areas with primary occupation being
established at strategic points along the east coast to best exploit trade and
communication routes with the Continent.
2.2.2 No military Roman roads of importance crossed the Weald although traces
of minor roads possibly used for local trade are noted. Evidence for a road
crossing the River Rother from Maidstone to the north-west is suggested in
the vicinity of Bodiam (Bowen 1939, 2) and a road from Goudhurst towards
the principal port at Lympne runs along the northern boundary of Rolvenden
parish (Bowen 1939,1).
2.2.3 The salt marshes to the south of Maytham were impassable and formed a
barrier between the Romanised ports in east Kent and those prosperous
settlements to the west of Kent along the south coast (eg, Chichester).
Much trade between these settlement nuclei was undertaken by the sea
resulting in the isolation of this part of Kent.
2.2.4 It has been suggested by Bowen (1939, 2) that a Bloomery (iron working
site) at Upper Farm, Rolvenden Lane has a Romano-British origin. The field
name ‘Cinderbank’ reflects the former function, although the site is allocated
a Medieval date by the Kent Sites and Monuments Record (Monument no.
MKE2744). The field is identifiable by a compact layer of amorphous type
cinder beneath the turf abutting an old watercourse containing much
evidence of bloomery slag.
2.3 Saxon and Medieval period (410AD-1499)
2.3.1 During the Saxon era, the forested Weald was known by the name of
‘Andreadsweald’, from which the modern name derives (Bowen 1939, 1).
The ‘Ham’ element of the placename ‘Maytham’ suggests a farmstead of
Saxon origin. Such small farmsteads were often established in the vicinity of
navigable waterways. The placename element of ‘Den’ in Rolvenden relays
its origins as a woodland clearing most commonly used as pasturage for
pigs (Bowen 1939, 4).
2.3.2 A manorial estate is known to have existed at Maytham (Mayhamme within
the Hundred of Rolvenden) in the Saxon period (Country Houses
Association Undated, 5) and a manor and its owners are referred to in the
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Domesday Book (1086). Rolvenden hundred is referenced in Domesday as
follows:
2.3.3 “in Roveindinne hundred the said Robert (de Romenel) holds of the bishop
(Odo)…there is arable land for 2 (plough) teams in the demesne there is one
plough team, 4 villains and 9 bordars have 2 teams. Wood for 5 hogs and
one church” (Bowen 1939, 11).
2.3.4 Following Domesday, Rolvenden is not again referenced until the reign of
Henry III (1216-72), when it was amalgamated into an organization known
as the Seven Hundreds. At the end of the 13th century, Arabel de Maytham
and her sister Elwisa (Elwina) held the manor from John de Malmains. By
the end of the 14th century, the manor was in the hands of the Carews of
Beddington.
2.3.5 A moated site survives at Lowden Farm over 1km south-west of Maytham
Hall (SAM No. 12736), reflecting the site of the Medieval manor. The site
was previously known as ‘Little Maytham’ and survives as a partially filled
square moat in good condition with an adjoining fishpond and associated
harbour at the convergence of the Hexden Channel with the River Rother,
which formed the estuary to the open sea at this time. As the water receded
throughout the Medieval period, a canal was dug to maintain the connection
between harbour and sea (English Heritage 1990 SAM Listing).
2.3.6 Hasted records that “There is no house on this manor nor any court held for
it” (1798, 192). While there is no surviving mansion at the Site, a terraced
platform north of the fishpond is likely to denote its location (English Heritage
1990 SAM Listing). Most moated sites date from the period between 1250
and 1350 and it is likely that the Lowden moat originates from this era,
making it contemporary with the over lordship of Arabel, Elisa and the
Carews.
2.3.7 A 14th century lease of the manor lists a chapel associated with the manor
and references a sea wall and ditch suggesting that the land was subject to
flooding and consequently flood management. Nicholas Carew, when
leasing the manor for seven years to two gentlemen of Rolvenden stipulated
that “the said John and William shall at their proper cost well and
competently maintain and when necessary repair all houses, walls and
hedges belonging to the said manor except the chapel and the sea wall and
the great ditch” (Country Life 1912, 746).
2.3.8 The reference to a sea wall illustrates that the Rother Valley Estuary ran up
to Maytham on the edge of Romney Marshes, which were not dry land until
1661(Country Life 1912, 746). Another lease of marshlands in the parish
shows by its reference to ‘waterscots’ (a local rate) that the landowners were
active in damming and draining the Rother Valley. The presence of a wharf
at Maytham which would have been central to the function of the Medieval
manor reflects this historic geographical location.
2.4 Early post-medieval period (1500-1699)
2.4.1 In the early 16th century, ‘Little Maytham’ manor was still under the
overlordship of the Carew family. In 1514, Sir Nicholas Carew is presumed
to be in ownership. He held prominent positions in the court of Henry VIII
including the Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex (1518) and spent time with King
Francis I of France. In 1539 he was implicated in the treasonable behavior
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
of the Marquis of Exeter and executed at the Tower of London. At this time
Maytham reverted to the crown and was promptly granted to Thomas
Cromwell, Earl of Essex and then to Sir Thomas Wyatt (Country Life 1913,
751). Thomas Wyatt alienated the manor to Walter Hendley, whose
daughter married a Colpepper of Bedgebury to whom the Maytham estates
passed.
2.4.2 In the 16th century, ‘Little Maytham’ came under the ownership of the Walter
Colpepper family who already held the larger estate of ‘Great Maytham’, the
predecessor of the Great Maytham Hall estate (Country Houses Association
undated, 7). The Colpeppers retained ownership until 1714. Both the
Colpeppers and the Carews held large estates elsewhere and as such it is
unlikely that they would have resided or built a mansion at Maytham.
Income would have been raised through farming tenants.
2.4.3 In 1666 Rolvenden village was decimated by the plague and then by fire;
survivors left the village to establish a new settlement south of Maytham at
Rolvenden Layne, then known as ‘Lain Green’ (County Homes Association
undated, 4).
2.5 18th century
2.5.1 In 1714, Great Maytham was sold to Captain James Monypenny who began
construction of the first recorded house on the site and adopted the name
Maytham Hall. He had the same year married Mary Gybbon of the
Rolvenden Hole estate on the north-west side of the village, uniting two
powerful local estates.
2.5.2 The first house at Great Maytham was built on the site of the present house
in 1721. There is little record of the original build. Monypenny’s house
consisted of a two storey building with basement and the two detached
pavilions which contained the laundry and stables (English Heritage 1986
Register of Parks and Gardens; SMR entry TQ83SW10). The house
remained roofless until completed by James son Robert in c.1760 who lived
in the property until his death in 1772 (Hasted 1798, 192). Roof gutters
which would appear to have been reused on the present hall bear the date
1763 (Country Houses Association undated, 8) giving a likely completion
date for the construction of the house. The 18th century pavilions largely
survive to the present day.
2.5.3 The Andrews and Herbert map dating from 1769 (Fig. 2) gives an
impression of the layout of the late 18th century house and inner estate.
The house and pavilions are set around a formal circular courtyard with
formalized symmetrical gardens typical of late 18th century garden design to
the rear. Although the spatial relationship between the house and its
pavilions is not in keeping with the more linear arrangement that is
demonstrated on 19th century mapping, there are elements of the layout of
the grounds which correlate with the existing layout (Fig. 8).
2.5.4 The large, enclosed rectangular garden to the south-west of the house
correlates closely with the terraced lawns [C.3] extant today (Fig. 8). It is
also interesting to note that the length of the garden is divided into three
sections, each split to either side of a central path. These three sections
would appear to correlate with the three levels of lawn which survive today,
suggesting that some of the garden walls which survive today were extant
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
by this date; certainly they are stated to be of 18th century date in the English
Heritage Register .
2.5.5 However, the existing walled garden [C.1] and service court [A] are not
represented at this date and it may be that they were the last elements of
the build to be constructed during the interim years between the drawing up
of the map and the death of Robert Monypenny in 1772.
2.5.6 Robert Monypenny was succeeded by his brother James who married
Sylvestra Blackwell. Their son Sir James succeeded to the estate on his
fathers death in 1800 (Bowen 1939, 40).
2.6 19th century
2.6.1 The Monypenny family stayed in ownership into the late 19th century. In
1822 Sir James Monypenny died childless and was suceeded by his brother,
the Reverend Philip Monypenny. Reverend Philips and Robert Joseph
Monypenny nephew of the reverend are listed as owners (occupied by
Robert) in the Tithe Apportionment dating from 1842, in their ownership are
listed an ‘Alder field’, ‘park and brick wall’, ‘mansion’, ‘lawn garden’ and
‘hallwood’.
2.6.2 The Tithe Map dating from 1842 (Fig. 3) does not reflect the formal gardens
shown on late 18th century mapping and it is possible that by this date the
gardens had been relandscaped to reflect the fashion for landscaped design
championed by Capability Brown in the mid-late 18th century. His form of
‘gardenless design’ involved large expanses of grassland interspersed with
singlular parkland trees and strategically placed clumps and belts of
planting. This style swept away the previous predilection for formalised
patterned design. The movement began in the 1720’s but momentum was
in full swing by the mid to late 18th century and into the early 19th century.
By the mid 19th century, the movement had developed into a more
Picturesque Style which concentrated on planting and more exotic species
with smaller scale designed landscapes being linked by winding paths.
2.6.3 Reverend Phillips died in 1842 (although remains listed in the
apportionment) and Robert Joseph shortly thereafter. His son’s claim of
succession was contested by his cousin Colonel Robert Gybbon-Monypenny
of Hole. The Colonel won the right to succession and under his ownership
the estate entered a period of financial difficulty not helped by the Colonel’s
gambling and compounded by the agricultural depression in the early 19th
century (Bowen 1939, 41). However, the cartographic record indicates a
considerable amount of development between 1842 (Fig. 3) and 1870 (Fig.
4), including the development of the service area to the south-west of the
main house.
2.6.4 In spite of a period of agricultural prosperity in the 1840’s and 50’s, Maytham
was not able to recover prior to the second and harsh depression of the
1880’s and 90’s, and the owner was forced to mortgage the Maytham Lands
and frequently let the house. Poverty gave rise to disease, indeed a
diptheria epidemic is documented in Rolvenden in the 1870’s (Shirley
Carpenter 1990, 93).
2.6.5 In spite of this difficult social and economic climate there is evidence to
suggest a continuing prosperity (or at least expenditure) at Maytham.
Various improvements to the house were undertaken, including the further
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
development of the western service area, and the construction of new
ranges of buildings between the main house [B] and the 18th century West
pavilion [A.1.1] (Fig. 8). In spite of the cost, a third storey was added to the
Georgian house in a mock Tudor style in 1880 (CHA 1980’s, 10) (Plate 1).
This conflict in building styles would have resulted in a ununified and odd
looking structure. While this phase of building is little documented, a
photograph of the north-eastern front taken around this time is contained
within an unreferenced source held within the estate archive.
2.6.6 A flamboyant aristocratic lifestyle appears to have persisted; an extract from
the Kentish Express dating from January 1874 records a stag hunt at
Maytham Park, the deer being set free from the front of the mansion
(Kentish Express 17th January 1874). However, under increased re-
mortgaging pressures, Gybbon-Monypenny sold the estate to John Cole
Kemsley in 1890 and died penniless 3 years later.
2.6.7 The house was partially destroyed by fire in 1893 prompting another phase
of repair. It is speculated that the fire was started on purpose for the
insurance pay out. Financial difficulties suffered by the estate during the late
19th century do little to undermine this claim. Alison Tennant, daughter of
the later owner HJ Tennant recalls the rumour that the insurance company
unable to prove otherwise were forced to pay up with the condition that the
house be rebuilt. This may account for the poor quality and taste of the
rebuild (Tennant 1980’s Correspondence). A croquet lawn was also added
around this time (Shirley Carpenter 1990, 93).
2.7 Late 19th-early 20th century
2.7.1 Under the ownership of Kemsley and later a Mr Powell Edwards Great
Maytham was leased to several tenants. One of these was the authoress
Frances Hodgson Burnett, author of The Secret Garden and Little Lord
Fauntleroy, who leased Great Maytham between 1898 and 1907.
2.7.2 She found the gardens in a poor state of repair. She set about clearing the
walled garden and planting a rose garden. The garden is said to have
inspired her novel The Secret Garden. At this date the terraced lawn to the
rear of the property was occupied by a croquet lawn and tennis court
(Harwood undated, 231-232).
2.7.3 Charlotte Harwood who visited Mrs Burnett at Maytham recounts what she
encountered in the rose garden. She refers to “An Old Orchard with a high
wall on three sides, a semi circular laurel hedge on the fourth” (ibid, 233).
This reference is somewhat confusing as it would suggest that the walled
garden was enclosed by walls on 3 sides only at this date, this suggestion is
not backed up by any other documentary or cartographic source, nor does
analysis of the wall fabric suggest this to be the case.
2.7.4 One theory is that the 3 sided walled garden modified by Burnett
corresponds with the modern Kitchen garden which is walled on three sides
and now enclosed by a hornbeam hedge on the west side. This, however, is
disproved by cartographic evidence which shows the service area occupied
by green houses and outhouses in 1898 and 1908 (Figs. 5 & 6). The
northern wall of the kitchen garden extending west of the coach house is
also not in place.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
2.7.5 In 1909, the then owner Mr Powell-Edwards sold the property to the right
Hon H J Tennant (1869-1944) who employed the architect Sir Edwin
Landseer Lutyens to rebuild the house and lay out the formal gardens. At
this time the estate reverted to its original name of ‘Great Maytham’ with
‘Hall’ appended.
2.7.6 Sir Edwin Lutyens was a prominent and celebrated architect of his time who
concentrated in the late 19th century on a vernacular style influenced by the
popular Arts and Crafts movement. With the turn of the 20th century his
taste turned towards the classical style, with a greater emphasis placed on
symmetry. The austerity of this style of design reached its peak at Great
Maytham. He was responsible for work on a variety of high profile and
celebrated buildings including Lindisfarne Castle, Northumberland, and
Munstead Wood, Godalming for his collaborator, the garden designer
Gertrude Jekyll.
2.7.7 Lutyens built Maytham in the so-called ‘Wrenaissance’ style; beautifully
detailed with blue grey bricks and red dressings and stone doorcases. He
extended the building to the left and right with three bay wings and two bay
pavilions making a house 168 feet long. The string course on the garden
front at second floor level marks the position of the eaves of the 18th century
house (Weaver 1913, 252). For vertical emphasis he used bare walls and
strong chimney stacks (Newman 9176, 499). Originally apple green shutters
decked the south elevation to protect the exposed house from the strong
winds coming off the sea. The interior rooms were simple and unaffected,
and the eastern pavilion [B.2] was adapted to accommodate a squash court.
2.7.8 Beyond the house, Lutyens made various alterations. His design proposals
for the main gardens to the rear (south-west) of the house are illustrated by
an architectural view held in the house (Fig. 7). This view demonstrates an
ambitious set of proposals, not only for the terraced lawns to the rear of the
house, but also for the lower garden [C.4] at the extreme south-west.
Lutyens put a lot of energy into formalizing the garden design at Maytham.
He added paths and steps to extend the formal layout beyond the walls and
to emphasise his main feature, the majestic terrace. Lutyens’ aim was to use
paths to unify the whole garden design and state the relationship of every
feature with the house (Brown 1982, 121).
2.7.9 Lutyens designs included modifications to the garden terrace, which largely
remained “the same as before but enlarged and beautified by great
stairways” (Weaver 1913, 252). He also re-planned the main entrance to
the property, adding a gatehouse stable block [D.2] and axial drive. The
visitor passes under an archway in the stable block and along the axial drive
flanked by a double avenue of trees and designed parkland to the front of
the house. The introduction of the new driveway meant that the former drive
approaching the house from the south-east became secondary and was
used only by servants coming from Rolvenden Layne following the rebuild.
2.7.10 Other modifications included additions to the walled garden including a
garden house, and alterations to the parkland landscaping and a boating
lake (Refer relevant component sections). No planting plans of the gardens
at Maytham are known (Brown 1982, 170). Lutyens collaborated with
Gertrude Jekyll, the prominent garden designer on many gardens; while
sources tentatively suggest that Jekyll may have had some input at
Maytham (SMR Entry TQ83SW23), there is certainly no evidence to suggest
that this was the case (Brown 1981, 170).
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
2.7.11 Unfortunately, however, Lutyens ambitious proposals were not implemented
in their entirety (see relevant component descriptions below). The long wall
stretching along the west side of the lawn with steps and ornamental
fretwork towards its southern end was intended to be mirrored on the east
side of the lawns, and an ornamental wall was intended to mark the change
in level between the middle and lower terraces. However, these items of the
design were never implemented, and it is likely that monetary constraints
prevented completion of the design.
2.7.12 At Rolvenden Layne the Tennants built a laundry, carpenters shop, dairy
and vegetable garden to serve the villagers, many of whom would have
found employment at the house.
2.7.13 In correspondence with his wife, Lutyens refers to his visits to Maytham on
April 14th 1911he writes, “Had a long day at Maytham. Mrs Tennant is
Pleased with the admiration the house is receiving and I think listens to me
more”. He goes on to say that “Hudson, was awfully pleased with
Maytham…..Hudson thought Maytham most extraordinarily cheap!” (Percy,
Ridley 1985).
2.8 Mid 20th century
2.8.1 During Tennant's time at Maytham the greater estate comprised 1364 acres,
only 56 of which were held in hand by the family. Following his death in
1936, most of the tenant farmers bought their holdings and the estate
buildings in Rolvenden Layne were sold off as residential properties. The
house was sold to Mr. T. Cook (Bowen 1039, 41) but the Tennant family
continued to rent the house and the gardens were retained with it (Alison
Tennant 1980’s. 3). Ms Tennant also refers to the estate yard being taken
over by Thos. Cook’s agents who intended to hold it as a hedge against
death duties. It is not clear what is meant here by the estate yard but she
goes on to say that the house and remaining land were sold by Thomas
Cook to speculators who again sold the property on between 1936 and 1939
(ibid).
2.8.2 At the outbreak of the Second World War, Maytham Hall was requisitioned
and the Tennant family sub-let to the National Institute for the Blind who
constructed various huts in the parkland surrounding the house; the footprint
of one such structure is apparent in the lawn to the south-east of the east
pavilion. The property was later taken over by the army given its strategic
location near the coast.
2.8.3 Following the war, the property became a home for the disabled and
displaced and many internal alterations were made to accommodate the
requirements of this new function. The gardens were not maintained during
this period.
2.9 Mid to late 20th century
2.9.1 During the post-war years, the property had several short term owners and
periods of vacancy. The lower lawn was let for grazing and the planned
integrity of the house with its setting continued to decline.
2.9.2 In 1955 the house was ‘rediscovered’ by a landscape architect, Mr A Du
Gard Pasley who came across the derelict property by accident. He
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
recognized the hand of Lutyens and the significance of the property and
began a campaign to save it.
2.9.3 In the 1950’s, Great Maytham Hall was briefly owned by Commander Lacon
who shortly thereafter approached the Mutual Households Association (later
the Country Homes Association, CHA) who agreed to purchase the house in
1961. It was at this time that most of the parkland was divided up and sold
off in lots, with only the house, the gardens, and part of the eastern parkland
being retained by the Country Houses Association.
2.9.4 A map of the estate outlining the details of the sale, dated 1956, is on
display at the hall, but it appears more likely that this represents the sale of
the house to Lacon rather than to CHA, who did not come into ownership
until 1961. An edition of The Kentish Express dated 14th July 1961 records
the headline ‘Threatened mansion saved’.
2.9.5 CHA restored the property and converted it into residential apartments
between 1961 and 1965. The gardens were restored by the residents who
continue to maintain the gardens to the present day.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date: 26/11/07 Revision Number: 0
Scale: n/a Graphics: KL

