Conservation Management Plan For The Royal Citadel, Plymouth, UK. Vol 1 of 2 - Report

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan Prepared for Navy Command November 2010
David Evans
Alan Baxter
Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan Prepared for Navy Command November 2010
Contents
Foreword ....................................................................................................................4 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................1 2.0 Understanding the Asset .............................................................................2 3.0 Assessment of Significance ..................................................................... 55 4.0 Issues and opportunities........................................................................... 70 5.0 Policies and Management Action Points ........................................... 94 6.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 98 Appendices ............................................................................................................. 99
Appendix 1 - Large-Scale Historic Plans......................................................................100 Appendix 2 - Glossary of Acronyms..............................................................................126 Appendix 3 - Sources ..........................................................................................................127 Appendix 4 - Scheduled Monument and List Descriptions ................................129 Appendix 5 - Inventory of Guns and Carriages ........................................................142 Appendix 6 - Summary of archaeological interventions at the Royal Citadel...................................................................................................................158 Appendix 7 - Plymouth City Council Historic Environment Record (HER)...........................................................................................................................170 Appendix 8 - Location of important ecological sites and biological records in relation to Royal Citadel (data from DBRC) ..........................................173 Appendix 9 - Schedule of Priorities from Access Audit Assessment, 2005...181 Appendix 10 - Bore hole logs ..........................................................................................182
David Evans
Alan Baxter
Foreword
The Royal Citadel was commissioned by Charles II in 1665 under the design of the celebrated Dutch engineer Sir Bernard de Gomme. Since then the Citadel has undergone many transformations and much building work, the last being in the late 1980s. Throughout its many changes the Royal Citadel has very much maintained its historic integrity. 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery began its association with the Citadel in 1962 however the Royal Artillery has had a continual presence here since 1899. Today the Royal Citadel provides a full time home for Officers, Warrant Officers and Senior Non Commissioned Officers and Junior Ranks. The Regimental Headquarters is based here as are sub-unit offices, bespoke gun and motor transport hangars and the Regiments Workshops. Uniquely, we also have our own chapel, St. Katherines on the Hoe, used by the Regiment to celebrate births and marriages and also to mourn our fallen colleagues. Within 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillerys role is to provide the command, control and co-ordination of offensive fire support. This is achieved through close integration with the Royal Marines at every level of command allowing us to use close air support, naval gunfire and the Regiments 18 light guns to support their mission. We are capable of going anywhere the Royal Marines go whether that be on amphibious operations or in a mountain and cold weather warfare environment. Since 1962 we have supported 3 Commando Brigade on operations worldwide, from the Falkland Islands, through Iraq to Afghanistan. The Royal Citadel is absolutely unique as a home for the Regiment, indeed it is the only remaining Citadel still used as an operational Army base. The Royal Citadel is of great historical and sentimental value both to the Royal Artillery and also the City of Plymouth. This Conservation Management Plan provides the necessary appreciation of both the historical and sociological importance of The Royal Citadel so that, with our partners, we are better placed to preserve the significance of this site whilst continuing to develop it to meet the demands that warfare in the 21st century presents. R M Smith Lieutenant Colonel, Commanding Officer 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery
Foreword
1.0 Introduction
Debut Services (South West) Ltd has commissioned a Conservation Management Plan on the Royal Citadel on behalf of Defence Estates for Navy Command. The initial purpose of the Plan was to inform forthcoming development proposals for the site, but it should also prove to be a useful document to guide the ongoing management of the site and future decision-making. Conservation plan methodology was defined by James Semple Kerr and has been promoted by the Heritage Lottery Fund as a requirement for grant submissions. Kerr defined a conservation plan as: a document which sets out what is significant about a place and, consequently, what policies are appropriate to enable that significance to be retained in its future use and development. For most places it deals with the management of change. (Conservation Plan, 5th edition, 2000) The process of producing a conservation management plan aims to draw out what is important about a place and define how it should be protected. Plans are structured in a particular way to reflect the steps in this process: Understanding the asset describes the site and its historic development, including information on ecological habitats. (Chapter 2) Assessment of significance defines what is important about the site as whole and the relative importance of components within it; it covers the built environment, archaeology, ecology and views. (Chapter 3) Issues and opportunities considers the issues that might affect the significance of the site and any opportunities, such as for enhancements. (Chapter 4) Policies and management action points respond to the issues and opportunities to provide guidance on how to retain the significance of the site when planning changes and for its ongoing management. (Chapter 5). There is also some useful information in the appendices: a glossary of acronyms; a bibliography; scheduled monument description, list descriptions and description of Hoe Registered Park; an inventory of guns and carriages; summary of archaeological interventions; Plymouth City Council Historic Environment Records; location of important ecological sites and biological records; schedule of priorities from Access Audit Assessment, 2005;
There is a separate gazetteer which provides detailed information on the history, significance, condition and access issues of individual historic buildings. The Plan has been produced by Alan Baxter & Associates with input from: David Evans on the architectural history of the site (Chapters 2 and 3). David conducted archival research at the British Library, National Archives and the National Monuments Record. Exeter Archaeology on the archaeology and early history of the site, deriving from the extensive archaeological investigations they have carried out at the site over the years (Chapters 2, 3 and 4, Appendices 5 and 6). Keystone, who collated input from David and Exeter Archaeology and undertook their own research to produce a history of the site (Chapter 2). Keystone also provided input on significance (Chapter 3), and undertook site visits and an internal inspection of historic buildings (where access allowed) to produce the gazetteer. Bailey Partnership on access, building condition and the inventory of guns and carriages (Chapter 4, the gazetteer and Appendices 4 and 8). Ambios Ecology on ecology (Chapters 2-5, Appendix 7).
Alan Baxter
Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010
1.0 Introduction
1
bore hole logs.
2.0 Understanding the Asset

2.1 Site context
The Royal Citadel is situated on the eastern part of Plymouth Hoe, overlooking the strategically important entrance to the Cattewater in Plymouth Sound on the south west coast of Devon. It comprises a late 16th century artillery fort, superseded by and partially incorporated into a mid 17th century bastioned artillery defence, with associated outworks. Over the course of the centuries, the Citadel was regularly strengthened, particularly during the 1750s. It underwent a major refurbishment in the 1890s-1900s, at which time many of the buildings now present were erected. The most recent phase of development was a major refurbishment of the site, including the erection of several new buildings, undertaken between 1989 and 1992.
Ownership, management and use

The Royal Citadel is leased by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from Crown Estates and is managed at a strategic level by Defence Estates. Day-to-day management of the estate is undertaken by Debut Services (South West) Ltd., the regional prime contractor appointed by Defence Estates for a 7-year term (which runs until May 2011). Debut are responsible for maintenance and capital works. The Royal Citadel is the principal home of 29 Commando Regiment, the Commando-trained unit of the British Armys Royal Artillery (RA). Two-nine Commandos are spearhead troops trained as amphibious, mountain and arctic warfare specialists, but also operate in desert and jungle combat zones. The Regiment coordinates firepower from mortars, fast jets, attack helicopters and the guns from Royal Navy ships. The gun batteries operate around the world on ship with the Royal Marines. 29 Cdo Regt RA provides offensive fire support to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines (based at Stonehouse, Plymouth).
Operationally, the Royal Citadel is under the command and control of 3 Commando Brigade, which comes under Navy Command an unusual situation given that it is home to Army rather than Navy personnel. 29 Commando Regiment is unique amongst Royal Artillery regiments (and very unusual in comparison with most other Army regiments) in that it is split between three locations. In addition to the units based at the Citadel (detailed below), 29 Cdo Rgt includes: 148 (Meiktila) Cdo Forward Observation Battery, based in Poole, Dorset; and 7 (Sphinx) Cdo Bty, based in Arbroath, Scotland. This geographical spread presents COs and RHQ (Regimental Headquarters) staff with significant command and control challenges and is far from ideal from a regimental perspective. In recent years, a change in the role of 148 Bty, has removed the requirement for it to be located at Poole and this, combined with expansion on that site, is a driver for it to relocate with its parent regiment in Plymouth. In addition, the move of 45
Figure 1: 1881 map showing naval sites and associated defensive open spaces
Figure 2: Map of Plymouth showing location of The Royal Citadel
Alan Baxter
Cdo Bty Royal Marines (alongside which 7 Cdo Bty operates), from Arbroath to the South West is now a Navy Command aspiration, albeit an unfunded one at present. The 29 Commando Regiment units currently based at the Citadel comprise: 23 (Gibraltar 1779-1783) Commando Headquarters Battery 23 Bty is responsible for providing 29 Commando Regiment with command and control systems together with administrative support. The Battery also maintains a Radar Troop, which locates enemy mortar locations, and a high tech Signals Troop. 8 (Alma) Commando Battery 8 Bty (known as the Black Eight) is a gun battery equipped with six 105mm Light Guns and three Observation Parties. In recent months, it has been deployed on operations to both Afghanistan and Iraq. 79 (Kirkee) Commando Battery 79 Bty is a gun battery equipped with six 105mm Light Guns and three Observation Parties, which can call in accurate artillery, air and naval gunfire. In recent months, it has operated in an infantry role in South Armagh, Northern Ireland, and had its own area of responsibility patrolling on the Al-Faw Peninsula in Iraq, assisting in rebuilding the community infrastructure. When units are not away on active service or training, around 560 people work at the Citadel, including civilian staff such as caterers and cleaners. The site currently provides around 200 bed spaces for permanent service personnel, all of which remain assigned to specific individuals even when they are engaged in battlefield operations or training overseas. Of these, 146 are assigned to Junior Rates, 34 to Senior Rates and 21 to Officers. A further 40 bed spaces are provided for PreCommando trainees. Around 60 personnel are accommodated off-site in Substitute Service Single Accommodation (SSSA) accommodation rented commercially when there is insufficient Single Living Accommodation (SLA) on-site. The present on-site housing stock presents significant challenges for its conversion to single, en-suite accommodation as proposed under Project SLAM (Single Living Accommodation Modernisation), the Governments initiative to improve service personnel living standards. Recruitment is currently on the rise. In 1992, the regiment was manned to only around 60% of its intended complement; works to the Citadel at this time reflected the actual rather than the aspirational staffing levels. Staffing is now at 95% of intended regiment levels and this is expected to rise to 100% by the end of 2010.
Rising numbers, a desire to reduce reliance on SSSA and to provide on-site accommodation in line with SLAM standards, and the aspiration to relocate 148 Battery and 7 Battery to the South West, are all drivers behind the present User Requirement Document (URD) for a new-build accommodation block to provide an additional 100 bed spaces for Junior Rates. This, together with further URDs outlining requirements for a new stores complex, a new magazine and a new medical centre, are discussed further in Chapter 4, Issues & Opportunities.
Building 119 is the Royal Chapel of St. Katherine-upon-the-Hoe, the Garrison Church of the Royal Artillery. The chapel is used for regular Sunday services, open to local residents, and is available as a wedding venue for those with Royal Artillery connections. Building 120 is the Officers Mess, providing both sleeping accommodation and messing facilities. Building 121 is the Warrant Officers and Sergeants Mess. Building 123 provides sleeping accommodation for Senior Rates. Building 125 is the space enclosed by the westernmost bastion, roofed over to provide a storage facility. Building 131 provides the Regimental Headquarters office accommodation.
Building uses
The key buildings and structures on the Royal Citadel site, and their uses, are as follows: Building 101 is the Guard Room. Building 102 is the Main Galley. Building 103 is used for storage. Building 104 is the Junior Ranks Club, providing catering and leisure facilities. Building 108 houses 86 Junior Ranks in a mixture of 3, 2 and singleman rooms. During the recent refurbishment, a total of 23 bed spaces were sacrificed to provide additional storage space for personal and military equipment. The southern return of Building 108 currently accommodates the Medical Centre. Although this is in a central position with regards to living accommodation, it is recognised that the facilities are below standard for the size of the unit, and cannot easily be expanded. The limitations of the present facilities (including the lack of accessibility for injured personnel) are the driver behind the need for a new Medical Centre. This is discussed further in Chapter 4, Issues & Opportunities. Building 111 contains 14 single bed spaces, currently used by the more senior Junior Ranks from 23 Battery and Workshops. Buildings 113, 114 and 115 (Portable Accommodation Units PAUs) are under the control of the Commando Training Wing and accommodate personnel on the Pre-Commando training course. Each unit accommodates 10 bunk beds. The additional adjacent PAU (Building 116) provides toilets and showers. There is temporary planning permission for these buildings until 2013. Building 118 provides sleeping accommodation for Pre-Commando trainees on the ground floor, and personnel from 23 Battery and Workshops on the second and third floors.
Building 134 (The Adult School) provides office accommodation. Building 136 is the space enclosed by the northwestern bastion, roofed over to accommodate the Armoury for the storage of the gun batteries weapons. Building 138 is a Casemate within the Citadel wall, and, together with Buildings 150 and 151, is the sites Magazine for the storage of ammunition. The present location of the Magazine, and the difficulties in meeting the requirements for the storage of ammunition due to the Citadels scheduled status, are the driver behind the desire for a new Magazine. This is discussed further in Chapter 4, Issues & Opportunities. Building 146 is used for storage. 153 is a fuel delivery point within the motorised transport area. 154 is a vehicle ramp within the motorised transport area. Building 159 is an electricity sub-station and gas meter house. Building 160 provides military vehicle garaging and associated offices. Buildings 161 and 162 are military vehicle workshops. Building 163 is used for storage. 164 is the main vehicle washdown area within the motorised transport area.
Alan Baxter

3
Building 132 is used for storage.
Building 166 (the ALES building) provides military vehicle garaging and associated storage. 167 is a vehicle brake tester within the motorised transport area. Building 174 is the gymnasium. Building 175, outside the Citadel to the north, provides lecture and conference facilities. Building 176, outside the Citadel to the north, provides office accommodation. Building 177, outside the Citadel to the north, provides welfare facilities. Buildings 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 218A, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245 and 247 are all Casemates within the Citadel wall, and are used for storage. (215 and 216 are used as medical stores; 226, 227 and 228 are used as the vestry; 240 and 241 are used for the storage of mess equipment.) Because of their limitations, and in order to reduce the requirements for maintenance, it is the Regiments preferred solution to vacate the Casemates. There is therefore a desire for a new Magazine. This is discussed further in Chapter 4, Issues & Opportunities.
However, there remains some uncertainty about precisely where responsibilities lie. The Ministry of Defence and English Heritage are currently tabling their understandings of their respective responsibilities. The intention is to arrive at a formal memorandum of understanding, ideally supported by a large scale annotated plan. Crown Estates have no involvement in the Guardianship issue, which will be between the Ministry of Defence and English Heritage, unless the Ministry of Defence vacate the premises. This issue is addressed in greater detail in Chaper 4, Issues & Opportunities.
Public Access
The Citadel is open to the public Blue Badge Tours operate for two afternoons a week for thirteen weeks throughout the summer. Whilst this is something which both English Heritage and 29 Commando Regiment would like to see continue, there are some concerns over security and limitations over accessibility. This issue is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 4, Issues & Opportunities.
Guns and carriages

There are 33 guns located on the ramparts and elsewhere within the Citadel; the oldest of these dates from 1710 but most are 19th century cast iron cannons. Most are on loan to 29 Cdo Regt RA from the Royal Armouries and maintenance of these and their carriages is the responsibility of the Regiment. A full inventory of guns on the site is included in Appendix 4.
Guardianship
Responsibility for certain non-operational parts of the Citadel the ramparts and the statue of George II was transferred from the War Office to the Office of Works on 29 January 1929. The general arrangement was that maintenance of these areas would become the responsibility of the Office of Works, whilst any alterations required by the Army would remain Army responsibility. The arrangement was never ratified by a formal Deed of Guardianship (or if it was this is no longer in existence). The issue was reviewed in 1966, at which time the transfer was confirmed and a map drawn up showing responsibilities.
Alan Baxter
A B N
ROYAL CITADEL BUILDING & ASSETS LIST (HISTORIC NAMES IN BRACKETS) 100 101 102 103 104 108 111A 111 CITADEL WALLS GUARD ROOM J R GALLEY (LOOK HOUSE) QM(T) 1098 STORE J R CLUB ILC (NAAFI) J R ACCOMODATION SLA PERMANENT (MAIN BARRACKS) BIKE SHED ADJ TO JRA. J R ACCOMODATION SLA PERMANENT (HOSPITAL) PORTABLE ACCOMMODATION UNIT PORTABLE ACCOMMODATION UNIT PORTABLE ACCOMMODATION UNIT TOILETS & SHOWERS SALUTING GUN PARK J R ACCOMODATION SLA PERMANENT (GREAT STORE) ST KATHERINES CHURCH OFFICERS MESS SLA PERMANENT SERGEANTS MESS SLA PERMANENT BIKE SHED ADJ TO 122 BIN ENCLOUSURE ADJ TO 122 WO SGTS ACCOMODATION SLA PERMANENT QM(M) MFO STORE STORE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING (GOVERNORS HOUSE) QM STORES THE ADULT SCHOOL ARMORY MAGAZINE CASEMATE HUT HUT SOUTH EAST SALLY PORT HUT MAGAZINE HUT MAGAZINE HUT POL INSTALLATION VEHICLE RAMP ELECTRICITY SUB-STATION GAS METER HOUSE GUN PARK GARAGES OFFICE WORKSHOP LAD REME WORKSHOP HQ BTY MT STORES & TOILETS MAIN VEHICLE WASHDOWN COVERED VEHICLE PARKING VEHICLE BRAKE TESTER GYMNASIUM TRAINING WING TRAINING WING TRAINING WING KING GEORGE II STATUE MT SENTRY POST UNDERGROUND HUT UNDERGROUND HUT GREENHOUSE MAIN ENTRANCE MAIN GATE SENTRY BOX RAMPARTS PARADE GROUND HELICOPTER LANDING AREA GUNS AND CARRIAGES LPG STORES FUEL CAN STORE
118 119 120 121 122B 122A 122 123 125 131 132 134 136 138 146 147 149 150 151 153 154 159 160 161 162 163 164 166 167 174 175 176 177 178 179 248 249 250 340 344 380 501 604 606 608
NOMENCLATURE OF PARTS OF THE CITADEL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O NORTH RAVELIN PRINCE GEORGES BASTION WEST SALLYPORT KING CHARLES BASTION OLD SALUTING BATTERY/BATHS BASTION SOUTH-WEST SALLYPORT CUMBERLAND BATTERY SOUTH SALLYPORT QUEENS BATTERY SOUTH-EAST SALLYPORT PIPERS PLATFORM PRINCE HENRYS DEMI BASTION PRINCE EDWARDS BASTION PRINCE OF WALES BASTION EAST SALLYPORT
E J F G H I L
Figure 3: Building Numbers
Alan Baxter

5
113 114 115 116 118A
Figure 4: Guard Room (Building 101)
Figure 5: Main Galley (Building 102)
Figure 6: QM Store (Building 103)
Figure 7: Junior Ranks Club (Building 104)
Figure 8: Junior Ranks Accommodation (Building 108)
Figure 10: Buildings 113-116
Figure 12: St. Katherines Church (Building 119)
Figure 13: Officers Mess (Building 120)
Figure 14: WO and Sergeants Mess (Building 121)
Figure 15: WO and Sergeants Accommodation (Building 122)
Figure 16: QM Store (Building 123)
Figure 17: Store (Building 125)
Figure 18: Regimental Headquarters (Building 131)
Figure 19: QM Stores (Building 132)
Figure 20: The Adult School Offices (Building 134)
Figure 21: Armoury (Building 136)
Figure 22: POL Point (Building 153)
Figure 23: Gunk Park Garages/Offices (Building 160)
Alan Baxter
Figure 24: Workshop (Building 161)
Figure 25: Workshops (Building 162)
Figure 26: Stores (Building 163)
Figure 27: Covered Vehicle Parking (Building 166)
Figure 28: Gymnasium (Building 174)
Figure 29: Training Wing (Building 175)
Figure 30: Training Wing Offices (Building 176)
Figure 31: Welfare Facilities (Building 177)
Figure 32: Statue of King George II (Asset 178)
Figure 33: MT Sentry Post (Building 179)
Figure 34: Greenhouse (Building 250)
Figure 35: Main Gate (Building 340)
Figure 36: LPG Stores (Building 606)
Figure 37: Fuel Can Store (Building 608)
Alan Baxter

7
Offices Utility Storage Living Accommodation Lecture/Training Galley/Mess Garages Workshops Ecclesiastical Recreational Welfare Armoury/Magazine Security Not in Use
Figure 38: Building Uses

8
Alan Baxter
Offices Utility Storage Living Accommodation Lecture/Training Galley/Mess Garages Workshops Ecclesiastical Recreational Welfare Armoury/Magazine Security Not in Use
Figure 39: Use of Casemates
Alan Baxter

9
2.2 Historic Development of the Citadel

The Royal Citadel is well understood as historic military architecture. Its importance as a legible late 17th century fortress overlying a late 16th century artillery fort has encouraged a series of useful and detailed studies, including F. W. Woodwards Citadel, published in 1987. This makes use of abundant historic plans and covers not only the history of how and why the Citadel has been adapted as a work of defence but also something of its social and human history. Partmanaged by English Heritage and protected by both listing and scheduling, late 20th century alterations have been accompanied by archaeological watching briefs, mostly undertaken by Exeter Archaeology. This work has established something of what survives below ground, particularly the remains of the 16th century artillery fort. It also reveals that close archaeological investigation of the standing remains brings new information to light and refines the understanding of how the different built elements of the Citadel have changed over time. A summary of this work by Exeter Archaeology is included in Appendix 6; Appendix 7 covers the entries for the Citadel and its immediate surroundings in Plymouth Councils Historic Environment Record. The following summary history of the Citadel has drawn extensively on F. W. Woodwards Citadel (1987) and Andrew Saunders account of the first phase of its construction in his biography of Sir Bernard Gomme, Fortress Builder: Bernard de Gomme, Charles IIs Military Engineer (2004). These, the descriptions of the listed buildings and scheduled ancient monument and other more general publications have been supplemented by research into primary documentary sources by Dr David Evans for this Conservation Management Plan. This research concentrated on areas not covered in detail by Woodward and discovered numerous historic plans of interest in both the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office and the National Archives at Kew. A text provided by Evans has been incorporated into this section of the plan. Sandra Turton of Exeter Archaeology provided information on the early history of the site derived from limited archaeological investigation: both excavation and observation and analysis of buildings above ground, undertaken by Exeter Archaeology. A text on the early history of the site provided by Turton has also been absorbed into this part of the plan. Jo Cox of Keystone has followed up some strands of research, notably T. Rogers Kitsell, and has stitched the text together. Large-scale versions of many of the plans in this section can be found in Appendix 1
Topography and Early History of the Site

The Royal Citadel, Plymouth is sited on the east portion of the Hoe, on an uneven, rocky promontory of Middle Devonian limestone, lying south-west and above Sutton Pool, the harbour around which the early town developed in the 13th century. Fishers Nose is the name given to the south-easterly point of the promontory. Three groups of limestone caves are known west of the Citadel: West Hoe, the Tinside Fissures and the Hoe Sea Caves. These have been shown to contain animal and human remains mainly from the Upper Pleistocene subepoch (190,000-10,000 BC), most of the discoveries made during quarrying operations in the 19th century and not as part of controlled archaeological excavation. Tinside Fissures yielded a rich assemblage of faunal remains including bear, elephant and mammoth (Chamberlain and Ray 1994, 19-24). A 1677 plan identifies an entrance to the grotto or giants cave lying inside the fortress, SW of the great storehouse (at approximately SX 4808 5375). This annotation disappears from later plans but caves evidently exist in the limestone bedrock of the Citadel. Some may have been adapted for rainwater tanks, which are recorded on the site. In 1700 it was said that the Citadel had neither spring nor fountain in it. This is puzzling as two wells are known, one surviving behind the officers mess and another in the garden behind the Governors House. Perhaps they were unreliable. In 1936, the water tanks at the Citadel (described in 1700 as adequate for seven years worth of water) held about 310,000 gallons (Woodward, 1987, 82). Worked prehistoric flints were recovered from the Hoe at SX 477 540 during the construction of the Marine Biological Laboratory in the 1880s. Coarse pottery and faunal remains, including teeth of ox and boar were recorded. Most of the flints were described as flakes and cores, but an arrowhead was also found at the Hoe Field (SMR SX45SE/155). No other definite prehistoric finds have been made in the area, although an internment found during the above building works near the cliff edge was described as being of remote antiquity (SMR SX45SE/156). To west of the Citadel the Hoe is green open space, now a public park with 19th and 20th century amenities, memorials and a 1930s sea-bathing pool below, on the shore. When the Citadel was built the Hoe was probably largely used for grazing as well as being an obvious place for a right goodly walke, as it was described in c.1535 (Leland, cited by Copeland, n.d., 14). The construction of the Citadel is said to have involved the removal of two massive figures cut into the turf of the Hoe, supposedly representing a battle between the giant Gogmagog and Corinaeus. These were figures from a legendary account of the settlement of Britain, one form of which was recorded
by the unreliable Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century. The Hoe figures, date uncertain, were mentioned in the early 17th century by Richard Carew, in his History of Cornwall: there is cut in the ground the portraiture of two men, the one bigger, the other lesser, with clubs in their hands, (whom they term Gog-Magog) and (as I have learned) it is renewed by order of the townsmen when cause requireth, which should infer the same to be a monument of some moment (Carew, f.p.1602, 1953, 82). The smaller figure is said to have been cut or re-cut in 1486. William Scawen (1600-1689) noted bones, presumably animal, found when the Citadel was being constructed in the late 17th century and connected them with the Gogmagog legend: At the last digging of the Haw for the foundation of the Citadel of Plymouth, the great jaws and teeth therein found were those of Gogmagog (cited by Worth, 1890). No Romano-British sites or finds are known from the immediate area, apart from three coins, found during building works (SMR SX45SE/232; 234). The recovery of a substantial collection of Roman tiles from the waterfront excavations does suggest the presence of late Roman building close to Sutton Harbour (Bidwell 1986, 13).
10
Alan Baxter
Figure 40: Geology
Figure 41: Topography Key: Study area boundary 010m 1120m 2130m 3140m 4150m 5160m 6170m
Alan Baxter
11
The Medieval Period

Due to its importance the harbour was defended from at least the 14th century, mainly against attacks by the French. These defences included Plymouth Castle at Lambhay (SX 4827 5398), built c.1380 immediately to the west of the entrance to Sutton Harbour; a defensive chain across Sutton Pool, and the great ditch at Coxside. There are also references in 1439 and 1594 to a great dyke or ditch leading west from the castle wall to Sour(e)pool (UAD M/143; S/465), which would have passed to the north of the Citadel. During the medieval period St. Katherines Chapel was built on the Hoe and is first documented in 1370. Its tower may have functioned as a lighthouse (Copeland, n.d., 14). The chapel was later surrounded by the defences of the Elizabethan Fort (below), sometimes known as Drakes Fort or Plymouth Fort and ultimately by the Citadel itself, but its exact location is not known. Prior to the construction of the Elizabethan Fort, earlier defensive bulwarks, blockhouses and perhaps ditches were built on or near the Hoe, some of which are shown on a chart of c.1539 [Fig. 42].
findings and he recommended an artillery fort (SX 4815 5374) to protect the entrance to the sheltered anchorage of the Cattewater and the harbour in Sutton Pool. Adams also recommended a simplification of the Commissions suggested design for town walls. His suggestions were accepted by the Privy Council, who imposed a duty on pilchards from Plymouth to finance the work. Other sources of funding were customs revenues and voluntary contributions invited from local merchants and others who would benefit from a work of defence. Adams died in 1595 during the construction of the fort. A progress report in the same year drew attention to the importance of the new fort as part of the defence of the harbour, working in conjunction with guns on what was then St. Nicholas Island (now Drakes Island), rather than the defence of the town. By February 1596 building had progressed enough for a garrison to be recruited its first captain was Sir Ferdinando Gorges under whose supervision the fort was completed in 1598. It was a 2-part design [Figs. 43 & 44]. There was a main fort with two bastions with orillons on the land side, and a lower fort with batteries above the waters edge. The main part was on high ground at the E end of the Hoe with the principal bastion facing N. There was a smaller part, on lower ground (referred to as the Lower Fort in this document), containing the main armament and facing W, to meet attacks from the Hoe. The fort contained a captains lodging, storehouse, barracks, stable, guard house and the Chapel of St. Katherine.
The Sixteenth Century

In spite of the defeat of the Armada in 1588, there was a perceived threat of further attack by Spain and a need to strengthen defences. In 1592 a Commission, including Sir Francis Drake, was appointed to investigate the defences of Plymouth and recommended extensive town walls. Robert Adams, cartographer, designer, surveyor and fortifications specialist was asked to comment on the Commissions
Figure 42: A chart of c.1539. This shows defensive walling along the shoreline of the Hoe and a polygonal blockhouse armed with canon at Fishers Nose. A church is shown on the promontory behind. Sutton Harbour is shown protected by Plymouth Castle and with a defensive chain across the entrance. BL Cotton MS Augustus II 35-36, 38-39.
Figure 43: The 16th century fort depicted in 1596 showing the sea and landward walls and the main gate (top right), together with the lower fort to the south. PRO MPF 262 (SP 12/262)
Figure 44: A plan of 1665 by Sir Bernard de Gomme showing the 16th century fort and the lower fort to the south. BL.Add.MS. 16370. f.43
Figure 45: The projected outline of the 16th century fort (in blue) from Exeter Museums Archaeological Field Unit (now Exeter Archaeology) Report No. 94.81, 1994.
12
Alan Baxter
The Lower Fort absorbed an earlier defensive work: Fishers Nose Blockhouse, a polygonal limestone tower just W of Fishers Nose Point, guarding the approach to Sutton Pool. This may have been late 15th century in origin and is depicted with cannon embrasures in c.1539, but its original function is uncertain. This structure, and another tower or platform sited at Fishers Nose, were incorporated into the lower fort. In 1716 the polygonal tower was named Queen Elizabeths Tower and the one at Fishers nose was called Fishers Nose Tower. Surviving Fabric of the 16th century Fort The Lower Fort continued in use while the Citadel was being built. It provided accommodation for the garrison and, during a royal visit in 1671, housed King Charles II. Remnants of it survive, incorporated into some of the later walls of the Citadel. Partial archaeological investigation means that substantial below-ground remains of the ditch and wall are known to exist [Fig. 45]. These are important remains: 16th century bastioned forts, while common in northern Italy are rare in England. Analysis of historic maps suggests that the south curtain wall of the 16th century Upper Fort was originally incorporated into de Gommes design and was built like this by 1672; however, by 1677 de Gomme had remodelled this area between Cumberland Battery and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion. However, it is quite likely that fabric from the preceding 16th century fort survives in this area. The Citadels curtain wall between Prince Edwards bastion and Prince Henrys demibastion may preserve the line of the main forts E wall. The base of the point of Prince Henrys demi-bastion and the sides of Pipers Platform contain some original 16th century stonework and the wall running SE from Pipers Platform towards Fishers Nose continues the line of the lower fort wall. Further walling of the 16th century lower fort is likely to survive along the coast by the Fishers Nose blockhouse. There is the potential at the Citadel for discovering more of the belowground remains of the 16th century fort, e.g. the governors house and other demolished buildings.
Plymouth Citadel, though the only one in England to survive to a significant degree, was not impressive by Continental standards [Fig. 46]. The textbooks of fortification are unanimous in the definition of a citadel. What follows is taken from Mullers treatise of 1746 and Loches of 1780 (which largely draws on the former).Though relatively late works, they represent a consensus. In a country newly conquered, or one of long standing, where the inhabitants are suspected of being disaffected to the government, citadels are built to keep them in awe, and prevent all attempts they may make to shake off their dependency; as likewise to secure the garrison from their treachery, which they might be willing to undertake against themit ought to be built on the highest part of the ground, in order to command all parts of the town, if possibleif the place is a seaport, the citadel should be placed near the harbour, so as to command it from one end to the other; that it may protect the ships lying in it, and secure the place against any bombardment. Another consideration should be had in placing citadels, with respect to the town; which is, that the principal streets of the place should be seen and lie open to the works of the citadel, in order to fire on them, and disperse the mob that might rise and flock together in a time of sedition; as likewise to prevent the approach of an enemy that way after the town is taken. An open space, of some hundred yards broad, should be left between the works of the citadel and the town, called an Esplanade; which serves chiefly to draw up the troops or garrison, to muster and exercise them there; as likewise to prevent any hidden approach that might be carried on from the town against the citadel. At Plymouth, it was no accident that the main entrance, facing the town, by far the most lavish of any fortification in the kingdom, originally carried a life size statue of Charles II. The Citadel was to be a perpetual reminder to the citizens that the Crown had been restored to power; an image which concealed the actual limitations of that authority. If the first purpose of the Citadel was the control of Plymouth, the fort was also designed to protect the anchorage. After the Restoration, Plymouth became increasingly important for trade with the New World, the Mediterranean and the east, increasing the value of its anchorage. Most immediately, commercial and colonial rivalry with the Dutch in the 1650s brought with it the first Dutch War 1652-54 and the creation of Plymouth as a naval station: a source for supplies and a base for refitting ships. Charles II was therefore determined to secure Plymouth as a naval base, which would need defending from the further threat of Dutch invasion.
The Erection of the Citadel Administrative and Financial Background The administrative and financial background to the erection of the Citadel is well-documented in papers held by the National Archive and the National Maritime Museum including the original royal warrant, instructions referred to in the warrant and detailed building accounts. These list income and expenditure including the names of contractors and what they were paid. The Citadel documentation reveals that construction was undertaken on the personal authority of Charles II. There were no early 17th century precedents for a major royal defence initiative and special Commissioners were appointed to oversee the construction (Saunders, 2004, 106-129). The head of the commission was Sir John Grenville, Governor of Plymouth, made Earl of Bath for his support for the Restoration of the monarchy. He proved to be a leading figure in the 17th century history of the fort. There were special arrangements for fund-raising for the Citadel, drawing on Devon and Cornwall militia budgets.
The Royal Citadel in the 17th Century

The Nature of a Citadel In the Civil War Plymouth was Parliamentarian in a royalist county and under almost constant siege. After the Restoration this disloyalty inevitably led to the view that threats to the crown from the town were likely. Like Kingston upon Hull, another Parliamentarian stronghold, a citadel was needed to keep the town in order. Hulls citadel was never finished and little remains above ground today.
Figure 46: The Citadel at Lille
Alan Baxter
13
The land on which the Citadel was built was purchased from 1668, after construction had started. It was assumed to be waste of the manor of Sutton. There was no public protest about the title to this land at the time, but this emerged later. Sir Bernard de Gomme The Citadel was designed by Sir Bernard de Gomme (1620-1685) the most important figure in 17th century English military engineering. De Gomme was born in Flanders but from the 1640s became the English Royalists chief engineer, being knighted in 1645. At the Restoration, from 1661, he was appointed engineer in charge of all the kings castles and fortifications in England and Wales at a fee of 13s 4d per day. His work on the Royal Citadel followed his remodelling of the defences of Portsmouth and he was closely involved not only with the design of the Citadel, but with the supervision of its construction. The Background to de Gommes design What follows is a very simplified account. The advent of cannon meant the end of the medieval castle. High walls made easy targets and as the power of guns increased they became easier and easier to breach. Artillery fortifications were therefore of low profile. The coastal defence forts constructed for Henry VIII, though striking pieces of architecture, proved to be a dead end in artillery fortification, mostly based as they were on combinations of round towers. There was always dead ground before a circular fortification which could not be covered by its fire. The angle bastion was developed in Italy to remedy this and was established as the standard solution there by the early decades of the 16th century. This presented a small target and enabled flanking fire to be delivered on the attackers [Fig. 47].
The guns could be recessed in orillons so that they were protected from frontal fire. The unfinished fort Harrys Walls on St. Marys, Scilly, would have been a textbook example of this. (Berwick-upon-Tweed, largely designed by Sir Sidney Lee, was partly completed when work was suspended in 1569, and remains the most extensive and up-to-date fortification in 16th century Britain [Fig. 48]. Between 1597 and 1601 Frederigo Genibelli, an Italian engineer in Elizabeths service, surrounded Carisbrooke Castle with a bastioned enceinte incorporating orillons, which by this time were largely outdated (they were too cramped to service the guns) [Fig. 49]. The Henrician fort at Pendennis was similarly brought up to date around the same time by an English engineer, Paul Ivy the first Englishman to write a treatise on fortification [Fig. 51]. A counterscarp surrounds the ditch. A front of fortification may be strengthened by ravelins and tenailles. [Fig. 52 U = ravelin, R = tenaille] An array of subsidiary fortifications may be employed, but this rarely happened in England. Fig. 53 shows a front of fortification designed by the great Dutch engineer Menno van Coehorn. The Dutch, through their geography, were able to make great use of water in their defences, though this had the disadvantage of freezing over. A Breugel could have depicted the exotic scene of a fortress attacked by skaters. The symmetrical designs of the considerable number of textbook fortifications were usually only suitable for fortifications of towns created de novo, and were certainly not applicable to Plymouth. Here the late 16th century fortification Drakes Fort was operational on part of the site proposed for the Citadel and would remain so during construction.
The Design of the Royal Citadel De Gommes original design conformed to the precept that: The figure of a citadel may be either a square, pentagon, or exagon [sic]; but the pentagon is most proper ... the exagon being rather too big for that purpose, as requiring too great an expence in the building, in proportion to its use and the square is thought too inconsiderate for making a sufficient defence. Loche provided a plan to illustrate all these points [Fig. 50]. The final plan, however, showed that de Gomme agreed with his great contemporary Coehorn that: It is our Judgment, that a Fortress can not conform itself to any particular manner of Calculation, but you must make your Calculation, or regulate your Fortification according to the Form or Situation of the Place. (English translation of 1705) Several proposal plans by Gomme survive, illustrating the development of the design over a period of time including after construction had commenced. It is clear that the form or situation of the place were key considerations: topography and the pre-existing fort influenced the design. De Gommes skill as a military engineer is shown by the way he overcame the natural difficulties of the site. Of the six bastions and two demi-bastions, only two are regular in design, reflecting the awkwardness of the site. The bastioned wall was backed by a flat-bottomed ditch (except on the SE side), the outer side levelled to create a covered way, protected by a glacis.
Figure 47: The angle bastion
Figure 48: Berwick upon Tweed
Figure 49: The bastioned enceinte at Carisbrook Castle
14
Alan Baxter
Inside the ditch, a triangular outwork or ravelin protected the main entrance to the N. On the E and W the covered way was enlarged to create assembly points for troops. Behind the inner face of the walls ramparts of earth and stone provided platforms for the guns, with sloping inclines for access. The gun embrasures were backed by granite-paved gun platforms. De Gommes first plan is dated 1665 [Fig. 54], the year work began, the first contract being for digging the ditch round the N and S curtain walls. War was declared on the Dutch in the following March and continued into 1667. On the 18th July 1665 the foundation stone was laid by Lord Bath at the salient of the bastion which was named after him. In 1667 a peace treaty was signed with the Dutch. The building account was closed in 1670 and a royal visit in 1671, which included the handing of the silver key from Lord Bath to Charles II, who ceremonially returned it to the Governor General, suggests near-completion. However, on this occasion the king lodged in the 16th century lower fort, the domestic buildings in the Citadel not being ready. In fact many of the contracts for the buildings inside the Citadel were not signed until 1671. The small harbour, constructed south of the old lower fort allowed the Citadel to be victualled and re-armed from the sea and ships to be loaded and unloaded under protection. It was not begun until after the royal visit of 1671 and was built by 1672. The Third Dutch War began spring 1672 and continued to 1674. It is plain from other documentation that construction continued until at least 1675. On a second royal visit in 1677 the King was able to stay in the new buildings in the Citadel.
Figure 50: Loches plan illustrating a model regular citadel
Figure 51: Pendennis, Falmouth, Cornwall
Figure 52: Ravelins and tenailles (U= ravelin, R=tenaille)
Figure 53: A front of fortification designed by Menno de Coehorn
Figure 54: De Gommes first plan of the Citadel, 1665. BL.Add.MS.16370. f.43
Alan Baxter
15
De Gomme at Portsmouth The problems which faced de Gomme at Portsmouth were quite different from those at Plymouth. The Old Town of Portsmouth had been surrounded by a continuous enceinte. A fair quantity of maps showing the development of the defences over the centuries have been preserved and these have been catalogued and commented on by D. Hodson in Maps of Portsmouth before 1801 (Portsmouth Record Series, 1978). What follows is largely derived from this indispensable source. Figure 55 shows the defences as recorded in an anonymous map of 1545-6. (BL Cotton Augustus 1.i. 81) For a detailed interpretation the reader is referred to Hodson, but for the present purposes it is enough to note that all the bastions save one are of an old-fashioned type, and one that is very far from those being constructed at more or less the same time at Harrys Walls on the Scillies. Maps dating from c.1552, 1558, 1585 and 1586 record proposals for strengthening and altering the defences: some of these have been published in a companion volume to Hodson, Early Portsmouth Maps (Portsmouth Record Series, 1978). A c.1586 plan (unattributed) was used as one of the illustrations in Andrew Saunders groundbreaking article Hampshire Coastal Defence since the introduction of Artillery published in the 1966 volume of Archaeological Journal. Studies of castles had long been a staple of antiquarian research, but Saunders extended this for the first time to encompass the study of Victorian fortifications, research which was prompted by the demolition of Fort Wallington near Fareham. Figure 56 shows that massive bastions with deeply set orillons in the manner of Berwick-upon-Tweed had been added. Many maps from c. 1665 to 1691 show de Gommes transformation of the old defences. Figure 57 is a reconstruction by Hodson of his final plan. Saunders pointed out (op.cit. and later in Fortress Britain (Liphook, 1989)) that that his most significant alteration was the updating of the design of the bastions, to make the flanks perpendicular to the line of defence. This he explained as the line taken from the angle between the flank of the bastion and the curtain and the salient of the adjacent bastion. This is correct as far as it goes, but to make it clearer and more complete we need to get a little bit more technical. Not very much; the first thing one would have learned in the first week at Lewis Loches Military Academy at Little Chelsea in 1780 would have been, as with Henry Reed and his Lee-Enfield in 1942, Naming of Parts. Turning to Figure 58 (from Loche) the lines of defence are defined as AI, BH and BO (singling out three to keep it simple). These lines determine the direction of the shot, and are
Figure 55: Portsmouth 1545-6
Figure 56: Portsmouth c. 1586
Figure 58: Lines of defence from Loche
Figure 57: Portsmouth as reconstructed by de Gomme
Figure 59: 1668 (BL add 16370
16
Alan Baxter
distinguished into razante and fichante. BO and BH are razante lines so called because the shot, from the opposite flanks HL and OP, graze the faces BM and BK. AI is called the line of defence fichante, because the shot from the flank GK, which defends the face AI, grazes not that face, but fixes itself full against it. The space GI in the curtain, is called second flank, because it defends the face AI. In 1669 de Gomme redesigned the bastions (Pembroke Bastion is shown here) with lines of defence razante. Compare Figures 59 and 60. This redesign, as Saunders pointed out, was according to the precepts of the Comte de Pagan, who had published his book on fortification in 1640. Pagan placed the flanks of his bastions at right angles to the line of defence, instead of at right angles to the curtain. (Fig. 61) ME, NF are the flanks of the bastions, AN and MB the lines of defence. Turning to Plymouth Citadel, it is evident that de Gomme had designed the fortification with some of these precepts in his mind from the start. (Fig. 64) The exception to the use of lines of defence razante is James Bastion (now Prince of Wales Bastion), which has lines of defence fichante. The reason for this is far from selfevident, and may have been a response to the nature of the ground. Alternatively, it might have been thought by de Gomme that an attack was more likely to come from the north-east, as Loche noted that second flanks increase to difficulty of the passage of the ditch. However, the disposition of the armament does not seem to support this latter possibility. It is, however, an apparent anomaly in the design worth indicating. A comparison of de Gommes 1665 plan of the Citadel [fig. 54] with that of 1666 [fig. 65] shows that the east and south faces of the old fort had simply been incorporated into the extended fortification. The last plan surviving from his hand [fig. 66], dated 1672, shows that no alteration of that part of the design had taken place. But by then he had rebuilt some of the bastions at Portsmouth and designed Tilbury [fig. 62] with bastions according to the latest fashion as advocated by the Comte de Pagan. The old bastions were of the type advocated by Paul Ivy [fig. 63]. Nothing could be done about the work which had been completed or was well underway at the Citadel, but the remaining section of the old fort could be rehandled to be up-to-date. This gave the Citadel the main outline which it presents today [fig. 64].
Figure 60: 1669 (NMM P42f78)
Figure 61: Pagan bastion
Paul Ivy Type Flanks
Pagan Type Flanks Figure 64: Lines of Citadel defence Figure 63: Paul Ivy bastion
Alan Baxter
17
Figure 62: Tilbury Fort
Plans after 1665 show parts of the walling of the pre-existing fort absorbed into the new work for reasons of economy and practicality [figs. 65, 66 & 67]. The lower fort had to remain operational while the Citadel was built and was occupied by a garrison of about 50 men. Analysis of historic maps suggests that de Gomme soon remodelled the south curtain wall of the Upper Fort (between Cumberland Battery and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion) to improve its defences and reflect Pagans theories of fortifications: the line of this wall alters between figures 64 and 65 (see also figure 115). In addition to absorbing as much as possible of the 16th century fort, economy was also shown in the dismantling of Plymouths medieval castle so that its lead, timber and stone could be used in the Citadel and a fortified wall to the west, built in the 1530s was also demolished for building materials (SMR SX45SE/48/1, 2). New building materials were grey Plymouth limestone obtained from the site when the ditch was dug, and from the nearby quarries of Lambhay and Tinside, towards the W end of the Hoe. Dartmoor granite was used for dressings, for the cordon, a rounded horizontal moulding running round the exterior of the Citadel, just below the gun embrasures and for the corbels supporting sentry boxes close to the top of the bastions. The only portion of wall which has not survived to its original height is along Prince of Wales curtain, where it was lowered in the 1890s in association with rebuilding a barrack block. The N gateway is a remarkable piece of show architecture, now robbed of its original context of drawbridges across the ditch and outer gateways [fig. 68]. It is dated 1670, baroque and was once
decorated with gilding and contained a life-size statue of Charles II in the central niche. According to Woodward, and repeated in the Scheduled Ancient Monument description, it was designed by Thomas Fitch, an associate of Sir Christopher Wren. However this is not a work attributed to Fitch in the Devon volume of the Buildings of England by Pevsner and Cherry, nor is it listed in the entry for Fitch in Howard Colvins Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 16001840. Colvins entry for de Gomme says of Plymouth Citadel ... the handsome baroque gateway, for whose design he was presumably responsible (Colvin 2008, 432). Andrew Saunders, who examined the primary source material for the Citadel in detail for his biography of Sir Bernard de Gomme, implies that the gateway was designed by de Gomme, who apparently supplied a model. Nicholas Abraham, undertaker, was paid for: the Directing and making of the ffront of the stone Gate in the Curtaine of the saide Cittadell with one Inner Gate two gates of the Raveline and six Centry houses upon the points of the Bastions of Portland stone by Contract dated 24 September 1669 (Saunders, 2004, 116) In addition to the main gate, there were five sallyports, four of which survive, including one out onto the open ground of the Hoe where parades, and occasional executions took place. Armaments The Citadel was temporarily armed in 1667. By 1679, however, a survey revealed that the ordnance was in poor order and many of the guns were renewed in 1680, when there were 113 guns in the Citadel and 40 in the lower fort, covering the harbour approaches.
The Citadel and the Glorious Revolution In 1683 Lord Bath wrote to the Secretary of State: The Towne of Plymouth is now become as loyall as the garrison, which is no small reformation. As an Anglican Tory, Baths loyalty to the crown was eroded by James IIs appointment of Roman Catholics to positions of power and he became a significant figure in the revolution of 1688. The Prince of Orange, later William III, landed at Brixham on 5th November in that year and signalled his presence to Lord Bath by
Figure 67: A 1677 plan, not by de Gomme. This shows 2 and 3-storey accommodation blocks and a small chapel: this was massively enlarged in the 1840s
Figure 65: De Gommes plan of 1666-67, incorporating the Citadel with the fort. NMM. P/45
Figure 66: De Gommes last plan, 1672, showing a panorama of Plymouth. NMM. P/45
18
Alan Baxter
sending him a quince, clearly something that had been pre-arranged. On 27th November 1688 Lord Bath wrote to the Prince relating that he had dismissed all the popish officers and solders from the garrison, read the Princes Declaration to his protestant officers and advised them of his own support for the Prince. In his letter to William, Lord Bath reported: so that the Royal Citadel of Plymouth is with some difficulty but without any effusion of blood secured for your Highness service. In December the Princes fleet arrived in Plymouth sound. Lord Bath formally yielded the Citadel to him, the Princes Declaration was read aloud in the Citadel and the guns fired a salute of welcome, making Plymouth the first town to declare for the Prince. After 1688 the garrison at the Citadel and St. Nicholas Island seems to have stayed at two companies of 50 men, the same size as before the revolution. The Later 17th Century There was evidently a measure of civilian access to the gun platform in the late 17th century. In 1689 Celia Fiennes described the Citadel and promenading the gun platform: The fine and only thing in Plymouth town is the Cittadell, or Castle, which stands very high above the town, the walls and battlements round it with all their works and plattforms are in very good repaire and lookess nobly, all marble full of towers with stone balls on the tops and gilt on the top, the entrance being by an ascent of a hill it looks very noble over 2 drawbridges and gates, which are marble, as is the whole well carvd the gate with armory and statues all gilt and on the top seven gold balls; the buildings within are very neate, a large
apartment for the Governour with others that are less for the severall officers ; there is a long building alsoe which is the arsnell for the arms and ammunition, and just by it a round building well secured which was for the powder; round the works is the platform for the Gunns which are well mounted and very well kept; walking round I had a view of all the town. (Fiennes, 1947 edn., 253) In 1691 the first stone dock in the county was built on the E side of the Hamoaze. This was the beginning of Plymouth dockyard and confirmed the importance of the town for convoys to the Mediterranean and the Americas and as a base for re-fitting warships and prizes. Surviving Structures and buildings of the 17th Century above ground Although much of its 17th century outer earthworks were removed in the 1880s, much of the Citadels original perimeter walling and casemates survive. The scheduled monument description notes that parts of the covered way survive to the north, north west and south west of the Citadel. A small length also survives to the east, beyond Prince Edwards Bastion, including part of the parapet, surviving as an overgrown limestone wall close to the southern end of building 161. Parts of the glacis survive to the north west of the northern ravelin and around the north west corner towards the later west ravelin. Another length survives south of the Citadel in front of King Charles Bastion and curtain wall. The splendid main gateway survives, minus the guardroom that originally occupied the floor over the arch. The range that once contained the Governors and Lieutenant Governors houses and the great store are also late 17th century in origin but both buildings have undergone several phases of massive alteration. The
Governors house range retains its 17th century proportions and some original features [figs. 69 & 70], but the great storehouse [fig. 71] has been completely re-planned and, judging from the masonry, raised. It is sometimes said that the guardhouse is late 17th century, but it was massively rebuilt in the 18th century. The chapel, also sometimes described as 17th century, is the product of a massive 1844 rebuild, incorporating some 17th century walling and is best thought of as a 19th century building. In spite of its losses, the Citadel remains the best-preserved example of this type of fortress in England and its French-influenced baroque north gateway is a considerable contribution to late 17th century architecture. By the late 19th century, there was a keen appreciation of the antiquity and aesthetics of the Citadel and a clear sense that new buildings had to fit in with what survived of de Gommes design, and his surviving buildings have exerted an influence on the style of the late 19th century contribution.
1700-1811
In 1716 Colonel Lillys Report of the Fortifications, Buildings and Artillery in the Port of Plymouth etc. described the Citadel as built for the security of this place, and also for a Check to the Rebellious Spirits of the Neighbourhood (BM Kings MSS.45.f.33, cited by Woodward, 1987, 59) [fig. 72]. Lilly referred to the development of houses, in his judgement creeping too close to the fortress, including some on the glacis of one of the bastions. The ditch needed deepening and the rampart between Albermarles and Baths bastion was missing i.e. construction had not been completed. The rampart was intended to
Figure 68: The main entrance, dated 1670 and probably designed by de Gomme. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 69: The 17th-century range in which the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor were housed. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 70: One of the surviving 17thcentury granite doorways on site, vigorously carved but surprisingly old-fashioned for the date. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 71: The great storehouse. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Alan Baxter
19
be supported by arched masonry but only a few of the arches and some of the piers had been built, meaning that the planned barrack rooms in the casemates were not available. The lower fort was in a poor state of repair. Lilly recommended 71 guns for the Citadel, 38 for the Lower Fort. He considered that necessary repairs to the Citadel would cost 9,958, not including repairs to the guns. He also noted that, there being no barrack master, the soldiers were out of control, destroying their furniture, especially bedsteads and sometimes damaging the buildings. Few of Lillys recommended works, which had a price tag of 22,388 for putting all of Plymouths defences into good order, were undertaken, hardly surprising in peacetime. A plan of 1725 (BM Kings Top XI.82, cited by Woodward, 1987, 61) indicates that the decayed parapets and platforms of the lower fort had been repaired but the barrack rooms or casemates had still not been built. At some point the casemated barrack accommodation under the ramparts between Baths bastion and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion, as recommended by Lilly along the south side of the Citadel was carried out. The casemates survive as barrel-vaulted rooms with a chimney in the outer wall, their inner wall doorways flanked by windows, the openings with jambs
and lintels of Portland stone. The great powder magazine was rebuilt in 1726-7: this had walls ten feet thick and was surrounded by a blast wall four feet thick and eight and a half feet high. Defoes account of Plymouth, visited on his 1724-6 tour, includes a description of the burgeoning dockyard and the trades and activities it spawned, along with the civilian sea-faring population of Plymouth: not gentlemen by birth, but agreeable company nevertheless. He was unimpressed by the Citadel: On the shore, over-against this island, is the citadel of Plymouth, a small, but regular fortification, inaccessible by sea, but not exceeding strong by land, except that they say the works are of a stone, hard as marble, and would not yield to the batteries of an enemy: But that is a language our modern engineers now laugh at. (Defoe, 1928 edn., 230) In 1728, a lead statue of George II in the dress of a Roman Emperor was erected. This survives today, having been moved at least twice since. It was bomb-damaged in 1941 and repaired and re-erected after the war. An engraving of 1737 by Sandford Mace provides a vivid image of the Citadel and its buildings [fig. 73].
All commentators agree that improvements to the Citadel in the later 18th century are difficult to date. There may have been a long timelag between proposals and plans executed. Woodward dates some alterations to between 1741 and 1745. Stone and earth traverses were built on the covered way, two on each straight section to limit the effect of enemy fire along the section. There were alterations to the gun embrasures which were reduced in number on some of the bastions, increased on others (in line with an increased emphasis on protect the approach to the dockyard) and widened to take larger guns then in service. In 1751 General Sir John Ligonier was appointed Governor at a salary in excess of all other British military appointments. In 1759 he was also appointed Master General of the Ordnance but retained his position as Governor until 1761. In the early 1750s the Citadel was upgraded, justified by the inevitability of war with France. In 1753 work began on Ligoniers battery (in fact two batteries) in the Lower Fort, making use of the outcrop of rock running south from the south sallyport. The batteries faced west to protect the approach to the dockyard. They were stepped up the rocky slope so one fired over the other. They were designed for 32-pounder guns and were hidden from ships running up the sound by a substantial wall, which still exists, although the batteries were demolished in 1888. A third new battery,
Figure 72: Lillys plan of the Citadel in 1715, and the key to the uses of the buildings. Kings MS 45, f. 33 (1715)
20
Alan Baxter
Figure 73: Sandford Mace engraving, 1737. Held by the British Library and reproduced with permission. BL 2140 (25).
Alan Baxter
21
Fredericks, was begun in 1754: this stood on the present site of the Royal Corinthian Yacht Club. The south west coverport was also built at about the same time. This was a triangular outwork faced by limestone walling, projecting out from the walls of the Citadel between Baths Bastion and the Cumberland Battery. It was reached by a passageway under the ramparts and protected by a stairway down to Ligoniers batteries. The west ravelin, covering the approach from the Hoe, was built at the same period, in the ditch, with a west sallyport (Woodward, 1987, 63-66). The Citadel was provided with a military hospital, probably in the 1750s, staffed by civilians. From 1778 France, Spain and Holland declared war on England. Plans for invasion by a Franco-Spanish fleet developed from 1778. The espionage for this campaign, led by the so-called Count de Parades, including undercover visits to the Citadel, is a thrilling story, related by Woodward in Chapter 20 of his Citadel. The invasion plan failed largely because the Spanish and French fleets failed to make contact in the Channel in June, as planned. With the enemy fleet in sight and the Citadel garrison reinforced with dockyard workers and seamen, there was two-way traffic in and out of Plymouth in August. Some of the civilian population were fleeing Plymouth, while sight-seeing Devonians were travelling to the town to observe the enemy from the vantage point of the cliffs out of curiosity. Sickness in the enemy fleet, prevarication, inflated accounts of how well Plymouth was defended and shortage of provisions eventually brought the invasion attempt to a close. A 1778 plan of the Citadel was published in 1780 [fig. 74]. Reports on the Citadel armoury in 1779 and 1783 found either few guns or few in good condition (Woodward, 1987, 67). In 1779 there were only twenty heavy guns at the Citadel. In the 1790s the governorship of the Citadel was still the foremost military appointment, judged on salary, in Great Britain. This did not mean that it was free from corruption or drama. In the 1790s Lieutenant Ford exposed systematic corruption by officers, who abused funds supposedly set up for the welfare of the soldiers, diverted allowances of coal and candles to establish businesses and paid off witnesses in court cases intended to expose them (Woodward 1987, 107-117). In 1795 the Lieutenant-Governor moved out of the Citadel into a house at Mount Wise and in 1806 his house was turned into an Officers Mess (Woodward, 1987, 81). In 1797 the naval mutinies at the Nore and Spithead, driven by low pay and cruel disciplinary treatment, spread disaffection to Plymouth, where ships crews mutinied. Four men, all Irish, were court-martialed in the Citadel hospital, accused of attending secret meetings, swearing oaths to overturn the government and planning to seize the barracks. Three were condemned to death and one to a thousand lashes.
The executions took place on the Hoe, described by John Harris, an eye witness, in his 1810 History of Plymouth. The civilian population, reputedly 10,000 strong, crowded the Hoe to witness the spectacle. The condemned men who issued from the west sallyport were preceded by the Marine Band playing the Dead March from Saul, each following his own coffin, carried in front of him. The Napoleonic Wars brought about a crisis in barrack accommodation, and the extreme measure was resorted to of creating a Barracks Department independent of the Board of Ordnance, who before had the responsibility for all military construction. However, this did not affect the Citadel as all fortified places remained under Ordnance control. Figure 75 shows how the fortification looked in 1811. It is at once apparent that the defences have been strengthened. A further ravelin has been added covering the western curtain, and traverses have been placed in the covered way. Regarding the covered way, Muller stated: all fortifications whatsoever have one, for they are esteemed to be one of the most essential parts of a modern fortification; and it is certain, the taking the covert-way, when it is in a good condition and well defended, is generally the most bloody action of the siege. In every re-entering angle of the counterscarp is a place of arms; where the defenders may gather to await the attackers, whose assault is further hindered by the presence of traverses in the covered way. Mullers illustration of these things [fig. 77] is complicated by the addition of two arrows A and a detached redoubt B. The places of arms m as executed at the Citadel are extremely small, the traverses are shown as v. In 1811 the old lower fort had retained its importance, its embrasures realigned, and was further protected from flanking bombardment from the sea by traverses on the west and fortifications on the east. The only significant additions to the buildings inside the Citadel were a hospital and a school within Prince Henrys Bastion. The strengthening of the fortifications and the new buildings were all done at some time before 1793, as a list of building expenses from 1793 to the present is dated April 1816. This includes
1798 1807-8 n.d. 1813-16 n.d. n.d. 1813 Constructing furnace for shot Erecting Garde Foux Re-forming batteries Repairing palisade fence of covered way Repairs Constructing two mortar batteries 8 new sentry boxes required 28-16-11 1166-12-10 113-19-2 1018-16-3 6,400 34-0-9 Not given
Figure 74: 1778 (1780) A Plan of the Town and Citadel of Plymouth. Surveyed by Richard Cowl (PM B/PLY/1780/COW) (original in British Library, BL K. Top 11 83; Stuart 1991, No.161).
Figure 75: A plan of 1811 showing strengthened defences. PRO, MPH 1 233 2
Garde Fou is usually translated as parapet. In this instance, it is an internal parapet.
22
Alan Baxter
Figure 78, another plan from 1811, gives slightly more information about the buildings. As explained above, it is difficult to tell from the 17th century and later plans which buildings remained as proposals and which were built. Figure 76 clarifies this. It incorporates a key (not shown) to the functions of the buildings and as it was retained and enclosed in correspondence of 1813 (which does not appear to survive) it can be accepted as accurate. From this it can be clearly seen that the majority of the buildings projected by de Gomme had in fact been constructed, and that the batteries below the original fort had been reformed to provide a degree of enfilade fire. Surviving buildings and structures of the 18th century The ramparts and casemated accommodation between Baths Bastion and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion is 17th century in conception but 18th century in execution. The guard house may incorporate some 17th century fabric but was thoroughly rebuilt after 1737, probably in the 18th century, although it was altered again in the 1840s. The most distinctive 18th century building is the hospital, later converted to barracks [fig. 79]. This is a rare and early example of a military hospital, comparable to the much smaller and more domestic-looking example at Ravensdowne, Berwick on Tweed, permanent barracks hospitals not generally being constructed until the Napoleonic wars. The Citadel hospital preserves its 18th century proportions but has been entirely re-planned inside and most of its external features, e,g, windows, are modern reproductions.
The lead statue of George II in the dress of a Roman emperor sited outside the Officers Mess [fig. 80]. Woodward records that this was erected in 1728 by Robert Pitt at the expense of Captain Louis Dufour, who commanded one of the independent companies of invalids based at the Citadel. This is not the only surviving lead statue of George II. There is a gilded one in St. Helier on Jersey. This is an early statue of the king, and predates his leading troops into battle.
1811-1914
Early 19th century building campaigns: 1823-1852 A map of the Borough of Plymouth published in 1820 [fig. 81] shows the relationship of the Citadel to the town (proposed for expansion) and the Hoe (subdivided into fields). In February 1823 plans were prepared for enlarging the Officers Mess [fig. 82]. This involved lengthening the building by one bay. Further updating of the accommodation included cast iron water shoots and cistern heads to replace old lead ones at the Officers barracks in 1825, and in 1826 the Fort Majors range was ordered to be completed, with the rooms in the soldiers barracks in that range to be reformed. The next year the Storekeepers Clerks house was fitted up for the use of the Chaplain (who had requested a WC to be installed in his own lodging in 1824). His old house was to be converted to a barrack. A new canteen was ordered in 1828, and the materials of the old one sold off the next year.
Figure 76: A plan dated 1741, which shows that the majority of buildings projected by de Gomme were actually built, even though their dates of erection are uncertain.
Figure 77: Mullers illustration of traverses
Figure 78: An 1811 plan, PRO MPHH 1 677 9. This has north at the top. It includes a Sutlers House, a sutler was a civilian selling provisions to the military.
Figure 79: The mid 18th-century hospital. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 80: The lead statue of George II erected in 1728. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Alan Baxter
23
A plan of 1830 [fig. 83] shows the Victualling establishment below the Citadel at its full extent; this was to be put on the market the next year as the whole enterprise was moved to the new Royal William Yard. Sanitation was improved in the same year by forming cesspits for the Ordnance range. A fresh plan of the Citadel was generated in the same year in response to a demand from the Lieutenant Governor. He had a disciplinary problem to solve. Courts martial were becoming more frequent and he wished to avoid inflicting corporal punishment, but at the same time he wanted the miscreants to be adequately corrected. Only one cell existed, next to the main entrance. In July 1830 he proposed to convert some of the casemates ones which were dry into solitary confinement cells; Figure 86 shows their location, together with some of the additions referred to above and a new hospital and stores buildings in Albemarles Bastion. These cells were not enough to keep up with the scale of offending, and the attic above the Guard House was to be turned over to this purpose with further accommodation to be provided under the Lieutenant Governors range. There was a lighter side to garrison life, and figure 82 shows gardens inserted in the ditches for the use of the General, Master Gunner, Fort Major and Chaplain. In 1832 it was proposed to rearrange barrack rooms in the Cow Pump Range and the Ordnance Range.
In the same year a plan was drawn up for large tanks and filter beds to be inserted to collect surface water. Part of the green within the Citadel was to be puddled for use as a dedicated parade ground. On 12th March 1836 the Fort Majors Range was damaged and partly destroyed by fire. That appointment was abolished, and his quarters not replaced. The new accommodation was for 3 officers, 174 men, a school and the Quartermaster Sergeant. No further works appear to have been projected until 1840 when amenities for the men were to be improved by better drying facilities in the Barrack Masters Store and a Fives Court for the officers in the Prince of Wales Bastion [figure 87]. The Fives Court does not appear to have been constructed. In 1842 the Hospital was supplied with an additional rack in the bedding store. Major works began in 1844. These illustrate a pattern of adaptation of existing buildings to new functions rather than new build. A casemate beneath Cumberland Battery was to be fitted up as an Armourers Shop [fig. 85], and another to a foul bedding store. The Chaplains house was to be converted into quarters for six officers.
Figure 83: A plan of 1830 shows the victualling establishment which was to move to the purpose-built Royal William Yard in the following year. PRO MFQ 1 241 2
Figure 81: 1820 map of the borough of Plymouth engraved by John Cooke.
Figure 82: 1823 plans for enlarging the Officers Mess. PRO WO 55 802
24
Alan Baxter
Figure 84: Gardens inserted in the ditch for the use of senior officers and the chaplain shown in 1831. PRO WO 55 802
Figure 85: Casemates adapted as an armourers store and foul bedding store. PRO WO 55 805
Figure 86: An 1830 plan showing the cells. PRO WO 55 802
Figure 87: A proposed Fives Court for officers in Prince of Wales Bastion in 1840. PRO WO 55 804
Alan Baxter
25
In 1842 the appointments of Governor and Lieutenant Governor were abolished, and as a consequence in 1844 the Lieut. Governors Cow House and Stables in Charles Bastion were appropriated and converted as stores for bedding in the barracks. The old names of the relevant buildings were not, however, changed. The abolition of these grand offices seems to have corresponded with a lapse in the use of the designation Royal, which was re-instated in 1927, along with Royal for the chapel (Woodward, 1987, 85). In the same year, 1844, the Chapel was greatly enlarged. The existing building had box pews for the officers and benches for the men and accommodated 87 officers and their families in pews and benches for 88 [fig. 89]. Transepts and galleries were added together with a robing room and the revised accommodation catered for 53 Officers, their wives and civilians living within the Citadel, 391 soldiers, 20 women and 58 children. This sudden concern for the spiritual needs of everybody may have had some connection with views on Anglican religious revival being earnestly and vocally disseminated in Oxford, though in so far as any officers had religious interests they tended to the evangelical. The ensuing church, however, bore no relation to the precepts of the Camden Society, which influenced the revived gothic architecture that ran in parallel to the liturgical revival. It was old-fashioned for its date. The Major-General in command paid for the font. The building was completed by November 1845 when coals were ordered for drying the building out.
In 1844 the Lieutenant Governors stables were the subject of further alteration, and the Officers Mess had a door inserted for access to a new ante-room. Several plans of the whole site were prepared; Figure 90 - probably in connection with locating new Officers stables; figure 91 - to show the major additions of a new Chaplains house and the conversion of the Grand Store, figure 86 - to show the location of proposed wash rooms, and others showing yet further alterations to the Lieut. Governors stables. In May 1844 plans were drawn up for the most important of all these works, the conversion of the Grand Storehouse into barracks for a whole battalion [fig. 92]. This involved, among other things, the insertion of fireplaces into the barrack rooms. Attention now turned from accommodation and amenities to the defences themselves. The casemates had been barely usable for a long time. A report of 1807 had stated that: from their excessive dampness they are scarce habitable. Some of them however are occupied by married menand others as Storehouses.
Figure 88: Proposed wash rooms in 1844. PRO WO 55 805
Figure 89: The chapel was massively enlarged in 1844. PRO WO 55 805
Figure 90: A plan of 1844, probably produced in connection with locating new Officers stables. PRO WO 55 805
Figure 91: A plan of 1844 shows the new additions of a Chaplains house and the conversion of the Great Store into barracks. PRO WO 55 805
26
Alan Baxter
Figure 92: The conversion of the Grand Storehouse into barracks 1844. PRO WO 55 805
Alan Baxter
27
The casemates under Cumberland Battery had the water protection of their roofs increased by covering the arches with concrete and asphalt. The tenaille at the Governors garden was converted to a saluting battery and the asphalting of the casemates continued. All this refurbishment was done with the intent of making the casemates habitable as barrack accommodation. Clearly a situation comparable to that which exists today had arisen. In October 1846 a plan was drawn up showing the numbered casemates [fig. 93] which accompanied a list showing their present and proposed uses. They were now to hold 305 men and between 1846-48 the casemates between Baths and Albermarles bastions were restored. A brass plaque on the Guardhouse commemorates the asphalting of the casemates in 1846-48 (the full text of this plaque can be found in the Gazetteer).
Number 1 Use in October 1846 Vacant Engineer Store Vacant Vacant Engineer Store Contractors Store Vacant Vacant Engineer Store Engineer Store Wash house Barrack Masters Linen Store Engineer Store Master Gunners Store Guard Room Vacant Vacant Vacant Armourers Shop Proposed use 10 men 20 men 13 men 17 men 20 men 20 men 10 men Guard House for Sally Port communicating with tenaille 20 men 10 men Wash house Linen Store 20 men 13 men Guard Room for Sally Port communicating with Lower Fort 10 men 16 men 32 men Under consideration Guard Room for Sally port communicating with Lower Ligonier Battery and Covered Way 14 men 20 men 20 men 20 men
Six 32 pounder guns were proposed to mounted on Cumberland Battery and in April 1847 a plan was prepared to show the current installation of guns and the buildings containing their ammunition and equipment [fig. 94]. Additional guns were proposed and their fields of fire indicated [fig. 95]. Prince of Wales Bastion, for instance, was earmarked for nine 18 pounders and a 10 inch howitzer. A new magazine was to be built by Pipers Platform. Cumberland Battery was to be rebuilt in asphalted brick. As a final amenity gas lighting was introduced in 1852. Remarkably early photographs of 1855 and 1856 illustrate some of the buildings inside the Citadel. A building for Subalterns, known as The Rookery is indistinguishable from a late 18th century town house in Plymouth [fig. 96]: slate-hung with a pegged slate roof, sash windows and a verandah over a little plot of garden behind iron railings (Woodward, 1987, 104, Plate 38). Problems of the casemated accommodation In 1857 Sidney Herbert was appointed Chairman of the Commission on the Sanitary State of the Army. Its investigations revealed that the death rate of soldiers at home in peacetime was more than double that of the civilian population. The explanation proffered by the Medical Department of the Army was that there were four causes: 1) Night duty 2) Want of exercise and suitable employment 3) Intemperate and debauched habits 4) Crowding and insufficient ventilation, and nuisances arising from latrines and defective sewerage But the Commission found that the police undertook more severe night duty but had a lower death rate. Lack of exercise had a greater effect, and the practice of the soldiers characteristic vices had little effect on lung infections, the greatest cause of death. If, therefore, it can be shown that the soldier in barracks breathes a vitiated and polluted atmosphere, it follows that of the four predisposing causes above enumerated, the last is the one to which the excessive liability of the soldier to this class of disease may be chiefly attributed. Herbert was also the head of the Sub-Commission on barracks and hospitals. Every barrack visited was overcrowded and had inadequate ventilation. In February 1859 a report stated that the Citadel casemates were: crowded with women and children. Almost all the space was taken by beds close to each other. There are no baths. A
Bath House with one bath for 100 men should be provided. The same situation applied in the casemates at Dover. Such an arrangement, wrote Herbert, might, during a siege, tend to preserve life; at other times it has an opposite tendency. When Herbert went to the Lords in 1859 as Lord Herbert of Lea, Secretary of State for War, it might be thought that he was able to initiate a programme of barrack improvements, but in this he was thwarted. He drafted a Bill which would sell off unhealthy barracks and devote the money raised to barrack improvements. But Gladstone, that model of financial rectitude, claimed that this was the reintroduction of a vicious and exploded principle and that the sums realised should be placed at the disposal of the Treasury. Herberts biographer noted that: with Mr Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer, every proposal to rebuild or enlarge a barrack or to construct a hospital involved a battle with the Treasury. Bearing in mind the difficulty he experienced in obtaining funds for the construction of the defensive works which seemed to him indispensable, Mr Herbert felt compelled to abandon, or at least to postpone, the execution of a large number of the improvements in barracks which in the report of the Sanitary Commission he had shown to be imperatively called for Had he lived, they would no doubt have been gradually executed. As it was, they were, after his death, practically abandoned. Shelves were, however, installed in the casemated barracks at the Citadel in 1859-60. And so it came about that at the end of the Second World War 180 other ranks were still sleeping in the casemates. A change in the status of the Citadel If the accommodation at the Citadel proved inadequate in the 1850s, military developments elsewhere meant that its role as a fortification was reconsidered. On the one hand, the failure of the allies to take Sebastapol during the Crimean War demonstrated the value of a wellarmed fort. On the other hand, the laying down of the first ironclad, La Gloire, in 1858 in France, posed a massive gunnery problem for coastal defence. A series of reports on the Plymouth defences in 1858 and 1859 reflected changing attitudes to the value of the Citadel. An 1858 report by Major William F. D. Jervois, Assistant Inspector General of Fortifications, defined the Citadel as a useful outwork to the lines at Devonport (which were unfinished). In the same year, General John F. Burgoyne largely agreed, though pointed out that as it was 300 years old, the Citadel was not on the most improved system of fortification (PRO, WO. 33/8, p.65/507).
2 and 3 4 5 and 6 7 and 8 9 and 10 11 12 13 and 14 15 16 17 18 and 19 20 21 22 23 24, 25 and 26 27
28
Guard Room
29 30 and 31 32 and 33 34 and 35
Vacant Coal Stores Coal Stores Master Gunners Store
28
Alan Baxter
Figure 93: An 1846 plan numbering the casemates. This accompanied a list showing their present and proposed uses. PRO WO 55 806
Figure 94: An important 1847 plan showing the installation of guns and location of ammunition and equipment. PRO WO 44 314
Figure 95: Proposed additional guns and their fields of fire shown in 1847. PRO WO 44 314
Figure 96: One of a set of remarkably early photographs of the Citadel, 1855, reproduced from Woodward, 1987, 104 - A building for Subalterns, known as The Rookery (apparently because of the chattering of the young officers). It stood at the north-west end of the Chaplains Range, and was replaced with building 122 in the early twentieth century.
Alan Baxter
29
In August 1859, partly in response to popular anxiety about invasion, a Royal Commission was appointed by Lord Palmerston to assess the defences of the whole of the United Kingdom. One consequence of this was the Plymouth Palmerstonian forts. Another was a reduction in the role of the Citadel, which was limited to closing the entrance to the Cattewater. As Woodward remarks For the next forty years the position of the Citadel is reflected in its contemporary War Office title Citadel barracks, Plymouth (Woodward, 1987, 74). The appearance of the Citadel and the occupancy of its buildings is meticulously recorded in a plan of 1879 [fig. 97]. Demolition and expansion at the end of the century The 1880s was important as a period when much of the outer defences of the Citadel were returned to Plymouth. In 1884 the Western Figaro condemned the Citadel as redundant as a fortification:
Fortifications thought necessary, but all that it was thought prudent to ask Parliament for. That Act had been preceded by Cardwells Military Forces Localisation Act of 1872, which had authorised a loan of 3.5 million for creating new Depots under Cardwells reorganisation of the Army. One of the aspects of this Act was to establish the design staff who implemented the Barrack Act of 1890. The Design Branch was headed by a Royal Engineer, who was assisted by a civilian architect and his staff. Civilian architects had been employed before, as in the case of Chelsea Barracks, where George Morgan had won an open competition for civilian architects following the recommendation of the Barracks Committee of 1855. There was then ample precedent for the employment of a civilian architect, T. Rogers Kitsell, to design a new barrack block (108) at the Citadel. No unpublished drawings for this have been located in the course of research for this Conservation Management Plan. A plan and two elevations by Kitsell were published in The Builder in 1898 and also exhibited at the Royal Academy [fig. 98]. Kitsell also provided a short written account of the barrack block in The Builder. This is interesting on two counts: firstly Kitsell claims that the aesthetics of the building were carefully designed to do justice to the antiquity of the site as well as being intended to provide soldiers in peacetime with a home that did not look like a prison, as many barracks did. Secondly, he is surprisingly coy about claiming responsibility for the design, describing it as undertaken: under the supervision of the War Office and grumbling about the legion of rules and regulations to contend with along with the constraints imposed on the design by the site, implying an element of design-by-committee, only to be expected in the military context. The barrack block is a massive building, with its rear wall springing from the base of the old curtain wall and a false gateway (probably at the site of the north sallyport) ten feet above the base of the outside wall. At first sight its exterior appears to be very unaltered since Kitsells day, but has been extensively repaired and refurbished and its interior entirely gutted and re-planned. Along with five other buildings on the site erected in the 1895-1905 period, the barrack block gives the interior of the Citadel today its institutional late Victorian/ early Edwardian character, with a regional twist provided by the use of the distinctive grey Plymouth limestone. This is in sharp contrast to the only other comparable post-Barrack Act blocks, at the Peninsular Barracks, Romsey Road, Winchester, c.1900. These are red brick in a neo-Georgian style and are both grander and less regional in character than the Plymouth buildings. The list descriptions of the five buildings, close in date to the 1898 barrack block, attributes all of them to Kitsell: the Officers Quarters and Mess (Asset 120); Married Quarters and Sergeants Quarters (Asset
The great guns of the present day would knock it into a mingle mangle of masonry with thunderous sound and almost lighting like celerity. In a military sense the Citadel for a long time is and has been played out. (cited by Woodward, 1987, 75) This leading article asked that the fortress be knocked down and the land returned to the town in a decade when the Corporation was busy with improvements to the Hoe and its amenities. Smeatons Lighthouse was re-erected on the Hoe in 1882. The great W/E promenade along the Hoe was extended to the E and straightened in the 1880s and in 1888 the Armada Memorial was erected. The Corporations acquisition of the outer works of the Citadel was an important part of the beautification of the Hoe and its development along the lines of a Victorian municipal park. Most of the outer works of the Citadel were demolished, along with the whole of the Lower Fort, some earthwork elements absorbed into the Hoe. Two ravelins were pulled down and ditch filled in. The sallyport gateway on the W was originally on the N side and was moved to its present position in the 1880s, when the N ravelin was demolished. The double wall and rampart to Fishers Nose remained, so that Marine Drive, the road (now known as Madeira Road) along the shoreside of the Hoe, ended by the foundations of the old octagonal tower and did not continue round the point and down to Sutton Pool as it does today, although there was pedestrian access, using an existing bridge (across the Submarine Mining Establishment) which was to be continued with a tunnel (Plymouth and West Devon RO, Hoe Committee Reports, 18591893). The Barracks Act of 1890, which made 4.1 million available for new building and reconstruction, saw the transformation of the Citadel. The money was less than half the sum that the Inspector-General of
122), these supplemented the first married quarters built in 1892 in Commercial Road with more on Lambhay Hill in 1903); Cookhouse (Asset 102); Junior Ranks Mess (Asset 104); Soldiers School (Asset 134). Some of the list descriptions cite The Builder piece of 1898 as the source of the attribution. This is misleading as Kitsell makes no reference at all to any other new buildings apart from the Barrack Block. However, it is likely, though not certain, that he was responsible for the other five buildings. His entry in Whos Who in Architecture for 1914 states that he was for eight years in the service of the War Office and attributes the Plymouth Citadel Reconstruction Works to him (RIBA Library). He designed an officers mess building in Malta and a soldiers and sailors institute in Devonport, 1904, the drawings for this exhibited at the Royal Academy. He also designed the Artillery Drill Hall on Lambhay Hill, just opposite the N entrance to the Citadel, drawings dated 1917. His civilian works included alterations to Plymouth Churches, and houses in Plymouth and Cornwall. Evans suggests that he is unlikely to have been responsible for the Drill Shed and attached lecture theatre of 1896 (now demolished), which had none of the architectural touches that he felt empowered to indulge in when making a contribution to the historic environment inside the line of the 17th century walls. The Drill Shed was erected outside these, to the rear of the barrack block and adjacent to ground shown as a Fishing Net Drying Ground on the 1895 2nd edition 1:2500 OS map. This acre plot of land had been acquired from the War Department by the Corporation for this purpose in 1886 (Plymouth and West Devon RO, Hoe Committee Reports, 1859-1893, 1648/64). At some time between the 1895 and 1907 OS maps the Territorial Army buildings on Lambhay Hill, on land that had been earthworks to north of the Citadel were begun, the southernmost block built first. Later buildings were erected to Kitsells designs. A comparison between an 1877 map of Plymouth and the 1895 Ordnance survey map illustrates the changes to the Citadel and its context that occurred in the 1880s [fig. 99]. In 1896 a photograph of the interior of the Citadel was published in Navy & Army Illustrated [fig. 100]. This shows, from the left, the Governors Range, the Cow Pump Range, the Guard House and Williams Range of officers quarters. A plan of 1901 [fig. 101] shows in great detail the extensive additions resulting from the 1890 Act. The construction of the Officers Mess involved the demolition of the old powder house. The Sergeants Mess was designed to replace Williams Range. A 1903 block plan shows that the terrace of married quarters had been added, and also shows some of the old outworks landscaped into Hoe Park [fig. 102]. A canteen for the men in Prince of Wales Bastion replaced a bowling alley. By 1906 the Cow Pump Range had finally gone, replaced by an adult school (Asset 134) opposite the guardhouse. In addition
30
Alan Baxter
Figure 97: An 1879 plan of the Citadel. PRO OS WO 78 3045
Figure 98: Plan and elevations of the barrack block fronting the parade ground by T. Rogers Kitsell, The Builder July 30th 1898, Vol 2, 104-105.
Figure 99: A comparison of an 1877 and 1895 map to show the changes to the context of the Citadel in the 1880s and the expansion of the Hoe. The 1895 Ordnance Survey map (the Citadel itself is shown blank for security reasons) shows the 1880s changes to the perimeter of the fort: the construction of the Marine Laboratory in 1884, Madeira Drive pushed as far as Fishers Nose in 1888 and the Fishing Net Drying Ground east of the east wall of the fort.
Figure 100: An 1896 photograph of the interior of the Citadel published in the Army and Navy Illustrated.
Alan Baxter
31
to the new buildings, the 18th century hospital and the great store were converted to soldiers accommodation, the Governors Range rebuilt and the casemate accommodation improved. During the alterations workmen discovered a fine late 17th century front door, which was restored and is now displayed in the porch of the Officers Mess building. Despite the increase in accommodation, many of the casemates were still occupied. The turn of the century works involved a number of discoveries. Underground chambers, probably natural caves adapted as water tanks, were discovered. Some were filled in, but the entrance to one survives west of the West Sallyport, in the wall and the entrance to another, which has been filled in, is behind the Officers Mess, to right of the steps up to the battlements (Harley, 2009 edn., no pagination). The 1901 plan shows the Submarine Mining establishment below Prince Henrys demi-bastion. Harbour defence mining was at that time the province of the Royal Engineers, and this particular depot had been established in 1882. The ravelins had been done away with and the final vestiges of the Lower Fort cleared for Madeira Road. The future use of the Citadel is foreshadowed by the presence, in Queens Battery, of a number of holdfasts for guns of varying sizes, clearly intended for training purposes. From 1898 the Citadel became a station for units of the Royal Artillery, reflecting a renaissance in both the organisation and technology of coastal artillery and a new purpose for the fortress. R. V. Walling, recollecting his time at the Citadel as a gunner in the early 20th century in an article published in the Western Morning News in 1971, described the mens quarters as:
Figure 101: A plan of 1901 showing the impact of the 1890 Barrack Act on the Citadel. PRO WO 78 2976
Figure 102: A 1903 block plan showing the addition of a terrace of married quarters and some of the old outworks landscaped into the Hoe. PRO 1127 15
32
Alan Baxter
almost medieval. When I had to carry out an inspection I felt genuinely sorry for the poor chaps, crowded into their dark, dingy damp barrack rooms. Tightly-packed collapsible iron bedsteads each with three biscuits (square mattresses), a couple of brown blankets and their kit laid out: one knife, one fork, one spoon,one enamel plate had to do for all meals. Sanitary arrangements were primitive, the only hot water to be found for shaving had to scrounged from the kitchen and baths were unheard of. By comparison, the Officers Mess was like a country mansion with almost luxurious rooms for senior ranks, although the ground floor rooms were damp with peeling plaster. There was an ante-room overlooking the Sound and a mess with a table that could seat 30 or 40 and a billiards room. Guest nights were memorable, with a string orchestra in attendance. Surviving Buildings and structures of the 19th Century Much of the character of the interior of the Citadel is determined by its late Victorian and Edwardian buildings. The chapel, as rebuilt in 1844 is the earliest of the major buildings [fig. 103]. The post Barrack Act buildings are built of Plymouth limestone, either squared and snecked
or brought to course with sash windows. They are a consistent, though very varied group, whether or not they were all designed by Kitsell. We know from Kitsells account how much attention was paid to a sense of the antiquity of the site in the great 1898 block fronting the parade ground [fig. 104]: The old massive granite plinth and string course are rebuilt in the new work at their original level, and so preserve that continuity of long low lines with which the eye is familiar, and which is characteristic of the Citadel ... the walls are built of local limestone with Portland stone dressings, a 3-in. Cavity and a lining of 9-in. Brickwork; these substantial walls will add the desired effect by providing depth of reveal for the windows, doorways and other features, and will harmonise with the character of the Citadel. (The Builder, July 30th 1898, Vol 2, 104-105). The Officers Mess is, understandably, by far the grandest of this group of buildings, with Bathstone dressings and mullioned windows and an internal plan designed to exploit spectacular views of the Sound. It preserves much of its original interior detail [figs. 105 & 106]. The lesser buildings have been altered inside although the Adult School preserves some of its original interior features [figs. 107, 108 & 109].
1914-2009
Civilian and military considerations converged in 1914 when there was a proposal to amalgamate the three towns as they were known: Devonport, Stonehouse and Plymouth, under one governing authority. Devonport objected. An energetic and influential witness for the Corporation was Major-General A. P. Penton, GOC South Western Coast Defences who, as fortress commander, considered that, in the event of war, it would be impractical to deal with the three towns individually rather than a unified body (Woodward, 1987, 84). Before World War I, the ramparts were publicly accessible. After the outbreak of war the Citadel garrison was completed by the mobilisation of local units of the Territorial Army, the Devon Royal Garrison Artillery, based at the Lambhay Hill drill hall (Woodward, 1987, 84). This was red brick and designed by Kitsell in 1917 in a chunky neo-classical style with baroque features to the west elevation,
Figure 103: St. Katherines Church, largely 1844. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 104: Kitsells great barrack block of c.1898. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 105: The Officers Mess, 1896. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 106: The Officers Mess interior. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 107: The Sergeants Mess. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 108: The canteen. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 109: The Adult School. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Alan Baxter
33
evidently intended to be sympathetic to the Citadels grand late 17th century north gateway. Kitsells plans superseded earlier (1913) plans by A. Southcombe Parker of Plymouth (Drill Hall Project Database), presumably a civilian architect. Why these plans were replaced with Kitsells is unknown, but perhaps it was his experience of working with the War Office. After World War I Plymouth Corporation which, at different times, was keen to acquire the Citadel, claimed it was no longer used for military purposes, although, as a letter from Major-General Northey pointed out in the Western Morning News, in fact it contained HQ Royal Artillery, four heavy batteries, District Establishment Royal Artillery, thirty officers and 420 men. It may have been a sense of pressure from the City Council that prompted Lieutenant-Colonel Barron to petition George V for the restoration of the Royal designation which was duly granted in 1927 along with the re-labelling of the Chapel the Royal Chapel of St. Katherine-upon-the-Hoe-within-the-Royal-Citadel (Woodward, 1987, 85). In c.1934 Madeira Road was finally pushed right through the double wall down to Fishers Nose and it became possible to drive from the Hoe to Sutton Pool along the shoreline [fig. 110]. By 1936 [fig. 111] what appear to be Nissen huts have been placed behind the Governors Range, and the Submarine Mining Establishment no longer exists, that branch of the Army having been done away with in 1904, when all maritime mining activities were transferred to the Navy. Also present by 1936 was large messing facility with an attached kitchen and boiler house immediately to the south of the main barrack block (building 108). This can be seen in figs. 112, 113 and 114. On mobilisation for World War II, the Coast Artillery Training Centre was established at Plymouth with its headquarters at the Citadel. A gun emplacement used for drill was constructed on its east side in the ditch behind the covered way. This is a circular concrete gun platform within a low concrete-walled rectangular enclosure. This is backed by a concrete retaining wall along the outer edge of the ditch forming a semi-circular niche in the covered way. During World War II the fortress escaped the bomb damage that destroyed much of Plymouth: in 1941 the Citadel came under enemy fire for the first and only time. A stick of bombs landed near the south end of the Head Quarters block, damaging the lead statue of George II, which was dismantled and stored in a casemate for the remainder of the war and repaired and re-erected afterwards. Rebuilding and re-planning Plymouth after the bomb damage of World War II connected the built up area of the city, the Hoe and, by association, the Citadel. Aerial photographs of 1946 show the Citadel and the Hoe [figs. 112 & 113] in the context of bomb-damaged Plymouth.
After World War II the Coastal Artillery Training Centre function at the Citadel was gradually run down. The concept of Seawards Defence developed with the Royal Navy taking responsibility for organising all defences of a port from attack either from the sea or the air. The development of rockets and nuclear weapons meant that by 1956 the traditional coast defences of Britain ceased to exist. Coastal guns were cut up and sold for scrap. In 1957 stables were re-appropriated as Royal Engineer stores and in the same year the school was turned into accommodation. In 1960 the Plymouth Corporation revived the question of acquiring the site. Woodward implies that this prompted the speedy arrival of the 42nd Field Regiment. Access for civilians was relaxed. A Western Evening Herald article noted that although, strictly speaking, the Citadel was open to the public only at given times, visitors are unofficially allowed in it almost any time of the week and they find the chapel to be one of the most impressive features (04.03.60) In 1962 the 29th Field regiment was reformed as 29 Commando Brigade Light Regiment RA to provide artillery support for 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines and stationed at the Citadel. The regiment replaced the Royal Marines Artillery, which had been lost in the reorganisation of the armed forces at the end of World War II. The Citadel was conveniently close both to Commando Brigade Headquarters in Stonehouse and to Dartmoor, for fitness and field firing training. A medical centre was purpose-built in 1965. In 1966 major changes were in the air and a block plan of the existing buildings prepared. Little had changed since before the war. Figure 114 shows that extensive demolitions and replacements were proposed. The Kitsell block was seen as presenting the most difficulties. The Barrack Block represents a most intractable shell which requires virtually complete gutting and renewal internally. It has to be retained because it forms such an important in fact dominating element in the Citadel, which would be lost if demolished. Eroded stone facings were to be restored, disused chimney stacks demolished, existing staircases replaced with concrete ones, internal walls to be battened and lined, all windows overhauled, and complete renewal of sanitary fittings, heating services, electrical services, floor coverings and ironmongery. Similar renewals were needed for the former Great Storehouse (whose chimneys were also to be demolished) and Governors Range. Fortunately for the historic buildings, the demolitions were not carried out.
In 1971 the two regiments were combined into 29 Commando Light Regiment Royal Artillery. The main gate of the Citadel was refurbished: photographs in the Local Studies Library show it scaffolded and work in progress. Periodically, Plymouth Councillors or contributors to the local press argued that the Citadel should be acquired by the City, either as a tourist attraction or a car park or both. These suggestions always prompted counter-arguments, including in 1975, the estimate that the army brought 3 million into the local economy (Western Evening Herald 6.12.1975).
34
Alan Baxter
Figure 110: The road cut through former War Office land to connect the Hoe to Sutton Pool along the shore in c.1934. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp
Figure 111: A very detailed plan of 1936, English Heritage/NMR MD95 00923
Figure 112: The Citadel March 25th 1946. English Heritage/NMR RAF/106G/UK/1286
Figure 113: The Citadel in 1946. English Heritage/NMR RAF/CPE/UK/1744.
Alan Baxter
35
The most recent phase of development was a major refurbishment of and additions to the buildings in 1989-1992. These changes were so extensive that the Citadel was closed while they were undertaken, the troops moved to HMS Drake. The work cost over 25 million and involved the building or rebuild of 13 buildings and refurbishment of a further 11. Over 1,000 windows were renovated by Ventrolla. The project involved the Minstry of Defence, the Property Services Agency, the Army, Derek Montefiore and Anthony J. Moore of MHM Architects Ltd of Covent Garden. The contractors were Costain Civil Engineering, using many local sub-contractors. English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission advised. Archaeological investigation by Exeter Archaeology revealed walling of the late 16th century fort in good condition. The notorious assault course, east of Kitsells barrack block, was replaced with a new gym and a military transport and ordnance yard. Internal re-planning of the historic buildings provided more civilised accommodation supplemented by new buildings, kept low [fig. 115]. Many of these were erected outside the perimeter of the 17th century fort, behind a massive new rampart and 60 ft high wall along the eastern edge of the Citadel [fig. 116]. This was designed to screen the new workshops and be in keeping with the historic form of the Citadel.
The celebrations accompanying the re-opening of the Citadel, the best billet in the British Army (The Evening Herald, 30.06.1993) included a symbolic re-taking of the fort by Commandos in May storming up the ramparts from boats in the Sound and scaling the walls. On 11th July 1992 there were two military tattoos for the formal re-occupation ceremony, The people of Plymouth were not forgotten and there was a massive musical event Music of the Night, in July, 1992, the biggest outdoor event ever to be staged in Plymouth. This was organised in association with the Theatre Royal and a range of music was played including the 1812 overture. Music of the Night has been staged subsequently at intervals, making use of the Parade Ground as a festival space. After the 1989-1992 refurbishment there were guided tours for civilians in parties of 25 twice daily in the summer.
Archaeology
Extensive below - and above-ground archaeological investigations have taken place at the Citadel (see figures 119 and 120). A summary of the findings of these is included in Appendix 6.
Figure 115: The Sergeants Mess, one of the new buildings erected 1989-1992. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp.
Figure 114: Block plans of 1966 showing the Citadel as existing and as proposed. Had all the work been carried out several of the historic buildings would have been demolished: the 18th century hospital, the 19th century sergeants quarters, mess and canteen and the adult school. PRO 1127 157, 158.
Figure 116: The new perimeter wall along the eastern edge of the Citadel built between 1989 and 1992. Nov 2009 photograph by J. R. L. Thorp.
36
Alan Baxter
Figure 117: Phasing
16th century fort
By 1666
By 1672
By 1677
By 1715
By 1741
By 1811
By 1830
By 1844
Alan Baxter
37
Figure 117: Phasing (continued)
By 1887
By 1901
By 1936
By 1966
By 2010
38
Alan Baxter
16th century 17th century 18th century 1844 1880s 1898-1907 1907-1936 1966-1980s 1989-1992 Post 1992
Figure 118: Age of Fabric
Alan Baxter
39
Figure 119: Plan showing locations of archaeological below-ground observations and outline of former Elizabethan fort. A summary of the findings of these is included in Appendix 6.
40
Alan Baxter
Figure 120: Plan showing locations of archaeological above-ground investigations. A summary of the findings of these is included in Appendix 6.
Alan Baxter
41
2.3 Ecology
For the purposes of this report, Dr David Fee MIEEM undertook a walkover assessment of the Royal Citadel site on 30 November 2009. This assessment specifically aimed to identify the following: The presence of plant species of significant nature conservation value. General habitat classification. Presence of nesting birds, or features likely to be of value to these species. The presence of animal species listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or habitat features likely to be of value to such species. This includes an initial evaluation of the potential value of buildings to bats (see below).
A data search for biological records within 1km of the site was commissioned from Devon Biodiversity Records Centre (DBRC), and background information on protected sites obtained from the Natural England public database.
Survey findings
The main finding of the field survey is that there is very little seminatural habitat found within the boundary of the Royal Citadel. The majority of the site comprises buildings and hard landscape features such as car parks, a parade ground, walls and roads. The seminatural habitats within this generally urban landscape can be defined as follows: Semi-improved maritime grassland Vegetated walls/cliffs Planted trees/shrubs Buildings and hard landscaping (All definitions derived from the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey, NCC, 1990. And outside the site boundary, but of relevance to this report: Mixed estuarine habitats The distribution of these habitats is shown in figure 125. Semi-improved maritime grassland (fig. 121) This habitat is largely confined to wall tops and discreet areas around the ramparts of the Royal Citadel. It is established on shallow soils, and is dominated by commonly-occurring species such as perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), cocks-foot (Dactylis glomerata), red fescue (Festuca rubra), with occasional self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), bedstraw (Galium sp.), thrift (Armeria maritima), yarrow (Achillea
millefolium), English scurvy grass (Cochlearia anglica), parsley piert (Aphanes arvensis), ground elder (Aegopodium podagraria), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), broadleaved plantain (Plantago major) and dandelion (Taraxacum sp.). Other species are likely to be present, but could not be identified due to the survey being undertaken during winter months. The low growing and dense sward indicates that these areas are managed (cut) during the growing season. As a result they are of uniform height and lacking in structural diversity. Vegetated walls/cliffs (fig. 122) The Royal Citadel site contains many vertical walls constructed of stone, and a few small outcrops of limestone bedrock. The walls have been colonised to varying degrees by a number of native and introduced plant species, such as valerian (Valeriana officinalis), ivyleaved toadflax (Cymbalaria muralis), navelwort (Umbilicus rupestris), white clover (Trifolium repens), ivy (Hedera helix), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and red fescue. Many of the walls, especially on the outer perimeter of the site, have abundant lichen growth. The cliff areas contain similar vegetation, though ivy growth is generally more vigorous. A number of non-native plants are more abundant in these areas, including Cotoneaster sp., silver ragwort (Senecio cineraria ) and dwarf conifers. Planted trees/shrubs (fig. 123) Small areas of formal tree and shrub planting are found across the site. Tree species are ash (Fraxinus excelsior), lime (Tilia x vulgaris), ornamental holly (Ilex aquifolium) and rowan (Sorbus aucuparia). Shrubs are confined to box (Buxus sempervirens), rose (Rosa sp.) and Cotoneaster sp. Buildings and hard landscaping (fig. 124) Buildings, car parking areas, a parade ground, the Church of St. Katherine, store buildings and other built structures dominate the site internally.
The biological value of hedgerows and subsequent identification of those sections requiring notification under the 1997 Hedgerows Regulations. Ecological value of water features. Badger (Meles meles) activity within the survey area. The presence of invasive species, particularly Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, for which legislation and specific guidelines apply prior to site development. As part of the survey, existing buildings were examined externally to: 1. Identify any features that might be used by bats for accessing internal voids. 2. Determine whether barn owls or other nesting birds might be present during the breeding season.
Figure 121: Semi-improved maritime grassland
Figure 122: Vegetated walls/cliffs
Figure 123: Planted trees/ shrubs
Figure 124: Buildings and hard landscaping
42
Alan Baxter
Distribution of semi-improved maritime grassland Distribution of vegetated walls/cliffs only larger areas shown - same vegetation found on walls across the site Distribution of planted trees/shrubs Survey area
Figure 125: Habitats found on site
Alan Baxter
43
Data search results