WA Heritage
Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_fig02.cdr
Andrews and Herbert 1769 Figure 2


WA Heritage
Tithe 1842 Figure 3


WA Heritage
25" OS edition, 1870 Figure 4

View of house c. 1890
WA Heritage Scale: n/a Graphics: KL

Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plate_1890.cdr
View of house c. 1890 Plate 1


WA Heritage


WA Heritage


Luyens’ design for the gardens at Great Maytham, c.1909 Figure 7

WA Heritage
3 GAZETTEER OF COMPONENTS
3.1 List of building and landscape components identified on Figs. 1, 8 & 9:
A WESTERN SERVICE AREA

A.1 Service yard
A.1.1 West ‘pavilion’ (Bothy House)
A.1.2 East Coach House
A.1.3 Central garages
A.1.4 West Coach House
A.1.5 South garages
A.1.6 North garages
A.1.7 Lean-to shelter (north)
A.1.8 Boiler chimney
A.2 Kitchen Garden
A.2.1 Walls and hedges
A.2.2 Glasshouses
A.2.3 Apple store
A.2.4 Lean-to shelter/store (south)
A.3 Woodland Fringe
B MAIN HOUSE
B.1 Main house
B.2 East ‘pavilion’ (former laundry)
C GARDENS
C.1 Walled Garden
C.1.1 Walls
C.1.2 Garden House
C.2 Paved garden Terrace
C.2.1 Brick Gazebo
C.3 Terraced lawns

C.4 Lower garden
D HISTORIC ESTATE
D.1 Driveways
D.2 Gatehouse Stable Block
D.3 Other Estate buildings
D.4 Parkland
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
A WESTERN SERVICE AREA
3.2 A.1 Service yard
3.2.1 The service yard as it manifests itself today, with its strong linear character
aligned north-west/south-east, is a relatively recent construct.
3.2.2 Historically, a clearly defined rectangular compound, or yard, appears to
have been established to the west of the house before 1842, when it is
shown on the Tithe Map (Fig. 3). It appears, on this map, to extend
westwards beyond the line of the walled garden, which appears more
square than it survives today. This yard contains, within its eastern corner,
the western [A.1.1] of a pair of pavilions flanking either side of the main
house, suggesting that it was of an ancillary, or service function, rather than
relating closely to the residence. Although of a small scale, the map appears
to show two smaller enclosures, or a building and an enclosure, within the
larger compound, towards its south-western corner.
3.2.3 By 1870 (Fig. 4) the area had been sub-divided into a number of discrete
yards; some flanked by several buildings, others more open. Interestingly, at
this date, the former single compound appears to be clearly divided into two
roughly equal halves to the north-west of, and south-east of a central wall on
a north-east/south-west alignment. The north-western half remained as a
large open space, with what appear to be pig pens at the western corner,
and a narrow building of unknown function adjacent to the aforementioned
dividing wall.
3.2.4 The eastern half of the former compound had been divided into three
discrete areas, by means of walls and buildings. The north-eastern open
area to the south-west of the West ’pavilion’ [A.1.1] was now bounded along
its south-west side by a line of buildings comprising a squarish volume at the
east end [A.1.2], and a long narrow range to the west [A.1.4]. A glass house
attached to the south-west side of the East coach house [A.1.2], and formed
the northernmost element in a long open area; possibly a small plant nursery
area.
3.2.5 A path led into the north end of this area from the ‘bothy yard’ to the north,
past a long narrow range of building [A.1.7/A.2.4] abutting the wall to the
main gardens [C.3] to the rear of the house. A second, perpendicular path
led between two long narrow buildings into a third yard, also containing a
glass house. Although this glass house had been relocated to the north-east
by 1898 (Fig. 5), and a square building constructed in the north corner of the
large western yard, little else had changed in the intervening period.
3.2.6 This layout remained largely unchanged by 1908 (Fig. 6), though additional
information is provided about the linear range [A.1.4], which is shown as
comprising a small square structure at either end, flanking a central range
open-sided on the south-west facing side.
3.2.7 Unfortunately, there is then a significant gap in the cartographic record until
the 1970’s-80’s, by which time the present layout of the area had been
established, with its strong emphasis on the north-west/south-east linearity.
The extension north-westwards of the range of building established by
[A.1.2] and [A.1.4], now extended to the westernmost boundary of the
original compound. This strong linearity was echoed to its south by the
construction of a number of parallel ranges of glasshouses, which
obliterated the former small discrete yards; again, effectively dividing the
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
former compound into two halves, but now with long, narrow north and south
halves, rather than the former rectangular east and west halves. While the
lack of documentary evidence for this period does not prevent the relative
phasing of the built fabric, it makes it extremely difficult to accurately date
the successive developments.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.p1: Bird’s eye view of Western Service Yard looking north-west.
Plate A.1.p2: View of rear elevation of service yard viewed from kitchen garden.
Scale: n/a Illustrator KL

WA Heritage
Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_A1.cdr
Figure Caption? Figure ?

WA Heritage
3.3 A.1.1 West ‘pavilion’
Origin/History
3.3.1 The exact date of construction of this building is not known, but it is
assumed that it dates either to the construction of the main house in 1721,
or to the completion of that house in 1763. Similarly, the original function of
the building is not known categorically, though the large central opening of
its original design, as shown on a surviving drawing in the Lutyens collection
(see below) might suggest that it functioned as a coach house and stable at
ground level, with staff living accommodation above. Certainly, the English
Heritage description of the property in the Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens notes that the building was the former stables. It formed one of a
pair of detached service buildings set slightly asymmetrically to either side of
the main house; the eastern one being the former laundry [B.2].
3.3.2 Drawings of the south and north elevations of this building, dating to March
1909, survive in the collection of drawings of Great Maytham Hall by Edwin
Lutyens held by the RIBA Drawings Collection at the V & A museum.
3.3.3 While the drawing of the north elevation resembles the building as it
currently survives, that of the south elevation is virtually unrecognizable. It
shows a large central opening capped by a flat brick arch with segmental
soffitt, and a smaller segmental arched doorway to its west, with a round-
headed window above. Interestingly, the drawing shows a change of level at
the east end, with steps up to a smaller flat topped doorway at the upper
external level.
3.3.4 The drawings indicate a building of similar proportions to that which survives
today, rather than the longer building at this location shown on the 1870-
1908 OS maps (Figs. 4-6). The 1870 edition (Fig. 4), clearly shows this
building as comprising three distinct cells; the western two of similar
rectangular proportions, and a roughly square eastern one. The exact date
of removal of the eastern cell is not known, but the Lutyens drawings
suggest that it had been removed, or its removal was planned, by 1909. The
drawing of the south elevation also indicates that significant alterations have
since been made to this façade, though there is little evidence of them in the
surviving fabric of the building.
Description
3.3.5 This is a rectangular brick building, of mixed orange to dark red brick, with
some grey headers. The brick is laid in Flemish bond with buff penny-struck
lime mortar, and has a dentiled eaves cornice. The clay tile covered roof
comprises four pitched ranges with a central rectangular valley, giving the
appearance of a low hipped roof with clay hip and ridge tiles.
3.3.6 Interestingly, the window head detail has been treated differently on different
elevations; being fine rubbed red brick flat arches on the north elevation, but
less mixed brick good quality flat arches elsewhere. Windows are mainly
vertical sliding timber sashes, but there are timber-framed circular windows
on both the south and east elevations. A low wide plank and batten door is
located roughly central to the south elevation, while there is a glazed door in
the east end. Internally, it is understood that the building has recently been
converted from two apartments to a single house.
3.3.7 It would appear that considerable thought has been given to the appearance
of this building, due to its location in close proximity to the main dwelling
house, and to the former main drive which ran NW-SE along the front of the
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
buildings. It is assumed that this accounts both for the difference in quality of
detailing of the window heads, and for the design of the roof, which appears
to be a conscious attempt to reduce the height of the roof ridge, so as not to
compete in height and status with the original two-storey main house.
3.3.8 Cartographic evidence would appear to suggest that this building has been
reduced in size by the removal of more than a third of its original length from
its east end. However, there is very little in the fabric of the east elevation or
the roof to suggest that they have been substantially rebuilt, apart from the
complete absence of penny-struck pointing. It is considered most likely,
therefore, that the third cell shown at the east end of the building on the
1870 OS map (Fig. 4), was a separate building abutting the bothy building,
but being structurally independent.
Integrity
3.3.9 It would appear that this building has undergone a number of phases of
alteration since its original construction. The function of its ground floor has
now changed from a service function to a residential one, which has
radically altered both its internal layout, and the type and quality of its
internal fixings and finishes.
Significance
3.3.10 The significance of this building derives from its association with the early
18th century house which pre-dated the existing main house. Although of
lesser status than the main dwelling house, its survival in association with
the eastern ‘pavilion’ of similar date, is important within the chronology of the
historic estate.
3.3.11 The degree of alteration to which the building has been subject, although
apparently comprehensive, has not detracted significantly from either its
visual interest, or the condition of its built fabric.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.1.p1: View of west ‘pavilion’ looking north-west. Plate A.1.1.p2: View of west ‘pavilion’ in context of main house, looking east.
Plate A.1.1.p3: South-west facing elevation of west ‘pavilion’. Plate A.2.1.p3: View along hedge which defines the north-western boundary of
the Kitchen Garden. Looking south-west.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_A11-pg1.cdr
Figure Caption Figure ??

Plate A.1.1.p4: North-east facing elevation of west ‘pavilion’. Plate A.1.1.p5: North-west facing elevation of west ‘pavilion’.
Plate A.1.1.p6: Paved area and steps between main house and west ‘pavilion’. Plate A.1.1.p7: Roof form of west ‘pavilion’.

WA Heritage
3.4 A.1.2 East Coach House
Origin/History
3.4.1 A building was constructed at this location between 1842 (Fig. 3) and 1870
(Fig. 4). It was built in association with the development of a comprehensive
area of service buildings to the north-west and west of the main house,
which extended south-westwards as far as the north-east wall of the walled
garden [C.1] (see components A and A.1above).
3.4.2 It is possible that within the period between 1842 and 1870 the area was
developed in more than one phase. Certainly, the fabric of the building
suggests that either it was originally a single storey structure, or that the
building incorporates earlier boundary walls which were then heightened to
create a two-storey building. The location and form of the original means of
access to the first floor is not known, but may have been internal.
Description
3.4.3 This is a two-storey rectangular brick building, measuring 8.8m by 6.2m, and
comprising three structural bays. The walls are of solid brick construction, a
single brick thick (9”/225mm), laid in Flemish bond, but varied in its detail
around the building. The brickwork of the ground floor levels of the south-
west and south-east facing walls are of mixed orange/red stretchers with
distinctive black brindling, laid in chequerboard pattern with dark grey
headers. Above this level, the brickwork is plainer and more orange, and has
only occasional grey headers. The brickwork on the front (north-east facing)
elevation is more uniform throughout its height, with a pinkish hue, and
frequent grey headers creating an indistinct and non-uniform chequered
pattern.
3.4.4 The front (north-east facing) elevation has three large pairs of double doors
at ground level, indicating accommodation for three vehicles, and two
tripartite windows under the eaves (A.1.2.p1). Further tripartite windows are
found at ground (A.1.2.p4) and first floor levels in south-east elevation, and
at first floor level only in the north-west elevation. The south-west elevation
is blind (A.1.3.p2).
3.4.5 The first floor of the building is accessed across the flat roofs of the garage
range [A.1.4] to the north-west of the coach house (A.1.2.p5). It is unclear
how it was accessed originally. The range of buildings which now functions
as garages appears to be contemporary with the coach house, and may
have had a timber stair at the east end providing access to the entrance
door as today, but it is equally possible that access was by means of an
internal stair.
3.4.6 Stylistically, the building replicates elements of the form and detail of the
18th century ‘pavilion’ to its north-east, including the roof form and materials,
and the dentilled eaves cornice. However, it differs in one significant matter,
that of its fenestration. It would appear that a conscious decision has been
made to contrast this building from the earlier one (in closer association with
the main house), by giving it a more rustic feel by the use of leaded timber
casements instead of timber sliding sashes.
3.4.7 Internally, the ground floor is a single volume, with painted brickwork finish.
The first floor comprises an entrance passage and two rooms, separated by
internal walls of stud with lath and plaster. Ceilings are also of lath and
plaster fixed to ceiling joists supported by two downstand beams spanning
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
the width of the building, one spanning midway between them, and hip ties
at the corners.
3.4.8 Both internal and external joinery details are in the simple vernacular
tradition, with squared timber door and window frames with pegged joints,
and simple skirtings and sills. The large coach house doors are planked with
nicely chamfered frames (A.1.2.p3), and doors at first floor are simple plank
and batten (A.1.2.p8).
Integrity
3.4.9 The earliest manifestation of this building is not clear, and has certainly been
comprehensively altered by the creation of the two-storey coach house.
Although subject to some later alteration, the coach house appears to
survive in its relatively authentic mid 19th century form. A blocked doorway
in the west end of its south-east elevation would have provided pedestrian
access to the interior, but evidence of the former access to the first floor
appears to have been lost.
3.4.10 However, the integrity of the building is currently threatened by the parlous
condition of parts of its structure. The first floor brickwork of the north-east
elevation is sagging badly, and a number of remedial measures have been
taken to provide additional and temporary support to the structure. Steelwork
has been introduced to the ground floor to provide additional support to the
beams supporting the first floor (A.1.2.p3). At first floor level, downstand
beams supporting the ceiling joists have been propped, and sections of
ceiling have also been propped with raking struts (A.1.2.p7).
Significance
3.4.11 This is one of the few buildings of the mid 19th century service area to
survive its later re-modelling, and contributes to the value of the group
including the remodelled range to its west [A.1.3] and the two sections of
lean-to shelter to the east [A.1.7 & A.2.4]. Of the mid 19th century buildings,
it is the most architecturally distinctive, and further derives significance from
its having been copied to provide a second similar building in the early 20th
century.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.2.p1: Front (north-east facing) elevation of East Coach House. Plate A.1.2.p2: Bird’s eye view of East Coach House in context of service yard.
Plate A.1.2.p3: Interior of coach house doors Plate A.1.2.p4: Internal view of ground floor window in south-east elevation.
showing supplementary steel structure.