Within 1 km of the site there is one Special Area of Conservation (SAC), one Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and 2 County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) (further details provided in Appendix 5).
Site Name Plymouth Sound and Estuaries Plymouth Sound Shores & Cliffs Jennycliff Grid Reference SX465502 Description Estuaries, mudflats, sandbanks, large shallow inlets and bays Status SAC
mallow (Lavateria arboria), and sea spleenwort (Asplenium marinum). These species are typically found on maritime grassland and cliffs, and have a limited distribution within the county. House sparrow (Passer domesticus) is legally protected, and has been recorded along the coastline at Madeira Road. A full list of all legally protected/notable species is provided in Appendix 7. N.B. A rare lichen, Lichina pygmaea, has been referred to in previous correspondence relating to the site. This species is associated with barnacles on the upper seashore, and as such is not found within the site boundary.
2.4 Legislative & Planning Policy Context

Designations
The Royal Citadel site is extensively designated at local and national level under historic environment legislation: The Royal Citadel is a scheduled monument. The scheduling covers the ramparts, the Citadel gate, the sallyport, the statue of George II, and four buildings (101, 111, 118 & 131) which are also listed. Some buildings and structures within the boundary of the scheduled monument are specifically excluded from the scheduling, but the ground beneath all of these features is included. Eleven of the buildings on the site are listed, two at Grade II* and nine at Grade II; The whole site lies within the Hoe Conservation Area. The Royal Citadel is bounded to the north, south and west by the Grade II registered historic landscape of Hoe Park. Parts of the scheduled monument fall within the boundary of the registered landscape. Two buildings outside the Citadel walls but within the study area are identified as buildings which make a positive contribution to the conservation area. These designations mean that any proposals that might affect the special interest of the individual buildings and any curtilage structures, and/or their settings, will be subject to additional planning controls. To be permitted, proposed developments should adhere to the relevant national, regional and local legislation, guidance and policies, outlined below.
SX442488, Open coast and sheltered bays SX448513 & including shore communities with a SX487512 south-western influence. (Boundaries follow Mean Low Water). SX491527 Unimproved calcareous grassland, semi-improved neutral grassland, bracken, scrub, broadleaved woodland & strandline vegetation
SSSI
CWS
Plymouth Hoe and Madeira Road
SX478538
Amenity grassland, unimproved CWS calcareous grassland, coastal grassland, cliff vegetation and notable plant interest.
Data search results for important sites within 1km of site (data from DBRC)
Reference to the maps in Appendix 5 shows the closest site to the Royal Citadel is Plymouth Hoe and Madeira Road CWS, which includes sloping ground to the immediate south of the main walls. Hoe Park, to the north, forms part of the Plymouth Biodiversity Network. The boundary of Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC lies at mean low water along the shoreline south of Madeira Road. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are strictly protected sites designated under the EC Habitats Directive. Article 3 of the Habitats Directive requires the establishment of a European network of important highquality conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving the 189 habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive (as amended). The listed habitat types and species are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level (excluding birds). Records for a number of legally protected/Devon Notable species are also found within 1km of the site (as shown in Appendix 3). All records from within the Royal Citadel site are for notable plant species such as knotted hedge-parsley (Torilis nodosa), wild clary (Salvia verbenaca), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), sea couch (Elytrigia atherica), tree
44
Alan Baxter
Scheduled Monument Grade II* Listed Buildings Grade II Listed Buildings Buildings that make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area The Hoe Conservation Area boundary The Hoe Registered Historic Landscape boundary
Figure 126: Designations
Alan Baxter
45
National legislation and policy

The governments new Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) and the accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide were introduced in March 2010, and both are material considerations for all applications (for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent) concerning what are now termed heritage assets. PPS5 replaces the previous government guidance Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the historic environment (PPG15) (1994) and Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning (PPG16) (1990). The Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (para. 20) notes that nothing in the PPS changes the existing legal framework by which scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas and registered parks and gardens are designated. Existing laws continue to set out the basis on which scheduled monument consent, listed building consent and conservation area consent are required. However, whilst PPS5 covers planning decisions concerning scheduled monuments, it does not cover scheduled monument consent. The Governments policies on the granting of scheduled monument consent are outlined in the DCMS document Scheduled Monuments (March 2010), as detailed below. A key feature of the new PPS is its holistic approach to the historic environment. PPS5 places the concept of significance at the heart of the planning process, and it is this that drives the definition (outlined in Annex 2) of what constitutes a heritage asset: A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the historic environment. They include designated heritage assets (as defined in this PPS) and assets identified by the local planning authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making process (including local listing).
When identifying such heritage assets during the planning process, a local planning authority should be clear that the asset meets the heritage asset criteria set out in Annex 2 [of the PPS]. Where a development proposal is subject to detailed pre-application discussions (including, where appropriate, archaeological evaluation) with the local planning authority, there is a general presumption that identification of any previously unidentified heritage assets will take place during this pre-application stage. Otherwise the local planning authority should assist applicants in identifying such assets at the earliest opportunity.
Paras. 68-69 of the Practice Guide provide advice on meeting the requirements of this policy. The assessment of understanding, significance and impact submitted alongside applications should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and the potential impact of the proposals. If a Design and Access Statement is required for the application, this is the appropriate place to present this information. Policy HE7 of PPS5 outlines the policy principles guiding the determination of applications (for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent) relating to all heritage assets: HE7.1 In decision-making local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be affected by the relevant proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of: (i) evidence provided with the application (ii) any designation records (iii) the historic environment record and similar sources of information (iv) the heritage assets themselves (v) the outcome of the usual consultations with interested parties; and (vi) where appropriate and when the need to understand the significance of the heritage asset demands it, expert advice (from in-house experts, experts available through agreement with other authorities, or consultants, and complemented as appropriate by advice from heritage amenity societies). HE7.2 In considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations. This understanding should be used by the local planning authority to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage assets conservation and any aspect of the proposals. HE7.3 If the evidence suggests that the heritage asset may have a special significance to a particular community that may not be fully understood from the usual process of consultation and assessment, then the local planning authority should take reasonable steps to seek the views of that community. HE7.4 Local planning authorities should take into account:
Policy HE6 of PPS5 identifies the information required to be submitted alongside applications (for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent) affecting all heritage assets: HE6.1 Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the applications impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation. HE6.2 This information together with an assessment of the impact of the proposal should be set out in the application (within the design and access statement when this is required) as part of the explanation of the design concept. It should detail the sources that have been considered and the expertise that has been consulted. HE6.3 Local planning authorities should not validate applications where the extent of the impact of the proposal on the significance of any heritage assets affected cannot adequately be understood from the application and supporting documents.
A designated heritage asset is defined as: A World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated as such under the relevant legislation.
On this basis, most of the structures on the site qualify as designated heritage assets. In respect of the identification of non-designated heritage assets, Policy HE8 of PPS5 notes that:
46
Alan Baxter
the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and of utilising their positive role in place-shaping; and the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets and the historic environment generally can make to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality by virtue of the factors set out in HE3.1 HE7.5 Local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use. HE7.6 Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset in the hope of obtaining consent, the resultant deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be a factor taken into account in any decision. HE7.7 Where loss of significance is justified on the merits of new development, local planning authorities should not permit the new development without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred by imposing appropriate planning conditions or securing obligations by agreement. The Practice Guide provides further guidance in respect of the determination of applications (for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent) relating to all heritage assets. When assessing proposals, local planning authorities must weigh heritage impacts against other material planning considerations (para. 76), and they must take account of the longevity of any public benefits claimed for a proposed scheme (para. 78). Para. 79 of the Practice Guide lists potential heritage benefits that could weigh in favour of any proposed scheme: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It sustains or enhances the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting. It reduces or removes risks to a heritage asset. It secures the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation. It makes a positive contribution to economic vitality and sustainable communities. It is an appropriate design for its context and makes a positive contribution to the appearance, character, quality and local distinctiveness of the historic environment.
6.
It better reveals the significance of a heritage asset and therefore enhances our enjoyment of it and the sense of place.
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. HE9.2 Where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that: (i) the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; or (ii) (a) (b) (c) (d) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term that will enable its conservation; and
Para. 80 provides advice in designing new development in the historic environment: A successful scheme will be one whose design has taken account of the following characteristics of the surroundings, where appropriate: 1. 2. 3. 4. The significance of nearby assets and the contribution of their setting. The general character and distinctiveness of the local buildings, spaces, public realm and the landscape. Landmarks and other features that are key to a sense of place. The diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, detailing, decoration and period of existing buildings and spaces. The topography. Views into and from the site and its surroundings. Green landscaping. The current and historic uses in the area and the urban grain.
5. 6. 7. 8.
the harm to or loss of the heritage asset is outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back into use.
Some or all of these factors may influence the scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and proposed use in any successful design. Policy HE9 of PPS5 outlines additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications (for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent) relating to designated heritage assets: HE9.1 There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments,
HE9.3 To be confident that no appropriate and viable use of the heritage asset can be found under policy HE9.2(ii) local planning authorities should require the applicant to provide evidence that other potential owners or users of the site have been sought through appropriate marketing and that reasonable endeavours have been made to seek grant funding for the heritage assets conservation and to find charitable or public authorities willing to take on the heritage asset. HE9.4 Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases local planning authorities should: (i) weigh the public benefit of the proposal (for example, that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long-term conservation) against the harm; and (ii) recognise that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss. HE9.5 Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. The policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10 apply to those elements that do contribute to the significance. When considering
Alan Baxter
47
conservation through grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible; and
proposals, local planning authorities should take into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the World Heritage Site or Conservation Area as a whole. Where an element does not positively contribute to its significance, local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of enhancing or better revealing the significance of the World Heritage Site or Conservation Area, including, where appropriate, through development of that element. This should be seen as part of the process of place-shaping. HE9.6 There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: that have yet to be formally assessed for designation that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
necessarily the most profitable one. It might be the original use, but that may no longer be economically viable or even the most compatible with the long-term conservation of the asset. (para. 89) Harmful development may sometimes be justified in the interests of realising the optimum viable use of an asset, notwithstanding the loss of significance caused, provided that the harm is minimised. (para. 90)
Para. 96 provides guidance on the marketing of designated heritage assets in order to demonstrate that no viable use for them can be found. In respect of the setting of designated heritage assets, policy HE10 states: HE10.1 When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval. HE10.2 Local planning authorities should identify opportunities for changes in the setting to enhance or better reveal the significance of a heritage asset. Taking such opportunities should be seen as a public benefit and part of the process of place shaping. The Practice Guide provides further guidance in respect of understanding setting, and its contribution to significance, noting: Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral. (para. 113). Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration; by spatial associations; and, by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. (para. 114). Setting will generally be more extensive than curtilage and its perceived extent may change as an asset and its surroundings evolve or as understanding of the asset improves. (para. 115). The setting of a heritage asset can enhance its significance whether or not it was designed to do so. (para. 116). The contribution that setting makes to the significance does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance. Nevertheless, proper evaluation of the effect of change within
Paras. 91-95 consider applications where substantial harm, demolition or destruction of a designated heritage asset is proposed: Where substantial harm to, or total loss of, the assets significance is proposed a case can be made on the grounds that it is necessary to allow a proposal that offers substantial public benefits. For the loss to be necessary there will be no other reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits, for example through different design or development of an appropriate alternative site. (para. 91) Alternatively a case can be made for such serious harm or loss on the grounds that the designated heritage asset is genuinely redundant itself and it is preventing all reasonable uses of the site in which it sits. Even where the asset is genuinely redundant, it will often be the case that it can be worked round or incorporated into new development so that the wider site can remain in active use. (para. 92) Keeping land in active use is a public benefit. It will be very rare that a decision has to be made between keeping a designated heritage asset and returning the site to active use but in such cases a balance still has to be struck between the loss to society of the significance of the designated asset and the benefits of returning the site to use. Loss of the highest graded assets will only be on wholly exceptional grounds. (para. 93) Given the irreversibility of any such decision, the demolition or destruction of a designated heritage asset on these grounds is very much a last resort after every option to secure a viable future for the asset has been exhausted. The fact that particular applicants or their advisers cannot conceive of a viable use for the asset does not mean that there is no such use. (para. 94) Some buildings are deemed designated as listed buildings by being fixed to the principal building or by being within its curtilage and pre-dating 1948. Whether alteration or demolition of such buildings amounts to substantial harm to the designated heritage asset (i.e. the listed building together with its curtilage and attached buildings) needs considering carefully. These buildings may on occasion be of limited individual or group value. (para. 95)
The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10. The Practice Guide provides further guidance in respect of the consideration of applications for consent relating to designated heritage assets: Not all designated assets are of equal significance or sensitivity to change. Some Grade II listed buildings and conservation areas will be particularly important or sensitive to change, while others may be more capable of accommodating it. (para. 86) Where a proposal causes major harm there will still be a loss of value to society caused by that harm. This is a loss of public benefit that needs to be weighed against any other public benefits the proposal will bring, including, possibly, the conservation benefit of the proposal being part of realising the optimal viable use of the asset. (para. 87)
Paras. 88-90 discuss the concept of optimum viable use: Viable uses will fund future maintenance. If there are a range of alternative ways in which an asset could viably be used, the optimum use is the one that causes the least harm to the significance of the asset, The optimum viable use is not
48
Alan Baxter
the setting of a heritage asset will usually need to consider the implications, if any, for public appreciation of its significance. (para. 117). The Practice Guide provides further guidance on assessing the impact of proposals on the settings of designated heritage assets: Any development or change capable of affecting the significance of a heritage asset or peoples experience of it can be considered as falling within its setting. Where the significance and appreciation of an asset have been compromised by inappropriate changes within its setting in the past it may be possible to enhance the setting by reversing those changes. (para.118). Understanding the significance of a heritage asset will enable the contribution made by its setting to be understood. This will be the starting point for any proper evaluation of the implications of development affecting setting. The effect on the significance of an asset can then be considered and weighed-up following the principles set out in policies HE 7, 8 and 9. (para. 119). When assessing any application for development within the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change and the fact that developments that materially detract from the assets significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its ongoing conservation. (para. 120). The design of a development affecting the setting of a heritage asset may play an important part in determining its impact. The contribution of setting to the historic significance of an asset can be sustained or enhanced if new buildings are carefully designed to respect their setting by virtue of their scale, proportion, height, massing, alignment and use of materials. This does not mean that new buildings have to copy their older neighbours in detail, but rather that they should together form a harmonious group. (para. 121). A proper assessment of the impact on setting will take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the asset and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it. (para. 122).
The Practice Guide provides further guidance on the consideration of proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets: Some non-designated assets, such as buildings of good local character or sites of archaeological interest, are of heritage significance but not at a level that would pass the threshold for national designation. Such assets can, singularly and collectively, make an important, positive contribution to the environment. The desirability of conserving them and the contribution their setting may make to their significance is a material consideration, but individually less of a priority than for designated assets or their equivalents (HE8.1). The requirements for recording and understanding any such assets that are to be lost (set out in HE12) apply to these assets just as they do to designated assets, although the requirement imposed upon any permission will need to be proportionate to the nature and lower level of the assets significance. (para. 83).
2.
The resultant records, artefacts and samples are analysed and where necessary conserved. The understanding gained is made publicly available. An archive is created, and deposited for future research.
3. 4.
Para. 131 notes that the steps to be taken by the developer to achieve these aims can be controlled through a written scheme of investigation (WSI). Conditions can then be applied to the consent or a Section 106 Agreement can be entered into to secure the implementation of the WSI. Para. 134 goes into considerable detail about the contents of a WSI.
Specific scheduled monument controls

The Royal Citadel is a scheduled monument. The scheduled monument description can be found at Appendix 3, and the boundary of the scheduled monument is shown on fig. 124. Several buildings and structures are specifically identified as part of the scheduling. However, the full extent of the scheduling can only be determined with reference to those parts of the site not covered by any of the specific exclusions. Specifically identified are: the ramparts; the Citadel gate; the sallyports; the statue of George II; the Grade II listed guardhouse (building 101); the Grade II* listed Great Store (building 118); and the Grade II* listed Governors and Lieutenant-Governors Houses (building 131). Specifically excluded are: the modern structures and buildings erected after WW2; the buildings constructed during the 1890-1900s refurbishment; the Church of St. Katherine; the Marine Biological Laboratories south west of the Citadel wall, together with the observatory buildings, clock, parks depot, public conveniences and associated modern structures and fittings on the west ravelin; the war memorials to the south west and north west;
Policy HE12 of PPS5 outlines the policy principles guiding the recording of information related to heritage assets. As detailed in para. 83 of the Practice Guide (and noted above), the requirements for recording and understanding any assets that are to be lost apply both to designated and non-designated heritage assets. HE12.1 A documentary record of our past is not as valuable as retaining the heritage asset, and therefore the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether a proposal that would result in a heritage assets destruction should be given consent. HE12.3 Where the loss of the whole or a material part of a heritage assets significance is justified, local planning authorities should require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is lost, using planning conditions or obligations as appropriate. The extent of the requirement should be proportionate to the nature and level of the assets significance. Local planning authorities should impose planning conditions or obligations to ensure such work is carried out in a timely manner and that the completion of the exercise is properly secured. Para. 130 of the Practice Guide notes that, in recording heritage assets to be lost, it is important that: 1. Any investigation, including recording and sampling, is carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the assets likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise.
In respect of heritage assets which are not designated, Policy HE8 of PPS5 states: HE8.1 The effect of an application on the significance of such a heritage asset or its setting is a material consideration in determining the application.
Alan Baxter
49
all security and surveillance system installations, floodlighting, fire control systems and their cabling and ducting; the modern metalled surfaces of all paths, the parade ground, all parking areas and access roads; and all modern MoD and English Heritage signs and fittings and all furniture including flagpoles, railings, street lights, park benches, litter bins, parking meters, traffic and pedestrian signs. Importantly, however, the ground beneath all of these features is scheduled. On the basis of these exclusions, there are a number of further features that must be considered as being covered by the scheduling. These comprise: the Grade II listed former Hospital (building 111); the late 17th century pinnacles re-used as bollards; and
Procedures for applying for scheduled monument clearance changed on 2 November 2009. Although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) remains responsible for scheduled monuments, much of the administration (including applications for scheduled monument clearance) now lies with English Heritage. The new procedures are outlined in the DCMS document Scheduled Monuments (March 2010), paragraph 32 of which states: Each application for SMC or scheduled monument clearance will be considered in terms of the impact that the proposed works would have upon the significance of the monument(s) concerned. Scheduled monuments are subject to decay and the threat of destruction from both natural and human causes and conservation work is normally needed to prolong their life. Consent or clearance for such works will generally only be granted where they involve the minimum level of intervention necessary to conserve or, where appropriate, enhance the significance of a monument. Consent or clearance for works that would result in the loss of the whole or a material part of a scheduled monuments significance will only be granted where there is clear justification that: - they are necessary to secure its long-term conservation (for example, by sustaining the monument in its original use, or if this is not possible, some other appropriate and viable use that is consistent with its conservation); or they are necessary in order to deliver substantial and demonstrable cultural, social, economic or environmental benefits that outweigh the negative impact on its significance (for example, by enabling research that increases knowledge and understanding of the past to an extent that is unlikely to be achieved through research elsewhere at a less sensitive site or through less destructive methods).
Where appropriate, the Secretary of State may decide to grant consent or clearance for repetitive works to a scheduled monument or for identical works to a group of monuments in single ownership, thereby reducing the need for multiple applications for SMC or scheduled monument clearance.
Specific listed building controls

The following structures on the Royal Citadel site are individually listed. List descriptions can be found at Appendix 3. The former Governors and Lieutenant-Governors houses (building 131), II* (listed 1998); The Great Store (building 118), II* (listed 1998); The Guardhouse (building 101), II (listed 1998); The Church of St. Katherine (building 119), II (listed 1998); The Cookhouse (building 102), II (listed 1998); The Junior Ranks Club (building 104), II (listed 1998); The main barracks (building 108), II (listed 1998); The Married Quarters and Sergeants Quarters (building 122), II (listed 1998); The Officers Quarters and Mess (building 120), II (listed 1998); The School (building 134), II (listed 1998); and The former Hospital (building 111), II (listed 1998). Until 2006, the Ministry of Defence, by virtue of being a body of the Crown, had exemption from listed building controls, but was required to adopt the DCMS document Protocol for the Care of the Government Historic Estate (2003). Crown compliance was introduced on 7 June 2006 as part of the planning reforms covered by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The introduction of crown compliance meant that the listed buildings at the Royal Citadel became subject to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. As detailed above, paragraph 20 of the Practice Guide notes that nothing in the new PPS changes the existing legal framework by which listed buildings are designated, and that existing laws continue to set out the basis on which listed building consent is required. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposed a duty on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to compile or approve lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The principles by which buildings are considered for listing are outlined in the DCMS document Principles of Selection for Listing (March 2010). This defines architectural interest in terms of the
the small structure possibly a well-head dated 1675. The protection of scheduled monuments is governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. In normal cases, works to scheduled monuments require scheduled monument consent, which is administered by English Heritage. As noted above, scheduled monument consent is not covered by PPS5, although this does cover planning decisions concerning scheduled monuments. The Governments policies on the granting of scheduled monument consent are outlined in the DCMS document Scheduled Monuments (March 2010). Works are defined as demolishing, destroying, damaging, removing, repairing, altering or adding to the monument, or carrying out any flooding or tipping operations on land in or under the monument. Works to scheduled monuments on Crown land, by or on behalf of the Government, have exemption from statutory scheduled monument consent controls. However, such works are instead subject to a parallel, non-statutory system known as scheduled monument clearance. Paragraph 22 of the document notes that where a monument is both scheduled and listed, only scheduled monument consent (or clearance) is required for any works, and relevant parts of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are disapplied. However, it is also worth noting that paragraph 15 states: For historical reasons, some buildings are both scheduled and listed (under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). Where appropriate, these buildings will be progressively descheduled in favour of management through the listing regime.
The granting of consent or clearance for works that would result in the material loss of a scheduled monument will be wholly exceptional. If a scheduled monument is unavoidably threatened with catastrophic loss (for example by natural erosion or permanent flooding) it should, where possible, be fully investigated and recorded before its destruction.
Paragraph 36 notes that:
50
Alan Baxter
extent to which a building is of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; it may equally be a nationally-important example of a certain building type or technique. Historic interest is understood as the extent to which a building illustrates important aspects of the nations social, economic, cultural or military history, and/or its close historical associations with nationally important people. The contribution that a building makes to a larger ensemble (known as group value) may also be important in determining its significance. Paragraph 111 of the Practice Guide notes that Sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require that: in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting or whether to grant listed building consent, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
It is the quality and interest of areas, rather than that of individual buildings, which should be the prime consideration in identifying conservation areas.
Natural Environment
All birds, their nests and eggs, are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and it is an offence, with certain exemptions, to: intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird; intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built; intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird; intentionally or recklessly, disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at (or near) a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. All bats and their roost sites are protected by law under the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act in England and Wales, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. There are also European directives and conventions related to bats that have been included in the British legislation and other laws that give incidental protection. Local planning guidelines (such as PPG9) recognise the fact that some developments, if they were to go ahead, could adversely affect bats, and planning permissions may be subject to certain bat-related conditions. The laws mean that all bats are protected from being killed, injured, taken or disturbed and their roosting places are also protected from being damaged, destroyed or the entrances obstructed.
In respect of defining the special interest of a conservation area, English Heritages document Guidance on conservation area appraisals (2006) notes: The distinctiveness of a place may well derive from more than its appearance Such distinctiveness may draw on other senses and experiences, such as sounds, smells, local environmental conditions, or historical associations. The qualities of a place may change from daytime to night. Such elements of character can be identified, but not directly protected or controlled. Defining and protecting what exists, such as buildings and the spaces between them (streets, squares, paths, yards, and gardens), can help to sustain the activities and uses that contribute to the special character of a place.
Applications for listed building consent and/or planning permission for works affecting listed buildings will now be considered against the relevant policies of PPS5, as outlined above. Paragraphs 178-192 of the Practice Guide provide further detailed guidance on making additions and alterations to listed buildings. Plymouth City Councils policies regarding listed buildings are contained in its Local Development Framework (LDF), and are outlined below.
Conservation area designation introduces a general control over the demolition of unlisted buildings (conservation area consent) and provides the basis for policies designed to preserve or enhance all the aspects of character or appearance that define an areas special interest. Certain types of development, which would elsewhere not require planning permission, are controlled in conservation areas, whilst under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 particular protection is also given to trees. Para. 111 of the Practice Guide notes that Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that: in considering whether to grant planning permission with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, the local planning authority shall pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
Regional Spatial Strategy

The regional spatial strategy within which local authority development plans and Local Transport Plans (LTPs) in the South West should be prepared is currently provided by Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) (2001). However, this is shortly to be replaced by a new Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The South West Regional Assembly approved the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West, 2006-2026 in March 2006, and submitted it to Government in April 2006. The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government published proposed changes to the Draft RSS in July 2008 in advance of a 12-week period of consultation. The Secretary of State had intended to publish the final RSS in June 2009. However, following a High Court judgement that the RSS for the East of England had failed to meet certain requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, the Government announced that it would carry out a further appraisal
Specific conservation area controls

The whole of the Royal Citadel site lies within the Hoe Conservation Area, which was first designated in 1977. Following public consultation, the conservation area was expanded (to include the Royal Citadel) and re-designated in 2009. Like listed buildings, conservation areas are subject to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 69 of the Act imposes a duty on local authorities to designate conservation areas, which the Practice Guide describes as areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. English Heritages document Guidance on the management of conservation areas (2006) states:
Applications for conservation area consent and/or planning permission for works within conservation areas will now be considered against the relevant policies of PPS5, as outlined above. Paragraphs 178-180 and 194-195 of the Practice Guide provide further detailed guidance on making additions and alterations to large assets including conservation areas. Plymouth City Councils policies regarding conservation areas are contained in its Local Development Framework (LDF), and are outlined below.
Alan Baxter
51
of its proposals for the RSS for the South West. When the final RSS is published, it will become a statutory document with which local authority development plan documents will need to conform. In respect of the regions natural and historic environment, Policy ENV1 of the Draft RSS notes: The quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment in the South West will be protected and enhanced, and developments which support their positive management will be encouraged. Where development and changes in land use are planned which would affect these assets, Local Authorities will first seek to avoid loss of or damage to the assests, then mitigate any unavoidable damage, and compensate for loss or damage through offsetting actions. Priority will be given to preserving and enhancing sites of international or national landscape, nature conservation, geological, archaeological or historic importance. Tools such as characterisation and surveys will be used to enhance local sites, features and distinctiveness through development, including the setting of settlements and buildings within the landscape and contributing to the regeneration and restoration of the area. In respect of the historic environment, Policy ENV5 of the Draft RSS which was left unchanged by the Secretary of State notes: The historic environment of the South West will be preserved and enhanced. Local authorities and other partners will identify and assess the significance of the historic environment and its vulnerability to change, using characterisation to understand its contribution to the regional and local environment and to identify options for its sensitive management. The Draft RSS also provides various policies in respect of the natural environment, including: ENV2 Landscape Character Areas; ENV3 Protected Landscapes; ENV4 Nature Conservation; CO1 Defining the Coastal Zone; and CO2 Coastal Planning.
New development should be well designed to respect the character, identity and context of Plymouths historic townscape and landscape and in particular Plymouths unique waterfront, its moorland setting and the settlement pattern. New development should also: 2. Protect important local and longer-distance views. 3. Contribute positively to an areas identity and heritage in terms of scale, density, layout and access. Policy CS03 specifically addresses the historic environment: The Council will safeguard and where possible, enhance historic environment interests and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance, including scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings (both statutory and locally listed), registered parks and gardens, conservation areas and archaeological remains. An explanatory paragraph accompanying this Policy states: This policy seeks to ensure that sites and areas of particular heritage value are both safeguarded for the future and, where possible, enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part of wider heritage regeneration proposals. Conservation area and buildings that are statutorily listed are protected under national legislation guidance. However more specific policies and proposals for the protection and enhancement of heritage assets will be outlined in the relevant Area Action Plans. In addition proposals for sites and areas of heritage importance, including sites identified under local listing, should adhere to the design guidance to be set out through Design SPD and any relevant Conservation Area management plans. The Core Strategy of the LDF superseded for the most part the previous First Deposit Local Plan (2001). However, the latter remains in force for those parts of the city for which Area Action Plans (AAPs) or other Development Plan Documents (DPD) have not reached Preferred Options stage or beyond. Production of the Hoe Area Action Plan was started in Spring 2005 with an Issues & Options report. The Council intends to undertake further consultation in the Autumn of 2011 with a view to refreshing the Issues & Options process, as well as seeking views on the key ingredients which should form the basis for preparing the AAP. It is currently anticipated that the AAP will be adopted in 2013. On this basis, the First Deposit Local Plan (2001) remains in force for the Royal Citadel site. Policy 73 of the First Deposit Local Plan covers ancient monuments and archaeology: The citys archaeological heritage will be preserved as far as possible by:
1. Not permitting proposals for development that would unacceptably affect the most important archaeological remains or their character or setting, whether these remains are scheduled or not. 2. Not permitting proposals for development that would unacceptably affect sites of lesser archaeological importance, unless it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the importance of the archaeological resource. In these cases development will only be allowed subject to appropriate mitigation. 3. Where appropriate requiring an archaeological appraisal or evaluation of a site to accompany applications for development, or before an application will be determined. This particularly applies to sites within the historic core of the city; within other known historic foci in the city limits; on previously-developed sites, and on large Greenfield sites. 4. Where appropriate requiring provision of interpretation in order to raise public awareness of the heritage asset. Policy 74 of the First Deposit Local Plan addresses development affecting listed buildings: Development affecting listed buildings will only be permitted where they preserve the building, its appearance, character and setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, unless: 1. The importance of the proposal is clearly demonstrated to be in the greater public interest than the relative importance of the particular building. 2. In the case of demolition, there is proven to be no viable existing or alternative use for the building in a reasonable or improved condition and the building is wholly or economically beyond repair. 3. Where part of the building is affected, it is not of special architectural or historic interest and the proposal is otherwise compatible with the status of the building and its character. 4. Exceptionally, where clear evidence demonstrates that the economic costs of preserving a listed building cannot be sustained. In such cases, sympathetic consideration will be given to proposals for enabling development which achieves an appropriate balance between the benefits of securing the buildings survival and any harm likely to be caused to its historic and architectural qualities. 5. In the case of changes of use, the proposal represents the only viable use of the building and it would secure the survival and restoration of a building classed as being at risk.
Local Authority Controls

Plymouth City Councils policies addressing the built and natural environments are contained in its Local Development Framework (LDF). This is a set of documents that will guide planning and development in Plymouth until 2021 and beyond. The Core Strategy of the LDF was adopted in April 2007, and contains the Councils policies on the built and natural environments. Of particular relevance is Strategic Objective 4, Delivering the Quality City. Within this, Policy CS02 notes that:
52
Alan Baxter
Policy 75 of the First Deposit Local Plan addresses development in conservation areas: Development proposals that either preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of a conservation area will be permitted. The following criteria should be met: 1. The design of the development, including layout, form, materials and other details, should be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 2. Changes of use which detract from the character or appearance of a conservation area will not be permitted. Exceptions will apply where the proposal represents the only viable use of a building and it would secure the survival and restoration of a building classed as being at risk. 3. Proposals for extensions to existing buildings should be sympathetic to the design, details, scale and materials of the existing building. The extension should not dominate or detract from the original building or result in over-development of the plot. 4. Proposals involving total or substantial demolition of buildings or structures that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area, and which either have a viable existing or alternative use, will not be permitted. 5. Proposals should where possible contribute towards the enhancement of a conservation areas character and appearance and the historic interpretation of the area. Conservation Area Appraisal The Hoe Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2008) reiterates national policy and guidance, and the relevant policies of the Local Development Framework. It also stipulates seven principles that should be adhered to in the consideration of any changes proposed in the conservation area: Principle 1 Proposals to develop or redevelop sites and convert buildings to new uses will be required to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, and to contribute positively to the wider regeneration of the city. Principle 2 The position, scale, massing and materials of new development will be expected to respect the existing character of the Conservation Area. Principle 3 Priority will be given to the retention and enhancement of buildings of heritage value identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.
Principle 4 New development will be expected to be of the highest quality design that respects and enhances the character of the Conservation Area. High quality contemporary architectural design will be encouraged. Principle 5 The character of the existing public space must be carefully respected, and particularly the open nature of, and public access to, the Hose park and waterfront. There should be early Historic Environment input into all proposals for significant public works within the Conservation Area. Historic surfaces and street furniture should be retained, enhanced, and restored wherever practicable. It is particularly important that the views and vistas shown on Fig. 3 are retained. Principle 6 New transport and parking provision will be expected to be limited and respect the character of the Conservation Area. Opportunities will be taken wherever possible to reduce or remove any adverse impact of traffic management or parking provision. Principle 7 Advertising and signage proposals will be expected to respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of siting, size, number, materials, colours and illumination.
a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the persons ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The broader definition of disability includes those people with physical, sensory, mental health and learning difficulties and also includes cancer, facial disfigurements, incontinence, co-ordination, the ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects, speech, memory, ability to concentrate, learn or understand, perception of the risk of physical danger, epilepsy and those with multiple disabilities. The DDA 2005 extended this definition to include people with HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis from the point of diagnosis. Simply providing improved physical access does not address the broader needs of all disabled people. The DDA is not compliance-based legislation and relates to discrimination, not directly to buildings and physical standards. It is not possible to ensure compliance with the DDA 1995 & 2005 by implementing the recommendations identified within an access audit. In physical terms a building could be made as accessible as the requirements of BS8300:2001 (Design of Buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of Disabled People Code of Practice (Incorporating Amendment No.1)), and Approved Document Part M 2004 Edition Access to and Use of Buildings, but this will not protect an Employer or service provider from possible claims under the DDA 1995 & 2005. Management and staff attitudes are equally important to ensure equality for all. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Under the terms of the Act it has been made unlawful for service providers to refuse to serve disabled people because of their disability unless their action can be justified. This may be possible on grounds of health and safety although the reasoning must be well considered and clarified. Since December 1996 it has been unlawful for service providers to treat disabled people less favourably for a reason related to their disability without very good reason. Since October 1999 service providers have had to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, e.g. extra help, alternative provision of services. Since October 2004 service providers may need to make other reasonable adjustments to physical features.
Building Regulations, Part L

The revised Part L of the Building Regulations, which came into force on 1st April 2002, seeks to improve the energy efficiency of all buildings. For existing buildings, including historic buildings, this means reducing heat losses particularly through windows and also means introducing much higher standards of insulation. There is obviously a risk that measures to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings could damage or destroy their historic and architectural significance. However, the application of Part L to historic buildings is at the discretion of the building control officer and conservation officer, and does not need to be fully applied where it would damage the character, fabric or fittings of an historic building. Sustainability is addressed in more detail in Chapter 4, Issues and Opportunities.
Disability Discrimination Legislation

This section provides some background to the definition of Disability and the legislative background to the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 & 2005; it is relevant to the discussion of access issues in Chapter 4.0. Definition of Disability The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and as extended by the DDA 2005 states that a disabled person is a person who has:
Alan Baxter
53
Since 1 October 2004, the Act now covers all employers regardless of size, although a key factor with Part II is that Employers are only required to be reactive to the needs of an individual employee. With regards to Part III and Access to Goods, Facilities and Services, anyone providing a service is affected and a service provider must anticipate future need and therefore be proactive. In general terms the service provider must not prevent disabled people having access to services that are available to non-disabled people. In adapting a building to improve accessibility a service provider must consider making reasonable adjustments in order to improve access for all to the service being provided. As regards to what is reasonable, this is a subjective judgement. Cost, practicability, effectiveness, health and safety and disruption are all factors. Reasonableness is likely to be more clearly defined in future case law that relates directly to the 1st October 2004 duties. Good practice should ensure that a service provider will anticipate need as well as respond to individual circumstances as they arise. Frequency of need is no argument against not making a provision. The Government has provided further information on the Direct Gov website: what is considered a reasonable adjustment for a large organisation such as a bank may be different to a reasonable adjustment for a small shop. It is about what is practical in the service providers individual situation and resources the business may have. They will not be required to make changes which are impractical or beyond their means. Under the terms of the DDA, after October 2004 service providers should have considered alternative means of providing access to services where a physical barrier exists. These barriers may be altered, avoided or removed. There is a further option to provide the service by a reasonable alternative means, although again this is subject to the definition of the term reasonable. A further alternative has been introduced by Lord Justice Sedley in Roads v Central Trains Ltd 2004, in that a service provider is to provide access to a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered to the public at large.
The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 This new Act came into force in April 2005 and inserts new provisions into the DDA 1995. Although not a complete and exhaustive list, the main points to consider in relation to this study are: a. The definition of disability has been extended to include people with HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis from the point of diagnosis. This could have a significant impact on Part II of the DDA 1995 Employment, in respect of both prospective and existing employees. b. There is a new public sector duty to promote the equality of opportunity for disabled people alongside existing race equality measures under separate legislation such as the Race Relations Act. c. The DDA 1995 has been extended to cover most functions of public authorities, for example police actions when arresting someone. d. Letting of premises: the DDA duties on landlords and managers of premises have been extended to include a duty to make reasonable adjustments to policies, practices and procedures, and to provide auxiliary aids and services to enable a disabled person to rent a property and to facilitate a disabled persons enjoyment of the premises. e. Private Clubs: from the 4th December 2006 the Part 3 Duties for Service Providers have been extended to any club with 25 or more members. f. The term service provider has been extended to cover those carrying out a public function and those providing access to membership and/ or benefits or facilities of a private club.
A new Equality Bill was published on 27th April 2009, most of which is likely to come into force from Autumn 2010. The Bill aims to simplify current legislation which has been gradually introduced and amended. The Equality Act will aim to outlaw all discrimination whether founded on gender, age, nationality, religion or disability. The concept that underlines the new Act will be to eliminate indirect discrimination, whereby a rule, policy, practice or procedure is equally applied to everyone, but has a disproportionate effect on a specific group of people. This will supersede the Disability Discrimination Act and some examples of elements the new Act will introduce are: A new Single Equality Duty on public bodies, replacing separate duties that currently apply only to race, gender and disability. The use of public procurement to improve equality. Strengthened protection from discrimination for disabled people. Extended scope to positively discriminate - for example, appointing a job candidate from an under represented group, as long as candidates are equally suitable.
54
Alan Baxter
3.0 Assessment of Significance

3.1 Significance of buildings and spaces
Introduction
In statutory terms, the significance of the Royal Citadel site has already been recognised. As detailed in section 2.4, the Citadel itself is a scheduled monument, whilst eleven of the buildings on the site are listed two at Grade II* (which accounts for just 5.5% of listed buildings) and nine at Grade II. Furthermore, the whole site lies within the Hoe Conservation Area, and parts of it lie within the Grade II registered historic landscape of Hoe Park. These designations are evidence of the fact that the Royal Citadel site is of great national importance and of considerable historical and architectural interest. The purpose of this chapter is to examine why. Assessing significance is not merely an academic exercise. Its purpose is to identify those areas of a site that are most sensitive to change, and to inform the development of conservation management policies designed to protect the sites significance. At the same time, it should identify those parts of a site which are less significant, or even detract from its character and appearance, and which might therefore have the potential to accept a greater level of change. Any changes will need to be carefully designed to ensure that the significance of the site as a whole, and the individual buildings and their settings, are not compromised. The governments new Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) places the concept of significance at the heart of the planning process. Paragraph 12 of the accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide notes that the significance of a heritage asset is the sum of its architectural, historic, artistic or archaeological interest. Paragraph 14 notes that: The basic criterion for listing a building is that it must hold special historic or architectural interest. For a monument to be scheduled it must be nationally important by reason of its historic, architectural, artistic, traditional or archaeological interest. Conservation areas will be designated if they are of special historic or architectural interest, the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. All of these criteria have two components: the nature of the interest or significance that defines the designation and the relative importance of that interest or significance. Significance, as designed in the PPS, encompasses all of the different interests that might be grounds for designating a heritage asset. In applying these statutory criteria, a number of general principles are also considered. These comprise age and rarity, aesthetic merits, selectivity and national interest. The DCMS document Scheduled Monuments (March 2010) outlines the non-statutory criteria for assessing the national importance of monuments, used by the Secretary of State when considering whether scheduling is appropriate. The indicators which will be assessed as part of that judgement comprise period, rarity, documentation, group value, survival/condition, fragility/vulnerability, diversity and potential. English Heritages Conservation Principles identifies a series of values that make up the significance of a heritage asset. Importantly, these values are intended to capture not just architectural and historical importance, but the full spectrum of cultural meaning embodied in a building or place: 1. Evidential value: that it yields primary evidence about the past. It can be natural or man-made and applies particularly to archaeological deposits, but also to other situations where there is no relevant written record; 2. Historical value: relates to the way the present can be connected through a place to past people, events and aspects of life. Illustrative historical value illustrates some aspect of the past, but unlike evidential value may not provide unique evidence. Associative historical value is where a place is associated with an important person, event, or movement. 3. Aesthetic value: relates to the way in which people derive sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. Design value is created by the conscious design and stewardship of a building, structure or landscape. Artistic value derives from the creation of a work of art in which the designer is also in significant part the craftsman. Some aesthetic values develop more or less fortuitously over time e.g. the organic form of an urban or rural landscape, the relationship of vernacular buildings to their setting.
Criteria for assessing significance

The criteria for judging the significance of the Royal Citadel site are based on the principles by which buildings and monuments are considered for listing and scheduling, and on the values set out in English Heritages Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (2008). The statutory criteria by which buildings are considered for listing are outlined in the DCMS document Principles of Selection for Listing (March 2010): Architectural Interest. To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms; Historic Interest. To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nations social, economic, cultural or military history and/or have close historical associations with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing.
In addition, Principles of Selection for Listing notes that: When making a listing decision, the Secretary of State may take into account the extent to which the exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms a part. This is generally known as group value. The Secretary of State will take this into account particularly where buildings comprise an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example of planning (e.g. squares, terraces or model villages) or where there is a historical functional relationship between a group of buildings.
Alan Baxter
55
Aesthetic value resulting from the action of nature on human work, particularly the changing appearance of a place through the passage of time (the patina of age). 4. Communal value: relates the meanings of a place for people and their collective experiences or memories of it. Commemorative/symbolic value often symbolizes positive or negative aspects relating to the history of a place, or buildings, structures or landscapes that have specifically been created to commemorate a particular historical event or person. Social value is associated with places that are perceived as a source of identity, social interaction, and coherence, and often are public places. Spiritual value attached to places associated with organised religion or perceptions of the spirit of a place, including places of worship. Obviously the assessment of significance is usually an amalgam of these different values, and the balance between them will vary from one case to the next. What is important, in the light of the English Heritage guidance, is to demonstrate that all these different forms of value have been considered. Assessing significance is a comparative exercise, intended to analyse how one building or place compares with another. This is more than an art historical evaluation because it is also intended to take account of how the building or place is generally valued and the associations which it carries. So, Conservation Principles can be used to assess the significance of the whole site relative to other complexes, as well as to understand the relative significances of the individual buildings within it.
influence of Italian practice had waned. In designing Plymouth Citadel in the late 17th century, Sir Bernard de Gomme (1620-1685) employed the methodology of the Old Dutch School of fortification, adapted to a rocky and exposed site. As noted in section 2.2, the Plymouth Citadel was not impressive by Continental standards. Nevertheless, it is of enormous evidential and historical value, and, as the best-preserved example of this type of fortress in England, is considered to be highly significant. As discussed in section 3.3, the site incorporates known archaeological evidence and offers significant archaeological potential. On this basis, it is of great evidential value for what it can (and might yet) tell us about the development of military fortifications in the 16th and 17th centuries. The Citadel represents a major landmark in de Gommes career, thereby giving it considerable associative historical value. De Gomme was without doubt the most important figure in 17th century English military engineering, being pivotal (in his role as engineer in charge of all the Kings castles and fortifications) to the development of numerous national fortifications from the Civil War to the death of Charles II. The Citadel is one of the two most complete surviving examples of de Gommes work, the other being his last major fort at Tilbury. The Citadel derives considerable value from the role it has played at pivotal stages in the nations history. During the Civil War, Plymouth was Parliamentarian in a royalist county and under almost constant siege. Following the Restoration, this disloyalty inevitably led to the view that threats to the Crown from the town were likely. The Citadels design and location provide valuable evidence of this uneasy historic relationship. The Citadel also derives considerable historical value from its role in the so-called Glorious Revolution. Plymouth was the first town in England to declare for Prince William of Orange. Lord Bath, the Citadels governor, played a key role in welcoming the Prince and the Dutch fleet and yielding the Citadel to the Prince in December 1688. The Glorious Revolution can be interpreted as a not so glorious successful invasion by the Dutch Republic, planned by William of Orange prior to any formal communication from supporters of the Protestant succession, and designed by him as part of his war with Louis XIV of France. More recently, the Citadel served as the headquarters for Coastal Artillery training in the 20th century. The historical value of the site is reinforced by the fact that it remains in military use. Indeed, Conservation Principles notes that: The use and appropriate management of a place for its original purpose may make a major contribution to its historical values. If so, cessation of that activity will diminish those values.
The site has an important illustrative value in respect of the organisation of the armed forces. It provides material evidence of the history of the development of buildings to house soldiers, particularly in the late 19th century following the Barrack Act of 1890, and provides material evidence of Plymouths developing strategic role (including the construction of the dockyard) through the regular updating of its armaments and facilities. There survives a wealth of primary sources providing excellent evidence for the development and arrangement of the 17th century fort, thereby reinforcing the Citadels historical significance. Respect for the sites antiquity is evidenced by the preservation (as shells) of some of the late 17th century buildings on the site, including as the Grade II* listed former Great Store (building 118) and the Grade II* listed former Governors and Lieutenant Governors Houses (building 131). Aesthetic/architectural interest The Royal Citadel and many of its individual buildings have great aesthetic value, born of the high quality and grandeur of their design and execution. In particular, the splendid, baroque north gateway represents a major contribution to late 17th century architecture. The late 19th century buildings, notably the Main Barrack Block (building 108) and the Officers Mess (building 120), are also architecturally very impressive, and are of significance for the considered manner in which they were designed to sit alongside the older buildings on the site particularly through their use of Plymouth limestone and adoption of details intended to be sympathetic to the late 17th century architecture. The current post-1950 bright blue for doors and brilliant white for windows and door frames etc. are not sympathetic to the historic buildings. Paint analysis undertaken by Crick Smith for English Heritage in 2010 indicates that, in 1900-05 when the majority of buildings were extant, the external doors, door frames and external ironwork were dark red/brown (NCS 8010-Y50R) and the external windows were a stone colour (NCS 2010-Y30R). As well as aesthetic value derived from conscious design, the Citadel has considerable aesthetic value in the fortuitous way it has evolved, and as a consequence of the natural landscape which surrounds it, particularly evident in views from the south from Madeira Road and from the Sound, and out from the ramparts towards the sea. Communal interest The Citadel has been a Royal Artillery barracks since 1899, and home to Two-nine Commando since 1962, when the regiment was formed. On this basis, the site as a whole also has considerable commemorative and symbolic communal value, figuring highly
Summary of overall significance

Historic/evidential interest The Royal Citadel is the most complete surviving example of a Citadel in the UK. Angled bastion artillery defences evolved scientifically in Italy during the early years of the 16th century, and spread rapidly throughout Europe. The arrowhead-like bastions of Plymouths 16th century fort, with their rounded orillons (ears), owe much to the Italian school. The remains of this fort have enormous evidential value and are highly significant; 16th century bastioned forts, whilst common in northern Italy are rare in England. By the early 17th century, innovations in military engineering were taking place in the Low Countries and the
56
Alan Baxter
Highly Significant Significant Some Significance Neutral Detracts
Figure 127: Significance of built structures
Alan Baxter
57
in both the collective memory and ethos of the soldiers who have served there, and in the wider identity of Plymouth itself. The Royal Artillery has a very strong sense of history, tradition and ethos, and 29 Commandos role in recent key military operations is something of which it is justifiably proud. Recent combat activity reinforces the emotive quality of the Citadel, particularly when troops return from active service and the site represents home. Forging a sense of group identity is especially important in the armed forces, where individuals must rely on one another for their survival and success. The site as a whole, and the historic buildings particularly, are an expression of this identity, giving them a great emotive and communal value. They provide a direct and tangible link to the present Army Commandos predecessors, back as far as the late 19th century. Some parts of the site may have more communal value than others, particularly perhaps those areas used for social activities, such as the messes, or the ramparts (which play host to occasional barbecues in the summer months). Whilst the site as a whole has considerable communal value for the regiment, parts of it are likely to have specific resonance for different ranks. The Citadel as a whole has considerable communal social value for the city. The parade ground plays host to the occasional but hugely popular Music of the Night events; the site is open to the public for two afternoons a week for thirteen weeks throughout the summer; and the chapel (building 119) is used for regular Sunday services open to local residents and as a venue for christenings, weddings and funerals. In addition, the chapel obviously has an intrinsic spiritual value, but it also has a symbolic value (as the Garrison Church of the Royal Artillery) and a commemorative value (derived from the memorials it contains). The fact that so much of the Royal Citadel is designated under historic environment legislation reinforces its overall importance.
The main intention of this ranking is to enable people to recognise, at a glance, the relative significance of different features of the Royal Citadel site. In that respect, the ranking is self-contained and unique to this location. Thus, although something might be of low significance within the confines of this highly important site, that designation could be misleading in the wider context. The assessments in this report are based on the detailed analysis of this particular site, but set in the context of national comparisons. Archaeological potential and significance is dealt with in section 3.3. Significance of each of the buildings is addressed in more detail in the Gazetteer, but can be identified as follows:
The Royal Chapel of St. Katherine-upon-the-Hoe (building 119) is sometimes described as 17th century. Whilst it incorporates some 17th century walling, it is essentially the product of a massive 1844 rebuild and is best thought of as a 19th century building. Nevertheless, given that the chapel incorporates 17th century walling, and bearing in mind the rarity of chapels royal, it is considered to have considerable evidential and illustrative historical value. The chapel also has an intrinsic spiritual value, as well as a commemorative value derived from the memorials it contains and a symbolic value in its role as the Garrison Church of the Royal Artillery. Its use for regular Sunday services open to local residents gives it a wider communal social value. The lead statue of George II in the dress of a Roman emperor (asset 178) was erected in 1728 by Robert Pitt at the expense of Captain Louis Dufour, who commanded one of the independent companies of invalids based at the Citadel. Although not the only surviving lead statue of George II, this is an early example and predates his leading troops into battle. It is considered to be highly significant. The parade ground is a highly significant space, both because of its intrinsic symbolic and commemorative value, but also because it forms the setting to the principal faades of the listed buildings which surround it and is on such an impressive scale. As the venue for the hugely popular Music of the Night event, the parade ground also has some communal social value. The parade ground is currently compromised to some extent by its tarmac surface and its use for car parking.
Highly significant
The most significant parts of the Citadel are unquestionably those associated with the 16th and 17th century development of the site. Remnants of the 16th century upper and lower forts survive, incorporated into some of the later Citadel walls. Most of the 17th century Citadels original perimeter walling and casemates survive, together with parts of the covered way and the glacis. These are all highly significant, and have very great evidential and illustrative historical value for what they can tell us about the development of military fortifications. In addition, these 17th century elements have enormous associative historical value because they represent a major work by the best-known national military engineer of the period, Sir Bernard de Gomme. Also of the highest significance is the splendid, French-influenced baroque north gateway, which represents a major contribution to late 17th century architecture, and has considerable aesthetic value stemming from the quality and grandeur of its design and execution. Although they have seen considerable alteration, the Grade II* listed former Great Store (building 118) and the Grade II* listed former Governors and Lieutenant Governors Houses (building 131) are also both late 17th century in origin. Some of the architectural features present such as the granite doorways to building 131 show evidence of the presence of 17th century Gothic, perhaps providing a link between the Citadel and the Grade I listed Charles Church, Charles Cross, Plymouth (1640-48). The Grade II listed guardhouse (building 101) is also often said to date from the late 17th century, although it was massively rebuilt in the 18th century. All of these buildings are considered to have considerable historical value, illustrative of the sites early development, and are regarded as highly significant.
Significant
The former hospital (building 111) is the most distinctive 18th century building on the site. Although it has been entirely re-planned inside and some of its external features such as windows are modern reproductions, the building preserves its 18th century proportions. Furthermore, it is a rare and early example of a military hospital, comparable to the much smaller and more domestic-looking example at Ravensdowne, Berwick-on-Tweed, permanent barracks hospitals not generally being constructed until the Napoleonic wars. On the basis of both its historical and aesthetic value, it is considered to be significant. The modern, rear extension is considered to be of neutral significance (see below). The Main Accommodation Block fronting the parade ground (building 108) is the only building within the perimeter of the 17th century fort that can be said, with certainty, to have been designed by T. Rogers Kitsell. Kitsells own account, published in The Builder, claimed that the aesthetics of the building were carefully designed to do justice to
Assessment of relative significance

A shorthand is necessary to express the level of significance attributed to a building or place as a result of this exercise. In this report we have used a five-stage ranking: Highly significant (red); Significant (orange); Some significance (yellow); Neutral (blue); Detracts (brown).
58
Alan Baxter
the antiquity of the site as well as being intended to provide soldiers with a home that did not look like a prison. For this reason, and for its impressive architectural scale, the building is regarded as significant. The Officers Mess (building 120) is, understandably enough, by far the grandest of the buildings erected in the late 19th century. Its plan was designed to exploit spectacular views of the Sound, and, unlike some of the other contemporaneous buildings, it preserves much of its original interior detail. Like the Main Accommodation Block, it is of aesthetic value and significance for the considered manner in which it was designed to sit alongside the older buildings on the site. Similarly, the former Adult School (134) preserves some of its original internal features and is therefore significant.
erected as part of the major refurbishment of the Citadel in 1989-1992, and was clearly designed to be in keeping with the historic form of the site. On this basis, it is felt to be of some significance. Also regarded as being of some significance are the late 17th century pinnacles re-used as bollards, and the small structure possibly a wellhead dated 1675. The significance of these features would most likely be greater if they were better understood.
detract from the settings of the scheduled monument or the listed buildings. That said, the current blue and yellow colour scheme is very tired and the buildings appearance would be enhanced if a more sympathetic colour scheme was adopted. Building 166, although it sits at the foot of the main Barrack Block (building 108), is painted in a colour sympathetic to the surrounding historic masonry, and adopts a low profile that does not obstruct views of the listed building. On this basis, it is also considered to be of neutral significance.
Neutral
The most recent phase of development of the Citadel was the major refurbishment of 1989-1992, which involved the building or rebuilding of thirteen buildings and the refurbishment of a further eleven. Within the perimeter of the 17th century fort, the new buildings were kept low, and, although they do not copy their older neighbours in detail, they were clearly designed with some reference to the style and colour of the sites late 19th century structures. These include: the Sergeants Mess (building 121), the QM Stores (132), the rearward extension of the Grade II listed Main Galley (102), the rearward extension of the Grade II listed Junior Ranks Club (104) and the rearward extension of the Grade II listed former Hospital (111). The relatively utilitarian buildings were not designed by an architect of note, and are all considered to be of neutral significance. The roofing over of Prince Georges Bastion (asset 136) is also considered to be of neutral significance; the use of a green roof minimises the visual impact on the setting of the scheduled ramparts, particularly when compared to the roofing over of King Charles Bastion (asset 125, see below). Outside the perimeter of the 17th century fort, all of the motorised transport and workshop buildings are modern structures of no intrinsic architectural interest. As noted above, the external wall to the workshops (fronting Lambhay Hill) is felt to be of some significance. This wall screens buildings 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163 in views from the east. Whilst the western (internal) faces of these buildings were clearly designed for functionality first, they are they are not felt to
Detracts
Many of the modern structures on the site are felt to detract. Most are of little or no intrinsic architectural interest, and, more importantly, are felt to compromise the settings of the scheduled monument and the listed buildings. Most obviously, the portacabins to the south of the Grade II* listed former Great Store (building 118) detract somewhat from that buildings setting, and the setting of the site as a whole. However, the impact of these structures is minimised by virtue of them being single storey. Various modern elements in the motorised transport area including the incongruous red brick fuel delivery point (153), together with the vehicle ramp (154), the vehicle brake tester (167), the LPG stores (606) and the fuel can store (608) are felt to detract from the sites significance. Whilst the roofing over of Prince Georges Bastion (asset 136) is considered because of its green roof to be of neutral significance, its counterpart to the south (King Charles Bastion, asset 125) is a more intrusive insertion which jars visually, particularly when seen against the grassed tops of the adjacent ramparts.
Some significance
Of the buildings thought to be by Kitsell, the main Barrack Block (building 108), the Officers Mess (building 120) and the former Adult School (134) are thought to be the most impressive. However, the Grade II listed Main Galley (102) and the Grade II listed Junior Ranks Club (104) are still of some significance, principally for the considered manner in which they were designed to sit alongside the older buildings on the site. The modern rear extensions to buildings 102 and 104 are considered to be of neutral significance (see below). The TA buildings outside the Citadel walls, whilst being of a different character (and material) to the other turn of the century buildings, are of nevertheless of some significance, primarily for their aesthetic qualities. The 60 ft high external wall along the eastern edge of the Citadel was designed to screen some of the motorised transport and workshop buildings (specifically buildings 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163). It was
Alan Baxter
59
3.2 Views
The Royal Citadel has been part of the fabric of Plymouth since the 17th century, so views of the fort from Sutton Harbour and the surrounding area have been experienced by the people of Plymouth for over 350 years. Many have been the subject of paintings and engravings, which increases the historic interest of the view. For example the Citadel was painted by J. M. W. Turner a number of times, when he toured Devon 1811, 1813 and 1814. The Citadel was designed to have a low profile to protect it from artillery fire, so it is not as prominent in views as one would expect considering the size of the fort in plan, and is particularly well hidden in views from the Hoe. The ramparts and gates are visible, but the buildings within the Citadel are mostly hidden behind these. As a military town it is not surprising that Plymouth is characterised by high, impenetrable walls and impermeable townscape; the Citadel contributes to this, and the blank high walls of the ramparts are the focus of numerous near views. The main gate (to the north) is the only public face of the fort. Not all views are equally important. Views that are rich in heritage where numerous listed buildings and historic monuments are visible are clearly more significant than those where only unattractive post-
war buildings feature. For example the view of the postwar extension to the rear of the TA centre (view 29) is clearly less important than the view of the main gate (view 13). Some views have great aesthetic value, and the interplay of buildings with the landscape and the sea can be particularly attractive, especially in views of the Sound from the ramparts. The communal value of views, the extent to which views are seen and appreciated by people, also affects their importance, whereby views from busy routes seen by hundreds of people a day are arguably more important than views from quiet residential streets. Therefore the views from Sutton Harbour and Hoe Park may have more communal significance than those from the quieter streets surrounding the Citadel. Similarly views from the ramparts are likely to have communal value for the soldiers based at the Citadel. English Heritages draft guidance Seeing the history in the view (April 2008) advocates a rigorous approach to assessing the heritage significance of views. It suggests that all the heritage assets in a view should be identified and described, including a summary of the history of each asset, changes to how each asset is seen when moving through the viewpoint and at different times of day and in different
seasons, with a summary of the significance of the asset. Heritage assets include scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens etc. The relative contribution of each of these assets to the view is then assessed and a summary of the overall heritage significance of the view produced. It would not be appropriate to adopt such a detailed methodology here. Because high walls enclose the site, views are a less sensitive issue than at other historic sites; new build within the Citadel is only likely to be visible from the ramparts and not from the surrounding streets. Instead, we have identified the key views of and from the Citadel, which should be considered when planning new development. Development within the site, or in the vicinity of the Citadel, should be assessed in terms of the impact it will have on the heritage significance of the view, on the setting of the scheduled monument and listed buildings within the fort.
Views from the west and the Hoe (views 1-3)

In views from the west and the Hoe the Citadel is low lying with a horizontal emphasis but it not particularly visible given the size of the structure. Hoe park forms the foreground.
Figure 128: 1832 engraving by JMW Turner
Figure 129: Turner painting of the Citadel
60
Alan Baxter
Views from the north (views 4-5)

There are some surprising glimpses of the Citadel from Notte Street to the north, along Hoe Approach and Hoegate Street, where a steep rise in the topography means that the Citadel is silhouetted against the sky to dramatic effect. The view along Hoegate Street is particularly striking because the finials of the main gate form the skyline.
Views from near the main gate (views 27-29)

There is an excellent panorama of the city centre north from the main gate as well as near views of the TA centre.
Views out from the ramparts (views 30-34)

The views out from the ramparts must be amongst the best in Plymouth. The natural beauty of the estuary and Sound is impressive in these views. There are also good views of the city centre and Hoe Park.
Views from the east and Sutton Harbour (views 6-8)

Sutton Harbour and in some cases the marina is visible in the foreground of views from the east. Again the Citadel is low lying with a horizontal emphasis but appears larger than in views from the west because from this perspective it is evident that it is located on a rocky promontory.
Views in from the ramparts (views 35-40)

Because of the high ramparts the buildings inside the Citadel are not visible in most views; however, the path on the top of the ramparts provides some excellent vantage points of the site, for example of the MT area within the city in the background, of the parade ground, as well as more recent buildings. The impact of proposed development on these views should be considered.
Near views of the walls or gates (views 9-23)

There are a series of near views of the Citadel from the perimeter road (Madeira Road, Hoe Road and Lambhay Hill). From these the Citadel appears to be a tall impenetrable blank wall, but with historic gates to the north (in use) and west (closed), and a view into the MT area. The views are also influenced by the relationship of the Citadel to the road and trees, as well as the more dramatic topography as one moves to the east and south. The Sound is evident in views from the south.
Views with the Marine Biological Research building in the foreground (views 24-26)
The Marine Biological Research laboratory was constructed adjacent to the Citadel in the 1880s and this and an associated postwar building are in the foreground of views from Maderia Road and Hoe Road.
Alan Baxter
61
Views from the north east and west Near views of the walls or gates Views with the Marine Biological Research building in the foreground Views from near the main gate Views out from the ramparts Views in from the ramparts
Figure 130: Views

62
Alan Baxter
Figure 131: Photographs of key views
View 1
View 2
View 3
View 4
View 5
View 6
View 7
View 8
View 9
View 10
View 11
View 12
View 13
View 14
View 15
View 16
View 17
View 18
View 19
View 20
Alan Baxter
63
Figure 131: Photographs of key views (continued)
View 21
View 22
View 23
View 24
View 25
View 26
View 27
View 28
View 29
View 30
View 31
View 32
View 33
View 34
View 35
View 36
View 37
View 38
View 39
View 40
64
Alan Baxter
3.3 Archaeological potential

For the purposes of this section, archaeological is defined as buried remains, since standing structures are dealt with in section 3.1. The historical and archaeological context of the site is set out in section 2.2. All phases of the fortifications from the 16th century onwards are represented in the archaeological record, the results of which are summarised in Appendix 5. The survival, nature and extent of prefortification archaeological deposits is still uncertain, but this does not preclude their existence. The legislative framework for heritage issues, as described in section 2.4, sets out the need to protect the significance of important sites during processes of change or conservation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is limited objective classification of importance for archaeological sites, unlike the grading of listed buildings.
(including listed buildings). Inclusion within these databases does not imply any protection or status: they are simply records used as sources of information, particularly for development control purposes, in the context of the historic environment. It must be stressed that these records are in no way exhaustive, based as they are on limited assessments of published and unpublished reports, and museum collections.
The archaeological potential of the Royal Citadel can be placed into three categories as follows: Remains directly related to the early use of the site as a fortification The most highly significant remains, by virtue of their rarity, are those associated with the Elizabethan fort and the later 17th century Citadel, together with the 18th century modifications. Buried remains associated with the 16th century fort are known to survive and, in places, their state of preservation is suspected to be very good because of the depth at which they are buried. Preservation of 17th and 18th century remains is more variable due to the extent of 19th and 20th century truncation and rebuilding. In many areas, these remains lie immediately below the modern surfaces. The areas of potential are depicted on figure 132, which shows the structures present in 1879 and the area of the 16th century fort superimposed on the modern map. These include the former ranges known as: the Canteen, the Cow Pump Range (Staff Sergeants Quarters), the Guard Room & Prisoners Room (now building 101), Williams Range (officers quarters), the Ordnance Range (officers quarters), the Hospital Block (with associated structures), RA Drill Shed and adjoining buildings (including stables), the Recreation and Soldiers Quarters (now building 118) with associated ablution blocks, the Chapel, former main powder magazine, the Chaplains Range (Married Soldiers Quarters, now building 122), the Fort Majors Range (various quarters and rooms) and the Governors Range (east part surviving as building 131). The ramparts and bastions together with the 17th and 18th century structures within them also fall within this category. The ditches and other outer defences should also be regarded as being of high potential. In many cases there are standing buildings above the relevant areas or remains; the ground beneath them is therefore still of high archaeological significance. Finally, the underground drainage systems associated with the earlier phases of buildings and defences as well as any surviving contemporary surfaces (e.g. gravelled, cobbled or flag-stone) would be included. Remains associated with the later use of the site This essentially covers all later military features, primarily relating to the use of the Citadel as a garrison. Whilst these might be considered less significant than those described above, it should be noted that where they lie within the scheduled monument they are afforded the same protection as earlier remains. Buildings such as the Officers Mess (120) and Main Accommodation Block (108) fall within this category and therefore the ground beneath them is still of potential
Limitations
Comprehensive information on the buried archaeological resource in any given area is rarely available and it is generally accepted that there will be a degree of uncertainty in this respect. Within the Citadel there are many areas where there has been little or no previous archaeological investigation, for example within the parade ground, (Figure 119 showing locations and extent of below-ground interventions) and the conclusions about buried remains must be based on previous desk-based research. In fact only about 6% of the site has been subject to investigation, much of this comprising observations of other excavation operations rather than those with specific archaeological objectives. Much of this has also been of shallow depth and of limited extent. Remains of prehistoric or Roman date are generally not well represented in the documentary records, apart from through indirect sources such as place-names. These remains are also often of a fragmentary or superficial nature and as such may not have been recognised during 19th- and early 20th-century construction activities.
Nature of archaeological survival

There is a good rate of survival of archaeology across the whole site, and what there is appears to be only shallowly buried. What is unclear is how far down the archaeology extends. Virtually the whole site offers archaeological potential, and there are very few areas where archaeology has been totally removed.
Scheduled Monument
The majority of the site is a designated scheduled monument, and the scheduled area is shown on Figure 132. Scheduled monuments are normally recognised as being of key national or international significance. Archaeological remains within this part of the site must therefore be regarded as being of high significance (see Figure 133). As detailed in section 2.4, the scheduled area includes the ramparts, the Citadel gate, the sallyport and the statue of George II and, although the majority of structures, as well as paths, the parade ground, parking areas, access roads, street furniture, fittings etc. are not included, all the ground beneath them is. The Marine Biological Laboratories south-west of the Citadel wall and the observatory buildings, clock, parks depot, public conveniences and associated modern structures and fittings on the west ravelin are excluded from the scheduling, but the ground beneath them is included. The ground beneath all standing buildings is included.
Areas of potential and extent of survival of buried archaeological remains

Below-ground archaeological interventions within the Citadel are summarised in Appendix 5 (and shown on Figure 119). The majority of these have been in response to works involving ground disturbance and are of limited extent (e.g. narrow trenches for cable laying). Consequently, the interpretation of revealed deposits, and the extent of survival, has often proved difficult. Of the twelve main phases of below-ground investigations, virtually all of them have produced archaeological evidence of some kind. There are localised areas such as 4c and 4e, where archaeological deposits do not appear to be present, and in some areas where there has been relatively recent construction (for example Building 121) there will be little or no survival. Most archaeological remains within the site will relate to the historic use of the area for defensive purposes from the late 16th century onwards and more recently as a military garrison.
Other recorded sites

Other potential sites are recorded in the Plymouth City Sites and Monuments Register and Urban Archaeological Databases, although these do not include all elements of the historic environment
Alan Baxter
65
Elizabethan fort - 16th century fort The ramparts and structures from 1879 map - 17th - 19th century Area of scheduled monument Outworks shown on 1778 map
Figure 132: Archaeological Potential

66
Alan Baxter
Highly Significant Significant Some Significance Neutral Detracts
Figure 133: Archaeological Significance
Alan Baxter
67
archaeological interest. Substantial remains associated with the Repository Drill Shed and Submarine Mining ranges, which lay on the eastern periphery of the site, are less likely to survive because of later rebuilding and earthmoving. However, it is possible that foundations of structures that were deeply terraced into the south-eastern slopes of the MT site could be preserved. Also included within this category are the underground service runs: former surface gutters, underground drains, water pipes and gas pipes (for lighting). Old TA Centre and MT site The old TA Centre (apart from a small section along the south-west side) and part of the MT site are not included within the scheduled area but included within the Hoe Conservation Area. Based on the few observations undertaken, the former area revealed only modern material (predominantly levelling deposits) up to a depth of 0.65m below the ground surface. The archaeological potential and significance of this area is at present deemed to be low (see figure 133). Within the MT site, substantial demolition and levelling deposits were also seen, but some elements of the 17th century outer ditch survive, in addition to the base foundations of 20th century buildings. The archaeological potential and significance of this area is therefore considered to be medium to low, but the full extent of survival is not known (see figure 133). Although scheduled clearance may not be required, English Heritage would still need to be consulted in respect of any works.
This assessment of ecological value has been used to determine the levels of relative significance (local, national, international) of each habitat area. Recommendations for further survey work, to enable a final confirmation of the classifications, are also provided.
Buildings and hard landscaping

The potential presence of nesting birds and/or roosting bats in some buildings means that these structures qualify as being of some significance; as if present, they would be of local importance. (N.B. Given the structure of the buildings on site, significant use by these species is considered unlikely, though this cannot be confirmed without further survey work). And outside the site boundary, but of relevance to this report:
Overview
As the Royal Citadel comprises mostly hard landscaping, the site is likely to be of low ecological significance overall. Specific features of potential value to wildlife within the site are as follows.
Mixed estuarine
The fact that The Sound forms part of Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC means that this area qualifies as being highly significant. It is of international (European) importance to wildlife, and represents the top tier of nature conservation designation within the European Union.
Semi-improved maritime grassland

The potential presence of Devon Notable species means these features qualify as being of some significance; as if present, they would be of local botanical importance. It is assumed that these features would, however, remain unaffected by any proposed development, and if so this classification does not need to be reassessed by appropriate survey work.
Vegetated walls/cliffs
The potential presence of Devon Notable species means these features qualify as being of some significance; as if present, they would be of local botanical importance. It is assumed that these features would, however, remain unaffected by any proposed development, and if so this classification does not need to be reassessed by appropriate survey work.
3.4 Ecological significance

The precise significance of ecological features at the Royal Citadel site is somewhat difficult to determine at present. The walkover assessment was undertaken in December, and so no information on bats, nesting birds or important plant species could be obtained. Considerable bat interest is found locally, at both Mount Edgcumbe and Drakes Island and so best practice requires the potential presence of bats on site to be seriously considered. Despite these limitations an appraisal of the potential ecological value of the site is provided below. This value is derived from the nature and extent of the habitats found on site, and an assessment of the likely presence of specially protected animals and plants in these areas.
Planted trees/shrubs
The potential presence of nesting birds means that these areas qualify as being of some significance; as if present, they would be of local importance. It is assumed that these features would, however, remain unaffected by any proposed development, and if so this classification does not need to be reassessed by appropriate survey work.
68
Alan Baxter
Highly Significant Some Significance
Figure 134: Relative Significance of habitat areas on/adjacent to site
Alan Baxter
69
4.0 Issues and opportunities

This chapter of the Conservation Management Plan examines the conservation issues and opportunities for the Royal Citadel. It is not narrowly conservation-focused but considers the broader issues for the management of the site and how these affect or impinge upon the historic buildings, archaeology and ecology. It is informed by the assessment of the significance of the site (chapter 3), highlighting where significant features are vulnerable and there is scope for enhancement. The policies set out in the following chapter respond to the issues and opportunities identified here. Alan Baxter & Associates wrote this chapter with input from Exeter Archaeology on archaeology, Bailey Partnership on access and building condition, and Ambios Ecology on ecological issues. We have also consulted structural engineers at ABA to advise on different options for foundations of new buildings. original interiors survive illustrates this point. Although the PPS5 Practice Guide states that the optimum viable use for a heritage asset might be its original one, it recognises that: that may no longer be economically viable or even the most compatible with the long-term conservation of the asset. (para. 89) If 29 Commando were to leave, this significance would be much diminished, if not lost. English Heritages Conservation Principles acknowledges that there are instances where: The use and appropriate management of a place for its original purpose, for example as a place of recreation or worship, or, like a watermill, as a machine, illustrates the relationship between design and function, and so may make a major contribution to its historical values. If so, cessation of that activity will diminish those values and, in the case of some specialised landscapes and buildings, may essential destroy them. (para 45)
The logical conclusion might therefore be that 29 Commando Regiment should vacate the site to make way for a more suitable use. However, as set out in chapter 3 an important aspect of the significance of the site is the communal value of the site for 29 Commando Regiment. The Citadel has been used by the Royal Artillery since 1899 and specifically by 29 Commando Regiment since 1962. Although this historic connection between the Regiment and place may not be as long as at other military sites, including the Royal Marine Barracks nearby at Stonehouse, the emotive value of the place and the extent to which it is bound up with the identity of the Regiment is still very strong. A sense of group identity is very important in the armed forces: loyalty to ones comrades and the Regiment is a key factor in soldiers being prepared to risk their lives in combat. The Royal Citadel is therefore likely to be more important for the identity of the 29 Commando than say for example educational buildings are to identity of a school or university. The buildings and spaces between them are likely to have an emotive quality for current and former soldiers. Communal significance is very important.
4.0 Issues and Opportunities
A large part of the communal significance of Royal Citadel relates to the continued military use; much of this value would be lost if Navy Command were to leave. Although the site is not ideally suited for military use, there is a strong desire for 29 Commando to remain at the Royal Citadel. In fact this Conservation Management Plan was partly commissioned to investigate the potential for new buildings to accommodate other units from the Regiment, and to consolidate the presence of 29 Commando at the Citadel. The work of the armed forces is of immense national value, in protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, in promoting Britains wider security interests and supporting
4.1 Tension between the military use and conservation of the site
In many ways the continued military use is an appropriate use for the Citadel: it was conceived as a defensive fort, and its thick walls are still an effective security measure against terrorist attack. However, in some respects there is an inherent tension between the continued military use of the site and the conservation of archaeology and the historic buildings. For example large vehicles cannot fit through the historic main gate, so there are logistical issues associated with using the casemates for storage and as a magazine, as well as a problem with damp. Attitudes to personal space and privacy have changed so that dormitory accommodation seems increasingly outmoded, and the SLAM project seeks to provide all soldiers with ensuite bathrooms, which can be difficult to sensitively incorporate into historic buildings. The site is heavily designated: most of the Citadel is a scheduled monument, it contains eleven listed buildings, with two at grade II*, and four of which are scheduled as well as listed, as well as being within the Hoe Conservation Area; this constrains what Defence Estates can do with and to the buildings, which must affect operational effectiveness at least to some extent. There is a desire to accommodate more soldiers on the site, but it is difficult to construct new buildings when the archaeology is so sensitive. Furthermore the unusual and changing needs of Navy Command undoubtedly place a strain on the historic fabric of the Citadel, perhaps more so than a less intensive use. The fact that little of the
Figure 135: Charlie Troop Alma Battery, Musa Qaleh, Afghanistan, 9 March 2009
Figure 136: 29 Commando on NATO Cold Response exercise, February - March 2010
70
Alan Baxter
international peacekeeping efforts. PPS5 acknowledges that arguments of public benefit are an important factor when considering proposals which may lead to substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets (policy HE9). The PPS5 Practice Guide recognises that alterations may be required to enable the continued historic use of a building: new, and even continuing, uses will often necessitate some degree of adaptation (paras. 88-90). It is therefore likely that some degree of change to the site will be required to allow 29 Commando to maintain their operational effectiveness; the history of the site is consistent with this. However, a balance must be struck between allowing change to allow the continued use of the site, with our duty to protect these important historic buildings and archaeology from damage. The aim of this Conservation Management Plan is to set out the conservation policies to guide this.
4.2 Consent regimes

As discussed in section 2.4, a number of buildings within the Royal Citadel are both scheduled and listed. The following buildings are specifically included in the Scheduled Monument Description: the Guardhouse (building 101), which is also grade II listed; the Great Store (building 118), which is also grade II* listed; and the Governors and Lieutenant-Governors Houses (building 131), which is grade II* listed. In addition, the former hospital (building 111) is not specifically excluded and so must therefore be considered as being covered by the scheduling; this is also grade II listed. In normal cases, works to scheduled monuments require Scheduled Monument Consent, which is administered by English Heritage. Works to scheduled monuments on Crown land, by or on behalf of the Government, have exemption to statutory Scheduled Monument Consent controls. However, such works are instead subject to a parallel, non-statutory system known as Scheduled Monument Clearance. Nevertheless, scheduling is still significantly more onerous than listed building control because it requires consent for all changes to the building, including repairs and redecoration, rather than just alterations. It is unusual for buildings to be both scheduled and listed, particularly where they are inhabited and there is demand for better standards of repair and maintenance. The draft Heritage Protection Bill (April 2008) sought to unify the systems that protect heritage in the UK. This would have created a unified list of heritage assets including scheduled monuments and listed buildings and would have transferred responsibility for maintaining this list from DCMS to English Heritage. Although the Bill has been shelved for the time-being, possibly indefinitely, this indicates the direction of Government thinking to resolve the problems associated with these overlapping systems. Furthermore, the Governments guidance on the historic environment was revised in March 2010 when PPS5 replaced PPG15 and PPG16. PPS5 reflects the
desire to create a unified system of heritage protection which defines planning policies for the protection of designated heritage assets including listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, and other protected sites. Although PPS5 provides guidance on planning applications affecting scheduled ancient monuments, it does not replace Scheduled Monument Consent/Clearance (PPS5 Planning Practice Guide, para. 20). The existing system of Scheduled Monument Consent/Clearance is still in place so that Defence Estates must apply for consent to decorate or repair buildings 101, 111, 118 and 131. However, DCMSs recent guidance on Scheduled Monuments (March 2010) states that: For historical reasons, some buildings are both scheduled and listed []. Where appropriate, these buildings will be progressively descheduled in favour of management through the listing regime. (para. 15).
In our professional opinion the need to apply for Scheduled Monument Clearance for any work to the buildings is overly onerous given that these four buildings are in use; the buildings are already statutorily listed and so any alterations affecting their special historic character will require listed building consent, and this offers an appropriate level of protection. There is an opportunity to apply to English Heritage/ DCMS to request that these building are descheduled, to improve the operational efficiency of the MoD in the management of their estate. There is a precedent for this as other structures have been de-scheduled in the naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth. If it is not possible to de-schedule these buildings, there is also an opportunity to agree a standing clearance for repetitive works. The DCMSs document Scheduled Monuments states: Where appropriate, the Secretary of State may decide to grant consent or clearance for repetitive works to a scheduled monument or for identical works to a group of monuments in single ownership, thereby reducing the need for multiple applications for SMC or scheduled monument clearance. (para. 36)
Both opportunities are considered further in the following chapter on policies and management action points.
Figure 137: 29 Commando on NATO Cold Response exercise, February March 2010
Alan Baxter
71
4.3 Guardianship and Maintenance Responsibility

Another complexity derives from the fact that two organisations are responsible for the management and maintenance of different parts of the Royal Citadel. Responsibility for certain non-operational parts of the Citadel the ramparts, gateway and statue of George II was transferred from the War Office to the Office of Works in 1929. Maintenance for these areas became the responsibility of the Office of Works, whilst any alterations required by the War Office would remain their responsibility. This was never ratified by a formal Deed of Guardianship, but the transfer was confirmed in 1966 when a map was drawn up to show responsibilities. Defence Estates is the successor of the War Office and English Heritage is the successor of the Office of Works; hence these two organisations are jointly responsible for the maintenance of the Citadel. Plymouth City Council is also responsible for maintaining the external landscape. English Heritage has guardianship of the ramparts, gateway and statue of George II. However, the roads and paths on top of the ramparts are used by the occupying Unit and occasionally by English Heritages Blue Badge Tours. The responsibility for maintenance of these areas has yet to be resolved. Defence Estates and English Heritage are keen to resolve such ambiguities and to agree a Memorandum of Understanding on management and maintenance responsibilities. English Heritage has produced a draft Memorandum, which Defence Estates are reviewing. Defence Estates need to identify who has authority to sign this. Responsibility for the guns and carriages in the Citadel is also complicated. The guns are owned by the Royal Armouries, but are on loan to 29 Commando Regiment. The guns were originally owned by the MoD but like many other historic weapons were transferred to the Royal Armouries in the 1920s as museum pieces. In fact, it is likely that the guns were located at the Citadel before this transfer and subsequent loan. Maintenance of the guns and carriages is the responsibility of 29 Commando Regiment.
The Protocol was revised and re-issued in 2009. It recommends a 4 year cycle of condition surveys whilst acknowledging that 3 or 5 year inspection cycles may be appropriate in some circumstances. This requirement is further defined in Appendix C of the MoD Conservation Manual for the Historic Environment on the Defence Estate. These quadrennial inspections need to be produced by a specialist conservation consultant to look into the detailed condition of all historic buildings. The benefit of a detailed record stretching over many years will identify the fundamental problems inherent in an original design. In principle, this should help to avoid mistakes and save time as it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel at each subsequent inspection. The only disadvantage to be addressed is ensuring that errors are not continually repeated, either in consequence of the ease with which a consultant can paste entire sections of the earlier survey into the succeeding one, or through a new specialist having an over-reliance on the previous consultants analyses or findings. The reports should contain four principal sections: Significance, Condition, Policies and Actions. They should also identify and prioritise necessary repair and major maintenance requirements, identifying cost estimates for these works. As a result work can then be planned and executed more cost-effectively. It is also recommended that the quadrennial inspection reports incorporate a statement of the buildings significance based on available information. From this information it is recommended that the data is converted into a planned maintenance register and forward maintenance plan. Day-to-day maintenance requirements should be clearly identified, along with key goals so that targets can be set over each inspection cycle to remediate any defects or poor quality elements. The gazetteer includes details of the findings of the quadrennial surveys undertaken to all of the historic assets on site. These have been conducted by various consultants on behalf of Debut Services Ltd for each historic asset on the Royal Citadel site. Generally the condition of the buildings is good; it is a government-owned complex, in continuous use, and the buildings have benefited from a regime of periodic repair and maintenance. There are however some specific issues with the boundary defensive walls and the casemates that need to be addressed urgently.
General condition of the buildings in use

The majority of the buildings within the Citadel are in good condition (condition category 1). There was an extensive programme of repair and refurbishment in 1989-1992, although some areas are in need of attention now, especially internal and external decoration to prevent further degradation of finishes. Some moisture ingress is in evident inside some buildings. Elevations are generally in good condition. There are some minor areas of erosion and weathering of stone together with limited areas of failure to the mortar pointing. There is also a comparatively small amount of unsympathetic mortar repairs. There has also been some minor damage to render on some buildings. However, neither issue is considered to be much more than cosmetic at this stage. There are minor areas of concern to the joints between coping stones, cornices and other projecting ledges. The presence of moss growth at the joints indicates the mortar has failed allowing moisture retention. Copings without damp proof course and failure of the jointing mortar leads to the passage of water into the structure. The result of this can be corrosion of any steelwork and possible rot of timbers built into the walls. There are few instances where the growth of moss and algae in walls below coping joints indicate excessive moisture and failure of joints. This is the visible surface effect but it may suggest a hidden problem. Although this situation is often on walls which are permanently in the shadow (i.e. north facing) it is by no means the rule. Moss is a concern on Buildings 102, 104, 108, 111, 118, 119, 120, 122, 131 and 134). Windows and doors seem generally to be in good condition with any exceptions noted within the quadrennial report. It is essential that they are regularly inspected, repaired and painted. Cast iron gutters and rainwater downpipes are generally sound but again regular inspection and painting is required. Where rusting is apparent, this is a matter requiring attention. Cyclical maintenance should also ensure that these are kept clean and free from obstructions. The roofs are generally also in good condition, which is due to them being refurbished in 1989-92. Parapet walls and their copings, cover flashings and stepped abutment and chimney flashings also appear in good condition but detailed assessment was not possible. All valleys have been renewed as part of the re-slating works but minor repairs may be required to the roofs to ensure their water tightness. Waterproofing of the structure is of prime importance and in this respect the roof coverings are paramount. Failure of these elements will allow water to get into the structures causing hidden corrosion and decay.
4.4 Condition
The need for cyclical inspections as a means of understanding a buildings condition over a long period is well established, having first been adopted for use with churches as quinquennial inspections. This method of inspection has been adopted for other historic buildings. The Protocol for the Care of the Government Historic Estate 2003 (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) states that by adopting a strategic approach to the management of their historic property, [government] departments will ensure that available funds are allocated wisely.
72
Alan Baxter
English Heritage Guardianship MOD Plymouth City Council
Figure 138: Maintenance responsibilites
Alan Baxter
73
Key buildings/facilities on site that are currently inspected on a quadrennial basis. Note: Inspections undertaken during November/ December 2009 to casemates and bastioned artillery defence walls (perimeter walls). It is possible these inspections will kick-start quadrennial reviews to these areas
Figure 139: Quadrennial Inspections

74
Alan Baxter
Generally the internal areas are in a fair condition with only minor cracking in walls due to shrinkage and natural building movement. Areas of damp were noted within some building which may be attributed to poor maintenance of gutters, parapets, etc or rising damp. Some areas of rusting to ironwork were also noted, including to radiators and pipework. These areas need to be treated to stop further corrosion. Any leaking pipework should be rectified accordingly. Minor damage has occurred since the last Quadrennial Inspection through general wear and tear to plasterwork and joinery etc. These areas can be made good during redecoration, which should be carried out on a regular programme.
and downpipes are showing signs of corrosion, particularly around the joints. Painted timber windows and frames and painted timber doors are all showing signs of deterioration and in some cases, rot has set in. The casemates are being occupied for a variety of uses such as storage areas and offices. In one instance a casemate is being used as the Magazine. In most cases, the casemates appear to have suffered from limited cyclical maintenance. Many of the casemates have been lined internally with plasterboard and suspended ceilings. The condition of the walls and roofs behind the linings is believed to be in a poor state decoratively due to damp penetration. Other casemates are still in their original condition with stone and brick walls with arched brick or stone ceilings, generally in a fair condition but in some cases are in a very poor decorative order with mould and plant growth, water ingress and structural cracking. Some of the decay within the casemates is due to the failure of the asphalt covering. The worst affected casemates are in the south western corner of the site and are numbered 234-238.
Many of the electrical installations have recently been replaced and are in a serviceable condition. In some cases where installations are in a poor and dangerous condition and do not conform to the current British Standards, these have been disconnected and made safe. Details of these areas of concern can be reviewed in the Casemates Condition Inspection Document. Domestic gas central boilers with pressure vessels are fitted in several of the casemates which are being used as stores and offices, with pressed steel panel radiators in most casemates.
Condition issues with the Citadel Ramparts

The condition of the ramparts is also a concern, perhaps relating to the ambiguity over maintenance responsibility between English Heritage and the MoD. The ramparts are massive and generally well founded onto natural bed rock which rises up from the eastern end of the Hoe. Repairs have been carried out over the years, however, it is not certain how much of this has been undertaken under the direction of the MoD or English Heritage. Large areas of repointing have been
Condition issues with the Casemates

The casemates are in worse condition, perhaps relating to the ambiguity over maintenance responsibility between English Heritage and the MoD. Generally, the external walls are showing signs of damp staining throughout. In several areas, the pointing to the stonework has deteriorated and in some cases plant growth is evident. The capping to the top of the wall above the entrances to the casemates is becoming loose in several locations. The cast iron rainwater hoppers
Figure 140: There are signs of decay in the timber windows of casemates
Figure 141: Mould in the casemates
Figure 142: Mould and cracks in the stonework
Figure 143: The exposure of the ramparts to the sea and moisture leaching out from within the walls has stained the stonework and washed out lime mortar, resulting in loose stonework
Figure 144: Casemates have been lined internally with plasterboard and suspended ceilings, hiding damp fabric behind
Figure 145: Vegetation growth in the casemates
Figure 146: Vegetation growth on the ramparts is an issue
Figure 147: Vertical cracks in the ramparts should be dealt with in the near future
Alan Baxter
75
undertaken in the past, however, most has been of a high cement content and in some cases smeared onto the face of the stonework, which causes decay. The exposure of the site on high ground facing the open sea means that a substantial amount of water enters the fabric during each year. The structure generally accommodates the moisture, however, there is a visual impact and it probably causes premature failure of the pointing mortar. The wall tops below the soft capping are of concern as these areas are part covered and close inspection was not possible within the terms of the survey. The amount of water entering into the mass of the rampart is of concern as this often impacts on the face of the walls as well as the casemates. This not only causes differential staining to the stonework it also washes out lime from the core causing further staining and possibly weakening the structure. Although the dampness in the casemates is largely held back by render or hidden by dry lining the external walls which are uncovered internally show signs of dampness causing the paint finish to fail. The main concerns relate to the tops of the external walls to the rampart and curtain walls, especially immediately below the areas of soft capping. Access and close inspection is required and any loose stonework rebuilt and defective mortar pointing renewed. There are other areas of loose stonework to wall heads and immediately below embrasures which have been identified and also need urgent attention. Loose, cracked and eroded mortar pointing is also of concern especially to the eastern wall faces of the Prince of Wales Bastion, Prince Edwards Battery and Prince Henrys Demi Bastion. Vegetation growth is becoming established on most wall faces, however those areas most at risk are the south and east faces of Prince Henrys Demi Bastion, plus the Pipers Platform north and south walls. Vertical cracks to the inner face of the northern end of Prince Georges Curtain and east of the steps at the centre of the Old Saluting Battery should also be dealt with in the very near future to reduce the rate of deterioration.
Of less urgency is the need to obtain a better understanding of the rate of deterioration to both the inner and outer walls caused by water ingress and subsequent exiting through the wall faces and into the front walls of the casemates. A rolling programme of repairs needs to be established urgently to maintain and keep this monument in good repair whilst significantly reducing the risks of falling stonework and pointing.
Therefore the walls of buildings within 25m of the site boundary should usually be a minimum of 35cm thick, something akin to a bunker. There are also exacting standards for buildings constructed within the 50m stand off zone. The application of these standards to other military sites, such as the Royal Marine Barracks in Stonehouse, reduces the flexibility with which they can use their buildings, as well as strongly influencing the design of new buildings to encourage bunker-like solutions. However, at the Citadel the thickness of the ramparts provides very effective protection against car and van bombs in the surrounding streets: most of the ramparts are over 8m thick, and even in the northeast corner where the walls have been reduced in size they are c. 1.85m thick, which the MoD Construction Standards suggests should be sufficient to resist an explosion. There is therefore an opportunity to apply these standards with careful consideration, and ultimately less strictly at the Citadel. This unlocks potential for lightweight buildings that would have less impact on below-ground archaeology (this is discussed further in section 4.13) The Citadel has only two access points: the main gate provides access to the historic Citadel and a lower gate on Lambhay Hill provides access to the MT area. In many ways this aids security: it is easy to control access to the site. However, perhaps this could be seen as a security issue in certain circumstances. It may therefore be sensible to investigate creating an alternative vehicular entrance to the upper part of the Citadel, perhaps by using historic sallyports to the west and south.
4.5 Security and counter-terrorism

The perceived threat of terrorist attack has increased since 9/11. Despite its city centre location the Citadel is a relatively secure military site. The walls of the ramparts are very thick, originally to protect against artillery bombardment, but this is still useful today to protect against terrorist van and car bombs. Defence Estates applies counter terrorism standards for the construction of new buildings and refurbishment of existing buildings (Construction Standards for MoD buildings subject to terrorist threat). The standards are dependent on the distance from the site boundary. The standoff range for a large van bomb is 50m, and 25m for a car bomb. High occupancy uses (where 30 people or more are gathered in one area) are discouraged within the 25m standoff range. Construction standards under 25m from the site boundary are: Walls: 102mm brick outer and 250mm concrete inner; or 215mm reinforced brick outer and 215mm high density blockwork inner. Roof: 150mm reinforced concrete roof slab Glazing: 7.5mm laminated inner pane; deep rebates; size of pane less than 3m2.
76
Alan Baxter
4.6 Movement
It is impossible to get large vehicles in the historic upper part of the site because they cannot fit through the main gate. The casemates in the south-eastern part of the Citadel are currently used for storage and as an ammunition magazine. This means that supplies are often moved by hand from lorries parked outside the Citadel to the casemates, which is inefficient and affects operational effectiveness of the Regiment. The main gate is relatively small so large fire engines cannot enter the Citadel and regular engines need to be driven through with care; parked cars are a further obstruction to fire engines. Access for emergency vehicles in the event of a major fire could therefore be difficult. There is therefore a fire risk associated with the magazine in its current location: the range of the hydrant should be improved or the magazine should be relocated somewhere more accessible. Car parking is often an issue in historic military sites; however, it is well planned within the Citadel and is not a particular conservation issue. Cars are kept off the parade ground (except in unusual circumstances), which preserves the historic character of this open space. Parked cars are generally dispersed and located adjacent to or at the rear of buildings. This is a good solution that limits the impact on the
setting of historic buildings. However, the potential to reduce car parking spaces gradually over time might be considered to encourage soldiers, staff and visitors to use more environmentally sustainable modes of transport. There is also a wider issue of how the Citadel affects movement in Plymouth. The city is a naval centre containing numerous naval and military sites. The city is therefore characterised by impenetrable high walls, reminiscent of Oxbridge colleges, which restrict permeability. The Royal Citadel is perhaps the largest obstacle to movement, for it is located on a key waterfront site in the city centre, is very large, and limits movement between Sutton Harbour and the Hoe, and the city centre and the waterfront. Analysis from the Hoe Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan recognises this (figure 148). Clearly, security concerns mean that it would be inadvisable to improve the permeability of the site while the MoD occupies the site; but were the MoD ever to vacate the site (which is unlikely) this issue for the wider townscape might be addressed.
Figure 148: West Sallyport - the opportunity to create an additional vehicular exit should be investigated at this and other Sallyports
Figure 149: The results of a security review of the Blue Badge tours should be reflected on the sign on Lambhay Hill. The sign is not EH and needs changing.
Figure 150: The Hoe Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that the Citadel is a barrier to pedestrian movement Fig. 8. The Hoe Conservation Area: Townscape and public realm
Alan Baxter
77
Access for large vehicles (MT) eg lorries and tanks Parking for large (MT) vehicles Access for small vehicles eg cars Access for maintenance vehicles to ramparts Car Parking Pedestrian routes Helipad
Figure 151: Movement and Access