Plate A.1.2.p5: North-west elevation at first floor, viewed across garage roofs [A.1.3]. Plate A.1.2.p6: External view of first floor window.
Plate A.1.2.p7: Internal propping in east room at first floor. Plate A.1.2.p8: Detail of internal joinery at first floor.

WA Heritage
3.5 A.1.3 Central garages
Origin/History
3.5.1 A range of building of similar footprint was constructed in this location

between 1842 and 1870. In 1908 it was shown as comprising two enclosed
volumes at either end, with a range between them open sided on the south-
west side. This would seem to indicate that the function of the building was,
at this time, associated with the yard area to the south-west, rather than the
larger area to the north-east (see A.1 above).
3.5.2 Elements of this range of building date back to the mid 19th century, when
they was constructed in association with a number of other structures in a
major development of the service areas to the west of the house. It has,
however, been subject to a number of later alterations, including the
widening of its western half, and the creation of garage openings in its north-
east facing elevation. This last alteration effectively changed the building
from one relating functionally to the open yard to the south-west, to one
which was accessed from the major linear yard to the north-east.
Description
3.5.3 This range of building extends to c.15.5 m long. Its western half is c.5.8m
wide, and comprises a single internal volume. The front wall of the range
continues the line of the front wall of the coach houses, and currently
extends to a height of c.4.25m. However, the top 8 courses of brickwork are
a later addition, providing a raised parapet following the construction of the
garage roof slab. The wall is topped with saddleback capping bricks,
identical to those on the section of boundary wall to the south-east of the
East Coach House. A wide cambered brick arch is evident above the garage
roofs on the south-west facing side of the parapet (A.1.3.p3), though it does
not appear on the north-east face, which has been subject to rebuilding with
distinctly more orange brickwork (A.1.3.p1)
3.5.4 The rear wall of the garage range has a step midway along it. The eastern
half is c.4.8 wide, and provides three garage spaces. The eastern end
appears to represent the authentic width of the original 19th century range of
building at this location, and the thickening of the rear wall at the eastern
end may well represent the extent of the enclosed volume shown on the
1908 OS (Fig. 6). The two halves of the range are separated by a rendered
brick wall, while the individual garage spaces of the eastern half are
separated by concrete blockwork. The spaces are lit by a series of rooflights.
3.5.5 An external staircase is situated at the north-western end of the garage
range, providing access, through a round-headed archway, to the flat roof,
and in turn to the first floors of the two coach houses (A.1.2 & A.1.4).
Integrity
3.5.6 As discussed above, this building has undergone a number of major phases
of alteration which have fundamentally changed both its orientation and
function.
Significance
3.5.7 Although this range of building retains fabric and architectural features
dating to its mid 19th century origins, the scope of its later alteration, both in
terms of built fabric and function, have greatly reduced its potential
significance.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.3.p1: Central garages looking south-west. Plate A.1.3.p2: Rear wall of East Coach House and central garages, looking north.
Plate A.1.3.p3: Flat brick arch of former opening in parapet above garages, Plate C.1.1.p2: View of blocked up opening in north-west wall of Walled Garden.
looking north-east. Looking north-west from interior of garden.


WA Heritage
3.6 A.1.4 West Coach House
Origin/History
3.6.1 The exact date of construction of this building remains unclear, due to the
lack of cartographic evidence for the period between 1908 and 1971.
However, its brickwork suggests that it was constructed towards the
beginning of that period, and that it incorporates fabric relating to an earlier
boundary wall (see below). Evidence provided by historic aerial photographs
shows that it was in situ by 1946, and it is considered most likely that its
construction took place during the major redevelopment of the site by
Lutyens. Certainly, it has been built to mirror the East Coach House [A.1.2]
which dates to the mid 19th century, but would itself only ever have
functioned as a garage or store.
Description
3.6.2 Although the frontage of this building is identical to that of the East Coach
House [A.1.2], it is less deep than the earlier building; being only 5.8m deep,
the same as the adjacent element of the central garages [A.1.3] to its east.
3.6.3 In its design, the building appears to be almost identical to the coach house
to its east [A.1.2], though there are elements of its structure and design
which separate it from the building it emulates. The brickwork demonstrates
the same pattern of pinkish stretchers with predominantly grey headers,
providing a subtle chequered effect. This is particularly marked within the
garage to the west, where it has latterly been protected from weathering. Its
former north-west wall, at this location, retains the outlines of two former
lean-to structures abutting it, marked by white paint, though these structures
must have been relatively short-lived.
3.6.4 The brickwork of its south-east end wall, at ground floor level, is similar to
that of the ground floor of the earlier coach house [A.1.2], and would appear
to be a survival of the former boundary wall which ran on a north-east/south-
west alignment, dividing the large early 19th century service yard in two
(A.1.4.p2). The brickwork of its south-west rear wall is continuous with that
of the western component of the central garages [A.1.4], indicating
contemporaneity, and indicating a widening of the mid 19th century range.
3.6.5 The architectural detail of the exterior of the building is a direct copy of the
East Coach House, and differences in the construction of the two buildings
can really only be detected internally, or in specific details, such as the
construction of the paired timber coach house doors. Internally, at first floor,
the ceiling structure is different to the earlier coach house, allowing greater
ceiling height, and taller doorways in the internal walls.
3.6.6 The other principal difference in the construction of the two coach houses is
in their roofs. While the original building has ridges parallel to all four sides,
with a deep central valley, the central portion of the roof of the west coach
house is flat (A.1.p1); though it appears identical from ground level (compare
A.1.2.p1 & A.1.4.p1).
Integrity
3.6.7 This facsimile coach house survives well. Being of more recent construction
than the East Coach House it survives in much better condition than the
earlier building. Although not an exact replica in its detailing, the two
buildings visually present a well-matched pair.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Significance
3.6.8 The building has little historic significance, dating, as it appears to do, to the
early 20th century. However, its attractive, slightly ‘rustic’ design, replicating
that of the mid 19th century coach house to its east, gives the building some
architectural interest, and the two buildings together further benefit from their
‘group value’.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.4.p1: Front (north-east facing) elevation of West Coach House. Plate A.1.4.p2: Brickwork of south-east wall of
coach house showing change in build.
Plate A.1.4.p3: Detail of coach house doors. Plate C.1.4.p4: Interior of room at first floor.


WA Heritage
3.7 A.1.5 South garages
Origin/History
3.7.1 This range of garages obviously post-dates the construction of the west
coach house [A.1.5], and replaces the earlier lean-to structures whose
painted ghosts survive on its north-west flank wall (A.1.5.p2). However, the
front and rear walls of the garage range are not contemporary, and the
creation of the garage openings along the north-east side, suggest that this
was, at one time, a continuous boundary wall.
3.7.2 Evidence provided by historic aerial photographs indicates that the wall now
forming the front wall of the garages was certainly in place by 1946. This
indicates that, when constructed, its primary function was as a boundary wall
enclosing the kitchen garden along its north-eastern side. It is therefore
assumed that its construction dates to the comprehensive upgrading of the
property by Lutyens in 1909-10, and was part of the formalised development
of the kitchen garden with its large glasshouses.
3.7.3 Paint finishes applied to the north-west side wall of the West Coach house,
indicate that some form of lean-to structures abutted the inner (south-west
facing) face of the boundary wall, which were later replaced by the row of
garages which survive today.
Description
3.7.4 As noted, the two long walls of this garage range are not contemporary. The
front wall is of smooth, deep red brick (A.1.5.p1), while the rear, south-west
wall, and west end walls are of common Flettons, rendered above plinth
level. The garage openings have been created by cutting through the wall
with an angle grinder, and the insertion of thin concrete lintels. Rather
curiously, the cut faces of brickwork have then been rendered with a dark
red, coarse sandy mortar, upon which faux mortar joints have been applied
(A.1.5.p3). It is assumed that this took place during the 1960’s when the
building was converted to apartments, in order to provide garage parking for
the residents.
3.7.5 At the north-western end of the front wall of the garages, there is a chimney
which appears to be of contemporary construction (see A.1.8 below).
Integrity
3.7.6 The present building is a combination of structural elements of several
phases of construction, which have undergone significant alteration, and
changes of function.
Significance
3.7.7 These garages are of 20th century construction, and are of little historical or
architectural significance or interest.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.5.p1: Front elevation of south garages, lookin west.
Plate A.1.5.p2: Paint ‘shadows’ of former Plate A.1.5.p3: Detail of repair following creation of
lean-to buildings. garage openings.

WA Heritage

WA Heritage
3.8 A.1.6 North garages
Origin/History
3.8.1 It is assumed that these garages were constructed in the 1960’s to provide
garaging for the residents of the newly created apartments within the main
house.
Description
3.8.2 The front wall is of dark red, very coarse sandy brickwork. It is assumed that
this was used to create the render for the treatment of the cut brickwork of
the south garages [A.1.6]
3.8.3 Red brick in stretcher bond, above white painted plinth. Corrugated asbestos
sheet roof.
Integrity
3.8.4 This range of building appears to survive in its form as built.
Significance
3.8.5 These garages are of no historical or architectural significance or interest.
3.9 A.1.7 Lean-to shelter (north)
Origin/History
3.9.1 This small lean-to was constructed during the mid 19th century, and is
assumed to be one element of a major development of the service area to
the west of the main house at this date.
Description
3.9.2 This small lean-to structure extends the line of the timber lean-to [A.2.4] to
the south-west of the major boundary wall sub-dividing this service area. Its
end wall is of 9” red brick, similar to that of the boundary wall to its south-
west. It has a tile-covered roof slope, draining into a gutter and down pipe at
the north-east corner. The lean-to now provides shelter for a flight of steps
connecting the lower service yard to the raised level of the paved terrace
[c.2] to the rear of the house.
Integrity
3.9.3 The lean-to appears to survive in relatively authentic form. However, there
is no evidence to suggest that there was originally a connecting stair at this
location, and the structure would have functioned as an open-sided
store/shelter.
Significance
3.9.4 This small structure has little intrinsic interest or significance, but contributes
to the group value of the limited group of buildings surviving from the mid
19th century development of this western service area, which includes the
East Coach House [A.1.2] and the forerunner of the central garages [A.1.3].
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.1.6.p1: Front elevation of garage block, looking north Plate A.1.6.p2: Rear wall of garage block, looking south.
Plate A.1.7.p1: Lean-to structure, looking south-east. Plate A.1.8.p1: North-west end of Service Yard, showing chimney and steps
down to Woodland fringe.

Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_A16-18.cdr

WA Heritage
3.10 A.1.8 Chimney
Origin/History
3.10.1 Evidence provided by a 1946 aerial photograph (RAF 106G/UK/1439) shows
a small rectangular building on a north-east/south-west alignment situated
against the north-west wall of the kitchen garden in its far north corner,
immediately adjacent to the surviving chimney. It is assumed that this
building is the small furnace house used to provide heat to the large former
greenhouse which originally ran along much of the length of the kitchen
garden (A.2.2). This furnace house would therefore be contemporary with
the glass houses, and therefore part of Lutyens c.1910 development of the
kitchen garden, and the chimney is therefore a survival from this date.
Description
3.10.2 The brickwork of this square chimney is similar to that of the front wall of the
adjacent garage range (A.1.5), and is considered to be contemporary. A
small brick enclosure adjacent to its north-west side is of different brickwork,
and is considered to be later.
Integrity
3.10.3 Although the chimney itself survives well, the associated boiler
house/furnace has been lost, as has the majority of the greenhouse which it
was built to service.
Significance
3.10.4 The loss of associated features relating to the former heating of the
extensive greenhouses in the kitchen garden has reduced the potential
significance of this structure. It does, however, survive as a reminder of the
former technological features associated with 19th and early 20th century
country house gardens.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.11 A.2 KITCHEN GARDEN
Identified extant components:

x Walls/hedge
x Glasshouses (former/extant)
x Apple store
x Lean-to timber structure
General Overview
3.11.1 The former Kitchen garden, now used as a flower garden by the residents,
lies west of the house and immediately south-west of the East coach house
[A.1.2] and central garage block [A.1.3] (A.2.p1). The garden is walled on
the north-east, south-east and south-west sides and enclosed by a
hornbeam hedge to the north-west. The north-east wall is formed by the
rear wall of the coach house and garage block and the south-west wall by
the north wall of the walled garden. The interior is occupied by several
ancillary buildings including extant and former glass houses, cold frames
and storage sheds. Landscaping comprises a path and flower beds to the
east with the majority of the area being under grass.
3.11.2 It would appear that this area has traditionally been associated with the
running of the estate and has been subject to various changes and
modification in order to serve the changing requirements of the property.
Cartographic regression shows that various structures have historically
occupied this area, the majority of which are no longer extant. Indeed this
area is typified by the changing footprint and piecemeal nature of
development. Historically, the area is closely linked with the service yard to
the north [A.1]. The 1870 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 4) shows the two
areas as one with the area west of the West pavilion [A.1.1] open and the
functional buildings within the modern kitchen garden hidden behind the
East Coach house [A.1.2].
3.11.3 Previous structures in the area include possible animal pens/pig sties at the
south-west corner of the area, a north-east to south-west aligned boundary
dividing the Site with an abutting structure shown on the 1898 OS Map (Fig.
5) and small scale structures within the eastern part of the area.
3.11.4 During the 19th century the kitchen garden was a key element of the
functioning country estate. Preceding 17th and 18th century kitchen
gardens had a more formal aspect. By the 19th century, fuelled by the
naturalistic approach of the Arts and Crafts movement, walled gardens took
on a more functional role. Features commonly associated with this transition
include the construction of working glass houses and harvestable planting.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.2.p1: Overview of Kitchen and walled gardens. Looking south-west. Plate A.2.1.p1: View along north-east wall of Kitchen Garden including rear of
eastern coach house. Looking east.
Plate A.2.1.p2: View along south-western wall of Kitchen Garden showing Plate A.2.1.p3: View along hedge which defines the north-western boundary of
footprint of former structure in the foreground. Looking south-east. the Kitchen Garden. Looking south-west.