78
Alan Baxter
4.7 Standard of accommodation

There are currently 201 bed spaces in the Royal Citadel for 29 Commando Regiment; only three of these have en-suite bathrooms. During the 20th century, there was an important change in the way that people live with an increasing desire for privacy and independence. Conscripts inevitably forgo some of this when they join up; however, changes in attitude, in particular to privacy, should be reflected in the accommodation arrangements. Shared dormitories now seem outmoded, even for school children. The Deepcut Review identified the importance of allowing army trainees to have sexual relationships. There are married quarters off-site, and unmarried soldiers can have guests stay overnight for 3-4 nights in 14. Officers generally have single rooms, but for the lower ranks accommodated in dormitories it must be more difficult to sustain relationships. The needs of 29 Commando Regiment can also change over a shorter timeframe. The fact that the British armed forces are currently engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan creates specific issues and opportunities. When soldiers return from active service they are understandably likely to have higher expectations of the standard of accommodation and facilities. Sadly some soldiers return injured so improved medical and rehabilitation facilities are required and access for the mobility impaired is particularly important. There are also specific issues with the medical centre and gym: there are two doctors but only one consultation room, which means it is difficult to maintain privacy and there is only stepped access. Similarly, there is only stepped access to the rehabilitation centre and gymn in building 174, which is not adequate (this is discussed further in section 4.8). It is important to respond to the changing needs and expectations resulting from active service for retention and recruitment of soldiers. The corollary of this is that, while the barracks are relatively empty because soldiers are away on active service, there is an opportunity to develop and improve facilities on the site. Project SLAM (Single Living Accommodation Modernisation) seeks to improve the standard of accommodation. Grading of all service accommodation is assessed against MoD criteria called the 4 Tier Grading Regulations (4TG), which are underpinned by accommodation scales contained in JSP (Joint Services Publication) 315: Services Accommodation Code and further explained in JSP 464: Tri-Service Accommodation Regulations (TSARS). Accommodation is graded from 1 to 4, with Grade 1 being the highest level. The grade of the accommodation is determined with respect to the condition of the facility and the rental charge that should be paid. The system considers the occupants entitlement to space and facility provision,
as well as the physical condition of the structure and non propertyrelated issues, such as the external environment. The following factors are considered: bed space area; sharing; integrated washing facilities and toilets; scale of washing and toilet facilities; provision of furniture; power sockets; ancillary facilities; relationship of communal areas to sleeping accommodation; condition and fitness for purpose; decorative condition; heating; air conditioning; access to amenities should be within 1.5 miles; and environment. It is Defence Estates aim that all SLA should achieve a score of 1 or 2. However, with the exception of the junior ranks accommodation in the former hospital (building 111), the Citadel does not meet SLAM aspirations and has been awarded scores of 3 and 4. The buildings perform badly in the following areas: sharing; ancillary facilities; physical condition and fitness for purpose; decoration; power sockets; and provision of furniture. It is possible to address some of these issues by refurbishing the rooms; however, to eradicate shared dormitories and provide en-suite bathrooms would significantly reduce the number of bed spaces, so is not likely to be operationally viable. For this reason it is unlikely that these buildings will ever score 2 or above. However, there are benefits of being posted to the Royal Citadel that go far to outweigh the limitations of the accommodation. The Citadel is located in Plymouth, close to the diversions that the city centre offers. It is also a beautiful historic site so is an attractive place to live.
This contrasts markedly with sites such as Bickleigh. The units of 29 Commando Regiment based at the Citadel have substantially better retention rates than is the norm (circa 4 years longer); this is evidence that the standard of accommodation is not a major issue. In fact a lack of bed spaces is a pressing issue. A positive effect of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a rise in recruitment across the armed forces; in 1992, 29 Commando Regiment was at about 60% capacity, it is now at 95% and is likely to be fully staffed by the end of this year. However, this has put pressure on bed spaces and facilities. There are currently 58 soldiers living in Substitute Single Living Accommodation (SSLA) in Plymouth. This is expensive for the MoD and less good for morale and the physical cohesion of the unit. In addition, there are 120 temporary requests for accommodation from 148 Battery and other units of the 29 Commando Regiment based elsewhere in the country, who need to stay in Plymouth for training and operational purposes. Furthermore, there is a desire to relocate all three units of the 29 Commando Regiment at the Citadel. The batteries are currently dispersed across three distant locations in the UK: in Arbroath in Scotland, Poole in Dorset, as well here in Plymouth, Devon. This inhibits the cohesion, morale and operational effectiveness of the Regiment. If possible, Defence Estates would like to incorporate 100 new bed spaces at the Citadel (the section on potential for new build considers this further).
4.8 Access
Access Audits are undertaken to appraise a building or structure and its elements to assess the extent of accessibility to services and facilities and propose the extent of works required to improve the current facilities in accordance with the definitions of the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 & 2005 and the client brief. An audit takes into account the needs of people with mobility impairments (including wheelchair users) and sensory impairments. An audit will also identify physical barriers to access against pre-determined criteria identified in various publications, Codes of Practice and Guidance Notes. An audit should be treated as the starting point of an ongoing access plan, constantly updated by staff. An audit is only the first stage in the process of identifying, planning and implementing access changes and should also only be seen as a snapshot of the position at the time of the report. Changes made after a site inspection may improve or reduce levels of accessibility. As buildings evolve and are adapted/ refurbished, a review of audits already completed should be considered on a periodic basis.
Alan Baxter
79
Senior Officers Bedspaces SSLA Number of temporary requests 1 2 2
Junior Officers 20 3 9
Senior Ratings 34 7 22
Junior Ratings 146 46 87
Total 201 58 120
Total: 201
Figure 153: Existing SLA bedspaces at the Royal Citadel
Figure 154: Deficit of SLA bedspaces at the Royal Citadel Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Other built structures
Figure 152: SLAM grading of accommodation

80
Alan Baxter
Areas/facilities on site where an access audit has been undertaken Autumn/Winter 2005 Key buildings/facilities on site where public/ disabled access needs to be considered
Figure 155: Access Audit
Alan Baxter
81
An Access Audit Assessment of the buildings within the Royal Citadel was undertaken by Babcock Infrastructure Services during August and September 2005. This assessment followed a desk top risk assessment, which prioritised buildings in terms of access issues as High, Medium or Low priority. Those buildings with public access were given the highest priority. Sixteen structures on site have been designated high priority. These comprise assets to which there is public access on a regular basis, non-service working, access for injured military personnel, and communal and living areas. A full Access Audit was undertaken to each of these buildings or facilities. Medium priority buildings or facilities were considered in a brief executive summary, identifying principle issues. Low priority facilities were considered as part of a brief site inspection to confirm their status. A copy of the Schedule of Buildings and Priorities from the original Audit Assessment in 2005 has been included in Appendix 9. In the original Access Audit Report, the following buildings in the Royal Citadel have been deemed publicly accessible: Building 101 Guard Room Building 102 Junior Ranks Galley Building 104 Junior Ranks NAAFI Building 119 Royal Chapel of St. Katherine Building 120 Officers Mess Building 121 WO & Sgts Mess Building 122 WO & Sgts Living Accommodation Building 131 RHQ Accommodation Building 132 QMs Stores Complex Building 134 Adult School Building 174 Gym Building 175 TA1 Training Wing Building 176 TA2 Training Wing Building 177 Cottage Building 226 Vestry Casemates Building 401 Millbay Park
However, having discussed these priority buildings with the SER and other site staff in 2010, it is felt that some of these can be downgraded. The Gazetteer summarises the key access issues and recommendations for each building. The key access issues and opportunities for the site are as follows:
Royal Chapel of St. Katherine (Building 119) and Vestry Casemates (Building 226)
The chapel is used regularly by members of the public with a service held on site every Sunday. The chapel is also used for weddings, funerals and christenings. This is one of the key facilities on site that need to be fully accessible. There is a stepped access to the main entrances into the chapel and vestry, between the chapel and the Vestry and between two parts of the vestry. Internally, space is very good with ample room for wheelchair users to manoeuvre. There is only one small WC available for use, which is restrictive and should be improved. It is unlikely that an induction loop has been installed.
Guard Room (Building 101)

This is the first point of contact for visitors to the site but public access into this building is very restricted, with the majority of services delivered through the Pass Office window hatch. No major adaptations are required; however, it is hoped in the future that a new Pass Office can be provided, possibly outside the main entrance, which should be fully accessible.
Officers Mess (Building 120)

Various functions are held here, although all are held in the function space on the top floor of the building. The only form of assisted access is a goods lift accessed via a rear entrance door with the lift opening in to the rear of the kitchen area on the top floor. Although disabled access is therefore possible, DDA requires that equal access provided to and this situation is far from ideal; there was also no evidence of a safe means of emergency egress for disabled visitors. There is therefore an opportunity to improve lift access to this building. Consideration should also be given to providing a temporary ramp at the door entry point. There are no accessible WC facilities on the top floor and providing one is a priority.
Junior Ranks Accommodation (Building 108)

Although this building is primarily an accommodation block with no visitors, there is the Regiment Medical Centre at the southern end of the building on the ground floor. This is currently accessible by negotiating steps (seven risers) and a stepped threshold. There are currently no accessible facilities within the Centre. It may be possible to provide access to the Centre via an internal link door; this would require less intervention than other options. However, the internal layout is restrictive, with little scope for adaptation.
Figure 156: Stepped access to the Junior Ranks Accommodation (building 108)
Figure 157: Goods lift in Officers Mess (building 120) is used for disabled access, which is inadequate
82
Alan Baxter
WO & Sgts Mess (Building 121)

This building is used frequently by visitors and does have some access provision, with widened openings, drop kerbs and temporary ramps. Internally most of the space is on one level, although there are temporary ramps available to assist internal circulation, e.g. from the conservatory into the main building. As this building is the most accessible on site, this tends to be the facility used most for functions. However, there is no form of accessible WC, but there is scope to provide one by adapting either the male or female WCs at the main entrance. Various presentations are also held here and the installation of an induction loop would be beneficial.
Gym (Building 174)

Although this is a modern building, there is a stepped threshold at the main entrance and the facilities are located over three levels accessed via a staircase. Rehabilitation of injured personnel is undertaken here so access to this building is inadequate. There are current proposals to convert the ground floor of Building 162 to a gym and rehabilitation centre, which will be fully accessible.
visits, access being limited to external areas and the chapel only. There are however, areas of the ramparts where low level walls are inadequate to protect from falling. These should be advised to the guides to keep visitors from getting too close to exposed edges. Various military career taster visits by schoolchildren are undertaken. These are managed through the Commando Training Wing. It is unclear how any disabled staff or escorts are accommodated during these visits.
Cottage (Building 177)

This building is used as the Welfare Office for service personnel and their dependants. As a result there are occasional visits by families with young children and pushchairs etc. The main entrance is accessed via a stepped threshold with an internal layout on domestic scale. Adaptations should be undertaken to improve access for these regular visits, although due to the topography of the site access improvements will be limited in nature. In addition to the above facilities, English Heritage manage and operate Blue Badge tours on Tuesday afternoons from May to October. These visits do not involve site staff and it is unclear what the arrangements are for any disabled visitors for these tours. We understand that no site facilities are used in conjunction with these
Adult School (Building 134)

This building is home to the Regimental administration office, responsible for personnel movements, leave and pay. The conference room is used occasionally for meetings and this could be a good building to focus on to provide improved access to a meeting space. The building is close to the main entrance, accessible parking could easily be provided close by and provides good quality accommodation.
Figure 158: The gym and rehabilitation centre in building 174 are accessed via steps
Figure 159: Access to the cottage (building 177) in the TA centre is stepped
Alan Baxter
83
There are no military parades or passing out ceremonies held within the Citadel. Every two years a concert is held on the parade ground, although for this event all temporary toilets, seating etc are brought in by subcontractor event specialists. One of the key recommendations of the earlier Audit Inspection in 2005 was to improve access around the site by providing appropriate tactile blister paving and pedestrian crossing points and traffic calming measures. We believe this will be very visually intrusive. There is substantial car parking throughout the site with the ability to park very close or adjacent to each structure. As a result we recommend that management solutions in the form of escorting and guiding visitors are established. Traffic movements are relatively low and focused at the beginning and end of each day. Due to the limited number of visitors we feel this is a far more effective solution.
the historical associations of the communal areas are highly valued by the Regiment and therefore historic features and fittings have been retained. However, this is not the case in many buildings: the changing needs of the MoD, higher expectations and improved living standards have meant that the building have been extensively modernised, most recently in 1989-1992, and most historic features and fittings have been lost. Only the shells of the 17th century buildings survive and internally they are extensively remodelled. 19th century stairs survive in the Great Store (building 118), the Sergeants Accommodation (building 122), the Adult School (building 134), the Training Wing (building 175) and the offices in building 176, but most other historic features have been lost. One exception to this is the casemates where 18th century cleats for small firearms, later lantern brackets and 1860s racking survives. Corner fireplaces were added in the 1750s and adapted in the 1840s. These features must be preserved. However, where historic features, fixtures, fittings and decoration have been lost there is greater scope for adaptation of the building, although alterations would still require listed building consent (or in some cases scheduled monument clearance), and should respect the historic character and proportions of the building. There is actually potential to improve interiors if they have been converted badly. Surviving historic interiors are sensitive to adaptation, and important
historic features should be retained and incorporated carefully into the design; which should be developed in consultation with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council and would require listed building consent (or scheduled monument clearance). Buildings that have identified as neutral or as detracting from the site are less sensitive to adaptation, although extensions or alterations to the exterior should respect the setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area.
4.10 Environmental Sustainability

Climate change is probably the greatest long-term challenge facing the human race, and the UK Government has made a number of commitments to reduce carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change. Current targets are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% (of 1990 levels) by 2010, and by 60% by 2050. Operational energy in buildings (to heat, ventilate and light them, etc) accounts for 46% of the UKs carbon dioxide emissions, and so in order to meet these targets it is critical that measures are taken to reduce energy consumption in buildings. Part L of the Building Regulations came into force in 2002 and seeks to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. There are also progressive targets for carbon emissions from the construction and operation of new buildings (BREEAM, Ecohomes, Code for Sustainable Homes). Energy efficient buildings are also cheaper to run.
4.9 Adaptation of historic buildings

The continuity of the use of the Citadel as a military site is beneficial because it has meant that many structures are still used for their original purpose, such as the casemates, and so some instances historic interiors have survived. Most original features and fittings survive in the official, administrative and ceremonial areas, such as the Officers Mess (building 120) and the chapel (building 119);
Figure 160: The chapel contains historic fittings and decoration (building 119)
Figure 161: Historic staircase in Governors House
Figure 162: Historic staircase in building 176
84
Alan Baxter
The MoD has its own sustainability targets for construction projects: the Defence Related Environmental Assessment Method (DREAM). This is based on the existing BREEAM assessment, but is specifically for MoD buildings and is not regulated by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). It requires that all new buildings achieve Excellent rating, and all refurbishments achieve Very Good. A DREAM assessment is required for any works requiring planning permission or materially affecting the fabric of the building. The scheme is scored using an online tool www.dreamassess.com. However, there is a risk that measures to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings could damage or destroy their historic and architectural significance. Therefore, the application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historic buildings is at the discretion of the building control officer and conservation officer and does not need to be fully applied, where it would damage the character, fabric or fittings of a historic building, as described in the inset. The fact that the DREAM assessment included credits for the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage and the historic environment seems to recognise that a balance should be struck. Pre-1939 buildings are often low-energy in their very nature, having being designed to make maximum use of daylight, to retain heat in winter and to be cool in summer in an age where electric lighting and central heating were not widespread or indeed invented. Often by considering the ways in which buildings were intended to be used, ventilated and heated, one can improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings. For example, sash windows are extremely effective ventilators when used as originally conceived, with the upper and lower halves opened to the same degree. Many of the most effective measures for reducing energy consumption are those that require least intervention in the fabric of the buildings, and often are not visible from outside the building. For example, attic roof insulation is the best way to reduce heat loss from a building but cannot be seen externally (except in the rare instances that the roof line needs to be altered to install it), whereas, the installation of micro-renewables could damage the historic character of the Royal Citadel. Low intervention measures to reduce energy consumption should be implemented first before more damaging measures are considered.
prevent heat loss. However this can be resolved by installing a special membrane with insulation that allows the passage of water vapour but not heat. Insulation in the roof is very effective as a significant proportion of heat can be lost here (33% of central heating). Ventilators may be required in the eaves, to ensure that the loft does not become damp once it is insulated, and the type of insulation material chosen should be able to breathe (e.g. hemp, sheepswool).
Wall insulation can be more problematic. Internally, it can cause unacceptable changes in the proportions of rooms and the loss of historic features. Insulation of external walls is also unlikely to be appropriate on listed buildings. When proposed for unlisted buildings it would need to be very carefully designed to minimise the impact on the character and appearance of Hoe Conservation Area, and is unlikely to be appropriate when the external walls are unrendered stone.
Building Regulations Part L1. Sections 2.9-2.11

2.9 Historic buildings include a) listed buildings; b) buildings situated in conservation areas, c) buildings which are of architectural and historical interest and which are referred to as a material consideration in a local authoritys development plan, d) buildings of architectural and historical interest within national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and world heritage sites. 2.10 The need to conserve the special characteristics of such historic buildings needs to be recognised. In such work, the aim should be to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is practically possible, always provided that the work does not prejudice the character of the historic building, or increase the risk to the long-term deterioration to the building fabric or fittings. In arriving at an appropriate balance between historic building conservation and energy consumption, it would be appropriate to take into account the advice of the local planning authoritys conservation officer.
Reduce eneRgy consumption
geneRate eneRgy
INSTALL MICRO RENEWABLES ON SITE
BUY ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE SUPPLIER
MONITOR USE OF BOILER FIT LOW ENERGY LIGHT BULBS INSTALL ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHT FITTINGS & FIXTURES
INSTALL ENERGY EFFICENT BOILER INSTALL HEAT RECOVERY UNITS IN BATHROOM & KITCHEN
GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMPS SOLAR WATER HEATING PHOTOVOLTAICS WIND TURBINES BIOMASS BOILER
INSULATE ROOF & VAPOUR BOARD
Insulation
There is potentially a conflict between the need for an historic building to breathe to prevent water vapour from collecting, causing damp and consequent decay, and the need for airtight buildings to
PLASTER WALLS CLOSE CURTAINS DRAUGHT PROOF WINDOWS
INSULATE WALLS 100MM & VAPOUR BOARD SECONDARY GLAZE WINDOWS INSTALL DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS
cost / level of inteRvention
Figure 163: Diagram illustrating that cheap low intervention methods to reduce energy consumption should be implemented before more interventionist methods are considered
Alan Baxter
85
Windows
There is a presumption in favour of the retention of original and historic windows. Draught-proofing windows and secondary glazing are very effective low-interventionist measures to reduce heat loss.
Renewable energy
Renewable energy generation is substantially more effective at the macro level with for example large-scale off-shore wind farms, than when installed on individual buildings. Micro-renewables are expensive, are likely to be interventionist, and in many cases are inefficient. Measures to improve the energy efficiency of buildings should be exhausted before renewable energy generation is considered. English Heritage guidance should be followed when installing micro-renewables. Photovoltaic cells and solar water heating are unlikely to be suitable on the listed buildings. Proposals to install these on unlisted buildings should consider the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and views. Wind turbines. Although the ramparts experience strong onshore winds, it is unlikely that wind turbines would be appropriate given that they are scheduled. However, it might be possible to install wind turbines on the 1980s boundary wall enclosing the MT area; however, the impact on the setting of the scheduled monument and views of the site would need to be carefully considered and may preclude this. Ground source heat pumps are unlikely to be suitable within the Citadel given the high potential for significant below-ground archaeology; there may be more scope for ground source heat pumps in the TA centre and MT area. Biomass boilers, fuelled by wood chips for example, are being considered for new buildings, and could potentially also replace existing boilers in historic buildings.
4.11 Archaeology
Within most of the Citadel (as well as sizeable area outside the walls), archaeology is statutorily protected, so Scheduled Monument Clearance will need to be sought for development proposals. The extent and complexity of any archaeological work will depend on the scale of the proposals. However, time needs to be allocated in the preparation of development proposals to deal with archaeological matters at an early stage. This will minimise any delays to programmes of work. However, it is worth noting that development proposals will be assessed in the context of a number of disciplines, of which archaeology is only one, so it cannot be considered in isolation from other issues. One of the criteria for assessing the national importance of a monument is documentation, i.e. where the significance of the monument is enhanced by the existence of records of previous investigations or contemporary written accounts. The Citadel is a case in point and the existence of a large body of cartographic material and military documentation provides a valuable context for understanding the archaeological remains on the site. From an archaeological viewpoint the areas outside the Scheduled Monument (e.g. TA Centre and MT Site) present the least challenges in terms of developing new structures. The process of assessing the potential impact on archaeological remains will still need to be followed. The area of the Elizabethan fort is considered to be the most significant archaeologically, because of the date and rarity of the buried remains. Careful and detailed consideration would need to be given to any proposals for new construction work in this area. Whilst archaeological remains in a Scheduled Monument must be viewed as a potential constraint to new building, there are options for mitigating the impact of groundworks, providing this is discussed with English Heritage at an early stage. Scheduled Monument Clearance requires an assessment of the potential impacts and it may be possible to mitigate the impact through a simple programme of archaeological monitoring, evaluation or excavation (preservation by record) or by designing the new works to minimize disturbance (preservation in situ) or by a combination of both. An appropriate response will be agreed with English Heritage to deal with any expected (and unexpected) remains and this will be set out in a detailed method statement produced in advance of the works. For most small-scale interventions this will take the form of observation
Heat recovery units

When bathrooms and kitchens are refurbished in historic buildings, the installation of heat recovery units is preferable to traditional extractor fans, although the impact on historic character and features should be carefully considered.
Materials
The materials used to construct new buildings and repair or alter existing buildings can have a significant environmental impact. This partly relates to the embodied energy used in their manufacture, but also to the energy used to transport them building materials are usually heavy so this can be energy intensive. Therefore if historic brick buildings are to be demolished, the brick should be use in the construction of new buildings where possible. Ideally materials should be: locally sourced; renewable, sustainable sources; low embodied energy; free from ozone-damaging chemicals or gases. Frequently traditional materials, such as locally sourced wood and stone, are the most sustainable. The manufacture of concrete releases carbon dioxide.
Transport
27% of UK carbon emissions are from transport, and much of that from vehicular traffic. The MoD and Defence Estates should promote low carbon forms of transport, such as walking and cycling, and the use of public transport over cars. It is appreciated that military vehicles are essential to the work of 29 Commando Regiment, however, a simple measure such as reducing the amount of parking space in the Citadel might encourage service personnel and other staff to walk, cycle and use public transport rather than travelling by car.
86
Alan Baxter
and recording during any excavation operations. If any large-scale development work is proposed in areas of specific archaeological significance (for example the 16th century fort) a more extensive programme of archaeological works may be required, including evaluation (or trial) excavations. The results of these will determine the nature and extent of any final archaeological response in mitigation for the proposed works. During any assessment of ground disturbance, provision should be also allowed for the discovery of previously unknown finds or features. These could include late medieval bulwarks or other defensive positions as suggested by documentary research, the precise locations of which have not so far been identified. They may also include prehistoric material associated with limestone fissures or caves, or stray finds such as Roman coins. The potential for such material is indicated by the finds made during construction work for the Marine Biological Laboratories at a time before formal archaeological recording was considered necessary. The limestone bedrock has not been quarried in this area and any finds associated with caves or fissures are likely to be of high significance. Whilst the excavation of archaeological remains represents a permanent loss of the resource, it should also be noted that this will often result in an increase in understanding of the history and development of the site. In some situations archaeological investigation is the only way of advancing knowledge, particularly where non-intrusive techniques (such as geophysical survey) are not practical or informative. As the Citadel has played a significant part in the history of Plymouth over the last few hundred years and the site is prominently located next to the Hoe, this will have potential benefits for the local community and visitors to the city. Where development proposals are seen to be in the national interest these would normally take precedence over the importance of the archaeological remains and a programme of mitigation would be considered rather than preservation in situ. The MoD prides itself on the careful management of the archaeological heritage on its estates, and is regarded as an exemplar to other government departments in this respect (Memorandum submitted by the MoD in the CMS Select Committee Report (July 2008, 164) on the Draft Heritage Protection Bill). Any requirements resulting from the Conservation Management Plan should therefore not present significant challenges to managing the site.
4.12 Demolition
The Royal Citadel is a constrained and intensively used site. There is therefore an opportunity to demolish buildings that become less useful and redevelop them with buildings that better fit 29 Commandos requirements. The demolition of buildings is a highly sensitive conservation issue; if the buildings are of any historic or architectural interest this will be lost. Although the recording of historic buildings prior to demolition helps mitigate the loss of evidential value, demolition of significant buildings should be avoided. However, PPS5 recognises that, in very exceptional circumstances, substantial harm to or total loss of significance of designated heritage assets may be necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss (policy HE9.1). Conversely, the demolition of buildings that detract can be a strong conservation benefit, especially where the design of replacement buildings is better. The demolition of buildings that have been identified as detracting or as having a neutral impact on the Royal Citadel could potentially enhance the setting of the scheduled monument and listed buildings (and the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area) if they are replaced with more sensitively designed structures. This could have multiple benefits: rebuilding structures on existing foundations is also likely to minimise the impact on significant below-ground archaeology (this is explored further below). Buildings 103, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 125, 132, 136, 153, 154, 160, 161, 163, 166, 167, 174 and 608 are all identified as having a neutral impact or as detracting from the historic character of the Citadel. Many of these are small structures such as portacabins so do not present significant opportunities for redevelopment. However, some are larger, such as the Sergeants Mess (building 121), QM Stores (building 132) and buildings in the MT Area, and there are also substantial extensions to buildings 102, 104 and 111 (also neutral), which provide more fruitful potential redevelopment opportunities should these buildings become less well-used and useful in the future.
4.13 The potential for new build

The MoD would ideally like to locate the following new facilities within the Royal Citadel:
100 additional bed spaces for Junior Ranks; a new storage building to allow 75% of casemates to be vacated; a new magazine to allow ammunition stores to be removed from
the casemates; and
a larger medical centre to provide two consulting rooms for

doctors with DDA access. It may not be possible to accommodate all of this within the Citadel because of the considerable heritage constraints the site poses. The impact of any new buildings on the setting of the numerous listed buildings, ramparts and other standing scheduled structures requires careful consideration. Equally, the below-ground archaeology of the Royal Citadel is of national interest and most of the site is a scheduled monument. The construction of any new buildings and their foundations therefore needs careful consideration, particularly in the scheduled area and in the south-east corner where there are remains of a rare 16th century fort.
Location
Fig. 164 shows potential locations for new buildings. This includes existing buildings which have been identified as detracting or of neutral significance; if these buildings were to be redeveloped, then there would be the potential to enhance the setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area.
There is potential for new buildings to be constructed on the

foundations/using the foundation trenches of existing non-historic buildings, such as buildings 121, 132 and those in the MT area.
There is potential for new buildings to be constructed to the west

of building 131, around and including the sites of buildings 121 and 132. Any new buildings here would need to be very carefully designed to respect the setting of buildings 122, 131 and 132, as well as the scheduled monument. Nevertheless, this area could most likely accommodate buildings of more than one storey if carefully designed.
There is potential for a new building on the foundations of building

166, but it is unlikely that any new development here could be more than a single storey because it would detract from the setting
Alan Baxter
87
of building 108. For the same reason, it is unlikely that any new building to the north of building 166 could be more than a single storey.
Asset 125, within King Charles Bastion, is a modern building of lowgrade use, which detracts, partly due to the design and height of the roof. There may be potential here for a new, more sympathetic design to enable a small facility to be accommodated, thereby easing the pressure on more sensitive areas.
There may be potential for new buildings to be constructed on

the foundations/using the foundation trenches of demolished buildings, such as a former mess and ablutions block in the southeast corner of the site. As discussed below, further archaeological evaluation would be required to establish the extent to which foundations survive and could be re-used. Any new development here would need to be very carefully designed to respect the setting of buildings 118 and 111.
There may be potential for new buildings in the south-east corner

of the Citadel, particularly if the casemates are vacated. This area is well-hidden from the parade ground, the sites most sensitive open space. However, it is archaeologically sensitive because it is the location of the 16th century fort. As noted above, the settings of buildings 118 and 111 would need to be respected.
There is potential for a new building to the rear of the building 176,
to the north of the Citadel. However, because this site is beyond the ramparts, the design of any new building here would most likely have to meet more stringent counter-terrorism standards. There may also be the potential in the future for 29 Commando Regiment to occupy the site of the Marine Biological Laboratories. However, the lease on this building has recently been renewed until 2046 and there are indications that the Crown Estate would require the greatest receipt value for this site. Nevertheless the situation might change on both counts, and this could be a possible location for a new building for 29 Commando Regiment in the medium or long term.
Figure 164: Potential locations for new buildings
88
Alan Baxter
This is, of course, an initial options appraisal and would need to be developed further in consultation with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council. This is likely to involve: analysis of the floor areas that could fit within these locations to understand what could actually be accommodated; consideration of the place-making aspects of the location of a new building e.g. relationship with existing structures; further archaeological evaluation; analysis of the foundation options (see below); and cost-benefit analysis, with input from a Quantity Surveyor.
The Hoe Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan states that: New development will be expected to be of the highest quality design that respects and enhances the character of the Conservation Area. High quality contemporary architectural design will be encouraged. As outlined in chapter 2, this Conservation Area Appraisal and the PPS5 Practice Guide provide useful further guidance on the design of new buildings in historic areas. Scale, massing, building alignment and materials are key considerations. Given the considerable height of the ramparts and existing buildings there may be scope for buildings of more than a single storey in some locations, although the impact of development on the setting of historic buildings would need to be carefully considered using visualisations. The prevailing historic materials used at the Royal Citadel are Plymouth Limestone and slate roofs; however, there is a strong argument for lightweight buildings within the site: a) as archaeological mitigation (as discussed below), and b) to allow the site to be used with maximum flexibility in the future. Masonry buildings are inherently more permanent than buildings of a more lightweight construction. However, timber is a traditional material that could be used to good effect at the Citadel. Lightweight buildings can still be of high architectural quality.
The choice of architect strongly influences the quality and character of new buildings. Ideally an architect should be appointed who is experienced in designing buildings in historic contexts. There may also be potential to relax SLAM standards for new buildings in the Citadel. The requirement for an en-suite bathroom for each occupant would reduce the number of bedspaces that could fit into the site; in light of the considerable heritage constraints, it might be possible to relax this standard to accommodate more SLA on site.
Views
Chapter 3 identified forty views of and from the Royal Citadel. The Citadel still has the character of a 17th century fort, so most public views are of high blank walls, with buildings hidden behind. The best public view is of the main gate, or distant views of the Citadel from the waterfront to the west. Any new buildings would also be hidden behind the ramparts and would probably not be visible in views from outside the Citadel; the impact on public views is therefore a less sensitive conservation issue than at other historic sites, such as the Royal Marine Barracks at Stonehouse which is prominent in views from Millbay.
Design
The design of new buildings is critical and should respect the setting of the scheduled monument and listed buildings, as well as the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area. The ramparts and the historic buildings should remain dominant; new buildings should not overpower or compete with them. Given the historic and architectural significance of the site, it is important that new architecture is of a very high quality. The contribution of new buildings to place-making is another important consideration.
Figure 165: 1936 map showing large messing facility
Figure 166: Aerial view of Royal Citadel showing large pitched roof messing facility (the date of this photo is unknown but must be pre-1989 when the wall south of the MT area was constructed)
Alan Baxter
89
However, views from the ramparts into the site, and from ground level within the Citadel do need to be considered when planning new development and the impact on the setting of the scheduled monument and listed buildings. Views from the parade ground are most sensitive. English Heritages Seeing the History in the View describes a methodology for assessing the heritage significance of a view and the potential impact of new development on the view. This involves identifying scheduled monuments, listed buildings and other heritage assets that contribute to the view, as well as features that detract. These descriptions then form a baseline against which to assess the impact of proposed development on views of the Citadel. Such an assessment would most likely require the production of a Sketch Up model or photomontages from affected viewpoints to illustrate the potential impact of any proposed development on the setting of the Royal Citadel. The assessment would need to consider the visual impact of a proposed development on the appreciation and understanding of heritage assets in the view. There is potential to enhance the view if detracting features are removed or obscured, or if new views of historic landmarks are opened up. Variations in massing can be an effective means to reduce the apparent bulk of a building. The impact of development on the skyline is a key consideration, although there may be potential to add interest to the skyline with good architectural design.
Piled foundations Modern construction methods often use piled foundations. This is an invasive method that is generally not suitable in areas of high archaeological sensitivity. The piles are numerous and regular so are likely to damage archaeology; they affect the stratigraphy; and, because there is no excavation, no knowledge is gained from the destruction of the archaeology. Ground beams of the structure are often laid below ground, which is also potentially destructive. Piled foundations would be inappropriate anywhere within the scheduled area, but it may be possible to use them in the areas of medium and low archaeological significance in the MT area and TA centre. Pad foundations Pad foundations can be used in areas where there is sensitive archaeology. This involves creating a series of hard spots for concrete foundations, on top of which a transfer structure rests. This could support masonry walls for a building of at least 3 storeys (although the loading capacity of the foundations would require further investigation by a structural engineer to provide greater certainty about the potential building height).
Piled foundations
Padstone foundations
Archaeological constraints
As discussed in section 3.3, there is a good rate of survival of archaeology across the whole site. Virtually the whole site offers archaeological potential, and there are few areas where archaeology has been totally removed. The construction of any new buildings and the design of their foundations therefore needs careful consideration in order that significant archaeological remains are not lost. Several types of foundation might be considered:
Minimal below ground works eg for water supply and drainage
Concrete raft
Figure 168: Canterbury Education Centre was constructed on carefully designed piled foundations to minimise impact on significant archaeology
Figure 167: Indicative sketches showing impact of different foundations on below-ground archaeology
90
Alan Baxter
The hard spots would be created by:
excavating areas measuring c.1.5m by 1.5m to the bedrock; archaeology recorded as it is excavated; hole is infilled with concrete.
Although archaeology would be destroyed in these specific areas, it would be excavated, allowing preservation by record. The knowledge gained from this could not justify excavation itself but would be a factor to consider when weighing up the overall costs and benefits of a scheme. The hard spots could be relatively well-spaced; depending on site conditions they could be set out in a grid of c.7.5m by 7.5m, thereby limiting the damage to archaeology. Furthermore, an irregular grid could be designed to avoid significant or known archaeology, thereby substantially reducing the impact. If the ground beams of the structure are laid below-ground it can damage archaeology. Alternatively ground beams can be laid on the surface, although this creates issues with DDA access and may require the provision of ramps.
Typically, pad foundations will require the excavation of two to three times the area of piled foundations, depending on whether ground beams and pile caps are below or above ground level. The depth of the bedrock may means that excavated pad foundations would not be appropriate across the whole of the site; if the bedrock is too deep, say over 3m down, this method may be impractical. Existing bore hole records in the south-east corner of the Citadel indicate limestone bedrock at the following depths: 2.15m, 2.0m, 1.0m, 0.6m and 100mm; this suggests that hand-dug excavated foundations would be viable in this area (see Appendix 10). There would be potential to re-use these foundations in future should the requirements of 29 Commando change. It is important to consider the future flexibility of the site when planning new buildings. The no longer extant Palace of Westminster Ticket Office was an example of a small timber-framed building on pad foundations. We envisage that something much larger could be constructed at the Royal Citadel. Pad foundations might be appropriate for new buildings in the southeast corner of the Citadel.
Concrete raft The advantage of a concrete raft foundation is that it requires minimal ground excavation, so retains archaeology in situ. This solution involves creating a concrete raft that will help spread loads equally across the floor area. A lightweight framed structure would rest on the raft; a timber-framed structure is likely to be most appropriate. Dependent on the loading capacity of the ground, concrete raft foundations could support a two-storey building. This lightweight building could have a life expectancy as long as more conventional buildings, but, when or if removed, would leave no permanent footprint. The impact of drainage and water supply on archaeology would still need to be carefully considered. However, as this option requires least archaeological mitigation it is likely to be one of the less expensive solutions. Another advantage of this solution is that the building could be dismantled and re-erected elsewhere if necessary, which provides important flexibility in the future use and management of the site. Concrete raft foundations might be appropriate for new buildings in the south-east corner of the Citadel.
Ground beam located above-ground
Figure 170: The no longer extant Line of Route Pavilion, Palace of Westminster, was constructed on sensitively designed pad foundations with steel ground beams placed above ground level
Ground beam located below-ground
Figure 169: Indicative sketch showing the different impact on archaeology dependent on whether the ground beam is located below or above ground
Alan Baxter
Photo: Pringle Richards Sharratt
91
Re-use of existing foundations Another means to reduce the impact on below-ground archaeology is to re-use foundations of existing or demolished buildings. These are likely to be strip foundations, where narrow trenches were dug for concrete foundations to support load-bearing walls above. It may be possible to re-use the existing foundations as is, or to re-use the trench for new strip foundations. The majority of existing buildings on the site are currently well-used, but may offer redevelopment opportunities in the future. Given that there is a pressing need for new accommodation, the opportunity to re-use foundations of former buildings could be explored. However, in some cases the foundations of former buildings may be of archaeological interest themselves. For example, figure 132 shows the location of structures evident on the 1897 map, some of which may be sensitive. The foundations of more recent buildings are likely to be less sensitive and more appropriate for re-use.
footings. Further archaeological evaluation would be required to assess the extent to which foundations survive from this building and could be re-used. A bore hole log from this location (SX45SE/49, see Appendix 10) suggests that the made ground is very shallow here, only 100mm, before the limestone bedrock is reached, so potentially the mess did not require extensive foundations; this would require further investigation. The foundations and drainage associated with a smaller, older building, which first appears on the 1879 map, could potentially also be re-used. This was a wash house located directly south of the Great Store (building 118), approximately where the portacabins are now (buildings 113-116). Alternatively, it might be possible to re-use any surviving below-ground drainage and pipework associated with these buildings to service a building on concrete raft foundations. This not an exhaustive list of options; it would be sensible to undertake a comprehensive study to investigate the potential to reuse foundations of other demolished buildings on the site. In some instances, a mixture of foundation solutions could arise, if, for example, a possible site extended beyond the foundations of a demolished or existing building.
4.14 Ecology
Ecological interests on the Royal Citadel site are confined to welldefined areas where semi-natural habitats are found (see maps in Appendix 8 for locations). These are established on areas where human access is difficult (e.g. vegetated walls/cliffs), or where grounds maintenance has allowed their continuation (e.g. grassland and planted trees/shrubs). Any redevelopment on site is unlikely to directly affect these areas, including Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC. Loss of small areas of grassland would be acceptable, as none of the plant species that are present are of national significance. As a result the only significant issue in terms of ecology is the possible presence of nesting birds and/or bats in some buildings. Where existing buildings are to be refurbished and/or demolished there is therefore some potential for contravention of wildlife law. Impacts on nesting birds and bats therefore need to be mitigated, either by further survey work to establish presence/absence prior to any refurbishment or demolition work commencing, or by adopting best practice procedures to avoid the most sensitive times of year for the species involved. For all buildings identified for demolition or refurbishment, the following should therefore be undertaken:
As mentioned above, a large messing facility with an attached kitchen and boiler house was constructed in the south-east corner of the site, immediately south of the main barracks and west of the hospital between 1901 and 1936. Aerial photographs indicate that this was similar to a warehouse with a series of pitched roofs, and was probably single storey. Military staff members recall that this building was not demolished until the 1989-1992 refurbishment and that it had brick
Figure 171: The TA centre is an area of low archaeological significance so there is potential for new build here, although it is less secure than inside the ramparts
Figure 172:and Figure 173: The south east corner of the site will become underused when the casemates are located and it is wall hidden from the parade ground; however the foundations of a new building here would need to be carefully developed to mitigate the impact on the remains of the 16th century fort
92
Alan Baxter
Birds
All birds, their nests and eggs, are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and it is an offence, with certain exemptions, to: intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird; intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built; intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird; intentionally or recklessly, disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at (or near) a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. Before the start of the breeding season (1st March), potential access points into buildings that might be used by birds can be blocked. Care however needs to be taken to ensure possible access for bats is not obstructed. During the breeding season (1st of March to 31st of July) all affected buildings would need to be carefully watched for signs of nesting birds. If none were present, work could proceed without delay. If confirmed however, no further work in the affected area could take place until breeding had finished. Felling of trees that might also be used by breeding birds would also need to follow these guidelines. In this instance felling or removal work should be completed before the breeding season starts.
from maintenance staff) to determine if bats have ever been seen in the buildings. This survey work should be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity. These surveys may be adequate to determine whether or not bats are likely to be present. If there is any further doubt in relation to possible use however, it may also be necessary to carry out a number of evening activity surveys on site, as this provides the best chance of findings roost locations, as well as flight-lines to and from roosts. These should be undertaken between late April and early September though not necessarily for the whole of this season, as the results from the earlier surveys may provide enough evidence to determine levels of use fairly early on. If significant numbers of bats were found in any of the buildings then work may need to be carried out under the terms of a European Protected Species (EPS) licence. Natural England will only agree to an EPS licence once all planning issues have been resolved, so in the first instance the findings of the bat surveys, as well as suitable levels of mitigation, would need to be agreed with Plymouth City Council.
Bats
All bats and their roost sites are protected by law under the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act in England and Wales, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. There are also European directives and conventions related to bats that have been included in the British legislation and other laws that give incidental protection. Local planning guidelines (such as PPG 9) recognise the fact that some developments, if they were to go ahead, could adversely affect bats, and planning permissions may be subject to certain bat-related conditions. The laws mean that all bats are protected from being killed, injured, taken or disturbed and their roosting places are also protected from being damaged, destroyed or the entrances obstructed. All buildings identified for demolition or refurbishment should be carefully checked for signs of use by bats. All accessible voids within the buildings should be searched, and local knowledge obtained (e.g.
Alan Baxter
93
5.0 Policies and Management Action Points

The overarching aim of the conservation policies set out in this chapter is to protect the significance of the site (defined in chapter 3) whilst allowing reasonable change to allow its continued use. The policies respond to the issues and opportunities described in the previous chapter and are structured under the same subheadings; chapter 4 should be read as an explanation and justification of the policies below. Where appropriate, management action points describe how the policy should be implemented in the coming years. Potential Memorandum of Understanding: schedule of works allowed to Buildings 101, 111, 118 and 131 without Scheduled Monument Clearance Patch repairs to an agreed specification and limited by area e.g. repointing, stone repair, repair of window frames or window glazing. Extensive repairs would require Scheduled Monument Clearance. Draught-proofing windows
Guardianship and maintenance responsibility

Policy 3 Defence Estates and English Heritage should agree a Memorandum of Understanding to clarify their respective maintenance responsibilities for the Royal Citadel.
Management Action Points A programme for the production of the Memorandum of Understanding with regular meetings should be agreed as a first step. Defence Estates should respond to English Heritages draft Memorandum and any disagreements about maintenance responsibility resolved through discussion. Defence Estates should identify who has authority to sign the Memorandum of Understanding.
Tension between the use and conservation of the site

Policy 1 A balance should be struck between allowing change to maintain the operational effectiveness of 29 Commando Regiment and enabling their continued use of the Royal Citadel with the need to protect the significance of this historic site.
Roof repairs e.g. following storm damage, if historic slates reused where possible and others replaced like for like. Extensive reroofing would require Scheduled Monument Clearance. Redecoration e.g. painting internal walls, painting window frames, recarpeting, replacing lino, retiling bathrooms or kitchens. However, need to define which historic features must be preserved. Upgrading of bathroom and kitchen facilities e.g. replacing baths, showers, toilets, kitchen units, where reuse existing service ducts. Installation of roof insulation Replacement of modern fittings e.g. doors and removal or replacement of modern partitions. Replacement of existing building services to an agreed specification reusing existing service ducts e.g. electric and IT cabling, pipework, air ducts.
Building condition
Policy 4 Defence Estates and English Heritage should liaise on their maintenance plans to help ensure that all parts of the Royal Citadel are regularly inspected and maintained. Royal Armouries and 29 Commando Regiment should liaise on the inspection and maintenance of the guns and carriages. Historic buildings, structures and guns should be subject to a regime of regular cyclical inspection and maintenance. Quadrennial Inspection of the scheduled monument and listed buildings should continue, and its recommendations should be implemented. Repairs should follow conservation best practice, for instance using lime instead of cement for stonework repairs, rendering and repointing.
Consent Regimes
Policy 2 Where scheduled buildings are also statutorily listed and in use, steps should be taken to mitigate the more onerous requirements of Scheduled Monument Clearance.
Management Action Points Defence Estates should write to English Heritage/DCMS to request that buildings 101, 111, 118 and 131 are de-scheduled. Debut to develop a schedule of works that can be undertaken on buildings 101, 111, 118, 131 and the casemates without Scheduled Monument Clearance to form the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding. The schedule of works in the blue box is a starting point for this. Defence Estates, English Heritage and Plymouth City Council to agree this schedule of works and agree a standing clearance.
Policy 5
Policy 6
Policy 7
94
Alan Baxter
Policy 8
Consideration should be given to the use of more sympathetic colours for external paintwork in future maintenance programmes, such as the original colours (discussed in section 3.1) for the historic buildings, and the colour used on building 166 for buildings 160-162. Proposals for new interventions, such as external lighting or signage, should be developed through discussions with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council.
Where new or replacement security cameras are proposed, the impact on historic buildings and walls should considered in the design. If the Marine Biological Laboratories are redeveloped, the MoD should lobby the owner to consider the security of the Citadel in the design of the new building. Procedure for Blue Badge tours at the Royal Citadel should enhance security and minimise health and safety risks.
Policy 14 Parking should be limited on site to encourage the use of low carbon modes of transport; however, this should be balanced with the need to maintain operational effectiveness of 29 Commando Regiment. Management Action Points A study should be commissioned to assess the need for parking across the site and the potential for reduction.
Policy 9
Policy 11
Management Action Points Maintenance responsibilities agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding (Policy 3) should be reflected in reports on Quadrennial Inspections, maintenance registers and forward plans. 29 Cdo Rgt RA should liaise with Royal Armouries to agree a regular regime of maintenance for the guns and carriages. Gutters should be regularly inspected and unblocked where necessary. Plants growing in historic walls should be removed. Recommendations from the Quadrennial Inspections should be incorporated into a maintenance register and implemented through a forward plan. The requirement to adhere to conservation best practice should be included in the brief for repair and refurbishment work. Conservation specialists with experience of using lime mortar should be used to undertake repairs to historic buildings.
Management Action Points English Heritage (Estates) and Defence Estates should review the security and health and safety procedures for the Blue Badge Tours with the guides. For example there is an opportunity to: - provide the Guard Room with a list of names and contact details of visitors; - introduce bag checks; - prohibit visitors from bringing rucksacks and large bags onto the site (but allow handbags); - limit the number of visitors in each group. The results of this review should be communicated to the guides, perhaps via workshops and incorporated into a guide handbook. The results of this review should be communicated to members of the public, for example via the sign on Lambhay Hill, tourist information office and the internet.
Standard of Accommodation
Policy 15
Management Action Points Modernisation of accommodation scoring less than 2 in the SLAM assessment should be considered. Estate Management/Debut should discuss the potential to relax standards with SLAM project managers, where they would damage the significance of the buildings or reduce the number of bedspaces within the site.
Access
Policy 16 DDA access should be improved to historic buildings where needed, but this should be balanced with the need to protect their significance.
Security and counter terrorism measures

Policy 10 Security and counter terrorism measures should be applied pragmatically and with careful thought to the Royal Citadel to minimise impact to its significance.
Movement and parking

Policy 12 The issue with access for large vehicles to the upper part of the site should be mitigated without damaging the significance of the site.
Management Action Points An Access Plan should be developed responding to the recommendations set out in the Access Audit. The Access Plan should be reviewed in light of the potential impact on the historic fabric of the buildings, and alterations should be agreed with English Heritage and the conservation officer at Plymouth City Council.
Management Action Points The thickness of the ramparts should be considered when applying Construction Standards for MoD buildings subject to terrorist threat, and these standards relaxed as far as possible in the architects brief for new buildings. The potential to create new vehicular entrances through historic sallyports should be investigated for use in emergencies.
Management Action Points The potential to relocate stores and the magazine in the MT area should be investigated. The range of the fire hydrant should be improved in the upper part of the site. Parking in the parade ground should continue to be limited to preserve appreciation of the listed and scheduled buildings.
Policy 13
Alan Baxter
95
The standard of living accommodation should be improved, but this should be both considered in balance with the overall operational effectiveness of 29 Commando Regiment, and should preserve or enhance the significance of the site.
Adaptation of historic buildings

Policy 17 Listed building consent/ Scheduled Monument Clearance should be sought for alterations to listed buildings/ the scheduled monument, and designs should be developed through pre-application discussions with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council. Heritage impact assessments should be conducted for proposals to adapt historic buildings and submitted with the application for listed building consent/ Scheduled Monument Clearance. Surviving historic interiors are sensitive to adaptation and important historic features should be protected and carefully incorporated into the design. Where historic features, fixtures, fittings and decoration have been lost there is greater scope for the adaptation of historic buildings, although alterations should still respect the historic character and proportions of spaces. Internal adaptation of buildings identified as neutral or detracting is not a conservation issue, although extensions or alterations to the exterior should respect the setting of the scheduled monument, listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area.
Policy 26
External insulation of walls is unlikely to be suitable on listed buildings or on unlisted buildings constructed from unrendered stone. There is a presumption in favour of the retention of historic windows. However, there may be potential to design replicas to improve sustainability and meet counter terrorism standards. Where possible, material from demolished buildings should be reused in new buildings on the site. The installation of renewable energy generation equipment should respect the setting of listed buildings and the scheduled monument and the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area.
Policy 33
Policy 27
Where significant buildings are to be demolished they should be appropriately recorded; the level of recording should be agreed with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council. Demolition of neutral buildings can be justified where the design of the replacement building would enhance the setting of the scheduled monument, listed buildings or the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area. Demolition of buildings that detract from the site is encouraged, especially where the design of the replacement building would enhance the setting of the scheduled monument, listed buildings or the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area.
Policy 34
Policy 18
Policy 28
Policy 19
Policy 29
Policy 35
Policy 20
See also Policy 12 on the reduction of parking. Management Action Points Policies 20-25 should be considered when planning refurbishment of historic buildings. Policies 26-27 should be considered when designing and constructing new buildings.
The potential for new build

Policy 36 Designs for new buildings should be developed through pre-application discussions with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council. Foundations, drainage and water supply for new buildings should be designed to limit impact on significant archaeology. The location, layout and alignment of new buildings should respect the setting of the scheduled monument and listed buildings within the Citadel. The design of new buildings should respect the setting of the scheduled monument and listed buildings within the Citadel, and the character and appearance of the Hoe Conservation Area; scale, massing, materials, detailing and contribution to place-making are key considerations. High quality architectural design is to be encouraged. New buildings should be designed with consideration to the impact on views. (See also policies 42-45) Appropriately qualified architects (i.e. with experience of designing buildings in historic contexts) should be appointed to design new buildings once the conceptual approach is agreed.
Policy 21
Policy 37
Archaeology
Policy 30 The archaeological potential of sites for new buildings, landscaping or earth moving should be considered at the initial stage of development proposals, and measures taken to ensure that appropriate mitigation is built into detailed designs and construction programmes.
Policy 38
Sustainability
Policy 22 The need to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings is important but should be balanced with the need to protect their significance. Low intervention measures to reduce energy consumption should be implemented first before more damaging measures are considered. The energy efficiency of buildings should be maximised before renewable energy generation is considered. Historic buildings should not be insulated with impervious materials and should include a permeable membrane that allows the passage of water but not heat. Design of internal insulation of walls in historic buildings should consider the proportions of the spaces and impact on historic features, which may preclude it.
Policy 39
Policy 23
Demolition
Policy 31 There is a presumption in favour of the retention of significant buildings. Demolition of listed buildings and buildings that make a positive contribution to the Hoe Conservation Area is only likely to be acceptable in exceptional circumstances, for example where the public benefit outweighs the loss of heritage value, and would need to be justified in terms of the criteria set out in PPS5. Policy 40 Policy 41
Policy 24
Policy 32
Policy 42
Policy 25
96
Alan Baxter
Policy 43
New buildings should be flexible to adapt to the changing requirements of 29 Commando Regiment and the site.
Policy 47
See also Policy 30 on archaeology and Policies 44-47 on views. Management Action Points The initial options appraisal should be developed with: - further archaeological evaluation; - analysis of floor areas that could be achieved within the potential locations identified for new build; - further structural analysis of the foundation options and loading capacity; - cost-benefit analysis with input from a Quantity Surveyor; - consideration of place-making; and - in consultation with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council. Estate Management/Debut should discuss the potential to relax standards with SLAM project managers to allow a greater number of bedspaces to be accommodated within the site. Policies 36-43 should be included in the architects brief for new build. The internal steering group should use these policies to judge designs for new buildings before signing them off. Policy 50
Bulky buildings should be avoided where they will appear on the skyline of views; however, variations in massing and a careful design of the profile of buildings in these views can mitigate this and add visual interest to the skyline.
Development proposals
Policy 51 Development in any of significant habitat areas identified in chapter 3 would require further ecological surveys and/or mitigation. Development proposals should be submitted to Natural England and the Environment Agency for approval to consider potential indirect impacts on the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC, such as an accidental pollution event.
Policy 52 Management Action Points Consideration of views should be included in the architects brief for new build. A views analysis should be commissioned to consider the impact of any proposed developments on the 40 views identified in chapter 3. This is likely to require use of a sketch up model or photomontages.
Ecological enhancements
Ecology
Surveys
Policy 48 Surveys should be conducted to establish the presence of nesting birds and bats in historic buildings and to inform refurbishment and demolition proposals for buildings. Felling of trees and removal of vegetation should not take place during the bird nesting season (1 March 31 July). If bats are discovered then alterations to buildings where they are roosting should be carried out under the terms of a European Protected Species Licence and agreed with Natural England and Plymouth City Council.
Management Action Points The provision of bird and/or bat boxes in scrub/woodland/cliff areas should be considered. Allowing some areas of grassland to remain uncut during summer months should be considered. Provision of features to allow access to bats and/or birds (such as swifts, swallows and house martins) within some new buildings on the site should be considered and if appropriate included in the architects brief.
Policy 49
Views
Policy 44 English Heritages Seeing the History in the View should be used to assess the heritage significance of views and the potential impact of new development on them; this should consider the impact on the viewers ability to understand and appreciate heritage assets in the view. The impact on the views identified in chapter 3 should be assessed, as well as views from the parade ground and any other views identified in consultation with English Heritage and Plymouth City Council. Views can be enhanced where detracting features are removed or obscured and if new views of historic landmarks are opened up.
Conservation Management Plan

Policy 54 This Conservation Management Plan should be endorsed by English Heritage and Plymouth City Council and formally adopted by Defence Estates. The Conservation Management Plan should be reviewed and updated at 5 yearly intervals.
Management Action Points Before the bird breeding season begins (1 March) potential access points into buildings proposed for demolition should be blocked while leaving space for access of bats. During the breeding season (1 March 31 July) buildings should be watched for signs of nesting birds. If there are nesting birds then construction work cannot proceed until breeding has finished. Buildings should be searched for signs of bats, including all accessible voids and by consulting local knowledge e.g. maintenance staff. Between late April and early September an evening bat survey should be conducted to establish whether there are any roosts on the site and the location of flight lines.
Policy 55
Policy 45
Policy 46
Alan Baxter
97
Policy 53
The potential for limited ecological enhancements should be considered, but balanced with the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the 29 Commando Regiment.
6.0 Conclusion
According to its list description the Royal Citadel is: the most outstanding example of a C17 fort in Britain; it was designed by Sir Bernard de Gomme, the most important figure of British military engineering of his era. It incorporates the remains of a 16th century bastion fort, which although common in northern Italy, are very rare in England. It also contains high quality 17th, 18th and 19th century military architecture. But the site is more than an historical monument: it is still in active use as a military base, the use for which it was originally intended. It is the headquarters of 29 Commando Regiment of the Royal Artillery, and has become integral to their identity. Forging a sense of group identity is particularly important in the armed forces, and this sense of identity can become very strong under the challenging and extreme circumstances commandos often find themselves in. The buildings and spaces between them have therefore become imbued with additional meaning, an emotive quality, bound up with the identity of the Royal Artillery and its historic role in defending the United Kingdom and promoting its interests overseas. So despite that fact that the site is heavily constrained and not ideally suited to the needs of 29 Commando in the 21st century, there is an overriding desire to stay. Furthermore the communal significance of the place would be much diminished, if not entirely lost, should the MoD leave, because the pattern of continuous military use would be broken. However, Defence Estates has a duty to protect the historic fabric of the place, as an important component of national heritage, and also to pass onto future generations of 29 Commando Regiment. The aim of this Conservation Management Plan is therefore to strike a balance between allowing reasonable change to the historic site to allow 29 Commando Regiment to operate effectively and continue to remain at the site, with the need to protect its significance. The most immediate concern is to establish whether 100 new spaces, a new magazine, storage facility and medical centre can be accommodated on site, and the discussion of the issues surrounding this in chapter 4 and the policies outlined in chapter 5 should help guide this. The Plan will also help with the ongoing management of this special place, in response to the changing needs of 29 Commando Regiment in the future.
6.0 Conclusion
98
Alan Baxter
Appendices
Alan Baxter
99
Appendices
Appendix 1 Large-Scale Historic Plans
Appendix 1 - Large-Scale Historic Plans
Figure App1.171: (Figure 43) The 16th century fort depicted in 1596 showing the sea and landward walls and the main gate (top right), together with the lower fort to the south. PRO MPF 262 (SP 12/262)
100
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.172: (Figure 44) A plan of 1665 by Sir Bernard de Gomme showing the 16th century fort and the lower fort to the south. BL.Add.MS. 16370. f.43
Alan Baxter
101
Figure App1.173: (Figure 45) The projected outline of the 16th century fort (in blue) from Exeter Museums Archaeological Field Unit (now Exeter Archaeology) Report No. 94.81, 1994.
102
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.174: (Figure 54) De Gommes first plan of the Citadel, 1665. BL.Add.MS.16370. f.43
Alan Baxter
103
Figure App1.175: (Figure 65) De Gommes plan of 1666-67, incorporating the Citadel with the fort. NMM. P/45
104
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.176: (Figure 66) De Gommes last plan, 1672, showing a panorama of Plymouth. NMM. P/45
Alan Baxter
105
Figure App1.177: (Figure 67) A 1677 plan, not by de Gomme. This shows 2 and 3-storey accommodation blocks and a small chapel: this was massively enlarged in the 1840s
106
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.178: (Figure 72) Lillys plan of the Citadel in 1715, and the key to the uses of the buildings. Kings MS 45, f. 33 (1715)
Alan Baxter
107
Figure App1.179: (Figure 74) 1778 (1780) A Plan of the Town and Citadel of Plymouth. Surveyed by Richard Cowl (PM B/PLY/1780/COW) (original in British Library, BL K. Top 11 83; Stuart 1991, No.161).
108
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.180: (Figure 75) A plan of 1811 showing strengthened defences. PRO, MPH 1 233 2
Alan Baxter
109
Figure App1.181: (Figure 76) A plan dated 1741, which shows that the majority of buildings projected by de Gomme were actually built, even though their dates of erection are uncertain.
110
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.182: (Figure 78) An 1811 plan, PRO MPHH 1 677 9. This has north at the top. It includes a Sutlers House, a sutler was a civilian selling provisions to the military.
Alan Baxter
111
Figure App1.183: (Figure 83) A plan of 1830 shows the victualling establishment which was to move to the purpose-built Royal William Yard in the following year. PRO MFQ 1 241 2
112
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.184: (Figure 84) Gardens inserted in the ditch for the use of senior officers and the chaplain shown in 1831. PRO WO 55 802
Alan Baxter
113
Figure App1.185: (Figure 85) Casemates adapted as an armourers store and foul bedding store. PRO WO 55 805
114
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.186: (Figure 86) An 1830 plan showing the cells. PRO WO 55 802
Alan Baxter
115
Figure App1.187: (Figure 87) A proposed Fives Court for officers in Prince of Wales Bastion in 1840. PRO WO 55 804
116
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.188: (Figure 88) Proposed wash rooms in 1844. PRO WO 55 805
Alan Baxter
117
Figure App1.189: (Figure 90) A plan of 1844, probably produced in connection with locating new Officers stables. PRO WO 55 805
118
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.190: (Figure 91) A plan of 1844 shows the new additions of a Chaplains house and the conversion of the Great Store into barracks. PRO WO 55 805
Alan Baxter
119
Figure App1.191: (Figure 93) An 1846 plan numbering the casemates. This accompanied a list showing their present and proposed uses. PRO WO 55 806
120
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.192: (Figure 94) An important 1847 plan showing the installation of guns and location of ammunition and equipment. PRO WO 44 314
Alan Baxter
121
Figure App1.193: (Figure 97) An 1879 plan of the Citadel. PRO OS WO 78 3045
122
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.194: (Figure 101) A plan of 1901 showing the impact of the 1890 Barrack Act on the Citadel. PRO WO 78 2976
Alan Baxter
123
Figure App1.195: (Figure 111) A very detailed plan of 1936, English Heritage/NMR MD95 00923
124
Alan Baxter
Figure App1.196: (Figure 114) Block plans of 1966 showing the Citadel as existing and as proposed. Had all the work been carried out several of the historic buildings would have been demolished: the 18th century hospital, the 19th century sergeants quarters, mess and canteen and the adult school. PRO 1127 157, 158.
Alan Baxter
125
Appendix 2 Glossary of Acronyms

AAP BRE BREEAM CO CWS Area Action Plan Building Research Establishment Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method Commanding Officer Country Wildlife Site Devon Biodiveristy Records Centre Department for Culture Media and Sport Disability Discrimination Act Development Plan Document Defence Related Environmental Assessment Method European Protected Species Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects Government Historic Estates Unit Historic Environment Record Headquarters Junior Non Commissioned Officer Junior Ranks Local Development Framework Ministry of Defence Motorised Transport Navy, Army and Air Force Institute Non Commissioned Officer National Grid Reference Ordnance Survey PAU PCC PPG15 PPG16 PPS5 RA RHQ RSS SAC SLA SLAM SMR SNCO SSSA SSSI TA UAD WW1 WW2 Portable Accomodation Unit Plymouth City Council Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Historic Environment) Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (Archaeology) Planning Policy Statement 5 Royal Artillery Regimental Headquarters Regional Spatial Strategy Special Area of Conservation Single Living Accomodation Single Living Accomodation Modernisation Sites and Monuments Record Senior Non Commissioned Officer Substitute Service Single Accomodation Site of Special Scientific Interest Territorial Army Urban Archaeological Database World War One World War Two
Appendix 2 - Glossary of Acronymns
DBRC DCMS DDA DPD DREAM EPS FRIBA GHEU HER HQ JNCO JR LDF MoD MT NAAFI NCO NGR OS
126
Alan Baxter
Appendix 3 Sources
Published Sources
Aaronson, J., draft report 2008, Archaeological watching brief during works behind Building 118, Royal Citadel, Hoe Road, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Project 6528 Aaronson, J. & Jones, P., 2009, Archaeological monitoring during IT refurbishment at the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, 2008, Exeter Archaeology Report 09.67 Barber, J., 1979, New light on old Plymouth, Proc. Plymouth Athenaeum 4, 5566 Bayer, O. J., 1998, Archaeological observation and recording at the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, November 1997 (Phase 4), Exeter Archaeology Report 98.26 Bidwell, P. T., 1986, Roman pottery and tiles, in Gaskell-Brown (ed.) 1986, 13 Bishop, P. & Gibbons, P., 1994, Archaeological Survey of Casemates 201216, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, EMAFU Report 94.25 Bishop, P., Hambly, J., Pye, A. & Watts, M., 1995, Archaeological recording of casemates 217233 and construction of new vehicle washdown facility at the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 95.28 Blackmore, S. E., 2002, Archaeological recording during repairs and repointing of King Charles Bastion, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 02.61 Blackmore, S. E., draft report 2003, Archaeological recording prior to repair to the drawbridge mechanism at the Main Gate, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Project 4810 Bracken, C. W., 1931, A History of Plymouth Brown T., 1955, Rock carved figures of Gog and Magog, Rep. Trans Devonshire Ass. 87, 7074 Chamberlain, A. T. & Ray, K., 1994, A Catalogue of Quaternary Fossilbearing Cave Sites in the Plymouth Area, Plymouth Archaeology Occasional Publication 1 Cherry, B. & Pevsner, N., 1989, The Buildings of England: Devon Copeland, G.W., The Royal Citadel Plymouth, published for the Old Plymouth Society (n.d.) Defoe, Daniel, 1927, A Tour through England & Wales, Vol. I Dyer, M.J., 1997, Archaeological observation and recording at the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, 1997, Exeter Archaeology Report 97.40 Exeter Archaeology, 2006, Archaeological recording during gas main replacement at Hoe Road, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 06.59 Gaskell-Brown, C., 1986, Plymouth excavations, the Medieval Waterfront, Woolster Street: the finds Gill, C., 1993, Plymouth: a new history Gill, C., 1997, Sutton Harbour Harvey, Sgt. Phil, 2009, The Royal Citadel: Home of 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery Hoskins, W.G., 1972, A New Survey of England: Devon IGS Institute of Geological Sciences, 1977, Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) 1:50000 Drift Sheet 348 (Plymouth) Jones, P., 2009, Archaeological recording during installation of CCTV at the Royal Citadel, Hoe Road, Plymouth, 2007, Exeter Archaeology Report 09.68 Morris, C., 1947, The Journeys of Celia Fiennes 1:2500 Plan SX4817/8 5390(?) 1895, rev. 1892-3 1:2500 Plan SX4753, 1970 1:2500 Plan SX4854, 1951 1:2500 Plan SX4853, 1952 Parker, R.W., 2002, Archaeological recording at the Governors Range (Building No. 131), the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 02.66 Passmore, A.J., 2001, Archaeological recording during repairs and repointing of Prince Georges Curtain Wall, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 01.54 PCC Plymouth City Council, April 2009, The Hoe Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2008 (Adopted) Pye, A. R., 1995, Archaeological assessment of three proposed grease traps at the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 95.64 Pye, A. R., Rance, C., Stead, P. M. & Watts, M., 1994, Archaeological assessment and field evaluation of the Elizabethan fort, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 94.81 Pye, A. & Woodward, F., 1996, The Historic Defences of Plymouth Reed, S. J., 1997, Archaeological evaluation of proposed resurfacing works at the Main Gate, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 97.67 Saunders, A., 2004, Fortress Builder: Bernard de Gomme, Charles IIs Military Engineer Saunders, A., 1989, Fortress Britain Stead, P. M., 1997, Archaeological Observation and Recording at the Royal Citadel, Plymouth, 1996, Exeter Archaeology Report 97.08 Stuart, E., 1991, Lost Landscapes of Plymouth: Maps, Charts and Plans to 1800
OS Ordnance Survey
1:500 Sheet 82, n.d. c.1856 (PWDRO) 1:500 Sheet 94, 18556 (PWDRO) 1:500 Sheet 123.12.8 and 123.12.13, 1894, surveyed 1893 (PWDRO) 1:1250 Plan SX4853NW, 1966 1:1250 Plan SX4854SW, 1975
Alan Baxter
127
Appendix 3 - Sources
Watts, M. A.. 1997a, An archaeological assessment of proposed resurfacing works at the Main Gate, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 97.63 Watts, M. A., 1997b, Royal Citadel Governors House (observations during roof timber replacement), Exeter Archaeology Project 3239 Watts, M. A., 1998, Archaeological recording during reduction, resurfacing and repairs at the Main Gate, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 98.83 Watts, M. A. & Blackmore, S. E., 1999a, Archaeological recording during repairs and repointing of Prince of Wales bastion, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 99.53 Watts, M. A. & Blackmore, S. E., 1999b, Archaeological recording during repairs and repointing of Prince of Wales curtain wall (west), Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 99.79 Watts, M. A. & Blackmore, S. E., 2000, Archaeological recording during repairs and repointing of Prince Georges bastion, Royal Citadel, Plymouth, Exeter Archaeology Report 00.19 Whitfield, H. F., 1900, Plymouth and Devonport: in times of War and Peace Woodward, F. W., 1987, Citadel. A History of the Royal Citadel, Plymouth Woodward, F. W., 1990, Plymouths Defences Worth, R. N., 1890, History of Plymouth A Short History of the Royal Citadel (n.d.)
Kings MS.45.fol.38 (1716) A Particular plan of part of the Royall Citadel of Plymouth by C. Lilly
WCSL Westcountry Studies Library

1778 (1780) A Plan of the Town and Citadel of Plymouth. Surveyed by Richard Cowl (PM B/PLY/1780/COW) (original in British Library, BL K. Top 11 83; Stuart 1991, No.161)
Exeter Archaeology Archives

Various projects
NMM National Maritime Museum

P/45 (1666/7 and 1672) Plans of Citadel and part of the town of Plymouth by Bernard de Gomme
National Archives
Documents and plans generated by the Board of Ordnance form an extensive body of primary sources which was terminated by the abolition of the Board in 1855 WO 55/798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 804, 805, 806 and 2331; WO 32/11041, WO 33/7; WO 44/308, 554 and 569; WO 78/2976 and 3045; MPH 1/233/2, MFQ 1/241/2, MPHH 1/223, MPHH 1/61 and MPHH 1/677
Appendix 3 - Sources
NMR/EH National Monuments Record/English Heritage

MD95/00923 (1936) Plymouth Royal Citadel Skeleton Record Plan
Plymouth and West Devon Record Office

Modern plans, mostly derived from the office collection of Bazely and Barbary 11271, 2, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 53, 157, 158 and 160
Unpublished Sources
BL British Library
Cott. MS Aug. I i 3536, 3839 (c.1539) Harbour chart Add MS 16370 f.43 (1665) Plan of Plymouth Harbour and new citadel by Sir Bernard de Gomme (Stuart 1991, No.26) Add MS 16371 D (1668) Plan of the Royal Citadel of Plymouth by Sir Bernard de Gomme (Stuart 1991, No.29) Add MS 5415 E2 (1677) Plan of the Citadel and part of the town (untitled) by JR (Stuart 1991, No. 41) Kings MS 45, f. 33 (1715) A Plan of the Royall Citadell of Plymouth (Stuart 1991, No. 83)
TNA The National Archives

SP 12/245 f. 31 (1593) Plan of fort on the Hoe (Stuart 1991, No.12) SP 12/262 (1596) Plan of Plymouth Fort (Stuart 1991, No.14) MR 902 (2) (1725) A Plan of the Town, Citadel and Harbour of Plymouth MPH 1/728 late C18 (?1741) Plan of the Citadel, Plymouth, by Robert Madgett (Stuart 1991, No. 96) MPHH 1/61 (?post 1794) Plan of the Citadel (Stuart 1991, No.197) WO 78/3045 (1879) Barrack Atlas plan, Citadel, Plymouth WO 78/2976 (1901) Special Ordnance Survey Plan of Citadel, Plymouth
128
Alan Baxter
Appendix 4 Scheduled Monument and List Descriptions

This appendix includes the official list descriptions and scheduled monument description produced by EH/DCMS when the assets were designated.
Scheduled Monument Description

MONUMENT NUMBER 26245 NAME THE ROYAL CITADEL MID 17TH CENTURY BASTIONED ARTILLERY DEFENCE, INCORPORATING LATE 16TH CENTURY ARTILLERY FORT AND 18TH CENTURY STATUE, ON THE HOE MONUMENT DESCRIPTION The monument includes a late 16th century artillery fort, superseded by and partially incorporated into a mid 17th century bastioned artillery defence, called the Citadel, with associated outworks. The monument also includes a series of alterations and additions made to the Citadel during subsequent centuries, and a statue of George II erected in 1728. The monument is situated on the eastern part of Plymouth Hoe, a limestone cliff overlooking the strategically important entrance to the Cattewater in Plymouth Sound on the south west coast of Devon. Historical sources provide the context for the construction of the late 16th century artillery fort between 1592-1598 in response to a perceived threat of attack by sea from the Spanish. Although the Armada had been defeated in 1588, fears that Spain would attempt to invade England again led to a strengthening of English defences. The construction of the fort at Plymouth was part of these works. Situated at the east end of the Hoe, it protected the entrance to the important sheltered anchorage of the Cattewater and the harbour in Sutton Pool. Contemporary plans show this fort consisted of two parts: a roughly triangular fort with two bastions pointing to the north and west to defend against landward attack from the Hoe, and the lower fort containing the main armament in ramparts of earth and stone, called bulwarks, along the shore. The stone walls of this fort were about 4m high, and 1.4m thick at the base, accompanied by an outer ditch 6m wide. Guns were mounted on timber staging on earth platforms. The main fort contained the captains lodgings, barracks, a storehouse, stables, guardhouse, powderhouse and the medieval Chapel of St. Katherine on the Hoe, an important landmark for shipping. Parts of this fort have been revealed by partial excavation.
The mid 17th century Citadel was constructed between 1665-1675 in response to another perceived threat of war, this time with the Dutch, rivals for overseas trade with the colonies. Charles II wished to secure Plymouth as a naval base, whose town and hinterland was large enough to victual a large number of ships, and which had a large sheltered anchorage. The Citadel was situated at the east of the Hoe on the site of the late 16th century fortress, retaining the earlier lower fort at its south east end. Designed by Sir Bernard de Gomme, the Kings Engineer General, the original plan had been for a regular five bastioned fort to the west of the Elizabethan fort, but was adapted to incorporate as much as possible of the earlier fort and to maintain defence of the Cattewater while it was being built. The resulting Citadel was constructed as a six bastioned walled fortification. The wall was backed by an earth rampart. Beyond the wall was a broad flat-bottomed ditch except on the south east side where it was adjoined by the lower fort. The surface against the outer side of the ditch was levelled to create a covered way, protected by a raised outer lip from which a long outer slope, called a glacis, descended to the surrounding ground surface. Within the ditch, a triangular outwork, called a ravelin, protected the main entrance to the north; the covered way outside the ditch was enlarged on the east and west to create two assembly points for troops, called place darmes. Beyond this monument, a small rock cut harbour was constructed to the south of the lower fort to supply ships under cover of the Citadel.
The walls of the Citadel enclose an area approximately 280m eastwest by 270m north-south, and survive as an almost complete circuit meeting either side of the northern main entrance. The walls are constructed of limestone quarried from the ditch supplemented by limestone from the two nearby quarries of Lambhay and Tinside. Dartmoor granite was used for the quoins on the corners of the bastions, for the sides of the gun ports, called embrasures, and for the cordon, a rounded horizontal moulding running around the exterior face of the Citadel just below the embrasures. There were also granite corbels or moulded supports for sentry boxes close to the top of the bastions, one of which survives on the north east point of Prince of Wales Bastion. Originally there were stone sentry boxes on the top of the walls at various points around the Citadel. The only portion of wall which has not survived to its original height is along Prince of Wales Curtain where it was lowered in the 1890s. The walls are capped with turf, except between Baths Bastion and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion where it is capped with asphalt above the later casemates. The walls form six bastions and one demi-bastion linked by sections of curtain wall; of these only Prince Georges Bastion to the north west and King Charles Bastion to the south west are of regular design. Prince of Wales Bastion to the north east is truncated because of the steep slope of the ground to the east. Baths Bastion is extended to link with the line of the earlier fort. The curtain wall from Prince Edwards Bastion towards Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion also links with or possibly follows the line of the earlier fort. The other bastion and the demi-bastion follow the line of the earlier fort. There are several large water tanks, now disused, within Prince Georges and King Charles Curtain walls. Originally there were probably five entrance ways, called sallyports, through the walls. The sallyports have granite doorways or lintels, decorated in each corner above their arched entrance. One sallyport is in the west wall facing the Hoe with a plain arched entrance; another to the south west has a later doorway; one faces south into the lower fort, now facing the Queens Battery, and another faces south east to Pipers Platform. There was probably a sallyport facing north east before the Prince of Wales Curtain was taken down. The Queens Battery is a tenaille, a low wall enclosing the
Alan Baxter
129
Appendix 4 - Scheduled Monument and List Descriptions
The late 16th century artillery fort was partially incorporated into the mid 17th century Citadel. Although much of the walling around the main area of the earlier fort was demolished as the Citadel was constructed, the lower fort, at the south eastern end of the main 16th century fort was retained. Within the Citadel, the south curtain wall from and including the Cumberland Battery to Prince Henrys DemiBastion follows the line of the dividing wall between the 16th century main fort and its lower fort. The Citadels curtain wall between Prince Edwards Bastion and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion may also preserve the line of the earlier main forts east wall. The base of the point of Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion and the sides of Pipers Platform contain some original 16th century stonework and the wall running south east from Pipers Platform towards Fishers Nose continues the line of the 16th century lower fort wall. Beyond this monument, further walling of the 16th century lower fort is likely to survive along the coastal margin by the blockhouse at Fishers Nose.
By the end of 1667 most of the defensive works had been completed, as had the impressive main gateway, though the interior still required the completion of the ramparts and construction of the buildings needed to house the garrison. Work finished on the Citadel in 1675.
area between Cumberland Battery and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion in front of the curtain wall, it was constructed to provide extra cover for the curtain wall above the lower fort and also gave access to the lower fort. The ramparts were constructed of earth and stone immediately behind the inner face of the walls and provided platforms for the guns for the defence of the Citadel. The ramparts survive as steep turfed banks and are approximately 8m to 12m thick and 4m to 5m high. Gently sloping inclines or paths up the ramparts inner faces provided access for the guns and gun carriages; these are now tarmacked but were originally cobbled, as survives in a small area on one incline. Four inclines survive in all: to the west of the main entrance, to King Charles Bastion, to Baths Bastion and to Prince Edwards Bastion. Originally there was an incline east of the main entrance and two more between King Charles Bastion and Prince Georges Bastion. The north side of the incline to Prince Edwards Bastion forms three wide shallow steps. On the ramparts, the gun ports, called embrasures, are backed by granite paved gun platforms, a rectangular area paved with large granite blocks, on which a gun on its carriage would stand. There were embrasures around King Charles Bastion to the south west, Prince Georges Bastion to the north west, Prince Edwards Bastion to the south east and Prince of Wales Bastion to the north east, and along the west curtain. On the wall facing the ramparts between Cumberland Battery and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion is a rectangular stone plaque which was probably a name plate for the battery or curtain wall. On King Charles Bastion four traversing guns were positioned, their metal racers surviving. Similar racers for another traversing gun survive on Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion. Both Baths Bastion and Queens Battery have grooves in the granite where the racers for a traversing gun have been. The full length of Cumberland Battery is paved with granite forming interlocking wedge shapes, reflecting its use also as a saluting battery. The positions of former merlons (the solid part of a parapet, between two embrasures) can be seen where the parapet has been made good upon their removal. The brick sills of the former embrasures remain, well weathered, each opposite the earlier phase of wedge shaped granite platforms. Remains of paved gun platforms also survive on the Queens Battery. There are four surviving magazine stores on the inner edge of the ramparts, a short length of high wall against which ammunition may have been stored. However the lengths of these walls and the fixing positions for lean to roofs and racking suggest that these may have been side-arms sheds, or stores for ramrods, sponges, traversing staves and ropes. The one along Prince Edwards Bastion is wider than the other three, which are between Prince Georges Bastion and King Charles Bastion. The only section of the ramparts which has been
removed, during the 1890s, is along Prince of Wales Bastion and Curtain wall. The ramparts between Baths Bastion and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion were not completed in 1665-1670, when only some masonry arches and piers were built. The main entrance to the Citadel is in the north wall. It was designed by Sir Thomas Fitch or Fitz, an associate of Sir Christopher Wren. Flanking the arch are paired Ionic pilasters with carved motifs between them. The keystone is adorned with the coat of arms of John Grenville, Earl of Bath. Above the arch is a large niche which probably displayed a statue of Charles II until the early 19th century, when it appears to have fallen and never been replaced; the niche now contains a small pile of four cast-iron spherical mortar bombs. Above the niche is the date 1670 and to either side, a Corinthian column and carved motifs of trophies of arms. The pediment bears the royal coat of arms in relief. Between the large niche and the royal arms is a rectangular stone tablet inscribed Carolus secundus dei gratia magnae brittaniae franciae et hiberniae. Originally a guardroom occupied the floor over the arch, later taken down, leaving the decoration above the arch fronting a facade. The interior face of the entrance displays the royal coat of arms above the archway. Within the Citadel fortifications, several buildings survive from the original 17th century internal layout, or incorporate 17th century features. These include the guardhouse, the Great Store and the Governors and Lieutenant-Governors houses. The guardhouse is situated by the main entrance and is now visible as a two-story rectangular building with a colonnaded porch running the length of the facade facing the entrance to the Citadel. The guardhouse was completely rebuilt in the 18th century, the external staircase to the rear being rebuilt in the same position as the original 17th century staircase. The Great Store is a three-storied building with its 17th century limestone facade. It is situated at the rear of the parade ground and is a symmetrical building with a staircase at each end. The 17th century timber framing of the spine wall survives within the modern carcassing of the spine wall. The original entrance in the centre of the facade on the ground floor has been blocked, but the original granite door surround survives, it is of a similar style to the sallyport entrances with a carved motif in each corner above an arched doorway. A clock is mounted in a blocked window above this original entrance. The Governors and the Lieutenant-Governors houses survive as a block of two three-storied houses on the west side of the parade ground. The originally rendered limestone facade with granite quoins faces the parade ground. The entrances in the facade to each house are approached up a short flight of steps; again the granite door
surrounds are of a similar style to the sallyports with carved corner motifs above the arched doorways. The Governors House, occupying the right of the block as viewed from the facade, has two bays to each side of the doorway; the Lieutenant-Governors House, on the left, has a single bay on each side of the doorway. There is a 17th century staircase at the south end of the building and an early 18th century staircase at the north end and two 17th century fireplaces also survive with original granite surrounds. The original 17th century timber framing of the spine wall also survives within the modern carcassing of the spine wall. Other former internal buildings of the original layout are known from documentary sources and early depictions of the Citadel, but no above-ground remains survive. There were three terraces of two-storied accommodation for soldiers, and a three-storied accommodation block for officers, demolished in the 1890s. The powder house of the 16th century fort was repaired and continued in use in the Citadel. A medieval chapel dedicated to St. Katherine was also situated on the Hoe; this chapel was demolished soon after the building of the Citadel and a new one was built in its present position; this may have happened by 1677 or possibly not until 1688. The outworks of the Citadel included the lower fort, the north ravelin within the ditch, the ditch counterscarp, the covered way with the two place darmes and the glacis. The lower fort of the 16th century fortress remained virtually unchanged against the south east side of the Citadel wall as no work was carried out on it at this time. The north ravelin survives as a triangular, low, flat-topped mound in front of the north entrance. Situated within the ditch, it originally had a wall along the two outward-facing sides with embrasures and guns. A gateway was situated on the north east side of the ravelin, with a drawbridge crossing the ditch to the glacis. The gates are recorded as having a painted design showing two full length figures in the act of throwing a grenade. The gateway had a limestone arch, now relocated over the west sallyport. The royal coat of arms and the letters C R adorn the pediment above the arch. Another drawbridge crossed from the southern side to the main entrance of the Citadel. The ditch extends from Baths bastion on the south west side, around the west and north to Prince Edwards bastion on the south east. It was interrupted along the south east of the Citadel by the lower fort and its steep flanking slopes. The ditch was approximately 12m wide and 3m deep. Its outer face, called the counterscarp, was approximately 3m high and faced with a wall of which no visible remains are apparent.
130
Alan Baxter
The covered way was a broad walkway behind the crest of the glacis and immediately beyond the ditch counterscarp. The covered way was approximately 9m wide and was protected by a parapet along its outer side. It originally extended along the entire outer side of the ditch from Baths Bastion to Prince Edwards Bastion. Parts of the covered way survive to the north, north west, and south west of the Citadel. A small length also survives to the east, beyond Prince Edwards Bastion, including part of the parapet, surviving as an overgrown limestone wall. The covered way was enlarged at two points, on the east and west, to create triangular, place darmes. The western place darmes was later replaced by a ravelin. The apex of the eastern place darmes forms a triangular projection from the crest of the glacis. The glacis, beyond the parapet of the covered way, was of an even slope along the west and north sides of the Citadel, between King Charles and Prince of Wales Bastions. It became steeper towards Prince Edwards Bastion on the east and towards Baths Bastion on the south west, corresponding to the steeper coastal slope. Parts of the glacis survive to the north east of the northern ravelin and around the north west corner towards the later west ravelin. Another length survives south of the Citadel in front of King Charles Bastion and curtain wall. Once the 17th century Citadel had been completed, no major building work took place until 1715, following Colonel Lilleys report on the fortifications of Plymouth. The ramparts along the south side, between Baths Bastion and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion, previously left uncompleted, were built up with casemates or barracks beneath to provide accommodation for up to a thousand men. The casemates survive as barrel-vaulted rooms with a chimney in the outer wall, the doorways in the inner wall, flanked by a window to either side. The casemates are constructed of limestone with jambs and lintels of Portland stone. Their inner walls are buttressed at intervals and there are regular square gratings in the wall above the casemates. Lilleys report noted that the lower fort had fallen into disrepair, the parapets needed replacing and much of the masonry and the gun platforms required repairs. These repairs were completed by 1725. In 1726-27 the great powder magazine was constructed or rebuilt in Baths Bastion. It had walls approximately 3m thick plus an outer blast wall approximately 1m thick and about 2m high. This magazine replaced the original 16th century powder house and was itself demolished in 1895. A full length lead statue of George II in the costume of a Roman emperor crowned with a laurel wreath stands on the south west of the parade ground. The statue is mounted on a rectangular stone plinth
and set on top of a four step base, the bottom step set almost flush with the ground. A plaque of arms decorates one end of the plinth; three other inscribed plaques formerly on the plinth, two in Latin, one in English, bearing two dedications to the king, are now kept in the officers mess. The statue was erected by Robert Pitt in 1728 and paid for by Louis Dufour who commanded a company of Invalids or retired soldiers. It was originally situated in the centre of the parade ground, but moved to its present location in 1903. More work was done on the Citadel around 1745 when the guardhouse may have been rebuilt. The gatehouse over the main gate was demolished, the timber partition placed in the great store, and the depth of the parapet was increased to 4m from the point of King Charles Bastion to the point of Prince Georges Bastion along the west side of the Citadel. Alterations were also made to the outworks. Banks of earth and stone, called traverses, were built on the covered way, two on each straight section to protect the movement of men there. Around 1741 three embrasures had been added to the east curtain wall and eight to the north curtain wall. In 1745 the number of embrasures on King Charles, Prince George and Prince of Wales Bastions was reduced from twenty to ten, but the number on the curtain wall to the south west between King Charles and Baths Bastions was increased from three to eleven, reflecting an increasing emphasis on protection of the approach to the dockyard to the west. The increasing threat of war with France brought more activity and alterations during the 1750s, focused on the area of the lower fort. In 1753 the Upper and Lower Ligoniers Batteries were built, named after Sir John Ligonier, Governor of the Citadel since 1751. These batteries were situated in the lower fort below Cumberland Battery, facing west to protect the approach to the dockyard. The upper battery was higher up the rocky slope than the other and designed to fire over the top of the lower battery. The batteries extended SSE to beyond the southern edge of this monument, and were demolished in 1888. Also beyond the southern edge of this monument, Fredericks Battery was begun in 1754 to the south east of Ligoniers Batteries, and demolished in 1888. Other additions of this period included the south west coverport, a triangular outwork faced by limestone walling, which projects out from the walls of the Citadel between Baths Bastion and the Cumberland Battery. It was reached by a passageway under the ramparts and protected a stairway down to Upper and Lower Ligoniers Batteries. The double wall extending south east from Pipers Platform, now truncated but formerly extending beyond this monument to Fishers Nose, was constructed to cover men moving down into the lower fort. Cumberland Battery was rebuilt and armed with 12 guns to cover Plymouth Sound. Access was blocked from
the Queens Battery to the lower fort. The west place darmes was replaced with a ravelin outside the ditch. This ravelin originally had a wall with embrasures and guns on its outer sides, but now survives as a low triangular mound with part of the covered way to the north. During 1807-8 a low safety wall, called a garde fou, was built along the rear edge of the ramparts to prevent men from falling off. This survives as a low limestone wall from Prince Georges Bastion on the north west, along the west and south sides of the Citadel to Prince Edwards Bastion to the south east. In 1813 eight sentry boxes were repaired, the remainder of the original 20 stone sentry boxes having probably been removed by this date. In 1844 the great store was converted to barracks, and is still used as such. In 1846-8 the casemates along the south east of the walls were repaired and the walls above capped with asphalt following a fire; this work is commemorated by a brass plaque on the guardhouse wall. These changes reduced the amount of accommodation provided from space for a thousand men to space for 321 men. In 1888 the outworks beyond the Citadel wall, and the lower fort, were sold to Plymouth City Council. The walling of the lower fort and the two ravelins were demolished, and the outer gateways arched surround on the north ravelin was re-erected over the entrance to the west sallyport. The ditch was filled in and a road built around the north ravelin. Another road was constructed along the west side of the Citadel along the line of the ditch. Madeira Road was built along the south side of the Citadel and around Fishers Nose, cutting through parts of the glacis, the sites of the lower fort and the Ligoniers Batteries and truncating the wall down to Fishers Nose. The Citadel was refurbished during the 1890s-1900s by the architect T Kitsel Rogers. In 1895 the powder house was demolished and the officers mess built. The north east curtain between Prince of Wales and Prince Edwards Bastions was lowered, the ramparts there were removed and an accommodation block built. The ramparts were also removed from Prince of Wales Bastion and a canteen built in 1902. The Governors House was converted into offices and an adult school built opposite the guardhouse. The junior officers mess behind the guardhouse replaced earlier barracks. A range of buildings behind the Governors House was demolished, and another accommodation block built to the south west of the parade ground. During World War II and possibly from as early as 1910 the Citadel had a training role. During World War II the Citadel housed the Coast Artillery Training Centre and a gun emplacement used for drill was constructed on its east side in the ditch behind the covered way. This is visible as a circular concrete gun platform within a low concretewalled rectangular enclosure. The entire platform and enclosure
Alan Baxter
131
is backed by a concrete retaining wall along the outer edge of the ditch, forming a semicircular niche in the covered way, the top of the retaining wall flush with the covered way. Dating from the same period is a small rectangular concrete hut on the rear of the ramparts of Cumberland Battery and probably used to store flags for signalling to shipping. Above Queens Battery there is a semicircular rendered recess in the rampart which was probably a position for a Watkins Depression Position Finder. These were in common usage between 1902 and 1956, although this one probably dates to 1910.
List Descriptions
Building 119
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4806753752 Royal Citadel Church of St. Catherine Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473141 II 09 November 1998
The latest phase of activity includes the roofing of the interior of King Charles and Prince Georges Bastions, now used as armouries. Further modern refurbishment beyond the monument includes a modern transport and ordnance yard constructed on the east side of the Citadel during 1989-1992. The ramparts, the Citadel gate, the sallyport and the statue of George II are in the care of the Secretary of State. All modern structures and buildings built after the World War II, those buildings constructed during the 1890-1900s refurbishment and the Chapel of St. Katherine on the Hoe are excluded from the scheduling but the ground beneath all of these features is included. All security and surveillance system installations, floodlighting, fire control systems and their cabling and ducting are excluded from the scheduling but the ground beneath them is included. The modern metalled surfaces of all paths, the parade ground, all parking areas and access roads are also excluded from the scheduling but the ground beneath is included. All modern MoD and English Heritage signs and fittings and all street furniture including flagpoles, railings, street lights, park benches, litter bins, parking meters, traffic and pedestrian signs, are excluded from the scheduling but the ground beneath is included. The war memorials on the south west and north west corners of the covered way and the metalled surfaces of the modern roads over the west and north of the Citadel outworks are excluded from the scheduling but the ground beneath is included. The Marine Biological Laboratories south west of the Citadel wall and the observatory buildings, clock, parks depot, public conveniences and associated modern structures and fittings on the west ravelin are excluded from the scheduling but the ground beneath them is included.
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/869 Royal Citadel: Church of St. Catherine GV II Church (Royal Chapel) at fort. 1667-1688 on site of C14 chapel, enlarged and partly rebuilt in 1845, the E wall of the chancel rebuilt following damage in World War II and the chancel renovated. Plymouth limestone rubble and Plymouth limestone brought to course for the 1845 parts; dry slate roofs with coped gables. STYLE: Early Gothic style detail. PLAN: cruciform plan with the main roof running north-south plus porches in the NW and SW angles and an organ loft in the SE angle; galleries to each arm of the cross except the chancel. EXTERIOR: pointed arched windows, the larger windows lighting the sides of the nave, chancel and transepts with Y tracery and there are triple lancets to light the gallery at the N and S ends. Principal N doorway has a moulded round arch and a square hoodmould; other doorways have pointed arches; original 1845 doors. INTERIOR: has its 1845 plastered ceiling divided into panels with moulded ribs and cornices, except for the chancel ceiling which has painted decoration; original galleries with wrought-iron balustrades over moulded entablature carried on quatrefoil-section cast-iron paired stanchions.
132
Alan Baxter
FITTINGS: painted stone octagonal font with moulded base and cornices and blind Gothic arcading; possibly original loose pews with railed backs to galleries. Other fittings are late C19 including octagonal pulpit with blind Gothic tracery and pews with shaped ends. MONUMENTS: many monuments to the soldiers of the fort including 2 Tudor Gothic style marble monuments flanking the E end to N and S walls to Patrick Doull Calder, Royal Engineers, died 1857 aged 70, and to William Cuthbert Elphinstone Holloway C B, Colonel Commanding Royal Engineer W Dist, died in the Citadel, 4th September 1850, who served in the Peninsular campaigns of 1810, 1811 and 1812. One of the buildings associated with this outstanding C17 fort, designed by Sir Bernard de Gomme.
EXTERIOR: single storey; 6:1:1-bay front. The 6 tall windows of the main range break the eaves over transoms and with stone alternate round and plain gables; fixed lights over horned sashes, all with small panes. Rusticated round-arched doorway to next bay and at far right is cross-wing gable end with ventilator slit over 3-light mullioned and transomed window. End elevations have similar detail. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: a garrison was included in the Citadel from its rebuilding in the late C17. The old quarters were rebuilt under the 1890 Barracks Act and this is, with the contemporary Peninsula barracks Winchester, a rare architect-designed barracks. The cook house was an important functional part of this complete late Victorian barracks, and this is an unusually richly-designed example. (The Builder: Kitsell TR: Plymouth Citadel - new barracks and recreation block: London: 1898-: 104-5).
Building 131
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4800853878 Royal Citadel Governors House And Steps To Doorways Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473143 II
Building102
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4806953898 Royal Citadel Cookhouse Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473142 II 08 July 1998
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/871 Royal Citadel: Governors House and 08/07/98 steps to doorways GV II* Governor house at fort, now offices. 1667-75, extended c1770 for the Board of Ordnance; altered mid-late C20. MATERIALS: coursed Plymouth limestone with granite drip courses and dressed granite doorways; dry slate parallel roofs with bracketed eaves and 6 wide roof dormers, the central former valley now with shallow lead roof; original stone rubble axial and gable stacks later heightened with brick and large brick lateral stack at rear left. PLAN: large double-depth plan built in 2 phases, the original larger building (the former Governors house) on the right and the former Lieutenant-Governors House on the left; each part with a central entrance hall leading to a stair hall; small wing at rear left of centre. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys over basement; overall 6-window range consisting of 2 symmetrical fronts: a 2-window front on the left and a 4-window front on the right. Original moulded round-arched doorways with square hoodmoulds, each doorway central to its original front; blocked opening above the earlier doorway towards the right. Paired horned sashes with glazing bars in modified openings. INTERIOR: has its original staircase to each part: c1670 staircase is open-well with closed string, heavy turned balusters, turned pendants and square newels which are linked from floor to floor; c1700 staircase
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/870 Royal Citadel: Cookhouse 08/07/98 GV II Barracks cookhouse at fort. 1902-1905, by T. Rogers Kitsell, architect for the War Office. Dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course; dry slate gabled roofs with stone coped gables; dressed stone axial stack with moulded entablature towards right. PLAN: rectangular plan plus short cross wing on the right and C20 extension at rear.
Alan Baxter
133
08 July 1998
has alternate turned and twist balusters but is in other ways similar to the 1670 staircase. There are some nineteenth century panelled doors, and the C17 timber-framed spine wall survives beneath late C20 linings. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: flight of steps with low ramped and shaped balustrades with ball finials over the newels in front of each doorway. HISTORY: this is a very rare surviving example in a national context of an early military building, one of the earliest examples of military accomodation in the country. With the contemporary store and guard house (qqv), it is associated with the most outstanding example of a C17 fort in Britain, built to the designs of Sir Bernard de Gomme. (Woodward FW: Plymouths Defences: Devon: 1990-: 9; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Building 118
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4811453763 Royal Citadel Great Store Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473144 II 08 July 1998
HISTORY: a major Ordnance Board warehouse for one of the countrys key defensive points, larger and predating comparable stores in the Morice Ordnance Wharf, Plymouth. As a converted barracks, it represents the most common permanent military accommodation provided in England before the construction of barracks at the end of the C18. A very rare survival in a national context of an early military building, in this case associated with the most outstanding example of a C17 fort in Britain, designed by Sir Bernard de Gomme. (Woodward FW: Plymouths Defences: Devon: 1990-: 9; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/872 Royal Citadel: Great Store 08/07/98 GV II* Storehouse, later barracks, now store and offices. 1667-75, for the Board of Ordnance, converted to barracks 1844. MATERIALS: Plymouth limestone rubble with granite drip courses and parapet coping; single deep slate roof with coped gables and plain parapets replacing what was originally 2 parallel roofs with a central valley; rendered stacks over the cross walls. PLAN: large double-depth plan, originally with central entrance; later single-storey carriage house on the left. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; 6-window 1st-floor range plus central blocked former loading hatch fitted with clock. Wide central C16 granite 4-centred arched doorway with carved spandrels and square hoodmould now blocked as are the 1st and 2nd-floor openings above, the top opening the parapet. Doorways at far left and right have flat arches, both probably inserted c1844; the other openings are spanned by rendered probable brick arches and fitted with late C19 or C20 horned sashes. There is much evidence of old alteration to the front wall, the other walls are rendered. INTERIOR: stair halls at left and right have c1844 cantilevered granite staircases with wrought-iron balustrades; spine wall with C17 timber framing surviving behind late C20 linings.
134
Alan Baxter
Building 101
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4803853906 Royal Citadel Guardhouse Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473145 II 08 July 1998
Building 104
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4811253924 Royal Citadel Junior Ranks Club Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473146 II 08 July 1998
Junior messes were part of the improvements made to late C19 barracks, and this is a rare example. (Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/873 Royal Citadel: Guardhouse 08/07/98 GV II Guardhouse. 1667-1675, by the Ordnance Board, completely rebuilt c1745. Render on probable rubble; dry slate hipped roofs. Rectangular plan plus full-width open verandah along the front. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 3-window range with irregular disposition of openings. Doorway towards left. Verandah has 5-bay Doric colonnade. Flight of steps up to 1st floor at rear. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: shown on 1717 print with steeper roof and without the verandah. Exterior stair to rear rebuilt in same position as C17 staircase. Though altered, this is a rare survival of an important type of military building, in this case associated with the most outstanding example of a C17 fort in Britain, designed by Sir Bernard de Gomme. (Woodward FW: Plymouths Defences: Devon: 1990-: 9; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/874 Royal Citadel: Junior Ranks Club 08/07/98 GV II Junior ranks mess. 1898-1900, by T. Rogers Kitsell, architect to the War Office. Plymouth limestone brought to course; dry slate roofs with coped gable ends; axial stone stack towards right and larger gable stack to taller front part of rear wing, both with moulded entablature. Overall L-shaped plan plus C20 extension at rear. EXTERIOR: single storey except for rear wing which is 2 storeys; 5:1:2bay front. Tall windows on left with eaves transoms and rising above as stone gabled dormers with alternate round and plain gables. Wide rusticated round-arched doorway right of this and slightly-projecting front gable end of cross wing at far right with gable ventilator over pair of sash windows. All original windows with glazing bars. Right-hand return has entrance porch on left, then a 2-bay open round-arched arcade to 2-storey part which has projecting gable end at far right. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: a garrison had been based at the Citadel since the late C17. The old quarters were rebuilt under the 1890 Barracks Act and it is, with the Peninsula barracks in Winchester, a rare example of an architect-designed barracks.
Alan Baxter
135
Building 108
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Royal Citadel Main Barracks Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473147 II 08 July 1998
The 4 barrack blocks have similar details each with central gables with outer doorways, outer pairs of windows separated by a lateral stack. Ranges terminated by a single-storey parapeted wash house with a round-arched arcade to the front with return arches. The outer elevation to the ramparts is straight, the central section is punctuated by the gables of the cross wings flanking a round-arched open doorway, now to a C20 terrace, beneath an oriel with 3-light transom and mullion window and a round gable containing a coat of arms. The doorway has a rusticated arch springing from ashlar jambs with moulded cornices; spoked fanlight over later pair of glazed doors. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: a garrison was based at the Citadel since the late C17. The old quarters were rebuilt under the 1890 Barracks Act, and they are, with the Peninsula barracks in Winchester, a rare example of an architect-designed barracks. The individual barracks are standard units which, with the recreation block, forms an interesting composed range, carefully designed to fit into the context of the C17 fort. A fine example of its type, and part of a good group of 1890s-1900s barracks buildings at this important C17 fort. (The Builder: Kitsell TR: Plymouth Citadel - new barracks and recreation block: London: 1898-: 104-5; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Building 122
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4798553822 Royal Citadel Married Quarters And Sergeants Quarters Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473148 II 08 July 1998
Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4813853844
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/875 Royal Citadel: Main barracks 08/07/98 GV II Soldiers barracks and recreation block. 1897 and 1899 datestones; by T. Rogers Kitsell, architect for the War Office; altered internally and to rear mid C20. MATERIALS: dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course; dry slate roofs with projecting eaves; dressed stone axial, gable and lateral stacks to the ends and front walls of the barrack rooms, all with moulded entablature. PLAN: U-shaped plan, with a central recreation block, flanked by 2 pairs of barrack blocks with central stairs and barrack rooms each side, the outer ones forming the sides of a courtyard and terminated by single-storey wash houses. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; near symmetrical unaltered front with taller 8-window central recreation block flanked by 2:2:2-window barrack blocks forming cross wings at the end. Original horned sashes or mullioned windows. Central block has 5 transomed 1st-floor windows, the central window a wider 3-light mullioned window above a porch with moulded parapet cornice and a 4-centred arched doorway with square hoodmould. There is another doorway in the right-hand angle. Outer gables set forward with 5-light double transomed mullioned windows over group of 3 small windows. There are double strings forming an entablature to the central bays and sill strings elsewhere.
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4653 THE BARBICAN 740-1/66/876 Royal Citadel: Married Quarters and 08/07/98 Sergeants Quarters GV II Married quarters and sergeants quarters at fort. 1895-1900, probably by T. Rogers Kitsell, architect for the War Office. Dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course, rendered at rear; dry slate roof with 4 cross wing roofs, all with coped gables; wide roof dormers, in pairs between the cross wings; dressed stone axial stacks with moulded entablature. PLAN: long rectangular double-depth plan plus 4 cross wings projecting at the front. EXTERIOR: 3-storey cross wings and 2 storeys (part over basements) plus attics; the overall 12-window range front consisting of 4 symmetrical 3-bay fronts each with a central projecting cross wing as entrance porch. The cross wings have 3-light mullioned windows, the other windows are horned sashes. The 4-centred arched doorways small have flanking sidelights. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: a garrison was based at the Citadel from the late C17. The old quarters were rebuilt under the 1890 Barracks Act, and they are, with the Peninsula barracks in Winchester, a rare example of an architect-designed barracks. Married quarters
136
Alan Baxter
were included in barracks from the 1860s, but this is, with those at Hounslow in Greater London, a good example forming part of a complete complex. (The Builder: Kitsell TR: Plymouth Citadel - new barracks and recreation block: London: 1898-: 104-105; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Building 120
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4803053789 Royal Citadel Officers Quarters And Mess Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473149 II 08 July 1998
and sizes, all with original glazing. The mess room has a canted bay providing a lookout window and there are external steps winding up to a porch. INTERIOR: has much original architectural detail including moulded plaster ceilings, doorcases with moulded architraves, marble chimneypieces with iron grates and round arches between linked room spaces. The mess room has a moulded chair rail and arches carried on consoles. The large dining room has similar detail plus a plaster barrel ceiling. Principal stair hall has a large open-well staircase with turned balusters over a closed string. The back staircase is a dog leg with slender turned balusters over an open string. HISTORY: a garrison was based at the Citadel from the late C17. The old quarters were rebuilt under the 1890 Barracks Act, and this is, with the Peninsula barracks in Winchester, a rare example of an architect-designed barracks. Contained rooms for officers and their servants, with mess and dining rooms, and designed to fit into the context of the fine C17 fort. (The Builder: Kitsell TR: Plymouth Citadel - new barracks and recreation block: London: 1898-: 104-105; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/877 Royal Citadel: Officers Quarters 08/07/98 and Mess GV II Officers quarters and mess in fort. 1895, by T. Rogers Kitsell, architect for the War Office. MATERIALS: dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course and with moulded dressings including hoodmoulds and parapet strings; dry slate roofs with coped gables, behind parapet to principal entrance front; dressed stone axial, gable and lateral stacks with moulded cornices. PLAN: large inverted F-shaped plan plus shallow projecting wings; there are 2 stair halls, with a carriageway running under the mess room block (centre bar of the F) and this block is partly built into the perimeter earthwork. The front entrance block has the dining room to its upper floor on the right and there is a smoking room on the left. EXTERIOR: 3 storeys; taller entrance block is 5 bays with projecting gables flanking the central entrance bay. Principal 2nd floor has double-transomed mullioned windows except for the 2 narrow windows flanking the fireplace to each floor of the lateral stack of the right-hand wing. The moulded head of the wide round-arched doorway is corbelled out to support an embattled parapet. Lower range right of the entrance block has cross wing on its right with large double-transomed 4-light mullioned window. Other elevations are similar but with varied window types
Alan Baxter
137
Building 134
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Royal Citadel School Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473150 II 08 July 1998
imposing example forms an important functional component of the complete barracks. Part of a complete barracks within the fine C17 fort. (The Builder: Kitsell TR: Plymouth Citadel - new barracks and recreation block: London: 1898-; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
Building 111
Building Name: Parish: District: County: Postcode: LBS Number: Grade: Date Listed: Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4817453783 Transit Accommodation Plymouth Plymouth Devon PL1 2LR 473151 II 08 July 1998
Date Delisted: National Grid Reference: SX4801253908
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/878 Royal Citadel: School 08/07/98 GV II Soldiers school in fort. 1895-1905, probably by T. Rogers Kitsell. Dressed Plymouth limestone brought to course; dry slate roofs with coped gables and projecting eaves. L-shaped plan. EXTERIOR: 2 storeys; 2-window range entrance front. Mullioned or single-light windows with horned sashes or casements, all with glazing bars. Entrance front has 3-light window to low wing on the left over doorway with small sidelight on its left. Above the doorway is a panel inscribed: ADULT SCHOOL. Cross wing gable end right of doorway has transomed 3-light window over 3-light window. The right-hand return has an irregular disposition of windows including 2 gabled dormers breaking the eaves. INTERIOR: not inspected. HISTORY: a garrison was based at the Citadel from the C17. The old quarters were rebuilt under the Barracks Act of 1890, and this is, with the Peninsula barracks in Winchester, a rare example of an architect-designed barracks. Schools were introduced into barracks from the 1840s, for soldiers and their children, and this
Listing Text: PLYMOUTH SX4853NW THE BARBICAN 740-1/67/879 Royal Citadel: Transit Accommodation 08/07/98 GV II Former hospital. Mid C18, built by the Ordnance Board. Plymouth limestone rubble with limestone dressings, all rendered except for the centre and right of the ground floor at the front and the mid-floor band. Rectangular plan. EXTERIOR: symmetrical 5-window front. Late C19 or C20 horned sashes with glazing bars, in openings spanned by keyed arches (where visible). Central flat-roofed porch has doorway on its left and slit window on its right. INTERIOR: not inspected, but known to have been remodelled late C20. HISTORY: one of the oldest surviving military hospitals, with that at Berwick-on-Tweed. Staffed by civilians, permanent barracks hospitals were not generally available until the Napoleonic Wars. With the contemporary buildings, this forms part of the best C17 fort in England. (Woodward FW: Plymouths Defences: Devon: 1990-: 9; Woodward FW: Citadel: Devon: 1987-; Saunders A: Fortress Britain: Portsmouth: 1989-).
138
Alan Baxter
Register of Parks And Gardens of Special Historic Interest