WA Heritage
3.12 A.2.1 Walls and hedges
Origin/History
3.12.1 Certain of the boundaries now enclosing the kitchen garden were originally
created to define other areas such as the Walled garden, garden terrace,
East Coach house etc. The south and east kitchen garden walls are of late
18th century construction. They are not shown on Andrews and Herbert’s
Map of 1769, but it is likely that they were constructed shortly thereafter by
Robert Monypenny who is thought to have completed the build around this
time. They are certainly extant by the time of the Tithe Map dating from
1842. However, it was not until the time of Lutyens’ comprehensive
redevelopment of the estate that the kitchen garden was created in its own
right, with the construction of additional walls to enclose its present area,
and separate it from the formerly contiguous service area to the north-east
[A.1].
3.12.2 The hornbeam hedge which forms the western boundary of the area
(A.2.1.p3) reflects the historic extent of this area, though this has been
planted since the demolition of the furnace house (see [A.2] above). No
physical evidence for a pre-dating wall along this alignment was noted at the
time of the site inspection. The 1842 Tithe Map (Fig. 3) shows the western
extent of this area to be beyond the western side of the walled garden (that
is, west of its present location), although this line may represent the edge of
the adjacent woodland rather than an artificial boundary. By the time of the
1872 OS edition (Fig. 4) the existing western boundary is in place with small
structures (possibly pig sties) built up against the south-western section of
the boundary. In 1898 (Fig. 5), this boundary is shown extending
northwards to form the western boundary of the service yard, this alignment
within the kitchen garden is retained to the present day.
Description
3.12.3 The kitchen garden is enclosed to the south by the north-east wall of the
walled garden [C.1], to the east by the wall separating the kitchen garden
from the terraced lawns, to the west by a hornbeam hedge and to the north
by the rear wall of the garage and stable block.
South-west Wall
3.12.4 The south-west wall leans dramatically to the south-west and is supported
by later brick buttresses on the principal walled garden side. The fabric
comprises red/black brick with crumbling lime mortar infill (A.2.1.p2).
3.12.5 The wall is set on an offset brick plinth and topped with shaped brick
capping. The ‘plinth’ is not visible towards the centre of the wall where the
undulating ground level rises, suggesting the location of former structures.
The height of the wall increases towards the centre where a recessed niche
accommodates a statue within the walled garden. The height of the wall
also rises at the western and eastern extents where doorways lead between
the kitchen and walled gardens.
3.12.6 At the centre point of this wall is the rear of the niche inset into the wall of
the principal walled garden. This results in a jutting brick extension on the
north side of the wall with sloped tile roof. Above the niche is a brick arch
containing an ornamental keystone. It may be that the niche was added at a
later date during Lutyens redesign of the walled garden to the south.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.12.7 Two doorways into the adjacent walled garden are situated towards the
western and eastern ends of this wall. The 1870 Ordnance Survey map
shows that the eastern doorway was in situ at this date. The western
doorway is blocked by buildings which are still in situ on the 1908 edition. It
is likely that this entrance was created after this date and may have been
associated with Lutyen’s garden improvements.
South-east wall
3.12.8 The south-east wall is a continuation of the east wall of the walled garden
and survives in good condition. The wall supports various climbing plants
grown in the beds which flank the southern extent of the wall. At its northern
extent a lean-to structure abuts the wall (See separate listing).
North-east wall
3.12.9 The north-east wall of the kitchen garden comprises the rear wall of the
East coach house [A.1.2] and garages [A.1.3]. The wall is whitewashed
along the majority of the length of its south-west facing side signifying the
location of a former lean-to glass house. A doorway allows access between
the service yard and garden block towards the eastern extent of the wall.
Access along this alignment is indicated on the 1870 OS map and it is likely
that this right of way is contemporary with the surrounding18th century lay
out.
3.12.10 The fabric of the western extent of this wall (west of the East coach house)
is of modern 20th century construction and indeed is not depicted on the
1961 Ordnance Survey edition. This suggests that this wall dates from the
construction of the garage block around this time as it is shown in situ on the
1971/1981 OS edition (see [A.1.5]).
Integrity
3.12.11 The setting of the kitchen garden enclosed by the 18th century walls to the
north, east and south which hide the area from the house and formal lawns
is retained in the modern layout.
3.12.12 The historic setting of the area is truncated by the extension of the north
wall, west of the East coach house [A.1.2] which disassociates the area from
the service yard to the north to which it is historically linked.
3.12.13 The walls largely survive in good condition and the south and east walls in
particular have undergone little alteration, their integrity therefore survives
largely intact. The role of the walls in a kitchen garden would have been to
shield the interior from view, support climbing plants and to act as a sun
catcher and wind barrier. This function is reflected in the modern layout.
3.12.14 Views across the interior are likely to have been historically impeded by
functional planting and a changing footprint of buildings. It is likely that
views within the walled kitchen garden were never formally designed with
particular views in mind. Exterior views into the garden are restricted by the
walls although the interior is visible from the third floor of the western wing of
the main house and where visibility allows from the East coach house and
garages The kitchen garden is located south of (and historically within) the
service yard [A.1] away from the formal gardens to the front and rear of the
house as is usual for a functional kitchen garden.
Significance
3.12.15 The majority of the kitchen garden walls are significant as elements of the
18th century estate, few elements of which survive in the post-Lutyens
design.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.12.16 The walls are also significant in terms of other components of the wider
estate complex of which they form a part, those being the walled garden to
the south-west, the mid 19th century coach house [A.1.2] to the north-east
and the brick gazebo [C.2.1] on the garden terrace to the east.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.13 A.2.2 Glasshouses
Origin/History
3.13.1 A section of one glass house remains extant and in use to the modern day
within the kitchen garden. It is however clear from comparison between the
extant remains of former greenhouses, foundation courses and cartographic
sources that a series of former glass houses have formerly occupied this
area.
3.13.2 Structures within the area which became the kitchen garden are first shown
cartographically on the Tithe Map of 1842 (Fig 3). At this date the area now
occupied by the kitchen garden and service area are depicted as one open
area with the western pavilion [A.1.1] of the house occupying the north-east
corner of the plot. The only other structure depicted abuts the western
extent of the south wall of the kitchen garden. This structure is no longer
extant. The field inspection noted the footprint of a former building at a
comparable location. It is believed that a structure at this location was
destroyed during World War II bombing (Pers Comm. Roger Watts). East
of this, an undulating grass covered mound suggests the location of
additional pre-existing structures. It may be that one of these sub-surface
features represents the building shown on the Tithe map.
3.13.3 The 1870 Ordnance Survey Map shows significant development within the
kitchen garden area. The small scale of the buildings and their informal
arrangement suggests a functional use. Depicted are a range of buildings
only one of which remains extant. None of the extant glass houses are
shown but two pre-existing glasshouses are recorded. The first is situated
against the south wall of the eastern stable block fronting onto the service
yard and the second to the west of the extant apple store.
3.13.4 The 1898 OS Map shows that the glass house west of the apple store has
been removed and a new one constructed to the north along the
approximate alignment of the extant glass house. This pattern is repeated
on the Ordnance Survey Maps dating from 1898 and 1908.
3.13.5 Post 1909 mapping of the Kitchen Garden is of largely 6” scale and
therefore lacking in detail. Consultation with aerial photographic evidence
dating from 1946 (RAF/1066/UK/1439, RAF/58/2943, RAF/1066/UK/1449)
shows the north-west to south-east aligned greenhouses the footprint of
which are visible in the present day to be extant. Due in part to the
economic slump resulting from the World Wars, during the latter years of the
Tennant family’s ownership, the estate would appear to have gone into
decline. It is unlikely that during this time and the ensuing years when the
property was requisitioned in the War effort that any unnecessary
modifications would have been made. It is therefore tentatively asserted
that the semi-extant greenhouses date from the Lutyens time.
3.13.6 However the footprint of the green houses would appear to survive
unchanged until the 1970’s and 80’s when OS mapping shows a singular
large greenhouse and cold frame to the south covering the majority of the
plot. The footprint of the large greenhouse abuts the rear wall of the stable
block and garages and occupies more or less the same length of the walled
planting plots (former greenhouses) extant today. The 1991 (?) edition
shows a further change in the layout of greenhouses. At this date a single
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
linear structure is shown roughly comparable with the semi extant green
house in the modern day.
3.13.7 Evidence for heating the greenhouses is visible in pipe work running to and
within the former greenhouse structures from a boiler situated on the west
side of the garage block.
Description
3.13.8 A single extant green house and the remainder of former green houses
survive within the kitchen gardens. Brick footings of two linear glass houses
survive and are currently in use as plant growing beds. Only a small portion
at the eastern extent of the south greenhouse is covered by a wood and
glass frame and continues in use as a green house (A.2.2.p1).
3.13.9 The remainder of the green houses (A.2.2.p2) survive as brick footings to a
height of approximately 9 courses above ground level. The northern most
green house is divided into four bays defined by north-south aligned brick
walls. A concrete path runs north-west to south-east along the interior. The
beds either side of this path are at ground level and occupied by soil, gravel
and planting.
3.13.10 To the south a narrower structure survives, this is characterised by 2 parallel
raised beds with a sunken concrete path running between the two. The
south-eastern extent of this structure is covered by the only extant glass
house.
3.13.11 South of these two structures, a linear cold frame is partially extant along the
same alignment. This survives as a brick structure approximately 10
courses high along the northern wall and 6 to the south. At the eastern
extent of the structure evidence for the metal cold frame is in situ. The
frame is still in use as a planting and growing bed.
3.13.12 Evidence for a former green house is noted on the north wall of the garden
abutting the rear of the coach house and garages. Here a whitewashed
area of the wall stretching from the middle of the eastern coach house past
the western coach house delineates the extent of a former structure. The
peak of the roof adjoining the wall is marked by a wooden plank formally
used to affix the structure.
3.13.13 Evidence for some exotic planting (eg. Fig tree) were noted within the
footprint of the former green house.
Integrity
3.13.14 Cartographic and historic evidence suggests that green houses have been
extant within the kitchen garden area from the 19th century. The changing
footprint of these structures reflects their functional rather than ornamental
nature. This area is still in use as a functional garden and the green houses
remain in modified use. The setting of the glass houses although modified is
retained to a certain degree.
3.13.15 The integrity of the surviving green houses is compromised by the removal
of the majority of the glass coverings.
3.13.16 Given the changing footprint of glass houses within this area, the existing
layout does not reflect the 19th century design, indeed the modern footprint
is not clearly in place until the late 20th century. As such the integrity of the
19th and early 20th century glass houses is compromised by modern
remodeling.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Significance
3.13.17 The surviving green house at Maytham, and the remains of the extensive
cold frame running parallel to it on the south-west side appear to have been
part of Lutyens comprehensive development of the estate, and are therefore
of some historic significance.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.2.2.p1: View of extant glasshouses with Kitchen Garden. Looking north. Plate A.2.2.p2: View of former glasshouses within Kitchen Garden. Looking
north-east towards service area.
Plate A.2.3.p1: Apple Store within the Kitchen Garden. Looking west. Plate A.2.4.p1: Lean-to-shelter/store at eastern corner of Kitchen Garden.
Looking north-east.

WA Heritage
3.14 A.2.3 Apple Store
Origin/History
3.14.1 The apple store (or a structure occupying the same footprint) is first shown
on the 1870 Ordnance Survey map. A building consistently occupies this
footprint to the present day.
3.14.2 The garden at Maytham has historic associations with an orchard. During
Frances Hodgson Burnett’s residence during the late 19th century an “Old
orchard” surrounded by high walls is referenced (Harwood undated, 233).
Description
3.14.3 The apple store survives in good condition within the south-east corner of
the kitchen garden abutting the south wall of the area. The structure
occupies a footprint of approximately 3.5m by 3m and comprises a sunken
brick chamber enclosed by a steep Kent peg tile roof with eaves extended to
floor level (A.2.3.p1). The peak of the roof is defined by a line of ridge tiles
set in mortar. The peg tiles themselves are set into mortar rather than on
the more traditional wooden batons. This in itself suggests a modern
construction date. A single declining step leads to the wooden north-east
facing door which extends the height of the building to the point where it is
blocked by the eaves.
3.14.4 The interior was locked at the time of the site visit but it is likely that the
building retains a storage function.
Integrity
3.14.5 The apple store survives in good condition and is preserved within its
kitchen garden setting.
3.14.6 The integrity of the apple store is compromised by its disassociation with the
removed orchard making its intended function obsolete, and the loss of a
second, similar store which was located to its north. It would appear that the
structure is no longer in use as an apple store but its external integrity
survives intact.
Significance
3.14.7 The apple store is significant in terms of its association with the former
orchard known to have been in existence during Frances Hodgson Burnett’s
tenancy at the close of the 19th century. It is also of significance as an
expression of the continuing functional role of the kitchen garden in the
running of the wider estate and as a surviving feature of the 19th century
landscape.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.15 A.2.4 Lean-to brick and timber structure (Gardener’s shed)
Origin/History
3.15.1 A structure is first shown at this location on the 1870 Ordnance Survey
Edition although a building is suggested on the 1842 tithe map. At this date
the service yard and kitchen garden were part of the same area divided by a
north-south running boundary rather than the east-west division imposed by
the garage block in the modern day. The lean-to structure lies within the
eastern portion of this area against the wall delineating the service zone and
formal garden terrace and survives in the modern day on the same 19th
century footprint.
3.15.2 The structure is currently used as a gardener’s shed but may have had
previous functions associated with the changing demands of the service
area/kitchen garden.
Description
3.15.3 The structure survives as an open sided single storey lean-to shed built
against the eastern wall of the kitchen garden (A.2.4.p1). The northern wall
is formed by the north-west to south-east aligned wall dividing the service
yard from the Kitchen Garden. The southern wall is constructed of brick and
supports the sloping peg tile roof. The north-west facing front of the
structure comprises 4 bays divided by braced timber roof supports set on
brick and wooden plinths. The outer two bays are enclosed by
weatherboarding, while the central bays are open allowing access to the
interior currently used for storage and garden maintenance. The interior
floor comprises compacted earth.
Integrity
3.15.4 The gardener’s shed survives on its mid 19th century footprint and it is likely
that it has always had a function associated with the running of the estate,
as such its integrity remains in tact.
3.15.5 The structure is in a good state of repair and its integrity is retained in its
fabric and respected in its current estate use.
Significance
3.15.6 The gardener’s shed represents the only surviving structure within the
kitchen garden which pre dates the 1870 OS edition, and is therefore
significant as a component of the pre-Lutyen’s estate. It contributes to the
group of surviving mid 19th century buildings including the East coach house
[A.1.2] and the former open sided shed, later converted to garages [A.1.3].
3.15.7 The building is significant as an example of 19th century vernacular design
and by association with the historical development and maintenance of the
historic garden.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.16 A.3 Woodland Fringe
Identified Components
x Cobbled area
x Path
x Planting
x Boiler (dealt with in service yard listing).
Origin/History
3.16.1 This area is hidden from view from the formal estate and the cobbled area to
the north would appear to have been historically used for estate
management. The southern extent forms part of a more formal ‘wilderness’
walk leading to the gardens and beyond to the wider historic estate.
3.16.2 The development of the arts and crafts garden style in the mid 19th century
gave rise to certain precedents including the planting of naturalistic areas of
wild planting in proximity to enclosed gardens as is the case here.
Rhododendron planting identified within the woodland belt adjacent to the
west of this area also reflects garden fashion during the Victorian era.
3.16.3 Andrews and Herbert’s map of 1769 shows the edge of the woodland as it
exists today forming the western boundary of this area. This map predates
the establishment of the service area and walled garden. In 1842, the Tithe
map shows that the northern part of this area is in place and forms part of
the service area to the east. The southern extension of the area west of the
walled garden is occupied by woodland at this time and a path traversing
this section is not indicated. By 1870, the path running the length of this
area in the modern day is depicted leading to the lower garden and
westwards into guided walks through the adjacent woodland. At this date
the area now occupied by cobbling is not defined and forms part of the
woodland west of the service yard. This layout is repeated in 1898 and
1908 and indeed 20th century mapping reflects the secondary and
undefined nature of the northern part of this area. It is likely that it has been
historically used as an overflow area for the service yard hidden from view
from the west drive by woodland.
3.16.4 The chimney [A.1.8] of the former furnace house used to heat the green
houses is located against the north-west corner of the garage block within
the cobbled area, and it is likely that coal used to supply the boiler was also
stored in this area.
Description
3.16.5 This area lies immediately west and north-west of the coach house and
garage block and runs south-eastwards along the length of the walled
garden (A.3.p2). Access is gained at its southern extent to the landscaped
lower garden. Formally access to the walled garden was possible through a
now bricked up entrance through the west wall of the walled garden. Access
to the kitchen garden is through a gate at the centre of the hornbeam hedge.
3.16.6 A cobbled area lies immediately adjacent to the courtyard of the stable and
garage blocks and is accessed via a flight of declining stone steps. The
difference in height between the two areas is approximately 1m and is
defined by a brick revetment wall capped with brick coping. The area is
currently occupied by a compost heap and utilized for storage of building
material.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.16.7 South of the cobbled area, an area of grass stretches along the western side
of the walled and kitchen gardens. The west side of the area is flanked by
woodland and rhododendron planting (A.3.p1) and traversed by a path
running parallel with the garden wall which leads towards the lower garden
to the south. The path is flanked by a row of three mature oaks and a single
silver birch. Even though this area is situated in close proximity to the formal
gardens, it is removed from the formal estate by its narrow plan, tree
coverage and the walled garden which gives the area an intended
wilderness feel.
Integrity
3.16.8 Being of a functional nature the setting of the cobbled area would not have
been a primary concern. Its discreet location was utilized to hide functional
aspects of the estate from formal view.
3.16.9 The setting of the walk occupying the southern part of the area is more
significant. Informal wilderness walks were a common feature of 19th
country estates and were often located around walled gardens removed
from the more formal aspects of the estate.
3.16.10 The intended setting of the wooded walk is retained largely due to its
removed and peripheral location.
Significance
3.16.11 The wooded walk leading into estate woodland is a significant
representation of 19th century Arts and Crafts gardening style.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate A.3.p1: View along Woodland Fringe. Looking north-east towards Service Area. Plate A.3.p2: View along Woodland Fringe. Looking south.
Plate A.2.1.p2: View along south-western wall of Kitchen Garden showing Plate 1: Caption
footprint of former structure in the foreground. Looking south-east.