THE HOE PLYMOUTH DEVON NGR: SX4652 Date Registered: Grade: II Site Reference Number: 5152 15 JUL 2002
A public walk and parade ground of medieval origin, developed in the C19 and C20 as a public park and setting for a group of public monuments. HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT During the medieval period the headland known as The Hoe was used for recreation by the residents of Plymouth. In 1530 Westcote reported that, Here the townsmen pass their time of leisure in walking, bowling and other pleasant pastimes (quoted in Worth 1890). Two figures of giants holding clubs, popularly known as Gog Magog, were cut in the turf of The Hoe. These survived until c 1671 when Charles II constructed the Royal Citadel, a military fort, at the eastern end of The Hoe. In 1588 Sir Francis Drake (c 1540-96) famously played bowls on The Hoe while awaiting the arrival of the ships of the Spanish Armada. The Hoe continued to be used as an informal place of recreation during the C16, C17, and C18. As Plymouth assumed greater significance as a naval town in the early C19, so the Corporation sought to develop The Hoe in a more formal way with walks and gardens to complement the adjacent residential developments built by John Foulston and George Wightwick (Cherry and Pevsner 1989). In 1836 a Committee was appointed to examine the condition of the fences, seats, and approaches to The Hoe (Hoe Committee Minutes). An officer was instructed to repress the practice of bathing at improper hours in the summer months and prevent visitors to the Hoe being molested by persons soliciting alms who constantly resort there at periods when the Hoe is most frequented for exercise (Minutes, 27 April 1836). The Committee continued to implement gradual improvements throughout the 1830s and 1840s: walks were re-gravelled, the seats below The Hoe were repaired, and by c 1838 a camera obscura had been built (Minutes, 9 September 1836, 7 December 1839, December 1841). The Hoe continued to
In 1860 the practise of grazing The Hoe with sheep was discontinued, and the area became known as Hoe Park (Minutes). By 1873 Jewitt noted that: The Hoe ... is converted into public gardens for the free and unrestricted use, day and night, of the inhabitants, and forms one of the most delightful and inviting ... promenades in the Kingdom. The Hoe ... is laid out in paths, with shrubberies on its town side and beneath the cliffs; and along its centre, running in a line from the Citadel ... to West Hoe ... is a broad gravelled promenade, where the townspeople and visitors, in fine weather, assemble in thousands ... On the East side of the Hoe a public carriage drive is formed from the town at Saltram Place, down to the cliffs and so along by the sea to West Hoe Terrace and Millbay; and on the sea side of the cliffs, winding paths and flights of steps, with innumerable alcoves, recesses, and seats are provided for the comfort of the public. (Jewitt 1873) Significant improvements took place in the 1870s and 1880s which included levelling around the depression known as the Bull Ring (Minutes, 29 July 1870), obtaining the lease of the south glacis adjacent to the Royal Citadel which was laid out with walks in 1878?9 (Minutes, 19 January 1877), the construction of a new entrance at the north-east corner of the Governors Meadow (Minutes, 4 July 1878), and the construction of new roads to the east and west of The Hoe and the extension of The Promenade to a design by the Borough Surveyor (Minutes, 31 July 1880). In 1881 Alderman Norrington donated a drinking fountain (Minutes, 12 March 1881), while the following year a pier was commenced by the Plymouth Pier Company below The Hoe (Minutes, 10 September 1881). The
Following the First World War, The Hoe was chosen as the site for the Naval War Memorial designed by Sir Robert Lorimer. During the 1930s the carriage drive, Hoe Road, was reconstructed in cantilevered reinforced concrete to form a sun terrace and promenade; at the same time a Lido was built together with further concrete terraces and bathing stations along the foreshore. During the Second World War the Pier was destroyed by bombing (1941), while after the war the Naval Memorial was extended to designs by Edward Maufe. The Naval Memorial was chosen by J Paton Watson and Patrick Abercrombie, architects for the reconstruction of Plymouth following its war-time bombing, as the terminal feature of a new north/south vista extending through the city centre (Paton Watson and Abercrombie 1943). In the mid C20 the late C19 bandstand was removed from The Hoe, while in 1988 The Hoe Visitors Centre was constructed to the design of the City Architects department on the site of a group of late C19 recessed shelters. Today (2002), The Hoe remains municipal property. DESCRIPTION LOCATION, AREA, BOUNDARIES, LANDFORM, SETTING The Hoe is situated immediately south of the mid C20 civic centre of Plymouth. The c 15ha site comprises four areas linked by historic development: the area known as Hoe Park to the north of The Promenade, The Hoe to the south of The Promenade, the Lido and associated bathing facilities on the foreshore south of Hoe Road, and West Hoe Park. The registered site also includes an area of lawns and gardens bounded by Armada Way and Notte Street to the north which link The Hoe to the post-war city centre and Civic Square (qv). To the west and north-west the site is bounded by Lockyer Street, and the early C19 buildings of The Esplanade and Cliff Road. To the south the boundary of the site is formed by the foreshore of Plymouth Sound, while to the south-east and east it adjoins the Royal Citadel,
Alan Baxter
139
be used for military purposes by the garrison stationed in the Royal Citadel, and its management was limited by the conflicting interests of residents and the military. In 1847?8 the Corporation concluded negotiations for the lease of the Governors Meadow and Citadel Field from the Board of Ordnance (Minutes, 25 June 1844, 24 November 1847). This process of expansion had begun in 1844 when land adjoining The Hoe to the north-west had been bought from Col Elliot (Minutes, 21 September 1844). In November 1847 the Committee requested the Surveyor to draw up plans for planting the western and northern boundaries of the Governors Meadow and for a lodge at the head of Lockyer Street, with the assistance of Mr Pontey (John Pontey, nurseryman, c 1763-1854). In 1849 land in front of The Esplanade, presumably on the site of the parade ground, was levelled (Minutes, 1 December 1849), and in 1854 the Horticultural Society was granted permission to hold its show on The Hoe (Minutes, 29 August 1854). By 1859 features of The Hoe included the camera obscura, a navigation obelisk, and a bathing house on the foreshore (Minutes, 1859).
foreshore was purchased from the Duchy of Cornwall in 1882 to prevent quarrying, stone-gathering, and speculative development (Minutes, September 1882). The upper section of John Smeatons Eddystone Lighthouse (1756-9) was re-erected on The Hoe in 1882, while the first of a significant group of public monuments, the statue of Sir Francis Drake, was erected in 1883 (Minutes, 1 September 1883). In 1887 improvements including a new lodge were made at the east end of The Promenade (Minutes, 1887), while the following year the Corporation began negotiations to obtain the camera obscura from Miss Simpson, its custodian for over fifty years (Minutes, 8 December 1888). The camera was demolished in June 1889. Further structures, including a cast-iron bandstand supplied by Walter MacFarlane & Co of Glasgow (Designs, WDRO), two shelters, a tower, and a Belvedere, known as the Corporation Seat, were constructed in the late C19.
from which it is separated by Hoe Road, which originated as an early C19 public carriage drive leading to the shore (Tithe map, 1846; Jewitt 1873). To the north-east the site is bounded by C19 buildings to the north of Hoe Road and Lambhay Hill. The site occupies the summit of a ridge which extends from east to west approximately on the line of The Promenade. To the north the ground drops away towards the city centre, while to the south it falls towards Plymouth Sound, allowing fine views south towards The Breakwater, south-east towards Mount Batten, and south-west towards Mount Edgcumbe (qv). The ground also falls steeply to the north-east, allowing further views across Coxside towards Saltram (qv). ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES The principal entrance to The Hoe is situated at the eastern end of The Promenade on Hoe Road. A pair of broad flights of granite steps flanking a central ramp ascend from Hoe Road to The Promenade. To the north of the entrance stands a single-storey late C19 lodge (listed grade II). Of rendered construction with an ornamental castiron verandah to the south facade and ornamental bargeboards, the lodge was designed by the Borough Surveyor in 1887-8 (Minutes, 1887) as part of a scheme of improvements to The Hoe. An original single-storey wing extending north-east from the lodge contains public conveniences. This wing is screened from the adjacent walk by evergreen shrubbery. To the west of the lodge a small late C20 formal garden with figurative topiary is enclosed by clipped evergreen hedges. Two further formal entrances are situated on Hoe Road to the northeast at points opposite Hoe Street and Hoe Approach. Another entrance is situated to the west, at the southern end of Lockyer Street. The north-east entrances comprise a pair of granite piers between which are placed three cast-iron bollards; these entrances were constructed in 1878 (Minutes, 4 July 1878). The west entrance comprises an outer pair of granite piers surmounted by lamp standards flanking an inner, taller pair of rusticated granite piers (listed grade II) surmounted by turned finials. The piers are separated by further cast-iron bollards. A lodge was proposed for the end of Lockyer Street in 1847 (Minutes, 24 November 1847), but this structure appears not to have been erected (OS 1855-6); the present entrance is contemporary with the adjacent mid C19 terraces overlooking The Hoe. A further formal entrance at the north-west corner of the site adjacent to the junction of Lockyer Street and Citadel Road incorporates an early C20 war memorial (listed grade II). There are further informal entrances to the site which, since the mid C20, has been largely unfenced, although to the north and east, on Citadel Road and Hoe Road, low stone boundary walls formerly supporting C19 railings survive.
GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS The area to the north of The Promenade or parade ground is predominantly laid out as lawns planted with scattered specimen trees, while to the north-east, adjacent to the boundary, some planting appears to survive from the mid C19 shrubberies (Minutes, 1847). A raised walk extends along the north-east boundary, linking the north-east entrance and the entrance at the east end of The Promenade. The grass slopes below this walk are planted with trees and shrubs. An early C20 red granite obelisk (listed grade II) with bronze plaques stands c 130m north of the east entrance. The obelisk commemorates Prince Christian Victor of Schleswig-Holstein who was killed in the Boer War, and was erected in 1902 (inscription). To the east of the raised walk grass slopes descend to the level of Hoe Road, which is here planted with an avenue of mature trees. To the east of Hoe Road lawns and formal flower beds extend below the walls of the Royal Citadel. From the north-east entrance a straight tree-lined walk extends c 190m south-west across the site. Some 150m south-west of the entrance a white marble and red granite Gothic-style drinking fountain stands to the west of the walk. This was donated in 1881 by Alderman Norrington (Minutes, 12 March 1881). A further curvilinear walk extends parallel to the northern boundary: this was established by 1855 (OS), while the remaining walks are shown in their present form by 1881 (Maddock, 1881). To the west of these lawns a further, rectangular area of lawn is enclosed to the east and west by walks, while to the south stands the Naval War Memorial (listed grade II*). The original First World War memorial (1920-4) by Sir Robert Lorimer comprising a monumental Portland stone obelisk bearing bronze memorial plaques and surmounted by a bronze globe finial stands on a raised stone terrace. To the north the Second World War memorial by Edward Maufe takes the form of a lawn enclosed by low stone walls bearing bronze memorial plaques. The north-facing slopes to the east and west of the memorial are planted with shrubbery. The axis of the rectangular lawn north of the memorial is continued by a triangularshaped lawn to the north of Citadel Road and a further area of gardens to the north of Armada Way which link The Hoe to the post-war civic centre (Paton Watson and Abercrombie 1943). To the north-west of the war memorial an early C20 bowling green (OS 1914) is situated on an artificial raised terrace. A mid C20 pavilion stands to the north of the bowling green. The Promenade extends c 430m from east to west across the site to the south of the war memorial. Today (2002) The Promenade is a broad, level tarmac terrace bordered by lawns. To the north a series of public monuments adjoins the terrace. From the east these comprise: the Second World War RAF memorial, the Armada Tercentenary monument (listed grade II*) erected in 1888 to designs by Herbert A Gribble with sculpture by W Charles May, and the Drake Statue
(1884, listed grade II*) with a bronze sculpture of Drake by J E Boem. The Promenade corresponds to a feature shown on the 1830 map of Plymouth, and the Tithe map (1846). It was extended and further levelled in the late C19, when it assumed its present form. To the south of The Promenade the ground falls away towards the coast. Some 160m south-west of the east entrance to The Promenade, the Smeaton Tower (listed grade I), the upper section of the mid C18 Eddystone Lighthouse designed by James Smeaton, stands at the centre of a rondpoint on a walk leading south from The Promenade. The circular tapered tower of painted granite surmounted by an ogee lantern was re-erected on The Hoe in 1882, in place of an early C19 navigation obelisk which stood on a site slightly further east (J Cooke, 1820; OS 1855-6). A late C19 single-storey open shelter (listed grade II) supported by cast-iron columns stands c 20m south-east of the tower. To the south-west of The Promenade the lawns are retained by C19 stone walls, below which are rocky slopes planted with shrubs and rock plants. The retaining wall is terminated to the east by a late C19 stone octagonal lookout tower (listed grade II). This structure may correspond to the fishermans lookout discussed by The Hoe Committee in June 1888 (Minutes, 16 June 1888). Some 100m north-west of the lookout tower, the Belvedere or Corporation Seat (listed grade II) is set into the south-west-facing slope of the former Bull Ring. The structure comprises a series of three balustraded terraces and open-fronted shelters supported by C17 granite Tuscan columns removed from the Old Market (listed building description). The Belvedere is surmounted by a viewing terrace, while the lowest section incorporates the arms of Plymouth and the date 1891. The Belvedere was rebuilt in 1891 on the site of a smaller, early C19 seat which stood above the hollow of the Bull Ring (OS 1855-6). The terrace above the present Belvedere corresponds to the site of the camera obscura which stood on The Hoe from c 1838 until its demolition as part of improvements in 1889 (Minutes, 8 December 1888, 8 June 1889). Below the Belvedere is a small area of formal gardens retained above the level of Hoe Road to the south by a low stone wall. On the slopes above the Bull Ring, to the east and west, stand a pair of late C19 single-storey open shelters supported by cast-iron columns (both listed grade II). Flights of steps descend east and west of the Belvedere to give access to Hoe Road and the foreshore. The foreshore from West Hoe to a point c 80m west of the Yacht Club, a distance of c 650m, is laid out with a series of early C20 concrete sun and bathing terraces, platforms and other associated facilities, with ornamental shrubbery and alpine planting on the adjacent rock faces. Hoe Road is cantilevered out to form the Tinside Colonnade, Promenade and Sun Terrace (listed grade II), while immediately to the east, on the central north/south axis of The Hoe, is the Lido or Tinside Pool (listed grade II). The predominantly concrete Lido is built
140
Alan Baxter
To the east of Hoe Road, c 270m south of the north-east entrance and at the south-west corner of the Royal Citadel, an approximately rectangular grass terrace is raised above the level of Hoe Road to the west and Madeira Road to the south by grass banks. On the terrace stands a memorial to the Royal Marines of the Plymouth Division who were killed in the First World War (listed grade II). The memorial is approached from the junction of Hoe Road and Madeira Road to the south-west by a path and steps. To the east of the memorial a walk extends c 270m east-south-east below the walls of the Royal Citadel and above a steep grass and rocky bank which descends to Madeira Road. This walk was laid out in 1878-9 following the lease of the former Citadel defences to the Corporation in 1877 (Minutes, 19 January 1877). West Hoe Park to the west of The Hoe comprises a level area of lawns and games pitches, separated from The Hoe by steep rocky cliff faces to the east and north. Areas of shrubbery and specimen trees are planted below the rock faces. To the north of the park is a C20 childrens play area, while to the west are bowling greens and tennis courts. The park was laid out on the site of West Hoe Quarry c 1890 (OS 1855?6, 1895, 1914), and was extended to the north-west in the mid C20 when properties in Pier Street were cleared.
W H Maddock, Map of Plymouth, Devonport, Stonehouse, Stoke, Morice Town, & Ford, 1881 (West Devon Record Office) OS 6 to 1 mile: 2nd edition published 1914, 1938 edition OS 25 to 1 mile: 1st edition published c 1880, 2nd edition published 1895 OS 10 to 1 mile: 1st edition surveyed 1855-6
Archival items
Minutes of the Corporation of Plymouth Hoe Committee, 1836-60 (HO 1/56), (West Devon Record Office) Minutes of The Hoe Committee, 1859?90 (HO 9/64), (West Devon Record Office) Designs for bandstand, kiosk, shelter and drinking fountain, late C19, some signed Walter MacFarlane & Co, Glasgow (1328/2-5), (West Devon Record Office) Early C20 photographs of The Hoe including aerial view (National Geographic Mag 1938) Aerial views of The Hoe, c 1950, 1958 (published in Moseley 1982) Description written: Register Inspector: Edited: December 2002 February 2002 JML
References
L Jewitt, A History of Plymouth (1873), p 663 R N Worth, History of Plymouth (1890), p 3 National Geographic Magazine lxxiv, (July 1938), pp 59-77 J Paton Watson and P Abercrombie, A Plan for Plymouth (1943), pp 66, 103?4 B Moseley, Vanishing Plymouth (1982), pp 8-9 B Cherry and N Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Devon (2nd edn 1989), pp 664-6
Alan Baxter
141
in the Art Deco style with pavilions and changing rooms to the north, a swimming pool with fountains and perimeter terraces, and a sun terrace projecting to the south. The Lido and Tinside Colonnade were constructed in 1935 to the design of J Webberley, the City Architect. The Lido was constructed on the site of the early C19 Ladies Bathing Place, which had been provided with a new shelter in 1871 when permission for the Crystal Palace Company to open an aquarium on this site was refused (Minutes, 14 January 1871). There are further facilities including a cafe and concrete terraces in Tinside Cove to the east of the Lido, and the bathing facilities are terminated to the east by the semicircular concrete enclosure of the Mens Bathing Place.
Maps
Great Map of the West, mid C16 (British Museum) J Cooke, Borough of Plymouth, 1820 (West Devon Record Office) E Becker, The Three Towns of Plymouth, Stonehouse and Devonport, 1830 (West Devon Record Office) W Snell, Tithe map for St. Andrews, Plymouth parish, 1846 (West Devon Record Office)
Appendix 5 Inventory of Guns and Carriages

Reference No: XIX.56 Description: Bronze 18 pounder Gun, French (Strasbourg), dated 3rd July 1778. On reproduction field carriage, dated 1988. Plus 2 x ammunition. Location: Adjacent to Officers Mess.
Appendix 5 - Inventory of Guns and Carriages
Reference No: XIX.691 Description: Bronze 12 pounder Field Gun, English, dated 1809. On reproduction garrison carriage, dated 1968. Location: Prince Edwards Battery.
142
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.692 Description: Bronze 6 pounder Field Gun, English, dated 1859. On wrought-iron field carriage. Plus 2 x Ammunition. Location: Adjacent to Officers Mess.
Reference No: XIX.693 Description: Bronze 6 pounder Field Gun, English, dated 1859. On wrought-iron field carriage dated 1876. Plus 1 x Ammunition. Location: Adjacent to Officers Mess.
Alan Baxter
143
Reference No: XIX.694 Description: Bronze Howitzer, English, dated 1853 Eccles. On wrought-iron field carriage, dated 1877. Location: Adjacent to Officers Mess.
Reference No: XIX.695 Description: Bronze Howitzer, English, dated 1853 Eccles. On wrought-iron field carriage, dated 1877. Location: Adjacent to Officers Mess.
144
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.696 Description: Cast Iron 32 pounder Gun: W co. 432. English On cast-iron skeleton garrison carriage. Location: Prince Edwards Battery
Reference No: XIX.697 Description: Cast Iron 18 pounder Gun: W co. 509. English On cast-iron skeleton garrison carriage. Location: Prince Edwards Battery
Reference No: XIX.698 Description: Cast-Iron 18 pounder Gun: Carron 82750, English, dated 1814. On garrison carriage. Location: Prince Georges Curtain
Alan Baxter
145
Reference No: XIX.699 Description: Cast-Iron 18 pounder Gun: Carron 80080, English, dated 1812. On garrison carriage. Location: Prince Edwards Battery
Reference No: XIX.701 Description: Cast-Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: 70, English, dated 1871. On carriage. Location: Prince Georges Curtain
146
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.702 Description: Cast-Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: 225, English, dated 1873. On carriage. Location: Prince Georges Curtain
Reference No: XIX.704 Description: Cast-Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: 550, English, dated 1876. On carriage. Location: Saluting Battery
Alan Baxter
147
Reference No: XIX.706 Description: Cast-Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: 573, English, dated 1876. On traversing carriage. Location: King Charles Bastion
148
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.709 Description: Cast-Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: 655, English, dated 1875. On garrison carriage. Location: King Charles Bastion
Alan Baxter
149
150
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.712 Description: Cast Iron 10 inch Mortar: 49 and bed. English dated 1810. Location: Headquarters Entrance
Reference No: XIX.713 Description: Cast Iron 10 inch Mortar: 11 and bed. English dated 1840. Location: Headquarters Entrance
Alan Baxter
151
Reference No: XIX.714 Description: Cast Iron Rose and Crown Gun, English, dated 1710. On reproduction truck carriage. Location: Guard Room Entrance
Reference No: XIX.715 Description: Bronze Field Gun, English, I & H King, dated 1805. On reproduction garrison carriage dated 1968. Location: Prince Edwards Battery
152
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.716 Description: Cast - Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: 633, English, dated 1875. On garrison carriage. Location: King Charles Bastion
Alan Baxter
153
Reference No: XIX.719 Description: Cast - Iron 32 pounder Gun: W co. 235, English, dated 1798. On reproduction carriage dated 1970. Location: King Georges Bastion
154
Alan Baxter
Reference No: XIX.721 Description: Cast - Iron 18 pounder Gun: 236, English, dated 1798. On reproduction traversing carriage dated 1988. Location: Prince Henry Demi Bastion
Reference No: XIX.722 Description: Cast - Iron 18 pounder Gun: 236, English, dated 1800. On garrison carriage. Location: Saluting Battery
Alan Baxter
155
Reference No: XIX.730 Description: Cast - Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: English, dated 1871. On garrison carriage. Location: Prince Georges Curtain
Reference No: Not Known Description: The Alma Gun: Russian dated 1824. On carriage. Location: Headquarters Entrance
156
Alan Baxter
Reference No: Not Known Description: 105mm Pack Howitzer, light mobile mountain gun. Location: Headquarters Entrance
Reference No: Not Known Description: Cast - Iron 64 pounder RML Gun: English. Location: King Charles Bastion
Alan Baxter
157
Appendix 6 Summary of archaeological interventions at the Royal Citadel