WA Heritage
B MAIN HOUSE
3.17 B.1 Main House
Origin/History
3.17.1 A house was first built at this location in 1721, though its construction is not
thought to have been completed until 1763. The building was originally of
two storeys above a semi-basement, and appears to have been five bays
long by four bays deep. Although no images of the original house have been
discovered, the building shown following the addition of an additional storey
c.1880 (Plate 1), suggests that it was a simple and elegant Georgian edifice,
with sliding sash windows, simple string courses and a parapet.
3.17.2 The Tithe map of 1842 (Fig. 3) shows a simple rectangular house flanked by
two ancillary buildings, or ‘pavilions’, the one to the east on the same
building line; that to the west set back from the frontage alignment. The 1870
first edition of the OS (Fig. 4) shows that the house had retained its simple
rectangular footprint at this date, but indicates that two ranges of building
immediately to its west had connected it to the west pavilion, and created a
discrete enclosed yard, entered at its west end. The map indicates that the
range of building along the north side of this yard comprised five individual
cells, and it is assumed that this complex comprised the stables and stable
yard.
3.17.3 The construction of an additional top storey in 1880 fundamentally altered
the appearance of the house. Designed in a neo-Gothic style quite alien to
the original house, the new structure introduced faux half-timbered gables to
every elevation and ornate decorative string courses. It was also at this date
that short wings were added at either side of the main house, which can be
seen from photographs to have been of a lesser scale and massing than the
main house (Plate 1). The house was partially destroyed by fire in 1893, but
very quickly repaired and restored, albeit in a slightly more subdued neo-
Gothic style.
3.17.4 The house was sold to the Rt Hon H J Tennant in 1909, and it was he who
employed the architect Edwin Lutyens to rebuild the house and lay out the
formal gardens to its south-west. A collection of drawings by the architect,
relating to the project at Great Maytham, are held in the RIBA Drawings
Collection at the Victorian and Albert Museum. The collection does not,
however, include any drawings of the house ‘as existing’ at the time of his
commission, nor does it include any floor plans of the house. The exact
extent of the original building which was retained and incorporate in Lutyen’s
comprehensive redevelopment of the property in 1909-10 therefore remains
unclear.
3.17.5 The documentary record provides a number of different opinions regarding
the extent of survival of fabric relating to the original 18th century house.
Weaver, writing within three years of the construction of the Lutyens house
records that “some of the original cellars have been incorporated into the
existing house, but to all intents the house is new” (Weaver, 1913, 252).
Similarly, the eyewitness account of Alison Tennant, daughter of the owner
for whom the new house was built, notes that the re-build “was a total
operation…it was all pulled down” (Tennant, 1980’s, 2). Other sources,
however, suggest a more comprehensive retention of the original house,
such as Pevsner who suggests that the house “incorporates a centre block
built in 1721” (Newman, 1969).
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.17.6 The floor plans of the house following Lutyens comprehensive re-modelling
show that the walls of the central core of the house are considerably thicker
than those even of the external walls of the new wings, which suggests that
the historic fabric of the original house was retained through its full height,
rather than having been reduced to basement level.
Description
3.17.7 No investigation of the fabric or the interiors of the main house has been
carried out within the scope of this study, and the following brief description
is derived from a brief external observation and from documentary
descriptions.
3.17.8 The central core of the building, which incorporates the historic fabric of the
two storeys and basement of the 18th century house, now comprises a
basement, three storeys and attic storey, and is of five bays on the front
(B.1.p1), and seven bays on the rear elevation (B.1.p2). This central core is
linked by narrower ranges of three bays, to cross wings at either end of two
bays, all comprising basement, two storeys and attic storey. The combined
length of the building is now 168 feet.
3.17.9 It is built of thin grey brick, all laid in stretcher bond, with red brick dressings
at quoins and around openings, which are extended to form aprons beneath
window openings on the side ranges only (B.1.p1-2). The timber eaves
cornice of the side ranges continues as a string course between first and
second floor of the central core of the house, with a second timber eaves
cornice above.
3.17.10 The tall roofs are hipped and tiled, with dormer windows. The dormers on
the central core have a mix of flat roofs and straight-sided pediments on the
front, while those to the rear have alternate straight-sided and segmental
pediments over.
3.17.11 Stone is used sparingly in the design, being used only for the door
surrounds of the principal doorways in the centre of the entrance and
garden fronts, and for the two secondary entrances in the side wings of the
front elevation. The door surround on the front is rusticated, with a
segmental pediment containing a cartouche set in swags in the tympanum.
The surround on the south-west (garden) front has Corinthian pilasters,
enriched frieze and segmental pediment containing a cartouche.
3.17.12 The internal layout of the house is thought to be fundamentally that as
designed by Lutyens, though with alterations necessary to convert the
building into self-contained apartments, including the introduction of kitchens
and bathrooms.
Integrity
3.17.13 There is no external evidence for the original 18th century house on this site,
other than its original eaves line being expressed in the timber string course
between first and second floors. Internally, its fabric survives, albeit hidden
behind internal render, but can be traced through the evidence of the
thickness of the walls, and in the vaulted cellars, which remain largely intact.
The external appearance of the building as currently surviving, does,
however, remain largely unaltered from its form and detail as designed by
Lutyens.
3.17.14 It is understood that the building has been subject to a comprehensive
programme of internal remodelling, upgrading and redecoration over the
past few years, and whilst this may have slightly affected the authenticity of
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
its layout, it will have ensured that the building remains in a good state of
repair and ongoing maintenance, which will safeguard its long term future.
Significance
3.17.15 The house is listed Grade II*, indicating that it is of considerable national
significance. Its association with Edwin Lutyens, one of the most famous and
prolific British architects, will have contributed a great deal to this elevated
level of significance, as the building itself is not intrinsically of the highest
quality of architectural design.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate B.1.p1: Main house viewed from entrance drive. Plate B.1.p2: Main house viewed from former east driveway, with East ‘pavilion’
to fore.
Plate B.1.p3: Garden front of house, looking north-east. Plate B.1.p4: Garden front with steps to paved terrace.

Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_B1.cdr

WA Heritage
3.18 B.2 East ‘pavilion’
Origin/History
3.18.1 This detached pavilion is assumed to have been built in association with the
construction of the main house, but may date to the completion of the
residence in 1763, rather than its inception in 1721. The building formed the
laundry to the main house.
3.18.2 It is shown as a completely detached pavilion on the Tithe map of 1842 (Fig.
3), and was originally a simple rectangular building with its frontage on the
same alignment as that of the main house. It is shown on the 1870 OS map
(Fig. 4) as comprising three distinct cells (similar to the West pavilion
[A.1.1]), with a connection across to three small outbuildings set against the
garden wall to the south-west.
3.18.3 The building appears to have remained unchanged until the Lutyens
redevelopment of the estate, when the east end of building was extended to
the north-east to create a Racquets court, and the former detached building
was connected to the main house by means of a largely glazed link.
Elevation drawings of the building survive in the collection of Lutyens
drawings held by the RIBA Drawings collection at the V&A. However, while
the structural elements of the rear (south-west facing) elevation can be
traced in the building as it survives today, the existing front (north-east
facing) elevation bears no relation to the surviving elevation drawing. It must
be assumed, therefore, that the drawings represent the building elevations
‘as existing’ in 1909, rather than Lutyens proposals. The drawing of the front
elevation shows a simple wall plane with three window bays; the central bay
being blind at ground floor. All windows are sliding sashes, 6 over 6 panes at
ground floor, with 3 over 3 above. The former three shallow segmental
headed windows on the rear elevation have been extended in length since
the 1909 drawing, and supplemented by the insertion of two additional
windows between them.
3.18.4 The building as evidenced by this pair of elevation drawings, has close
parallels with the original form of the West Pavilion [A.1.1], in that the front
elevation (which would be seen on approach to the main house along the
former main driveway) is styled in a simple, but polite Georgian aesthetic,
with flat rubbed brick arches over sash windows, while the rear elevation has
small, segmental headed windows at high level only, giving a much more
utilitarian and functional appearance.
3.18.5 The building has now been converted to residential use.
Description
3.18.6 This two storey brick building is now L-shaped in plan, projecting forward
from the main building frontage line at the eastern end (B.2.p1). The front
elevation has a main entrance doorway in the angle of the L, with fanlight
and flat hood over. To its west there is a small circular window, with large
tripartite window beyond. Windows at first floor are 6 over 6 sash windows
with segmental brick heads (B.2.p1).
3.18.7 Aesthetically, the south-east facing elevation of the building is similarly
detailed to the front, with a large tripartite window and long sash at ground
floor, and three sashes at first floor (B.2.p2). The rear elevation has been
much altered at ground level, having lost its two doorways, while two
additional windows have been inserted at first floor, to match the lengthened
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
original three. The windows on the rear elevation are also sliding sashes,
though containing leaded lights rather than timber glazing bars.
3.18.8 The building sits at a considerably lower level than the paved terrace to the
rear of the main house, to which it is connected by means of a brick bridge
with ornate brick and tile copings at first floor level (B.2.p4). The tall brick
retaining wall of the terrace and garden to the south-west, creates a
sheltered paved court to the rear of the building (B.2.p3).
3.18.9 The roof profile of the building has been kept low by means of a flat, lead
covered central section. This was presumably to reduce the overall height of
the building relative to the original, relatively modestly proportioned dwelling
house, as was observed in the treatment of the roof of the West pavilion
[A.1.2].
Integrity
3.18.10 This building appears to have undergone significant external alteration since
its first construction. Similarly, its conversion, firstly from laundry to Racquets
court and games room in 1910, and latterly to residential accommodation,
will have removed both the plan form, architectural detail and any fixtures
relating to its original function as one of the principal services associated
with the original residence.
Significance
3.18.11 Although having been subject to considerable alteration, this building is of
some architectural and historic significance as it is one of the few buildings
of the 18th century Great Maytham estate to survive. It is included in the
Grade II* listing of the main house, though would be unlikely to merit this
elevated grade if considered independently. It also derives additional value
through its association with the contemporary West pavilion.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate B.2.p1: North-east facing elevation of the East ‘pavilion’. Plate B.2.p2: South-east facing elevation of the East ‘pavilion’.
Plate B.2.p3: Rear of East ‘pavilion’ showing bridge to paved garden terrace [C.2]. Plate B.2.p4: Rear of East ‘pavilion’ at upper level.

Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_B2.cdr

WA Heritage
C. GARDENS
3.19 C.1 WALLED GARDEN
Identified Components
General
x Gates
x Niche
x Pegoda
C.1.1 Walls
C.1.2 Garden House
3.20 Walled garden - General
Origins/History
3.20.1 The construction of the walled garden at Maytham is generally attributed to
the initial phase of early 18th century building by Captain James Monypenny
who began construction in 1721. The Andrews and Herbert map of 1769
(Fig. 2) shows the house and grounds as laid out by Monypenny but does
not show the walled garden in Situ. James’ son Robert Monypenny is known
to have completed his fathers work on the house before his death in 1772. It
is clear that work was still going on at the house in the 1760’s as roof gutters
reused in Lutyen’s early 20th century build bear the date 1763.
3.20.2 The Andrews and Herbert Map of 1769 (Fig. 2) shows formal landscaped
gardens to the south-west of the house in the location of the existing lawn
terraces. The plot occupied by the walled garden to the north-west is vacant
and it may be that this area (somewhat removed from the more formal
aspect of the estate) was one of the last to be completed.
3.20.3 Typologically, the garden walls would appear to be of 18th century date. It is
feasible that the walled garden post dated the Andrews and Herbert map but
predated the death of Robert Monypenny suggesting a construction date
between 1769 and 1772.
3.20.4 Other available late 18th and early 19th century mapping of the Site is small
scale and lacking in detail. Chronologically, the next informative map is the
Rolvenden Tithe Map dating from 1842 which clearly shows the walled
garden in place. The accompanying Tithe Apportionment itemises a ‘Brick
Wall’ (20th Sept 1842).
3.20.5 The First Edition of the 25” Ordnance Survey Map dating from 1870 shows
the garden divided into a formalised grid with access gained at the eastern
corner as today. The modern garden has further entrances at the centre of
the south-west wall, and in the north-east corner. This aperture is not in
place in 1870.
3.20.6 The 1898 and 1908 OS editions show less detail, the interior layout and
gates are not depicted. Similarly, the 1909 25” OS map does not include
sufficient detail to show the interior layout of the garden. The footprint of the
walls however remains unchanged. Lutyen’s drawing of plans for Maytham
include the eastern extent of the walled garden. The interior is here
depicted as being occupied by dense tree planting and it may be that it was
his intention to retain the walled garden as a rose garden as planted by
Frances Hodgson Burnett in the late 19th/early 20th century. However,
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
aerial photographic material dating from 1946 (Photo ref
RAF/106G/UK/1449) shows the interior to be laid out in a symmetrical
design comprising circular features either side of the axial path. This design
was no longer extant in 1967 (Photo ref OS/67074).
Description
3.20.7 In the present day, the interior of the walled garden is formally landscaped
into areas of lawn surrounded and centrally divided by stone paths. The
walls are flanked by mixed borders (C.1.p1) and a brick and wood pergola of
20th century construction runs along the central axial path (C.1.p2). At the
northern extent of this path is a brick built niche providing a setting for a
classically designed female statue. The semi circular recess is set on a cut
stone sill. The recess would appear to post date the initial construction of
the wall as it is built vertically against the southerly lean of the buttressed
wall. It is likely that the niche was added by Lutyens as part of his
formalisation of design.
3.20.8 The eye is channeled towards the statue set in the recess by the pergola
comprising a wooden frame set on 3 sets of brick pillars. Between the pillars
are planted beds from which climbing roses are trained over the pergola.
Integrity
3.20.9 The integrity of the walled garden is retained with some material modification
and repair (eg. buttresses, removed doorways, the addition of Lutyens’
Garden House) and some changes in use and layout of the interior.
3.20.10 Historic references show the garden to have been occupied by a rose
garden (English Heritage 1986). Given the gardens location west of the
more formal areas of the estate and its more obvious relationship with the
functional estate elements such as the kitchen garden and service area to
the north, it is possible that its original purpose was as an orchard/kitchen
garden. 20th century development as a pleasure garden was probably
initially implemented by Lutyens (Photo ref. RAF/1066/UK/1449) with circular
beds flanking the axial path and later modified to its present form. The
integrity of the Lutyens design has been partially compromised by later 20th
century manipulation of the design. In the same way, the development of
the pleasure garden compromises the integrity of the pre-Lutyens rose
garden.
3.20.11 The interior of the garden is hidden from external view by the walls other
than from the upper windows of the house and views south-westwards from
the roof of the garage block.
Significance
3.20.12 The walled garden is significant as one of the few surviving elements of the
18th century garden design, and is particularly significant through its
association with the authoress Frances Hodgson Burnett and as inspiration
for her novel ‘The Secret Garden’. The walled garden formed a significant
element of Lutyens’ garden design, components of which are retained in the
present day largely as planned.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate C.1.p1: General view of interior of Walled Garden. Looking north-east Plate C.1.p2: View through pergola running south-west to north-east across
towards the main house. interior of Walled Garden. Looking north-east.
Plate C.1.1.p1: View along north-east wall of Walled Garden. Looking east. Plate C.1.1.p2: View of blocked up opening in north-west wall of Walled Garden.

Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_C1&C11.cdr

WA Heritage
3.21 C1.1. Garden walls
Origins/History
See general listing
Description
3.21.1 The garden walls survive in a good state of repair with some evidence for
brick and mortar erosion. The brickwork comprises a mixture of red and
red/black brick bound with lime mortar.
North-east wall
3.21.2 The north-east wall backs onto kitchen garden to north. The structure leans
dramatically to the south-west and is supported by brick buttresses on the
south side (C.1.1.p1). These buttresses comprise differing brickwork from
the main wall structure being more angular and less pitted. The mortar is
also greyer in colour and more evenly filled. These observations indicate
that the buttresses were added at a later date.
3.21.3 The wall is capped with shaped brick capping. The height of the wall
increases towards the centre where a recessed niche accommodates a
statue within the walled garden (C.1.1.p3). The height of the wall also rises
at the western and eastern extents where doorways lead between the
kitchen and walled gardens.
South-east wall
3.21.4 The south-eastern wall of the walled garden maintains a uniform height
along its length and accommodates the ornamental gateway at its northern
extent onto the garden lawns.
South-west wall
3.21.5 The south-west wall displays evidence of a blocked up doorway towards its
southern extent (C.1.1.p2). The brick arch is retained and the aperture
below bricked up. A change in the appearance of the mortar around the
former opening suggests that a section of the wall outside the arch may
have been removed. The brick coping above this area would appear to be of
slightly smaller sized bricks indicating that there may have been more than
one previous opening at this location.
3.21.6 Mirroring the opposite south-east wall, this wall retains the same height
along its length.
North-west wall
3.21.7 The south-west wall of the garden is covered with climbing plants restricting
views of the fabric (C.1.1.p1). It would appear to be of uniform height along
its length with a central opening leading to the lower garden to the south.
Integrity
3.21.8 The integrity of the garden walls is retained with some historic modification
and repair (eg. Buttresses, removed doorways, mortar replacement and the
addition of the brick garden house).
Significance
3.21.9 The garden walls and walled garden are significant as being part of the
relatively poorly-represented survival of the 18th century estate. The garden
is significant by its association with the authoress Frances Hodgson Burnett
and as the inspiration for her novel ‘The Secret Garden’.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate C.1.1.p2: View of blocked up opening in Plate C.1.1.p2: Western gate into the Walled Garden.
north-west wall of Walled Garden. Looking north-west Looking south-east.
from interior of garden.
Plate C.1.2.p1: Garden House at south-eastern corner of

Walled Garden. Looking south-east.
Plate C.1.1.p3: Niche containing ornamental statue

within north-eastern wall of walled garden.
Looking north-east.

WA Heritage
Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_C11&12.cdr

WA Heritage
3.22 C1.2 Garden House
Origin/History
3.22.1 Although not illustrated in Lutyens proposed view of the gardens (Fig. 7), it is
assumed that the garden house was built onto the south-east corner of the
walled garden by Lutyens 1909-11, in a comparable style to the 18th century
gazebo at the western extent of the garden terrace.
Description
3.22.2 The raised garden house survives in a good state of repair reached via a
flight of brick steps with flag stone treads. The single storey square brick
built structure is capped with a four sided steep pitch peg tile roof (C.1.2.p1).
Views are afforded south-eastwards overlooking the main lawn, south-
westwards into the lower garden and north-westwards into the walled
garden. The windows and doorway are surmounted by brick above door
splays.
3.22.3 The interior is designed in the Georgian style with a moulded ceiling, plaster
paneled walls, patterned tile floor, wooden dado rail, deep sills and sash
windows.
Integrity
3.22.4 The setting and integrity of the garden house remain unchanged from
Lutyen’s intended design. Views afforded to and from the structure across
the Lutyen’s landscape survive largely in tact. The fabric of the structure is
well preserved.
Significance
3.22.5 The garden house is a significant and prominent element of Lutyens’
designed landscape at Maytham being visible from various estate
components.. It survives in its intended form and is significant as an
example of Lutyens’ efforts to assimilate pre-existing 18th century elements
(ie. The terrace gazebo) into his early 20th century design.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.23 C.2 Paved Garden Terrace
Origin/history
3.23.1 Remodeled by Lutyens 1909-10 and restored in 1977. Elements of the 18th
century build are incorporated into the structure.
3.23.2 The Andrews and Herbert Map of 1769 shows a line extending north-west
and south-east of the south-western front of the house across the width of
the terraced lawn. It is probable that this line represents the rear wall of the
terrace as in situ today, visible east and west of the main house. Given the
steep topography of the Site at this location, it is likely that some form of
terrace was necessary to allow formalised access to the landscaped
grounds below. The eastern extension of this line is further depicted on the
Tithe map of 1842. The 1872 OS map clearly shows a terrace with steps
denoted along the central axis and at either end as today. By 1908, the
terrace has been extended eastwards to the eastern edge of the eastern
pavilion. An additional flight of steps lead south-westwards onto the lawn.
3.23.3 Lutyens appears to have retained the steps in their earlier location but has
extended the flights at the eastern and western ends of the main house and
returned the flights to form an L-shaped access to the lawns. The central
staircase would also appear to have been widened and extended. The
terrace was restored in 1977-78 (English Heritage 1986).
Description
3.23.4 The south-west front of the house opens onto an extensive paved terrace
which runs for 75m along the extent of the frontage (C.2.p1). The terrace
terminates at its north-western end by the south-east wall of the kitchen
garden and service area where a brick gazebo is placed at the north-west
corner.
3.23.5 In the centre of the terrace opposite the door leading out from the saloon
and continuing the axis of the main drive, a flight of stone steps leads down
to a landing and further short flights which are flanked by shrub planted
projecting brick bastions onto the principal lawns. Stair cases at the extreme
ends of the terrace also reach the lawns (C.2.p2). The western staircase
leads to a stone path which runs the western length of the terraced lawns.
The terrace is designed to make the most of the steep topographical decline
to the lawns and beyond while optimizing views south-westwards across
The Weald.
3.23.6 Lutyens is renowned for designing elaborate steps which had a role beyond
the merely functional. The design at Maytham is strictly angled adding to a
formal and commanding frontage (Brown 1981, 121) (C.2.p2).
3.23.7 Certain elements of the 18th century build are apparent in the surviving
terrace, these include the brick gazebo (C.2.p1-p2)and adjacent wall
adjoining the structure to the south-west wall of the house and elements of
the eastern extent of the terrace. Here the rear wall which continues along
the line of the house frontage and steps leading to the lawns would appear
to be of 18th century construction.
Integrity
3.23.8 The paved terrace survives in a good state of repair with evidence for 20th
century amendments.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Significance
3.23.9 The terrace is a significant feature in the overall setting of the house and
gardens, and it acts as a plinth from which the main house is elevated and
displayed. It is a significant element of landscape design, designed
specifically to make the most of the challenging terrain and maximize long
distance views to and from the house. Its alteration by Lutyens, and its
retention as an important design element in the architect’s design for the
layout of the adjacent gardens, and the setting of the house give it particular
significance.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate C.2.p2: Steps leading to western side of paved Garden Terrace.
Looking north-west towards Service Area.
Plate C.2.p1: View along paved Garden Terrace

running along south-western façade of house.
Looking north-west.
Plate C.2.1.p1: View of Brick Gazebo from paved Plate C.2.1.p2: View of Brick Gazebo accessed from
Terrace. Looking north-east. paved Garden Terrace. Looking south-east from
Service Area.

WA Heritage
Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_C2&21.cdr

WA Heritage
3.24 C.2.1 Brick Gazebo (Garden terrace)
Origin/history
3.24.1 The brick gazebo is first shown on the 1870 Ordnance Survey Edition (Fig.
4). Given that the gazebo is incorporated into the 18th century wall dividing
the formal lawns from the walled gardens to the west it is likely that the
original structure was contemporary with the original Monypenny build.
3.24.2 The structure continues to be shown cartographically on the same footprint
to the present day. It is likely that the structure underwent some
modification during Lutyen’s remodeling of the terrace in the early 20th
century, and it is likely that it was at this date that the wooden door and
window cases were replaced.
Description
3.24.3 The building survives as a small square brick gazebo at the northern corner
of the paved terrace (C.2.1.p1-2). The four sided peg tile roof comprises a
steep pitch capped with a singular simple ridge ornament. The interior is
entered from the terrace and affords views west and north-westwards across
the service yard and coach houses and north-east onto the paved area
between the main house and pavilion.
3.24.4 Looking out through the entrance, views are afforded across the paved
terrace and formal terraced lawns. The door frame and window casements,
which are set above turned ornamental balusters are painted wood and are
likely to represent 20th century modification. The gazebo is integrated into
the 18th century wall defining the eastern side of the walled and kitchen
gardens and the north-west to south-east aligned wall extending from the
corner of the main house to the western end of the terrace.
Integrity
3.24.5 Although the views from the gazebo of the paved terrace and terraced lawns
survive in relatively authentic form, its setting, and the views from it towards
the west have been compromised by the unsympathetic introduction of the
1960’s garage blocks.
3.24.6 The fabric of the gazebo is well maintained and survives in good condition,
however the integrity of its mid 19th century design is compromised by the
introduction of the wooden window casements.
Significance
3.24.7 This small building is one of the relatively few survivals of the mid 19th
century development of the site in association with the 18th century house,
and therefore has an element of historical significance. However, its lack of
association with an eminent architect of the calibre of Lutyens reduces its
relative significance in relation to features of the Lutyens design.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.25 C.3 Terraced Lawns
Origin/history
3.25.1 Andrews and Herbert’s 1769 map (Fig.2) shows a defined area similar to
that occupied by the present terraced lawns. However, this enclosure would
appear to extend westwards beyond the modern extent of the lawn, in line
with the western end of the west pavilion. To the east the area terminated in
line with the eastern extent of the eastern pavilion. The enclosed area is
shown divided internally into six areas, paired to either side of a central path.
The three pairs of planting or lawned areas appear to correspond to the
three terraced levels which survive extant today, although there is no longer
any evidence of these planting/lawned areas, or the paths between them.
3.25.2 The southern extension of this area terminated with a semi circular feature
aligned to the centre of the main house. This pattern is mirrored in a
secondary outer enclosure which encompassed the inner estate. This
geometric design reflects the early 18th century precedent for formal garden
design in proximity to the main house.
3.25.3 By 1842 (Fig. 3), the 18th century geometric design had disappeared and
been replaced with a more open landscape panorama. The Tithe
Apportionment of the same year specifically references a lawn. A small area
immediately in front of the house is enclosed but does not extend far beyond
an alignment with the southern extent of the adjacent kitchen garden. This
area is roughly comparable with the upper terrace of the modern lawn.
Beyond this defined area the land was open to designed parkland
maximizing views south-westwards across the Weald. At this date the
alignment of the western extent of the terraced lawn adjacent to the kitchen
and walled gardens was in place as today. This shift in design reflects the
fashion for landscape design incorporating extensive and planned vistas
with a naturalistic feel. The movement championed by Lancelot Capability
Brown was gathering popularity from the middle of the preceding century.
3.25.4 This pattern is largely repeated in more detail on the Ordnance Survey Maps
of 1870 and 1898. Here a path is clearly defined running along the western
edge of the terrace as today, leading into the lower garden which is
occupied by woodland at this time. A path also led off the main axial path
into the walled garden at the location of the modern east gate.
3.25.5 During Frances Hodgson Burnett’s time at Maytham at the turn of the 20th
century, croquet and tennis lawns are referenced at Maytham. Photographic
evidence would suggest that they were situated on the upper terrace closest
to the house (Harwood Undated, 231-232). The Register of Historic parks
and Gardens by contrast states that the croquet lawn was located on the
middle terrace (English Heritage 1986, 3).
3.25.6 By 1908 (Fig. 6), efforts had been made to define the extent of the lawn.
The line of the Ha ha (boundary ditch) visible today, enclosed the lawns in a
rounded right angle to the south-west and south-east. Ha ha’s were
designed to create an invisible physical barrier in order to retain the parkland
landscape uninterrupted by fences or other boundary markers.
3.25.7 The sketch held by the estate showing Lutyen’s planned design for the
house (Fig. 7)outlines a lawn on three differently sized terraces as in situ
today. However Lutyens plan was not implemented in its entirety. The
intended design shows the southern extent of the middle terrace defined by
a balustraded wall with flights of sites at the north-west and south-eastern
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
corners leading onto the lower terrace. Neither the wall or the south-eastern
flight were constructed. Also suggested on the plan is a central path aligned
with the central doorway of the house, across the garden terrace leading to
central steps between the upper and middle lawn terrace. A path is also
shown on the east side of the middle terrace mirroring that on the west.
Neither of these paths are in evidence today and it is likely that they
reflected elements of the Lutyen’s design that were never executed.
Description
3.25.8 The terraced lawn comprises 3 terraces separated by grassed banks and
defined at the western extent by a pathway leading to the lower garden and
the outer wall of the walled and kitchen garden (C.3.p1-2). This wall was
extended by Lutyen’s approximately 50m south-westwards to form the
eastern boundary of the lower garden. Steps lead westwards into the walled
garden and eastwards onto the lower terrace. These steps and part of the
southern extent of the wall are defined by tile and brick balustrade placed to
form an open ornamental fretwork. Two piers also added by Lutyens along
the length of the wall are also notable. The east side of the lawn is less
clearly defined. The Ha ha is highly visible along the south-western and
northern-eastern sections, but less pronounced to the south-east. Here
random and designed tree planting, a shrubbery, the remnants of a box
hedge and immediately beyond them a copse screen the view of the park
from the house. This makes for a marked contrast with the formal linear
design created by the garden walls on the west side.
3.25.9 To the north-east of the main lawn, south-east of the east pavilion, the
concrete foundation of a former structure was noted. It may be that this
marks the location of one of the huts erected in the grounds by the Institute
of the Blind in the mid 20th century (Alison Tennant 1980’s. 3).
Integrity
3.25.10 The late 18th century garden layout shown on the Andrews and Herbert map
has largely been eradicated by subsequent landscaping. However, the
footprint of this early design would appear to be loosely reflected in the
current footprint of the terraced lawn.
3.25.11 Lutyens’ intended design for the lawned gardens was not completed and as
such the intended symmetry of design shown on the Lutyen’s sketch
proposal is not reflected. This may have been down to limited finance but
the result is imbalanced and results in the emphasis and sightlines being
drawn to the western side of the garden. Lutyen’s intended setting is
therefore incomplete.
3.25.12 The landscaped terraced first identified in the first part of the 19th century
has however been retained and extended. The addition of the unintrusve
Ha ha has retained the intended views south-westwards across the
landscaped park. However, in recent years the integrity of this view has
been impeded by modern fencing along the top of the Ha ha.
Significance
3.25.13 The terraced lawn is a significant element of the overall garden design.
Although its layout has changed from a formal to a more landscaped design,
a similar footprint has been retained throughout.
3.25.14 The terraced lawn also has a significance as a key element of Lutyen’s
redesign, providing a ‘plinth’ for the house and will have been a key feature
in maximizing views both to and from the house.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
3.25.15 The area of the terraced lawn also represents incomplete elements of
Lutyen’s design. This is significant in our understanding of Lutyens
manipulation of the existing landscape. It is also significant in relation to the
social and economic history of the house as the failure to complete is likely
to be as a result of these factors.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate C.3.p1: View of Terraced Lawn. Looking north-east towards house. Plate C.3.p2: View from Terraced Lawn towards Service Area. Looking north.
Plate C.3.p3: View of Terraced Lawn from Paved Garden Terrace. Looking Plate C.3.p4: Detail of Lutyen’s garden wall design at south-west corner of
south-west. Terraced Lawn.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_C3.cdr

WA Heritage
3.26 C.4 Lower Garden
Origin/history
3.26.1 The lower garden does not appear to be defined as an area until the 19th
century, and it is first documented on the Tithe Map dating from 1842 (Fig.
3). Here a sub oval feature is defined adjacent to woodland to the west and
south, though no internal features are defined.
3.26.2 The Tithe Apportionment dating from 1842 refers to an ‘Alder field’.
Ordnance Survey mapping dating from 1870 (Fig. 4) shows the area of the
lower garden occupied by trees planted in a regulated pattern. This area
may reflect the Alder Field referenced in the apportionment or it may
represent the location of an orchard. In 1870, a path followed the interior
perimeter of the area accessed from the path running along the western side
of the terraced lawn. This path suggests that the area was used for
pleasure walks at this date. The extension of a path at the north-east corner
of the area suggests that it may have allowed access into the walled garden
to the north. There is however no further evidence to suggest this. There
does not appear to be access in to the walled garden at its present location
along the southern boundary.
3.26.3 The area remained wooded into the 20th century as represented on the
1908 Ordnance Survey edition (Fig. 6). It would appear from Lutyens sketch
(Fig. 7) that he visualized this area as a formal garden with axial path and
symmetrical focus. The modern layout does not reflect the intricacy shown
on the Lutyen’s sketch, but aerial photographic evidence (OS ref
RAF/106G/UK/1449) dating from 1946 shows that a geometric design
comprising a criss-cross pattern had been implemented. At this date the
continuation of the axial path leading south-west from the walled garden
clearly continues along this access into the woodland beyond. In the
modern day, the path has fallen into disuse although is still visible as a
fragmented overgrown irregular tunnel.
3.26.4 The modern layout including the central square pond feature is in place by
1967 when it is shown on aerial photography (OS ref. 67074). While it
reflects the essence of Lutyens design, it is probable that the area was
cleared of the earlier planting in advance of his work.
3.26.5 Lutyens also added the southern most 50m and two piers to the wall
defining the south-eastern extent of the lower garden.
Description
3.26.6 The garden serves as a pleasure garden in the modern day situated at a
lower level to the surrounding gardens, it is accessed from tapering flights of
steps to the north-east and south-east. The garden is enclosed to the north-
west and south by a belt of mature oak underplanted with rhododendrons. It
is laid to lawn with a with a square lily pond as a central focus. The pond is
surrounded by paving and flower beds (C.4.p1). A central axial path which
leads south-eastwards into a woodland tunnel and north-eastwards into the
walled garden.
3.26.7 At the north-west corner of the garden access can be gained to the
southernmost extent of the woodland fringe [A.3] and woodland to the north-
west.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Integrity
3.26.8 The setting of the lower garden originates from the early 20th century and
largely retains the elements of axial design introduced by Lutyens.
3.26.9 The formalised early 20th century design has obliterated any evidence of the
preceding function of the area as a plantation or Orchard, as such its 19th
century integrity is compromised. The garden does however retain its
association with woodland, being surrounded by the wood and by the guided
access given into the woodland at the south-western extent.
Significance
3.26.10 The garden is a significant feature of Lutyens design as it represents an
area almost entirely re-designed by him. Many other changes made by
Lutyens to existing areas involved localised modifications, here the change
is more comprehensive. The redesign of this area in the early 20th century
shows a return to a more formal design last championed in the early 18th
century.
3.26.11 The lower garden is also significant as it provides a link between the inner
and parkland estate, the formal design leading the visitor southwards into
the woodland and landscaped park beyond.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate C.4.p1: View across Lower Garden towards Walled Garden and Service Plate C.4.p2: Detail of south-eastern wall of Lower Garden showing Lutyens
Area. Looking north-east. design. Looking north-east.
Plate C.3.p3: View of Terraced Lawn from Paved Garden Terrace. Looking south-west. Plate A.2.1.p3: View along hedge which defines the north-western boundary of
the Kitchen Garden. Looking south-west.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_C4.cdr

WA Heritage
D HISTORIC ESTATE
3.27 D.1 Driveways
Origin/history
3.27.1 At different stages in its history, the house has been approached by three
separate driveways. The earliest available mapping dating from 1769 shows
an axial drive along the same alignment as today. This linear approach
adds to the overall symmetry of the formal design which is continued to the
south-west of the property in the layout of the formal lawns.
3.27.2 By 1842 (Fig. 3), the formal design of the estate has been replaced with the
more fluid landscaped design. The main approach would appear to have
been changed by the turn of the century to fit with landscaping precedents,
Mudge’s map of 1801 shows that the linear drive has been replaced with two
driveways approaching the house from the north-west and from the south-
east. To reach the house these drive ways traverse the open landscaped
parkland, one of the key features of the style. The removal of the axial drive
allowed uninterrupted views across parkland from the main façade of the
house. A semi circular forecourt marked the meeting of the two driveways at
the front of the main house. This alignment continues throughout the 19th
century.
3.27.3 The axial drive was reinstated by Lutyens in 1909 and accentuated by the
planting of a double avenue of trees. The Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens states that the yew enclosed forecourt was laid out in 1909-10 by
Lutyens (1986, 2), and it is shown on the aerial photographs of 1946.
3.27.4 Following the Lutyen’s re-design of the circulation within the estate, the
south-east drive continued in use as a servant’s entrance enabling access
from the settlement at Rolvenden Layne.
Description
3.27.5 The main axial drive (and the only one which continues in use) approaches
the house from the east side from Maytham Road (D.1.p1). The formal
approach enters through the carriage arch which connects the twin lodges of
the gatehouse. The drive is lined with an avenue of 5 pairs of lime trees re
planted in the early 1990’s to replace Lutyens original 6 pairs which were
lost in the storm of 1987. The drive runs on a straight 90m course to the
graveled, yew hedge enclosed forecourt.
3.27.6 The south-eastern drive is no longer in use and survives as a semi grassed
trackway truncated by a north-east to south-west running fencing at the
extent of the inner estate (D.1.p2). South-east of this the line of the drive is
visible as a track and a modern farm building has been constructed along
the alignment blocking views along the length of the former driveway.
3.27.7 The north-western driveway survives within the estate as a semi-grassed
track (D.1.p3). A public footpath cuts it path at the western extent of the
inner estate. The former drive can be seen to continue as a private road
beyond this footpath crossing the woodland beyond. The former driveway
(being private property) was not inspected beyond the line of the footpath in
the course of the field visit.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Integrity
3.27.8 It can be seen that the emphasis on approach has changed considerably
during the house’s history. The approach is specifically designed to provide
a setting for the house. In his resurrection of the axial drive, Lutyens
reasserted the 18th century setting of the head on approach.
3.27.9 However in doing so, the late 18th/early 19th century designed landscaped
setting is compromised and the integrity of the fluid and subtly designed
approach incorporating strategic placing of parkland trees to frame views of
the house is lost.
3.27.10 The setting and integrity of the Lutyens drive is retained in the present day
particularly in view of the replanting of the flanking tree avenue following the
storm of 1987.
3.27.11 The setting and integrity of the former driveways are compromised by disuse
and disassociation with the inner estate as a result of sale into private
ownership. The line of the former south-east drive is also severely
compromised by the structure located along it alignment south-east of the
inner estate boundary.
Significance
3.27.12 The surviving drive is a significant element of the Lutyen’s overall redesign
of the estate and is a key component of his axial layout.The drive way is key
in the dramatic introduction of the house to the visitor and is a significant
element in linking key components of the estate.
3.27.13 The significance of the former driveway is impacted by their disuse and
disassociation from the inner estate. They are however significant elements
of the historic estate particularly as features of the landscaped estate
prevalent in the late 18th/ealy 19th centuries.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate D.1.p1: Main Lutyens driveway. Looking south-west towards main house. Plate D.1.p2: Line of former south-eastern driveway. Looking south-east from
front of house.
Plate D.1.p3: Line of former north-western driveway. Looking north-west from Plate A.2.1.p3: View along hedge which defines the north-western boundary of
front of western pavilion. the Kitchen Garden. Looking south-west.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_D1.cdr

WA Heritage
3.28 D.2 Gatehouse Stable Block
Origin/History
3.28.1 This building was designed by Lutyens as part of his development of the
estate for Mr Tennant, in association with the creation of a new main
approach to the house [D.1]. This created a far more formal entry to the
property, perpendicular to the centre of the house front, with views of the
house framed by the large carriageway through the Stables.
3.28.2 Drawings relating to this building survive in the collection of Lutyens
drawings held by the RIBA Drawings collection at the V&A. The surviving
drawings include one sheet of details of the building, including a detailed
elevation and plan of the top an arched niche, and a detail of the brickwork
and tile head adjacent to a window. It would appear that Lutyens intended to
use a number of designs which he had already prepared for a previous
project at Temple Dinsley, as the drawing contains annotations including
“niche to be similar to Temple Dinsley” and “Vase from Temple Dinsley”. A
study of the built fabric indicates that a number of these intended design
elements were not actually included in the execution of the building. A
separate sheet details the design of the clocktower itself.
Description
3.28.3 The building is essentially of a single storey, with an attic storey lit by
dormers. It essentially comprises two wings, separated by a large and
ornately detailed central carriageway, surmounted by a classical clocktower
(D.2.p1). The walls are constructed in the same thin grey brick laid in
stretcher bond with red brick dressings, as used for the main house. The
walls are set on a plinth of red brick, and the red brick dressings around the
segmental headed windows are extended to the plinth with red brick aprons
(D.2.p2). Stone is used sparingly, to frame the doorways and occuli on the
front elevation, and for the coping of the offset towers at either end of the
range (D.2.p1 & p3).
3.28.4 The two long elevations are of different architectural detail. The front (north-
east facing) elevation is articulated with shallow projecting pilasters with red
brick quoins, whereas the walls of the south-west facing elevation are flush.
The greatest difference though, is in the fenestration. That on the front
elevation is of timber sliding sashes, and the dormers are surmounted by
shallow pediments. On the rear (south-west facing) elevation, the windows
have a single central timber mullion and diamond leaded lights. The dormers
to the attic storey are of similar detail, and have shallow segmental roofs. It
is assumed that the difference in treatment of the two elevations was a result
of their relationship to the house. The front elevation, as seen from the road,
would provide a consistency with the detailing of the main house beyond
(D.2.p1), while the rear elevation, visible from the house, is designed in a
more vernacular style, setting it apart in terms of status, from the main
residence (D.2.p2).
3.28.5 Although appearing symmetrical at first glance, the two wings projecting at
either end of the front (north-east facing) elevation are, in fact, slightly
different. While the first floor window in the northern tower sits above the
deep projecting timber eaves cornice, that in the southern tower extends
down through the line of the cornice.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Integrity
3.28.6 Although not built exactly in accordance with Lutyens original, ambitious
designs for the building, the exterior of the building as currently existing
appears to survive in authentic form and detail. Whilst the interiors were not
accessed within the scope of this study, the conversion of the building to
residential apartments is considered likely to have removed all fixtures
relating to the original function of the building as stables.
Significance
3.28.7 The Gatehouse Stable Block is Listed Grade II*, and is therefore of
considerable national significance. It also derives further significance from its
close relationship with the similarly Grade II* listed Great Maytham Hall, to
which it forms the formal entrance.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate D.2.p1: Gatehouse stable block viewed from the north-east. Plate D.2.p2: Gatehouse stable block viewed from the main house.
Plate D.2.p3: North wing of stable block with The Barn [D.3] beyond. Plate C.1.1.p2: View of blocked up opening in north-west wall of Walled Garden.

Path: X:\PROJECTS\67240\Drawing Office\Report Figures\LABS\07_11_23\67240_plates_D2.cdr

WA Heritage
3.29 D.3 Other estate buildings
3.29.1 Although no longer in the same ownership as the main house and closely
associated buildings and structures, some buildings formerly belonging to
the historic Great Maytham estate survive in separate ownership.
East Lodge and West Lodge
3.29.2 This survival includes lodge cottages at either end of the former main
driveway which ran on a north-west to south-east alignment from Hastings
Road to Maytham Road, past the front of the house.
3.29.3 The two single storey brick lodges were constructed between 1870 and
1898, presumably as part of the enhancement of the property which
included the extension of the main house, and the addition of a further
storey. The lodge cottages are virtually identical in detail; built in late
Victorian vernacular Gothic, with gabled cross wings, large central stacks,
timber framed external porches, oriel bay windows and diamond paned
windows (D.3.p1 & p2). The West Lodge has been extended to the north
with a range of similar design to the original.
Water Tower
3.29.4 As part of his development of the estate, Lutyens designed a concrete water
tower to ensure a reliable water supply to the house. It is situated at the top
end of the former estate, immediately to the east of West Lodge (Fig. 1).
This has now been extended and converted to residential use (D.3.p3)
The Barn
3.29.5 The Barn is situated adjacent to the Gatehouse Stable Block [D.2] at the
main entrance to the property. It is part of the Lutyen’s redevelopment of the
estate, and is constructed in the same thin grey bricks as the main house
and Stable Block, intermixed with some thin red bricks, though without the
clear definition of the red brick dressings of the higher status buildings. The
brick walls are of a single storey only, with low sweeping roofs extending to
the heads of the ground floor windows (D.3.p4). The front (south-east facing)
elevation of the barn has a double storey offset bay in vertical timber
boarding with a hipped roof, in reference to the tall central cart entrance of a
traditional tithe barn. The building is now in residential occupation.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate D.3.p1: West Lodge. Plate D.3.p2: East Lodge.
Plate D.3.p3: Water Tower. Plate D.3.p4: The Barn.


WA Heritage
3.30 D.4 Parkland overview
Origin/history
3.30.1 Beyond the core of the estate, land and various components of the historic
parkland survive but have become disassociated from the estate by sale into
private ownership. To place the core estate within its wider historic context,
these are outlined briefly below.
Inner estate Pet cemetery

Ornamental shelter
3.30.2 While not traceable cartographically, inscriptions on the gravestones in the

pet cemetery date it to the early-mid 19th century. This post dates the peak
in popularity for pet cemeteries which were common features of Victorian
estates.
3.30.3 Again the ornamental shelter is not traceable cartographically and aerial
photographic material does not give enough detail to pinpoint the structure.
Stylistically it has an Arts and Crafts element to its design perhaps indicating
a late 19th/early 20th century date.
Greater estate Parkland planting
lake
Woodland
3.30.4 The lack of detailed pre mid 19th century mapping makes it difficult to track
the development of parkland planting. Landscape analysis would suggest
that the majority of the parkland trees were planted at the end of the 18th
and the beginning of the 19th century with clusters notable at the entrances
to the north-west and south-east drives and the general layout maximizing
views south-east and south-west of the house. The addition of
rhododendron planting noted in woodland close to the gardens suggests
Victorian landscaping efforts.
3.30.5 Woodland to the west and south-west of the house represents an ancient
feature of the landscape, the Weald having been heavily wooded from
prehistory. As such the woodland as a key element of the landscape
predates construction of the house. The identification of a hollow way in
woodland south-east of the estate highlights the historic longevity of the
landscape.
3.30.6 Woodland walks are mapped leading from the core estate from the mid 19th
century but it is likely that they pre date this period. Woodland walks were
key characteristics of 18th century landscaped and Victorian estates.
3.30.7 A lake is first recorded cartographically to the north-west of the core estate
on the 1898 edition of the Ordnance Survey on the south side of the north-
west drive. The feature created in a natural dip would have been visible on
approach to the house. Lakes and ponds are key features of parkland
estates attributable to various eras of parkland design. This example which
post dates 1870 would appear to be a late 19th century example.
Description
3.30.8 The ornamental shelter is located north-east of the west pavilion with the
opening facing south (D.4.p1). The structure comprises a circular brick built
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
structure capped with wooden fretwork and sub structure supporting a
conical peg tile roof.
3.30.9 The pet cemetery comprises several simple small gravestones situated
under trees to the north-west of the main house in a removed location
(D.4.p2).
3.30.10 The lake survives in private ownership and access was restricted at the time
of the field inspection. The lake has been planted and fenced off as a
private garden and as such has become disassociated from the wider
estate.
3.30.11 Associated estate woodland survives to the south and west of the gardens.
To the south it is particularly over grown with wilderness walks occasionally
identifiable in the interior (D.4.p3). Mature parkland trees are visible across
the estate particularly to the front of the house and to the rear of the terraced
lawn. Aerial photographic analysis (NMR Photo ref TQ 8430/1-4) shows that
the storm of 1987 impacted heavily on the integrity of landscaped planting
with high levels of loss particularly along the driveway and in the flanking
parkland to the front of the house. Efforts have been made to replant
following historic precedents (Tree Planting report undated).
Integrity
3.30.12 The sale of parkland and estate buildings into private hands compromises
the integrity of the estate as a cohesive whole and gives rise to piecemeal
and out of character development of buildings and landscapes.
3.30.13 The setting of the lake has been severely compromised by the introduction
of unsympathetic 20th century planting.
3.30.14 The woodland in proximity to the estate is preserved as mature woodland.
Links with the inner estate are maintained by the retention of designed
woodland walks leading from the formal gardens into the woodland.
3.30.15 The integrity of the 19th century landscaped planting and trees were heavily
impacted by the storm of 1987 when the estate suffered a high level of tree
loss particularly to the north, north-east and east of the house. The integrity
of this landscaped design was compromised by the loss of these trees. The
essence of the landscaped park is however retained by the surviving trees.
3.30.16 At the south-western perimeter of the inner estate the introduction of field
boundaries compromises the intended vista of the parkland setting.
3.30.17 The retention of certain small scale features such as the 20th century pet
cemetery to the north of the house and the ornamental shelter north-east of
the west pavilion also retain the historic integrity of the estate.
Significance
3.30.18 Wider parkland features are significant elements of the larger estate and
serve to enhance the setting of the core estate. Historically the country
estate is defined by its parkland setting, the house and its landscape go
hand in hand. While elements of the wider estate became disassociated
though time, in order to understand the historic development of a house, the
whole estate must be considered.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Plate D.4.p1: Ornamental shelter set within parkland Plate D.4.p2: View of pet Cemetery and parkland
west of the main drive. Looking north-east. setting. Looking south-west towards western pavilion
and Service Area.
Plate D.4.p3: Woodland Path traversing woodand

south-west of Lower Garden. Looking south.

WA Heritage

WA Heritage
4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1.1 Although there is known to be a relatively good extent of survival of the

fabric of the 18th century house on the site, this has been almost entirely
obscured by the later remodelling of the house in the early 20th century. It is
unclear how much of the internal layout of the early house might survive, but
it is evident that the authentic layout was also significantly compromised by
its comprehensive remodelling; only in the cellars is the fabric of the original
house still visible. However, the survival of elements of the 18th century
house gives the property enhanced historic significance, in addition to the
architectural and associational significance of its later manifestation.
4.1.2 The two 18th century pavilions which flanked the original house survive
better, although both have been remodelled in the early 20th century. The
East pavilion, which once housed the laundry was extended to provide a
racquets court, and the former stables of the West pavilion appear to have
been replaced by more extensive accommodation between it and the main
house, and the pavilion converted to a bothy house.
4.1.3 Beyond the main building complex, extensive components of the 18th
century layout of the gardens of the property survive. The most significant
features are the tall brick garden walls which form the revetment to the rear
terrace, the creation of the walled garden, and the separation between the
lawned gardens terracing down from the rear of the house and the more
functional garden and service areas to the north-west. Although the
enclosed spaces created have largely been re-modelled for alternative later
uses, the survival of extensive lengths of the boundary walls is significant.
4.1.4 The property as a whole now derives greatest significance from the
involvement in the first decade of the 20th century of the prominent and
prolific architect, Sir Edwin Lutyens. He carried out a major redevelopment
of the estate, including the comprehensive remodelling, over-cladding and
extension of the main residence; the creation of a new formal approach to
the house through an impressive new gatehouse stable block; and he
prepared ambitious designs for the landscaping of the gardens, though
these were only partially implemented. The results of his involvement have
led to the Grade II* listing of the house and pavilions; the Grade II* listing of
the gatehouse stable block, and the inclusion of the former parkland area of
the estate on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest,
where it is listed Grade II.
4.1.5 In contrast to the comprehensive single phase of redevelopment to which
the main house was subject, the area under particular consideration in this
study – that is, the service area to the south-west of the main house – was
never part of any comprehensive ‘set-piece’ design, but developed
incrementally. Always an area accommodating the ancillary functions of the
country estate - fruit and vegetable production, animal rearing, stabling and
coaching – the number and form of the enclosures and structures of the
area evolved as changing pragmatic function dictated.
4.1.6 The service area developed to the south-west of the former stables
associated with the 18th century house, with the construction of a coach
house facing it across a generous yard in the mid 19th century.
Unfortunately, most elements which formed the small individual yards
created at the same time, and the small buildings and structures around
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
them, have been lost, though limited elements of some of these 19th century
structures have been retained and re-used in later structures.
4.1.7 As with the main house complex, it was the interventions of Lutyens which
fundamentally altered the configuration of these service areas to the north-
east of the walled garden. It was he who created the fully enclosed kitchen
garden that survives today, with its long heated glasshouses and cold frame
extending virtually the full length of the enclosed garden. The enclosure of
the kitchen garden also functioned, however, in creating a long narrow yard
to its north-east. At this stage, however, the south-west side of this yard
comprised primarily a brick boundary wall, though now with two near-
identical north-east facing coach houses along its length. It was not until the
redevelopment of the property into individual apartments during the 1960’s
that the service yard was transformed into the linear yard, flanked on either
side with garages facing into it, that survives today.
4.1.8 It can therefore be seen that, in terms of the relative significance of this area
within the property as a whole, it is of considerably lesser significance. The
service yard retains only one building relating to the 18th century occupation
of the site, and this has been radically altered to remove all trace of its
original function. The present configuration of the yard bears only scant
comparison to the space which resulted from Lutyens’ interventions, and
therefore derives little significance from association with the illustrious
architect. The kitchen garden survives in a form more reminiscent of
Lutyens’ design, though the superstructure of the long glasshouses and cold
frame have been largely lost, and the rear of the south garages have
intruded into the north-east corner of the garden.
4.1.9 The construction of the late 20th century structures has been of a relatively
poor quality of design and materials, with the result that their present
condition is poor. The present marginal use of the earlier service buildings,
particularly the East Coach house has also resulted in a lack of regular
maintenance, which has again resulted in their present poor condition. The
general poor quality of this area impacts negatively on the setting of the
important Grade II* listed building; the setting of the listed West pavilion, and
the small gazebo on the terrace to the rear of the house, and it is considered
desirable that the area is upgraded to enhance the setting of these important
components. However, proposals for any redevelopment of the area must
be observant of the need to enhance the setting of the listed buildings, and
must be appropriate to the location of the area within that part of the
historical estate included on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special
Historic Interest.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
REFERENCES
Primary Sources
Tithe Apportionment Book, 20th September 1842
Lutyens Sketch plan for Great Maytham (Courtesy of the Maytham Estate)
Secondary Sources
Anon, undated. Report on Tree Planting at Great Maytham Hall, Rolvenden, Kent.
Unpublished.
Architectural Monographs 6 1979. Edward Lutyens, Academy editions.
Arts Council of Britain. 1981. Lutyens, The work of the English Architect Sir Edwin
Lutyens 1869-1944. London.
Barker, Michael 2005 Sir Edwin Lutyens : an illustrated life of Sir Edwin Lutyens
(1869 - 1944). Princes Risborough
Bowen, H.T. 1939. Rolvenden, Parish and Hundred of the Weald of Kent.
Rolvenden.
Brown Jane, 1996. Lutyens and the Edwardians : an English architect and his
clients. London.
Brown, J 1982 Gardens of a golden Afternoon (170, 179)
A.S.G. Butler ; with the collaboration of George Stewart & Christopher Hussey, 1950.
The architecture of Sir Edwin Lutyens London : Country Life, 1950.
Centre for Kentish Studies Various. Cuttings File, Rolvenden.
Country Houses Association Undated. Great Maytham Hall, A Brief History.
Country Life 32 (30th November 1912). Country Homes and Gardens Old and New,
Great Maytham Kent, The Seat of Mr H.J.Tennant.
English Heritage, 2007. Understanding Values and Assessing Significance in

Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic
Environment. London.
English Heritage. 1990. Scheduled Ancient Monument Record. Medieval Moated

Site and adjacent Hythe, Lowden Farm. Unpublished.
English Heritage, 1986. Great Maytham Hall, Registered Park and Garden Entry.
Faviell, John 1982 Great Maytham Hall Guidebook
Gybbon-Monypenny, G. Undated. The Monypennys of Maytham, a family history.

Unpublished.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Harwood, C. Undated. Mrs Frances Hodgson Burnett at Home A visit to Maytham
Hall, Rolvenden, Kent.
Hasted 1798 The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, Vol VII.
Canterbury.
Historic Environment Local Management (HELM) Undated. Farming the Historic

Landscape:caring for Historic Parkland. English Heritage internet publication.
Hussey, C. 1950. The Life of Sir Edwin Lutyens. London.
Institute of Field Archaeologists 2001 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological

Desk Based Assessments.
Kent County Council, 1996. Historic Parks and Gardens in Kent: the Kent Gardens
compendium. Kent.
Kentish Express 14th July 1961.
Kentish Express. Various. Victorian Rolvenden, Extracts 1861-1891.
Tennant, A. Undated. Great Maytham Hall, John Faviell. Comments on the booklet
by Alison Tennant. Unpublished.
Newman, J. 1976 (2nd ed) The Buildings of England, West Kent and the Weald.
(Ed Pevsner, N).
Percy, C. 1985. The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife Emily. London.
Ridley, J.
Shirley Carpenter, A 1990. Frances Hodgson Burnett. Beyond the Secret Garden.
United Shirley, J. States.
L Weaver, 1913 Houses and Gardens by E L Lutyens (247-56)
Cartography
1769 Andrews and Herbert, A Topographical Map of Kent

1790 Hasted’s Map of Kent
1801 Mudge. Map of Kent 1” to 1 mile
1821 Greenwood’s Map of the County of Kent, an actual Survey 1819-1820
C. 1” to 1 Mile.
1842 Rolvenden Tithe Map
1870 Ordnance Survey 25” map First edition.
1870-2 Ordnance Survey 6” Map First Edition
1898 Ordnance Survey 25” map Second edition
1899 Ordnance Survey 6” Map Second Edition.
1908 Ordnance Survey 25” map Third Edition.
1909 Ordnance Survey 6” Map Third Edition
1954 Plan of Great Maytham (for estate sale).
c. 1961 TQ 83 SW
c. 1971/81 TQ 83 SW
c. 1991 TQ 83 SW
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA Heritage
Aerial photographic Material
30th April 1946 Photo ref RAF/106G/UK/1439 Frame 4104

30th April 1946 Photo ref RAF/106G/UK/1439 Frame 4105
1st May 1946 Photo ref RAF/106G/UK/1449
16th June 1959 Photo ref RAF/58/2943 Frame 036
18th April 1967 Photo ref OS/67074 Frame 332
2nd May 1971 Photo ref OS/71159 Frames 255, 223, 026, 256, 025
12th May 1973 Photo ref OS/73117 Frame 224
26th September 1975 Photo ref MAL/75059 Frame 126
13th August 1985 Photo ref TQ8430/1-4
Internet resources
www.lbonline,English-heritage.org.uk English Heritage Listed Buildings

website.
www.collectionspicturelibrary.com Photographic archive
www.magic.gov.uk Geographical information system
www.helm.org.uk Historic Environment Local Management
www.lutyenstrust.org.uk The Lutyens Trust website.
WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED.
Registered Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 wa.heritage@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
London Office: Unit 113, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.

Great Maytham Hall, Rolvenden

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Maytham Hall, Rolvenden

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WA Heritage

Great Maytham Hall

Ref: 67240 November 2007

Landscape and Building Study

Report reference: 67240.01

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007 all rights reserved

Landscape and Building Study

2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................2

3 GAZETTEER OF COMPONENTS .........................................................11

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Figure 2 Andrews and Herbert 1769

Figure 3 Tithe 1842

Figure 4 25” OS edition, 1870

Figure 5 25” OS edition, 1898

Figure 6 25” OS edition, 1908

Figure 7 Lutyens’ design for the gardens at Great Maytham, c.1909

Figure 8 Current plan of the existing property identifying individual components

Figure 9 Plan of Western Service Area and gardens identifying individual

Plate List – sections 1 and 2

Plate 1 View of house c.1890

Plate list – Section 3

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Landscape and Building Study

WA Heritage, a specialist division of Wessex Archaeology, was commissioned by

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

In contrast to the comprehensive single phase of redevelopment to which the main

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Landscape and Building Study

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Landscape and Building Study

1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 WA Heritage, a specialist division of Wessex Archaeology, was

1.2 Aims, scope and structure of the study

1.2.1 The purpose of the study is to provide, in a single document, an

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

1.3 Site location and landscape setting

2.1 Prehistoric period

2.1.1 Sparse evidence for prehistoric activity in the Rolvenden locality is

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

2.2 Romano-British period

2.3 Saxon and Medieval period (410AD-1499)

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

2.4 Early post-medieval period (1500-1699)

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

2.5 18th century

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

2.6 19th century

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

2.7 Late 19th-early 20th century

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

2.8 Mid 20th century

2.9 Mid to late 20th century

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

WA doc. ref. 67240.01

Date: 26/11/07 Revision Number: 0

Scale: n/a Graphics: KL

Andrews and Herbert 1769 Figure 2

Date: 26/11/07 Revision Number: 0

Scale: n/a Graphics: KL

Tithe 1842 Figure 3