Most archaeological work carried out at the Royal Citadel since the 1980s has taken the form of small-scale or relatively limited excavations or observations during construction, renovation or repairs. The locations of these interventions are shown on Figure A (below-ground investigations) and Figure B (recording of structures above ground); larger copies of these drawings are also included as Figure 117 and 118 in the main body of the report. This work has contributed to an understanding of the Citadel and its development. The summaries of the above-ground observations (below) describe structures as they were seen at the date of each particular project. The figures here are labelled A, B, C, etc to avoid confusion with those in the main body of the report.
Below-ground recording
The following are indicated numerically on Figure A and 117. All NGRs are approximately central to the recorded area or trench. 1. 19889 Work carried out by the Central Archaeology Service (CAS; formerly the Central Excavation Unit) of English Heritage. Plymouth SMR refers to Site Code 288, but only limited archive material is available at the NMR/EH. SX 4796 5388 NMR Activity Report Uid 1260291
Appendix 6 - Summary of Archaeological Interventions
Excavation and monitoring was undertaken by the English Heritage Central Archaeology Service (CAS; formerly the Central Excavation Unit) during refurbishment in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 19889 the area to the west of the RHQ Building 131 (formerly the Governors Range) was excavated in advance of the construction of a new Sergeants Mess. The excavations revealed foundations and floors associated with the Master Gunners and Gunners accommodation and the Mess Kitchen, in addition to the remains of the Fort Majors Range (formerly, in 1672, the site of a barrack block from De Gommes original construction). These buildings are shown on the 1879 Barrack Atlas Plan (Figure 95) but were all demolished during refurbishment in the late 19th century. An area of limestone cobbling was also uncovered to the north; this was recorded but left in situ. The site of grease trap A (4a) was subsequently excavated within this area.
Figure A: Plan showing locations of archaeological below-ground observations and outline of former Elizabethan fort.
Figure B: Plan showing locations of archaeological above-ground investigations.
158
Alan Baxter
2a-d 1994 Plymouth (Elizabethan) Fort (Pye et al. 1994) 2a Trenches 12 SX 48152 53775 2b Trenches 35 SX 48197 53765 2c Trench 6 SX 48128 53718 2d Trench 7 SX 48056 53736 SMR SX45SE/049, UAD S/003, S/052 Figures 43, 54, 63, 64 and C-D show the early fort, or its outline, but its former outline had ceased to be shown by 1672 (Figure 64).
Remains of the scarp wall (inner face) of the western face of the north bastion of the fort and the curtain wall to the south-east were found (2a, 2b), making it possible to locate the position of the bastion and project the outline (from historic plans) of the rest of the main fort (Figures 43, 54, 63, 64 and A, C - D). The scarp wall comprised a mortared limestone rubble core faced with loosely coursed ashlar limestone blockwork, with the face battered at an angle of 2030 degrees from the vertical. It survived to within 0.22m of the ground surface. Its face had been robbed in places. The bastion wall had been built partly on a rock ledge above the base of the ditch, whereas the curtain wall to the south-east (2b) was constructed from the bottom of the ditch. The scarp wall was absent in Trench 3 (2b) probably due to later scarping and excavation during the construction of the Citadel, when the ramparts of the Elizabethan fort were demolished, the ditches infilled and the ground levelled-up. This may also explain the absence of the counterscarp of the ditch in Trench 4 (2b), the absence of natural bedrock towards the north-eastern end of this trench (despite machine excavation to a depth of 4m), and the relative shallowness of the ditch to the west (2a Trenches 1 and 2). The ditch fills observed comprised slighted clay rampart material (clean clay with frequent fragments of limestone) overlying wall demolition (crushed mortar with fragments of slate and mortared limestone). The counterscarp of the ditch was only observed in Trench 1 (2a) indicating that the ditch was 8.2m wide and 2.1m deep at this point. However, it was not seen to the south-east (2b Trench 4), probably having been removed between 1665 and 1677. In Trench 4 the ditch
Figure C: The Elizabethan fort in 1593 (TNA SP 12/245 f. 31; from Stuart 1991, No. 12).
Figure D: De Gommes plan of 1668 showing the faint outline of the Elizabethan fort (BL Add MS 16371 D).
Alan Baxter
159
Five targeted evaluation trenches were excavated in Sept 1994 within the northern part of the Elizabethan fort (Plymouth Fort) in advance of proposed building. These have been the only structured sub-surface investigations carried out in this particular area, covering 106m2. No fissures in the bedrock or remains of earlier medieval and 16th-century defensive bulwarks were identified, although this does not preclude their survival elsewhere within this area of Plymouth Fort, or indeed within the later Citadel.
survived to a depth of 2.4m (3.6m below ground level). Bedrock was also located at a depth of 2.4m below ground level in Trench 3 (2b), which probably represents the level of the bottom of the ditch here. A small amount of rampart material remained in situ at the extreme south-western end of Trench 4 (2b). This indicates less severe truncation of deposits in this area. Consequently there is a greater likelihood of remains of original structures (such as the Governors House and original St. Katherines Chapel), shown inside the fort on the historic maps, surviving within the southern area of the fort.
3b-c 19945 Service trenches and vehicle washdown facility (Bishop et al. 1995) 3b Service trenches 3c Washdown facility UAD S/118 3b Service trenches New service trenches were monitored within the parade ground immediately outside casemates 217233 (SX 4811 5372). On average, 0.14m of tarmac overlay 0.16m of make-up, which sealed 0.6m of limestone rubble in a clay matrix (0.4m within the cross-trenches). The layer of limestone rubble, which was also exposed at the base of the trenches, had been cut in places by a number of trenches for existing service pipes and cables. This area was previously occupied by the south-west bastion of Plymouth (Elizabethan) Fort. However, the only feature of archaeological interest revealed was the corner of a stone-built wall exposed in the side-trench leading up to casemate 221. The nature and bonding of the wall was typical of the 19th century and its inner facework implied that it was part of a below-ground structure, most likely a walled sewer trench or inspection chamber, associated with casemate 220. This casemate is annotated Soldiers Latrines on the plan of 1879 (Figure 95), but not by 1936 (Figure 109), suggesting that the sewer had gone out of use and the chamber infilled in the early 20th century. The presence of tarmac fragments in the backfill was consistent with this. The casemate footings were not exposed in any of the trenches indicating that the ground level had been built up considerably after their construction. It was thought likely that archaeological features relating to the earlier fort would only survive at a greater depth. SX 48096 53728 SX 4819 5383
Horizontally-truncated bedrock along the eastern edge of the site indicated a deeper section of ditch running alongside the limestone counterscarp wall, the line of which was clearly defined and recorded. A 5.40m length of masonry counterscarp wall surviving to a height of 2.20m was revealed beneath the concrete slab (now the site of structure 167) and also further south in Trench 2. This was recorded, together with surviving lengths of the wall revetting the rampart of the covered way and the counterscarp wall of the ditch known as the old wall, situated to the south of the WWII gun position (3d), and the remains of the apex of the place darmes to the north (3e). The concrete gun position at SX 4820 5382 represents the site of a 6 BL gun installed during WWII for practice drill purposes. This is of interest in its own right, since few gun positions of this type now survive. There was no evidence of the traverses (stone-revetted earthen banks; with firing steps to the rear) on the covered way. These had probably been removed when the concrete standing was laid. 4a-f 1996 Monitoring during construction of grease traps, sheds and vehicle loading ramp (Stead 1997) 4a Grease trap A 4b Grease trap B 4c Grease trap C 4d Shed A 4e Shed B SX 47984 53892 SX 48014 53787 SX 48088 53919 SX 48126 53906 SX 47948 53835
Later buildings within the fort Between c. 1741 (Figure E) and 1794 (Stuart 1991, No. 197; not illustrated) the former hospital building (Building 111) was constructed in the north of the area together with a large building adjacent to and parallel with the inner face of the Citadels eastern wall. The truncated remains of the latter, labelled R.A. Drill Shed in 1901 (Figure 12), were found at a depth of 0.50.8m below ground level in Trenches 5 and 4 (2b), the walls surviving to a height of just over 1m. By 1879 (Figure 95) several more buildings were erected. The truncated remains of the Stable Block, dung pit behind, Fire-Engine House (with internal cobbled floor), and harness-room were recorded, and associated service pipes observed (2b). In the area of the large catering block built between 1901 and 1936 (Figure 109) (2a) the general level of reduction was considerably greater than in the other three trenches as a result of terracing. Subsequently all the buildings in this area apart from the former hospital were demolished in 199091, and the area levelled and resurfaced in tarmac. Cumberland Bastion rampart drainage Trenches 6 and 7 (2c, 2d) were excavated on top of the southern perimeter rampart wall of Cumberland Bastion to assess the drainage arrangements over casemates 218219, 2289. The casemate roofs, probably constructed of limestone, had been exposed and sealed with a layer of bitumen. Brick drains, covered by protective limestone capping stones and sealed by aggregate or demolition rubble, were then constructed in the roof valleys in the late 19th or 20th century to channel water off the roofs and into the interior of the Citadel via narrow iron outlet pipes through the inner rampart wall. No evidence was found in Trench 6 (2c) for a gun platform associated with the blocked embrasure in the parapet wall (any platform would have been removed during the insertion of the brick drains)
3c Vehicle washdown facility UAD S/119 Just outside the scheduled area (centre SX 4819 5383), groundworks associated with construction of a new vehicle washdown facility within the Citadel ditch were monitored. This was the site of former modern buildings situated to the north of the WWII gun position. A concrete slab over the whole area was removed by the building contractors, and two trenches, one to house a petrol interceptor and the other a drain for water runoff, were excavated by machine.
4a Grease trap A The traps were all constructed on the alignment of existing drain runs. Trap A was sited north of Building 121 within an area that had been excavated by the Central Archaeological Service (CAS) in 1990 (1). The latter excavations had revealed an expanse of coarse limestone cobbles in this area (near the former 17th-century Fort Majors Range), which had been left in situ. The cobbles were revealed at a depth of 0.34m beneath tarmac and hardcore. They occupied the entire excavation area with the exception of the western side, which had been disturbed by a modern manhole and concrete-filled pipe trench crossing the site from south-west to north-east. Two features, both aligned north to south, were sealed beneath the cobbles: the southern part of a 3m-wide brick-vaulted cistern, with a lime-mortared limestone rubble wall, and a 0.60m-wide mudbonded limestone block wall. Both features cut into the underlying clay subsoil. To the east of the wall, a 0.20m-thick soil development of dark grey, silty clay containing charcoal fragments. The position and orientation of the wall does not accord with any known buildings, but
160
Alan Baxter
may represent the west wall of a garden to the rear of the residences of the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor shown on the 1677 plan (Figure 65). 4b Grease trap B This was sited near the late 19th-/early 20th-century Officers Mess Building 120. The truncated remains of the primary rampart were observed directly beneath the modern surface at a depth of 0.28m. These consisted of large, rough-hewn limestone fragments set within a clean clay matrix. This band of rampart material was 0.36m thick and sealed a buried soil representing the 17th-century land surface. The soil comprised a very clayey loam and was 0.14m thick; it directly overlay fractured natural limestone which occurred at a depth of 0.50m from ground level.
Assessment of pollen from the buried soil revealed taxa that were relatively resistant to decay (sedges, grasses, members of the daisy family, and occasional bracken and fern spores). It was concluded that full analysis was unlikely to provide reliable information on the prerampart vegetation in the area. 4c Grease trap C This was sited to the rear of the scarp wall of the rampart, just north of Building 102. No archaeological deposits were exposed here; modern tarmac directly overlay truncated natural limestone. 4d Shed A This was sited at the base of the south wall of Prince of Wales Bastion. Groundworks involved the stripping of tarmac and the excavation of a single perimeter trench 0.45m deep. Concrete wall foundations were exposed, including parallel foundations (for internal divisions)
set perpendicular to the bastion wall, with corresponding scars on the bastion wall indicating that the building had been attached to it. A single course of brick walling survived on top of two of the concrete foundations. The remains indicated a 13.0m long by 3.0m wide brick building divided into six rooms or compartments. This appears to be Bread Store No. 2 and Meat Store No. 2 on the 1936 plan (Figure 13). These stores are of early 20th-century date, since the area was occupied by rampart until its removal c. 1900. 4e Shed B This was sited against the rear face of King Charles curtain wall at its junction with King Charles Bastion. Groundworks involved the stripping of tarmac and the excavation of a single perimeter trench approximately 0.50m deep. No significant archaeological features or deposits were revealed; the modern surface directly overlay truncated natural limestone. 4f Vehicle loading ramp SX 48172 53875 The ground level was reduced by 0.50m on the edge of a grassed area within the MT park. The base course of a 0.95m wide limestone wall was revealed, set onto bedrock directly beneath the modern surface. No buildings within the area of the wall are depicted on any historic maps, but its position and orientation equates with the south wall of a building marked Repository Drill shed on the plan of 1936. This is likely to have been built in the late 19th/early 20th century. 5d 1997 Extension to Building 121 (Sergeants Mess) (Dyer 1997) SX 47978 53866 Archaeological recording was undertaken during construction of an extension to the Sergeants Mess (Building 121) within an existing paved patio area. An area of 10.8m by 6.5m was excavated to a depth of 0.45m for a concrete slab foundation. This fell entirely within an area excavated by CAS in 1989 (1), covering the southern part of the Mess Kitchen illustrated in 1879 and the northern part of the Master Gunners Quarters. A limestone wall corresponded with a partition wall subdividing the southern room of the kitchen. The layers to each side overlying the wall (representing backfilling after the CAS excavation) were overlain by 0.40m of modern levelling material relating to the construction of Building 121 and the patio. 6c-d 1997, 1998 Main Gate SX 48034 53929 6c 1997 Evaluation trenches (Watts 1997a; Reed 1997) In 1997 four evaluation trenches were excavated in advance of the removal, reduction and relaying of the road through the passageway of the main gate. Earlier assessment had indicated that these
Figure E: Plan of the Citadel by Robert Madgett, c. 1741 (or later) (TNA MPH 1/728).
Alan Baxter
161
groundworks would disturb surviving archaeological evidence relating to earlier surfaces, features relating to the operation of the drawbridge, and possibly also the scarp wall. Trench 1 was located partially across the road leading into the Citadel, and across the full width of the path on the west of the road, parallel to and at a distance of 2.7m from the scarp wall. The substantial remains of a mortar-bonded pier of limestone blocks, representing the bearer for the drawbridge, were revealed at the eastern end of the trench. This survived at a depth of 0.3m below the road surface. There would have been further piers to the north (not excavated) supporting the bridge access from the ravelin (the defensive outwork that lay in the ditch opposite the main gate) to the drawbridge bearer. A mortar-bonded limestone wall abutted the pier. The top of the wall was approximately 0.7m below ground level, and had been truncated during the infilling of the ditch. This wall may have been designed as a counterscarp to a narrow ditch, c. 2m wide, that was retained against the Citadel wall following the infilling of the much broader primary ditch in the late 19th century. A ditch in this position would still have been spanned by the drawbridge, which may explain the survival of the latter in late 19th-century photographs post-dating the infilling of the main ditch. However, since the same photographs do not show a ditch to either side of the drawbridge, it may either never have been completed or filled in shortly after completion. Thirteen sherds of pottery recovered from the fill of the primary ditch dated from the early 17th century through to the late 18th century. At least some of this material may have derived from the slighting of the ravelin. This was constructed in the late 17th century and demolished during the infilling of the ditch in 1888, but partly survives as an earthwork (the Mound) in front of the main gate. Trench 2 was located directly outside the main gate to investigate the survival of the scarp wall, which formed the southern edge of the trench, and the nature of the ditch infill. The scarp wall was exposed to a depth of 1m. Deposits lying against the face of the wall, below the level of road and pavement make-up, consisted of redeposited limestone rubble, in a red clay matrix, with occasional building rubble. No other features of archaeological interest were exposed. Two trenches (3 and 4) within the passageway of the main gate revealed no earlier surfaces, since modern deposits were at least 0.65m deep in both trenches and sealed numerous modern service pipes and cables. Granite kerbs survived against the passage wall; these lay upon a bedding layer which sealed granite block or brickwork foundations, the latter (in trench 3) possibly representing rebuilding after the removal of a pivot for the drawbridge.
6d 1998 Recording (Watts 1998) Reduction of gate passage The reduction of the carriageway (originally at 32m AOD) involved the removal of all the existing modern surface and make-up deposits. The excavated area extended beyond the main gate for 10m to the north and 5m to the south. The presence of scaffolding feet to either side of the passage entrance prevented excavation where below-ground remains of drawbridge fixings might be expected. Granite kerbs were revealed extending down the full length of both sides of the passage, with modern make-up material lying between. Removal of the latter exposed modern service trenches lying adjacent to the kerbs. Despite this truncation, archaeological deposits were observed surviving between the trenches and, following their removal, below the granite kerbs to either side. Subsequent reexcavation and deepening of the eastern service trench revealed deeper-lying archaeological deposits and structures, and enabled a longitudinal section to be drawn through the entire gate passage. Once recorded, the granite kerbs were removed exposing a variety of bedding materials, including white lime mortar, yellow sandy lime mortar and concrete, clearly indicating a number of repairs and replacements since the kerbs were introduced. Features and deposits lying below indicated that the kerbs were not primary to the passage, and were probably of 19th-century date. No dating evidence was recovered other than fragments of modern frosted glass from the counterweight pit on the east side of the gate passage. Entrance arch Solid limestone masonry was recorded within the entrance arch between the service trenches. The full depth of this masonry was not established but its continuity with the entrance arch foundations was seen in section. To the south was a deposit of clay and limestone fragments overlain by a layer of gritty sand and sealed by a thin layer (c. 50mm thick) of compact limestone and grit bonded in lime mortar, which extended northwards over the arch foundations. This compact layer, which lay at approximately 31.65m AOD, was probably a bedding layer for the original surface. The north end of the foundations had been truncated to allow for the construction of a step or rebate immediately in front of the main faade. The vertical edge of the rebate was a rough limestone build bonded by a white lime mortar with grey flecks, probably ash. The rebate base, which lay at 31.53m AOD, was 0.22m wide. Foundations surviving above this height were subsequently truncated to this level to allow for the new roadway. To the north of the rebate, the surviving top of the battered scarp wall was exposed.
Removal of the granite kerbs within the entrance arch revealed the presence of small culverts to either side. The culverts had slate bases, brick sides (occasionally limestone was used), and limestone capping. Both sloped gently down from south to north. Removal of the modern surface within the entrance arch uncovered concrete slabs in the northern half of the rebates, beneath which were two deep, brick-lined pits, each measuring approximately 0.8m. Excavation of the service trench revealed more of the structure of the eastern pit. This was not a primary feature, but had been inserted within a wide construction trench which occupied the entire rebate. Partial excavation of the pit fill, which included large fragments of frosted glass, reached a depth of 1.4m below the former ground level, at which point an iron fixing, possibly a cleat or a handle, was observed attached to the original limestone build of the south side. Probing reached a further 0.8m below this point, but the base of the pit, which was at least 2.2m deep below the former ground level, could not be established. The location of the pits, directly below the internal pulley of the drawbridge mechanism, suggested that their original purpose was to house counterweights when the drawbridge was in its raised position. Excavation of the service trench revealed more of the culvert on the eastern side of the entrance arch. The arch foundations appeared to have been reduced in height to allow for the construction of the culvert. In section, the direction of slope from south down to north was confirmed. Modern rebuilding of the north side of the pit had sealed the south end of the culvert; the north end of the culvert was also blocked by the rebuilding of the drawbridge rebate. Following the infilling of the ditch against the main gate, the primary surface comprised granite setts of the cobbled drainage gully. The passageway The foundations of the walls of the passage were exposed on both sides. These were asymmetric in nature, measuring 0.25m wide on the western side of the passage, and 0.5m wide on the eastern side. The north end of both sides had been truncated by the insertion of the counterweight pits, and further truncation had occurred in the centre of the western side where services had been cut through the foundations to gain access to the meter room below the gun embrasure. The foundations were built of rough limestone bonded in white lime mortar. Traces of the primary surface levelling layers adhering to the western foundations indicated that these were at their original width and had not been laterally truncated. The foundations were approximately 0.4m in height and had been constructed directly onto limestone bedrock, which on the east side of the passage lay
162
Alan Baxter
at approximately 31.25m AOD. The foundations on both sides were truncated back to the line of the wall prior to the rebedding of the granite kerbs within the passage. The rear arch Observations within the rear arch were mainly limited to the excavation of the service trench along the east side of the passage. The foundations of the rear arch consisted of limestone masonry identical to the foundations of the passage. They had been truncated by the construction cut for the corner bollard, but probably originally extended beneath the full width of the arch. These foundations were also built directly over limestone bedrock, and were 0.4m in height. The rebate in the wall above was reflected in the foundations, and thus clearly was part of the original design. Although extensively disturbed, some remains of the original deposits in this area had survived. These were similar to those within the entrance arch: a layer of clean limestone and clay overlying bedrock and covered with a thin layer of gritty sand, itself lying below a highly compact layer of lime mortar-bonded limestone. The latter was probably a bedding layer for the original surface, which was located at 31.84m AOD, indicating a fall of approximately 0.2m from south down to north for the original surface through the passage. Below-ground remains outside the main gate Excavation to the south of the main gate revealed a continuation of redeposited limestone and clay levelling layers overlain by modern make-up deposits for the existing ground level. The continuation of a service trench to the junction box approximately 5m to the south of the gate passage exposed more bedrock, gradually rising to the south. No other features or deposits of archaeological interest were observed. To the north of the main gate, the presence of the drawbridge pier and abutting wall had previously been recorded during the evaluation (above). Groundworks here exposed more of the pier, which had suffered truncation from the service trenches. The southern edge of the pier comprised very neatly dressed limestone blocks, 0.46m wide, which appeared to be machine-finished. Shallow grooves and evidence of former iron fixings were observed on the upper face of this structure, which lay at 31.5m AOD. The southern edge of the pier featured a shallow, stopped rebate 125mm below this level, which measured 3.1m by only 70mm wide. The base of the step was built in slate, with rough limestone facework visible below. At the depth excavated, there was no evidence for the northern edge of the pier. The surviving remains observed appeared to form a single structure comprising the dressed limestone edges of a concrete path, with a substantial wall below path level to the east. Further truncation of the southern edge of the pier and the limestone wall occurred during deeper excavation for relaying the services.
8/12b 2000 Service trench on south-east side of Building 108 (EA Project 3840) SX 48134 53782 The excavation of a service trench for a proposed toilet/shower unit was monitored. The trench ran along the south-east side of Building 108, with a dog-leg to the south, before widening out by the eastern corner of Building 118. The trench alongside Building 108 was approximately 18m x 0.30m x 0.50m deep. Modern levelling material of brown clay with frequent stone and occasional brick extended below the excavated level, beneath tarmac (0.20m) and make-up (0.10m). The levelling layer continued into the dog-leg before being cut by a modern service. The service trench widened to 0.90m by the eastern corner of Building 118. Here there was 0.50m of modern pipe-trench fill beneath 0.20m of tarmac. The top of the earlier pipe was visible in the base of the trench. No archaeological deposits were encountered. 9a-d 2006 Replacement of gas pipeline in Hoe Road (Exeter Archaeology 2006) 9a Pit 1a 9b Pits 3, 3a 9c Pit 4 9d Trench 1 SX 47970 53978 SX 47873 53832 SX 47927 53907 SX 47998 53951
(centre) to the north of the west sallyport. It was excavated along the pavement in order to facilitate construction along a slightly curving c 100m length. Again, no archaeological features were observed. 9c Pit 4 This pit (3m x 0.9m x 0.8m deep) was located on the west side of the Citadel on the north side of the junction to the Aquarium. A rightangled extension (4.20m x 0.5m x 0.40m deep) projected towards the Aquarium. No archaeological deposits were observed. 9d Trench 1 A trench (106m x 0.5m wide x 1m deep) was required to connect the Citadels supply with the new gas main. In this trench 0.80m of dark grey, friable, silty sand containing some sizeable fragments of building stone, probable levelling material, was overlain by 0.20m of humic, friable topsoil. This material probably relates in part to the late 19thcentury modifications to the outer defences, but it may equally be the result of later landscaping. No dating evidence was recovered. 10a-e 2007 CCTV service trenches (Jones 2009) 10a Trench 1 TA Centre 10b Surface in Trench 1 10c Trench 2 10d Trench 3 10e Culvert in Trench 3 10a, b Trench 1, surface Trench 1 was 258m long and followed the perimeter of the buildings within the grounds of the Regimental Training Wing (TA Centre) north of Prince of Wales Bastion. It was excavated to a maximum depth of 0.50m. Uniform levelling deposits were encountered consisting of greyish-black coarse sand with occasional limestone fragments, overlain by 0.10m0.30m of demolition material (dark greyish-brown coarse sandy silt containing frequent limestone fragments with occasional red brick and slate fragments) directly beneath the topsoil/tarmac. Two clay pipe stems and one sherd of post-medieval North Devon graveltempered ware were recovered from the spoil. A concrete surface (10b) was located at a depth of 0.40m within the north-west terminal of the trench to the west of the Training Facility building, which probably represented the floor slab of a former early 20th-century ancillary building. This was sealed by a 0.30m thick demolition layer with very high concentrations of fragmentary limestone and frogged red brick. No significant archaeological deposits were disturbed. 10c Trench 2 Trench 2 was located on the south-eastern part of the citadel extending from Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion to the eastern side of Cumberland Battery (142m long and 0.50m deep). Underlying the SX 48097 53970 SX 48093 54033 SX 48175 53727 SX 47943 53874 SX 47921 53850
The excavation of pits and trenches for a replacement gas pipe was monitored within the area of the scheduled monument along Hoe Road. Hoe Road itself is first shown on early 19th-century town plans. 9a Pit 1a This was located on the south side of the road to the north-west of the main gate. The north-east facing section of this pit exposed granite setts beneath tarmac, representing 19th- or early 20thcentury road construction. Beneath this was a base layer of limestone rubble, mortar and sand, 0.50m deep. A sherd of early 17th-century Westerwald pottery was recovered from this deposit. Beneath this layer was a further make-up layer of dark coarse sandy clay, which contained only late 19th-/early 20th-century material.
9b Pits 3, 3a Pit 3 (0.4m x 0.6m x 0.8m deep) was located on the west side of the Citadel, 8m to the south of the west sallyport. It was excavated over existing services and no archaeological deposits were observed. Pit 3a (4m x 1m) was also located on the west side of the Citadel 17.5m
Alan Baxter
163
tarmac and topsoil was a 0.40m+ thick levelling deposit of dark brown clayey coarse sand containing limestone flecks and fragments of early 20th-century orangey-to-red stock brick. The vertical face of a brick drain was exposed to six courses at a depth of c. 0.10m. All the sides were one brick wide, each brick frogged and measuring (0.23m x 0.11m x 0.06m). This was probably one of a series of drains channelling water off the casement roofs via iron outlet pipes through the inner rampart wall. No significant archaeological deposits were disturbed. A single sherd of 17th/18th-century South Somerset ware was recovered.
with the 17th-century Great Storehouse (Building 118) was recorded. Some structural remains of late 18th-/early 19th-century date were also observed, notably the Senior Master Gunners and Gunners accommodation block. There was no evidence of any 16th-century structures as a result of extensive overlying 19th- and early 20thcentury deposits. 12a-b 2008 Shower block behind (south of) Building 118 12a Pits (Pit 11) and Trench 1 SX 48121 53752 12b Trench 2 (see 8) SX 48134 53782 In July 2008 a watching brief was undertaken during construction of new shower blocks, and associated service ducts, behind Building 118 (centre SX 4807 5382) in the vicinity of Plymouth (Elizabethan) Fort. The scheme involved the excavation of 16 pits, each measuring 1.0m x 1.0m and 0.30m0.40m deep, to house concrete piers and to support portakabins, and two open cut service trenches, 0.40m wide, totalling 75m in length. All the pits contained modern deposits apart pit 11 where a surface of compacted limestone fragments and dark grey silts was encountered at 0.35m below ground level. Although this contained several sherds of late 17th-/early 18th-century pottery, these were probably residual in nature. No significant archaeological deposits were disturbed due to the limited depths of the pits and evident truncation. Trench 1, parallel to Building 118, was 35m long, 0.40m wide, and 0.60m0.75m deep. Remains of the northern part of the old Bath House were found (shown on the 1936 map), comprising limestone walls, an asphalt surface with an open drain, and a red brick threshold. The structure had been backfilled with a demolition-based mix of shale, yellow and red stock brick, and limestone fragments. Another wall to the north-east was probably part of an earlier 19th-century structure within the vicinity. Other in situ archaeological features are thought likely to survive at similar depths as illustrated by the works carried out in the mid 1990s (2a-b). Trench 2 was cut along the line of existing services for Building 108 (8) and re-excavated to a depth of 0.60m. No significant archaeological features or deposits were observed.
Rampart walkways 4g Cumberland Battery SX 48079 53729 4h Prince Edwards Battery & Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion SX 48214 53760 4i King Charles curtain wall SX 47970 53805 4j King Charles Bastion (incl. platform and wall) SX 47905 53829 5a Prince Georges curtain wall 5b Prince Georges Bastion 5c Prince of Wales curtain wall SX 47948 53888 SX 47959 53952 SX 47999 53931
10d, 10e Trench 3, culvert This trench was located between Prince Georges curtain wall and King Charles Bastion (68m long and 0.45m deep). The trench followed the alignment of the corresponding bastion and curtain. Underlying the topsoil was a 0.35m+ dark-brown, clayey, coarse sand levelling deposit containing limestone fragments, occasional limestone boulders, and fragments of red brick similar to those recovered from Trench 2 (above). A sherd of medieval green-glazed whiteware and a sherd of 17th-/18th-century South Somerset ware were recovered. A culvert (10e) was exposed within King Charles Bastion at a depth of 0.10m (39.10m AOD). This was 0.36m deep and 0.47m wide. Its southwest side and base were of slate, and its north-east face of irregularly coursed limestone interspersed with handmade brick, all bonded by a lime mortar. Sealing the culvert were a series of roughly hewn limestone slabs utilised as capping stones, each being 0.30m wide. The culvert appeared to relate to the 19th-century refurbishments of the rampart drainage system. 11a-j 2008 Trenches for fibre optic cables (Aaronson & Jones 2009) 11a Trench 1 11b Trench 2 11c Trench 3 11d Trench 4 11e Trench 5 11f Trench 6 11g Trench 7 11h Trench 8 11i Trench 9 11j Trench 10 SX 48115 53742 SX 48079 53770 SX 48024 53804 SX 47981 53811 SX 47953 53848 SX 47958 53887 SX 48024 53899 SX 48110 53904 SX 48148 53910 SX 48114 53996
7a Cumberland Battery (east end) SX 48120 53707 7b Queens Battery SX 48166 53727 7c Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion (and shed slab) SX 48224 53715 In 19967 Exeter Archaeology monitored improvements to the drainage system along the rampart walkways. This followed a preliminary evaluation of the drainage arrangements over casements 2189, 2289 on top of the southern perimeter rampart wall of Cumberland Battery (2c, 2d), which confirmed that major refurbishment of the rampart drainage system in the late 19th or early 20th century had involved the wholesale removal of the rampart material overlying the casemate roofs (Pye et al. 1994, 10). Subsequent monitoring (as below) comprised observations during the resurfacing of walkways in various areas, the excavation of series of hopper pits, the excavation of shallow trenches to accommodate granite gullies, and further trenches as required to connect the granite gullies and hoppers. 4g Cumberland Battery (Stead 1997) The top of the rampart walls was exposed during the excavation of hopper pits at the base of the garde fou (the low wall along the rear of the rampart) above the junction of the casemate roofs. The remains of mortared limestone drains abutting the base of the garde fou were seen in two of the pits. These would have carried surface water into vertical drains mortared to the rear face of the rampart wall and fed into a late 19th-/early 20th-century brick drain set within the in the roof valleys of the adjoining casemates. At this time the rampart in this area was clearly stripped to the top of the casemates. The limestone drains, however, represent the partial survival of an earlier arrangement. No earlier surfaces were exposed, or other significant archaeological deposits disturbed.
An archaeological watching brief was undertaken during the excavation of trenches for new fibre optic cabling ducts, between April and July 2008. The trenches were 0.48m wide and excavated to a depth of 0.65m0.90m. Due to the limited size of the trenches, interpretation of deposits and features was difficult. However, evidence for the drainage system of the former Bath House associated
164
Alan Baxter
4ij King Charles Bastion (Stead 1997) The excavation of the gully trench exposed a 3.0m2 platform, constructed of white lime-mortared limestone rubble with occasional handmade bricks, in the south-west corner of the bastion. It directly underlay the bedding for the tarmac and was abutted by a reddishbrown clay containing limestone fragments (probably primary rampart material). A mortared stone wall abutted and extended from the east end of the platform. This was further exposed at the southeast corner of the bastion, confirming it was aligned parallel with the south wall of the bastion, but it did not extend as far as a second pipe trench approximately 3.0m to the east. The wall was 0.60m wide, of lime mortared limestone construction, and survived to a height of 0.30m. These features may represent an early gun platform with an associated wall of uncertain function, although no such features are indicated in this position on any of the historic plans. 5a Prince Georges curtain wall (Dyer 1997) The top of the wall retaining the rear face of the rampart was exposed in three hopper pits dug at the base of the garde fou (one pit connected with an existing outlet but the remainder required new outlets to be cut through the rampart wall). The garde fou had been built directly on top of this wall, with the latter being up to 0.40m wider. Rampart core material, consisting of angular limestone fragments in a clay matrix, was observed at a depth of 0.35m0.80m. This was overlain by topsoil and stony clay loam, representing previous truncation. 5b Prince Georges Bastion (Dyer 1997) The trench for the granite gully revealed rampart material below 0.25m of topsoil. In the connecting pipe-trenches, undisturbed rampart material occurred at 0.40m0.70m, with extensive truncation having occurred during the construction of a modern garage within the bastion, which had a concrete slab roof flush with the top of the rampart.
5c Prince of Wales curtain wall (Dyer 1997) The gully trench sides revealed 0.35m of turf and topsoil overlying rampart material. No features of archaeological interest were revealed, and as in 1996 (above), it was found that significant truncation of the rampart material had taken place with all earlier surfaces having been removed. 7a Cumberland Battery (east end) (Bayer 1998) No deposits of archaeological significance were revealed. 7b Queens Battery (Bayer 1998) The top of the inner rampart wall was encountered at a depth of 0.40m below existing ground level within five hopper pits cut through the grass verge at the base of the garde-fou. An existing brick-built drainage channel was mortared vertically against the inner wall. The pits also cut into rampart material, which extended beyond the base of the excavations. An extension to the inner rampart wall was observed in one pit projecting at right-angles 0.50m southward into the rampart core. 7c Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion (Bayer 1998) The groundworks were confined to the southern side of the demibastion. An area of very compact make-up was observed beneath the existing tarmac surface, interpreted as the remnants of an earlier surface. It was made up of medium sub-angular limestone fragments set into the underlying rampart material, with occasional brick repairs and an apparently in situ granite slab. Another large concrete slab (4.20m x 1.10m) was revealed; this was set lengthways against the garde fou and surrounded on three sides by narrow granite setts. The slabs position corresponded exactly with a raised portion of the garde fou and also with a rectangular feature, probably a storage shed, shown on a 1901 OS plan (Figure 12). The remains of this surface
During 1994 and 1995 archaeological recording was carried out within casemates 201233, prior to their refurbishment to allow for use as storage and office accommodation. The casemates were located on the southern flank of the main rampart extending from the south face of Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion, under the rampart of Cumberland Battery (formerly Cliffords Bastion) to the Old Saluting Battery (formerly Baths Bastion) in the west. Construction of the casemates began in the 1670s, after the southern curtain had been built between 1672 and 1677, and was finally completed in the 1750s. During the following century they were adapted to a variety of uses, although some remained as barracks as late as 1879. The brief for the projects, as approved by English Heritage, included the following: Plan and elevation drawings of significant casemates, typical casemates and corner casemates. Detailed drawings of representative examples of fixtures of particular interest such as the cleats and racking. An inventory of the alterations and fittings, and an examination of their temporal relationships. Limited discussion of the phasing using available historical research. Interior and exterior photographic record of the casemates and the sallyport. Section drawings through the casemates and rampart. Recovery of core samples from the drilling for a separate specialist analysis of mortar type and constituents. Production of reports summarising the above.
Alan Baxter
165
4h Prince Edwards Battery and Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion (Stead 1997) Truncation of the rampart core was observed in four trenches (each excavated to c. 0.50m). Towards Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion the rampart wall (of lime-mortar bonded limestone rubble) lay at a depth of 0.22m below ground level and extended 1.20m from the east face of the garde fou. The abutting rampart core consisted of rough-hewn limestone fragments within a clean clay matrix. On Prince Edwards Bastion, the garde fou, which extended beyond the base of the trenches, was abutted by rampart material but the rampart wall was not present.
A 2.9m length of wall was revealed during the stripping of the tarmac. This was aligned east-west and turned northwards at its eastern end. It was constructed of limestone rubble bonded with a hard, white lime-based mortar, and roughly faced on both sides. It appears to have been free-standing, with rampart material subsequently dumped against each face. Small stone shelters were built adjoining the garde fou in the early 1800s, but no structures are shown in this impracticable position in the middle of the pathway (as this structure was) on any historic plans. It therefore might represent part of the original internal structure of the rampart, perhaps one of several walls dividing the rampart into stabilising compartments (or counterforts), which were then infilled with rubble and earth rampart material. Alternatively it could relate to alterations made to this part of the defences in 16657.
represented the only area observed where disturbance had not occurred, and therefore an existing drainage trench was reused in this area in order to avoid further disturbance to the feature.
Above ground observations

The locations of the following are indicated numerically on Figure B. All NGRs are approximately central to the recorded area. The following summaries of standing features and structures are as they were recorded at the date of each particular project. 3a, 13 199495 Casemates (Bishop & Gibbons 1994; Bishop et al. 1995) 3a Casemates 201216 SX 48090 53724 13 Casemates 217233 SX 48178 53731
The casemates are of vaulted masonry construction, usually lit by a pair of windows flanking a central doorway and heated by fireplaces added later. Some of those sited in the bastions are provided with loopholes in their outside walls to cover the intervening curtain and the Lower Fort below. Sample casemates were fully recorded, together with two sally ports and one cover port, and an inventory made of surviving internal features such as 18th-century cleats for small arms, and later lantern brackets and racking. The casemates did not appear to incorporate any fabric belonging to the earlier Elizabethan structure. Overall, the casemates were thought to be well-preserved, with individual ones displaying little evidence of modification since the 1860s. Given their date, they were seen to be of considerable interest, particularly where 18th- and 19th-century features survive. 3d, 3e 199495 Walls near vehicle washdown facility (Bishop et al. 1995) 3d Walls south of the WWII gun position SX 48216 53810 3e Apex of place darmes SX 48203 53867 In conjunction with below-ground investigations (3c), surviving lengths of the wall revetting the rampart of the covered way and the counterscarp wall of the ditch known as the old wall, situated to the south of the WWII gun position (3d), and the remains of the apex of the place darmes to the north (3e) were recorded. These walls lie within the scheduled area. 6a-b, e-f 19968, 2003 Main Gate SX 48034 53929 6a 1996 Gilmore Hankey Kirke (observations of structure/repair of damage) Observations of the standing structure were undertaken; no details are available. 6b 1997 Assessment of proposed resurfacing works (Watts 1997a) An assessment of proposed works resulted in further work (6c, 6d, 6e) being carried out during construction. 6e 1998 Repairs to entrance arch standing structure (Watts 1998) The rear (south) face of the entrance arch was recorded before and during the removal and repair of the two damaged arch voussoirs; observations were also made following the removal of a facing slab in the western arch spandrel on the main faade to inspect the pulley mechanism. The rear elevation The rear of the entrance arch features Portland Stone, limestone, granite and brick, and a variety of mortars. Portland Stone has been used to form the arch voussoirs and sides, which appear to abut the
walls of the rebate to either side. The arch spandrels are irregularly infilled with limestone and brick, with roughly-coursed granite blocks above. The top of the arch structure features a brick relieving arch which springs from the same height as the adjoining tunnel vault but has a flatter profile so that 0.35m of the brick arch is visible centrally. Rubble, predominantly limestone, fills the area between the brick arch and stone voussoirs, and is heavily pointed with a dark grey gritty lime mortar. Where visible beneath, the original bonding comprises a hard, white lime mortar. Elsewhere, repointing consists of white sandy mortar. The elevation features a lamp fixed centrally above the arch keystone, and a pulley wheel and chain void to either side. Unlike those of the main faade, the rear pulley wheels are fixed with brackets to project out from the elevation. They are aligned with the pulley voids, through which the drawbridge chains formerly ran as they passed through the mass of the entrance arch, however, the eastern pulley wheel and void are located approximately 0.2m higher than their western counterparts. Observations were made during the removal of the damaged eastern voussoir, and during the in situ repair of the western one. However, it was the opportunity for close examination of the chain voids that provided vital information regarding the history of the structure. The bases and edges of the chain voids consist of both granite and limestone blocks. Both void tops are formed by the brick relieving arch; this has been rendered with a thin skim of lime plaster which extends beyond the edges of the voids themselves, and therefore predates both the voids and the rubble masonry below it. The main faade The removal of the arch spandrel facing slab immediately adjacent to the west pulley revealed information regarding both the construction of the faade and the pulley arrangement. The basic structure of the faade is a neatly-coursed wall of large limestone blocks, faced with Portland Stone slabs. Observation through the chain void revealed the limestone wall to be approximately 0.5m deep. The facing slab, which had originally been set in a hard creamy white lime mortar, had been reset following the insertion of the pulley with the liberal use of a grey lime mortar containing coal. The chain void had been created by the removal of one of the limestone blocks of the wall. The pulley was inserted and the void edged in brick bonded in a hard white mortar with angular gravels. Beyond the limestone wall, the top of the chain void was formed by the same rendered brick arch as seen from the southern elevation.
The removal of the facing slab also allowed observation of the construction of the adjacent projecting Ionic pilaster. The form of the pilaster was directly represented in the basic structure of the faade with the use of a hard, yellow fine-grained stone (which was not formally identified) within the limestone wall behind the Portland Stone cladding. As the pilaster projects forward of the main face, so the yellow stone projected slightly from the limestone elevation behind, and broke with the courses of the basic structure. Unlike the smooth face of the limestone, the yellow stone behind the pilaster had a very rough, possibly hacked, surface beneath its Portland cladding. The facing slabs of the pilaster were affixed to the yellow stone blocks with a pink powdery lime mortar containing coal. At the top of the pilaster, the capital was set against limestone. The pilaster facing slabs were noticeably thinner than their counterparts within the arch spandrel. 6f 2003 Recording during repairs to the drawbridge mechanism (Blackmore 2003) Each cleat is fixed into a large block of limestone that in turn is set into the rebates of the passageway. The two bracket arms of each cleat protrude approximately 20cm from the wall. On the east side of the main gate entrance the iron cleats are corroded over most of their surface and the metal is actively flaking as a result of exposure to weathering. The deterioration is especially evident where they are inserted into the masonry and where the chain rests on the upper arm of the bracket. The iron cleats on the west side of the main gate entrance are similarly corroded. The most severe deterioration appears to be concentrated on exposed areas and points of stress, especially where fixed into the wall. An application of a layer of black paint has offered some protection, notably where the paint is thickest on the chain loop and screw thread of each cleat. However, the paint is also flaking away, exposing the metal surface beneath, and it is probable that the metal is corroded beneath the paint layer. The southern cleat on the east side of the passageway is distinctive in having a hook on the lower half, below the screw thread. The hook is severely corroded and the metal surface is flaking especially at the tip. It is uncertain if the hooked cleat on the east side of the passage arch was a unique feature of the mechanism, or whether its counterpart on the west side was also originally hooked. The chain loops on both sides of the drawbridge mechanism are linked by an elaborate fixture that appears to allow for removal of the chain from the pulley wheel. This is also sealed by the thick layer of paint, preventing movement. The iron brackets and pulley wheels
166
Alan Baxter
on the east and west side appear to be in good condition, probably protected from weathering by the entrance arch. Any metal corrosion is mainly concentrated on the exposed edges. The drawbridge mechanism has survived in a varied state, depending on the degree of protection offered by the main gate itself. The upper pulley wheels and chain appear to be in good condition, whereas the lower cleats and chain have suffered from weathering and are in a poor condition, especially on exposed surfaces. The extent to which the mechanism has survived intact is unclear, although it would appear that additional parts would be required for it to operate. The date of the drawbridge mechanism is uncertain, however, the large stone blocks appear to have been inserted into the limestone rubble of the passageway, and are not a primary feature of the gate. 14a-d 1991, Governors Range (Building No. 131) SX 4801 5388 UAD S/025, S/109 14a 1991 RCHME The Governors range was surveyed by the RCHME during alterations in 1991, when the basic outline of its development was established. Traces of the twin gables supporting the original double roof were identified in the wall dividing the two sections of the building. The remains of several fireplaces with granite lintels, moulded jambs and carved stops were observed, and also one surviving three-light ovolo-moulded timber window and two curved recesses on the first floor, which were interpreted as recesses for winder (?newel) stairs. The plan supplied with the report did not locate these observations; the window was not identified in 2002, and so it is possible that this last evidence of the original fenestration was subsequently removed (Parker 2002, 2, 4). 14b 1996 Chimney reconstruction In 1996 Exeter Archaeology made observations at roof level during the reconstruction of some of the chimneys. The chimneys had been extended vertically in brick above the original limestone shafts. The brickwork did not appear to be earlier than the late 19th or early 20th century and the summits of the original chimneys had been destroyed. All the chimneys were capped and filled in the 20th century (Parker 2002, 4).
14c 1997 Repairs to roof (Watts 1997b) Repairs to the roof structures were also observed by Exeter Archaeology in 1997. Evidence for the reduction of the wall tops of the original gables was encountered, which may suggest that the original roof was at a slightly higher level or of steeper pitch. It is unlikely that any of the original roof survives; all the timbers revealed during the repairs appeared to be of 19th-century date. 14d 2001 Recording during external repairs and repointing (Parker 2002) External phases of construction, alteration and conversion of the former Governors Range were recorded during the renewal of external rendered finishes and pointing on three of the principal elevations of the building. The range developed in two stages between 1672 and 1677, originating as two separate dwellings for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. It appears to be completed and reliably represented in the 1677 plan (Figure 9). The buildings were subsequently transformed in a sequence of refurbishments which began in the 18th century and culminated with the demolition and rebuilding of the barrack blocks in c. 1900. The exterior of the structure has generally been preserved by regular repair and maintenance and remains today much as it was following the refurbishment in c. 1900. 15a-g 1998 Observations and photography (EA Project 3499) 15a Old Saluting Battery SX 47996 53768 15b West Sallyport SX 47939 53894 15c East End Buttress SX 48198 53740 15d King Charles Bastion SX 47887 53834 15e Fishers Nose SX 48269 53695 15f Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion and Pipers Platform SX 48251 53708 15g Rear of Building 108 SX 48142 53849 Observations and limited recording, including photography, took place in 1998 during a programme of general works at the above locations, including the removal of concrete/cement-based render to standing structures; the re-bedding of loose and defective stones; and the removal of intrusive and damaging vegetation. Repointing of walls Between 1997 and 2002 a programme of repairs and repointing was carried out on the external walls of the Citadel. In tandem with these operations a scheme of archaeological recording was devised in consultation with English Heritage, who approved all works. The
sections affected were as follows; Prince of Wales Bastion (1997 1998), Prince of Wales curtain wall (19981999), Prince Georges Bastion (19992000), Prince Georges curtain wall (20002001), and King Charles Bastion (20002002). The methods for archaeological recording were fairly standard and included the following: Preparatory work, including desktop assessment and study of existing survey drawings.
Monitoring of repointing and repair works. Recording following completion of depointing and raking out (including samples again). Completion of archive summary report and update of survey drawings. Prince of Wales Bastion and curtain wall appear to have been constructed in a series of building lifts, from a fixed survey point. Limestone was used as the main building material with granite for architectural details. Some alterations including the conversion of stone coping to turf capping and reconstruction of the gun emplacements, were undertaken in the middle of the 18th century. Later works extended to repointing but no structural repairs were undertaken. A similar pattern emerged for the Prince Georges Bastion and curtain wall, and King Charles Bastion. In the 18th century the embrasures were rearranged and the parapet was widened. All areas escaped major refurbishment in the 19th century. 16. Prince of Wales Bastion and curtain wall (east) (Watts & Blackmore 1999a) i) Like its eastern counterpart, the western half of Prince of Wales curtain wall was constructed in a series of building lifts, apparently between 1665 and 1667, using local limestone with granite for architectural features. The alignment of the wall was determined by a survey station, comprising two granite blocks built upon the limestone bedrock, which was incorporated into the fabric of the wall. The upper block is inscribed PS.F, perhaps standing for Permanent Station F. ii) The four embrasures are all externally-splayed and primary to the parapet wall. The main alterations including the conversion of stone coping to turf capping, some adjustment of the embrasure bases and reconstruction of the gun emplacements, all seem to have occurred in the middle of the 18th century. Later works extended to repointing but no structural repairs were undertaken.
Alan Baxter
167
Outline recording of historical features and fabric prior to works and during preparatory works (included sampling of mortars).
Figure F: Location and general arrangement of the casemates
Figure I: Detailed plans and elevations of casemates 219 and 221
Figure G: Plans and elevations. Scale 1:200. Full vault height is shown on the elevations
Figure H: Detailed plans and elevations of casemates 223 and 224
168
Alan Baxter
iii) The lower part of the scarp wall was partially covered when the external ditch was infilled in c. 1888, although the original depth of this ditch is unclear and some of the ditch seems to have been left as a cut rock face without masonry facing. Otherwise the western half of Prince of Wales curtain wall appears to have been largely unaffected by the Grand Refurbishment at the end of the 19th century. 17. Prince of Wales curtain wall (west) (Watts & Blackmore 1999b) i) Like its eastern counterpart, the western half of Prince of Wales curtain wall was constructed in a series of building lifts, apparently between 1665 and 1667, using local limestone with granite for architectural features. The alignment of the wall was determined by a survey station, comprising two granite blocks built upon the limestone bedrock, which was incorporated into the fabric of the wall. The upper block is inscribed PS.F, perhaps standing for Permanent Station F. ii) The four embrasures are all externally-splayed and primary to the parapet wall. The main alterations including the conversion of stone coping to turf capping, some adjustment of the embrasure bases and reconstruction of the gun emplacements, all seem to have occurred in the middle of the 18th century. Later works extended to repointing but no structural repairs were undertaken. iii) The lower part of the scarp wall was partially covered when the external ditch was infilled in c. 1888, although the original depth of this ditch is unclear and some of the ditch seems to have been left as a cut rock face without masonry facing. Otherwise the western half of Prince of Wales curtain wall appears to have been largely unaffected by the Grand Refurbishment at the end of the 19th century. 18. Prince Georges Bastion (Watts & Blackmore 2000) i) Prince Georges bastion was constructed in a series of lifts, apparently between 1665 and 1667, using local limestone, with granite for the principal architectural features. A watchtower or gurite of Portland Stone was located at the bastion salient above the cordon. The alignments of the walls were determined from survey points comprising two or three granite blocks that were subsequently incorporated into the scarp walls. ii) None of the primary embrasures survive unaltered, and almost all evidence has been destroyed for those on the west face and south flank. On the north face, the embrasures were in two groups, with larger, more widely spread embrasures to the west. Smaller embrasures were located on the east flank. iii) Two phases of embrasure rearrangement were undertaken in the 18th century, when the total number of embrasures on the bastion reduced from 20 to 12. The west face and south flank parapets were widened from six feet to 16 feet, and new embrasures with massive outer splays and turf bases were constructed. The original stone coping was also removed and replaced with turf capping. The new
embrasures to the north and east were smaller and steeper than those to the west and south. The secondary flank embrasures were angled slightly away from their adjacent curtain walls, and the two outer embrasures of the west face were angled slightly outwards. This embrasure configuration survives today. iv) The gurite was dismantled and its passage blocked in the 19th century, and the defensive ditch infilled in 1888. The Grand Refurbishment at the end of the 19th century had very little impact on Prince Georges bastion, which largely retains its mid 18th-century appearance. 19. Prince Georges curtain wall (Passmore 2001) i) Prince Georges curtain wall was constructed in a series of lifts, apparently between 1665 and 1667, using local limestone, with granite for the principal architectural features. The alignment of the wall was determined from survey points comprising one or two granite blocks that were subsequently incorporated into the scarp walls. ii) None of the primary embrasures survive unaltered, all having been rearranged during the mid 18th century. iii) A phase of embrasure rearrangement was undertaken in the 18th century, when the total number of embrasures on the curtain was reduced from five to four. The parapet was widened from six feet to 15 feet, and new embrasures with massive outer splays and turf bases were constructed. The original stone coping was also removed and replaced with turf capping. The embrasures were angled slightly away from the centre of the curtain wall. This embrasure configuration survives today. iv) The Grand Refurbishment at the end of the 19th century had very little impact on Prince Georges curtain, which largely retains its mid 18th-century appearance, although the defensive ditch was infilled in 1888, and the gate from the north ravelin was erected around the sallyport. 20. King Charles Bastion (Blackmore 2002) i) King Charles Bastion was constructed in a series of lifts, apparently between 1665 and 1667, using local limestone, with granite for the principal architectural features. A watchtower or gurite of Portland stone was located at the bastion salient above the cordon. The alignments of the walls were determined from survey points comprising groups of two granite blocks that were subsequently incorporated into the scarp walls.
ii) None of the primary embrasures survive unaltered, all having been blocked or rearranged as on the east flank. The five embrasures on the south face were larger and more widely spread than the four smaller embrasures located on the east flank. iii) Two major phases of embrasure rearrangement were undertaken in the 18th century, when, by completion of the second phase, the total number of embrasures on the bastion was reduced from 18 to 12. The west face and north flank parapets were widened from six feet to 16 feet, and new embrasures with massive outer splays and turf bases were constructed. The original stone coping was also removed and replaced with turf capping. The new embrasures to the south and east were smaller than those to the west and north. The secondary flank embrasures were angled slightly away from their adjacent curtain walls, and the two outermost embrasures of the west face were angled slightly outwards. This embrasure configuration survives today. The watchtower (gurite) with its stone corbel was also dismantled in the late 18th or early 19th century. TA Centre (centre SX 4812 5399) This occupies the south end of an island of land to the north of the Citadel. There has only been one episode of archaeological monitoring in this area (10a-b) at which time no significant deposits were seen. Where observed, the stratigraphy up to 0.50m comprised modern levelling and demolition deposits. The site is shown as undeveloped in the mid 19th century (OS 1:500 Sheet 82, c. 1856) but by 1893 (survey date of OS 1:500 Sheet 123.12.8, 1894) plots and streets were being laid out between Citadel Road and Prince of Wales Bastion. A TA Centre and Drill Hall were not constructed until the 20th century. It is possible that the great dyke or ditch from Plymouth Castle to Sour(e)pool passed through this site, or in the near vicinity. No other SMR or UAD sites are recorded.
Alan Baxter
169
Appendix 7 Plymouth City Council Historic Environment Record (HER)

Appendix 7 - Plymouth City Council Historic Environment Record (HER)
The PCC HER record is incomplete, but consists of three databases: the Sites and Monuments Register (SMR); Urban Archaeological Database (UAD) Sites; Urban Archaeological Database (UAD) Monuments. The Royal Citadel entries are largely sourced from the principal publications Woodward 1987, 1990; Pye & Woodward 1996 (the culmination of research undertaken by Exeter Archaeology in conjunction with the Fortress Study Group South West); evaluation or monitoring projects undertaken by Exeter Archaeology from 1994 onwards; and earlier work carried out by English Heritage Central Archaeology Service in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The entries listed below all lie within the area of the scheduled monument (SM 26245), unless otherwise stated. SMR/UAD Nos SX45SE/017 S/053 M/013 SX45SE/017/001 SX45SE/017/003 SX45SE/017/004 SX45SE/017/005 SX45SE/017/006 SX45SE/017/007 SX45SE/017/008 SX45SE/017/009 SX45SE/017/010 SX45SE/017/011 SX45SE/017/012 SX45SE/017/013 SX45SE/017/014 SX45SE/017/015 SX45SE/017/017 SX45SE/017/018 SX45SE/017/019 S/313 Photo Ref AR 1990.69 SX45SE/155 SX45SE/156 SX45SE/232 Site SX Easting 4810 4805 4810 4803 4795 4793 4790 4796 4802 4810 4816 4822 4825 4820 4811 4804 4820 4820 4800 4804 4793 4792 4800 SX Northing 5385 5384 5380 5392 5396 5390 5383 5380 5373 5371 5372 5372 5370 5380 5393 5397 5382 5386 5390 5391 5378 5379 5380 Royal Citadel Citadel possibly sited on a prehistoric settlement (unproven) Prince of Wales curtain wall and Main Gate Prince Georges Bastion Prince Georges curtain Charles Bastion King Charles curtain Old Saluting Battery formerly Bath Bastion Cumberland Battery Queens Battery Prince Henrys Demi-Bastion Pipers Platform. In the 1750s a covered way was built from here to Fishers Nose. Prince Edwards Battery Prince of Wales Bastion North Ravelin 6 BL gun emplacement Triangular place darmes
Guardhouse
Scatter. Several flint flakes and cores. Plymouth Hoe. Human remains found in course of excavations. Two coins of Victorinus (AD 265268)
170
Alan Baxter
SMR/UAD Nos SX45SE/234 part of S/053 SX45SE/067 192|26245 SX45SE/066 M/028 M/063 SX45SE/049 S/003, S/052 SX45SE/694 S/054 M/019 M/055 SX45SE/068 S/474, M/145 SX45SE/461 SX45SE/157
Site Coin of Galerus (AD 293311) King George II statue Chapel of St. Katherine-upon-theHoe. Formerly on the Hoe but now inside the Citadel. Chapel in this vicinity since c. 1370. Plymouth (Elizabethan) Fort, East Hoe Lower Fort Survey 1992
SX Easting 4790 4804 4807 4820 4807 4815 4817 4820 4819
SX Northing 5380 5382 5375 5374 5375 5374 5375 5368 5369 5370 5372
UAD Site No S/022 S/025 Photo Refs AR 1990 81121 S/084 S/088 S/089 S/109 S/118 S/307 S/308 Photo Ref AR 1990.28 S/314 Photo Ref AR 1990.69 S/479 S/480
Site Casemates 218/219 & 228/229: excavation 1994 Royal Citadel: Governors Range Lambhay Hill: observation 1984 (CAS) Casemates 201216 Casemates 217233 Royal Citadel: Governors House Service trenches: watching brief 1994 Water cisterns: observation 1990 Service trench: observation 1990
Easting 4813
Northing 5372
4801 4821 4818 4808 4810 4811 4815 4816
5388 5384 5373 5373 5388 5372 5375 5374
Limekiln (in Lower Fort) Rock carved figures of Gog and Magog Hoe Sea Cave 3 Hoe Tinside Fissures Victualling Office and Yard at Baltic Wharf. Constructed in the early 18th century and shown on a plan of 1715. This was built on land formerly part of a deep valley. The complex was extended in the mid 18th century. War Department boundary stone (see *note below) Large quantity of C17C19 pottery, 42% (by sherd count) is Italian Montelupo Maiolica
4820 4823
Royal Citadel: rear of Governors Range Royal Citadel: Sergeants Mess trial trenches Royal Citadel: Sergeants Mess excavation Royal Citadel: refurbishment
4798
5389
479 478
537 537
4797 4797 -
5387 5388 -
SX45SE/622 S/252
4670
5350
S/481
SX45SE/669
4816 4820
5394 5390
UAD Monument No. M/037 M/041 M/044 M/072 M/101 M/143 S/465 M/171 M/113
Site Hoe Cross Hoe Bulwarks C15-C16 Beacon on the Hoe Limekiln (SSW of Citadel) Gallows on the Hoe Sourpool Ditch, pre 1439 Natural feature (Giants Cave) Hoe Sea Cave 4
SX Easting 4804 4795 4795 4790 4810 4800 4800
SX Northing 5384 5385 5375 5385 5400 5380 5370
SX45SE/223/001
Alan Baxter
171
Just outside area of scheduled monument SMR/UAD Nos Site SX Easting SX Northing 5385 The 1950s OS maps show stones all along Lambhay Hill and Commercial Road (the precursor to Madeira Road). The current stretch of Madeira Road above the wharves on the western side of Sutton Harbour results from the widening of the former Commercial Road and its linking with the road in front of The Hoe just prior to WWII in c. 1937. At this time many of the old buildings were demolished, and virtually the whole area had been cleared by the end of the war. Very few of the stones are recorded in the PCC databases. One (SX45SE/669) is recorded at SX 4816 5394. Another is shown on the OS 1:1250 map at SX 4821 5391. Others to the north-east of the TA Centre were located at the south-east and south-west corner of The United Services Inn (SMR SX 45SE/667, 666) on the corner of Lambhay Hill and Castle Dyke Lane (one is plotted incorrectly in the area of the TA Centre). Only one of these is marked on modern mapping at SX 4815 5402.
S/030 Photo Refs AR 1990 3773 S/119
Lambhay Hill: observation 1990 Watching brief 1994 associated with construction of a new vehicle washdown facility (3c)
4822
4819
5383
Other nearby sites SMR/UAD Nos SX45SE/048 M/018, S/327 SX45SE/048/0001 SX45SE/048/002 UAD M/024 UAD M/047 (pt SX45SE/017/012) Site Plymouth Castle, c. 1380, site approximate (no visible remains apart from a tower of uncertain date) SM No. 217 Stretch of town wall, 1530s Bishop Veyseys Wall Lambhay Gate (possibly never built) Covered way constructed in the 1750s from Pipers Platform to Fishers Nose Former artillery store (Duttons Cafe) Listed Grade II Fishers Nose Tower (1677, possibly earlier) Fishers Nose Artillery Tower (Blockhouse) c. 1537-9 Listed Grade II Harbour built c.1671-2 (included tower) Fredericks Battery at E end SX Easting SX Northing 5398 5396
4827 4829
4822 4828 4829
5398 5376 5369
SX45SE/694/001 SX45SE/010 S/050 M/017 SX45SE/701
4830 4834
5368 5367
4827
5365
4812 4815
5364 5364
*Note on War Department boundary stones
172
Alan Baxter
Appendix 8 Location of important ecological sites and biological records in relation to Royal Citadel (data from DBRC)
Appendix 8 - Important Ecological Sites and Biological Records
Alan Baxter
173
Statutory & non-statutory sites within 1 kilometre of SX480538 (2010) Enq no. 4748
File Code Site Name Plymouth Sound and Estuaries Grid Reference SX465502 SX442488, SX448513 & SX487512 Area (ha) Description Status
ID
6 7 8
Common Name
Knotted Hedgeparsley House Sparrow Round-leaved Crane's-bill
Scientific Name
Torilis nodosa Passer domesticus Geranium rotundifolium
Location
Millbay Park, grassland Pavillions, flowerbeds West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland; West Hoe, Eddystone Terrace The Hoe, West Hoe Park; West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland Cliff Road, pavements et al; West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland The Hoe, West Hoe Park West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland; Leigham Street, pavements et al; The Hoe, West Hoe Park The Hoe, amenity grassland West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland; The Hoe, West
Date
1997 1997 2003
Grid Reference
SX471540 SX471542 SX473537
UK protection
International protection
Status
DN2
Plymouth Sound Shores & Cliffs
SX45/004
Jennycliff
SX491527
Estuaries, mudflats, sandbanks, 6386 large shallow inlets and bays SAC Open coast and sheltered bays including shore communities with a south-western influence. (Boundaries follow Mean Low 45 Water). SSSI Unimproved calcareous grassland, semi-improved neutral grassland, bracken, scrub, broadleaved woodland & 16.2 strandline vegetation CWS Amenity grassland, unimproved calcareous grassland, coastal grassland, cliff vegetation and 8.3 notable plant interest.
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red DN3
Sea Fern-grass
Catapodium marinum Lactuca serriola
20022003
SX473537
DN2
10
Prickly Lettuce
2003
SX473538
DN2
11 12
Round-leaved Crane's-bill Toothed Medick
SX45/007
Plymouth Hoe and Madeira Road
Geranium rotundifolium Medicago polymorpha
2003 2003
SX473538 SX473538
DN3 NS; DN1
SX478538
CWS
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC): these are notified by Natural England because they contain species and/or habitats of European importance (listed in the Habitats Directive 1994), and are part of a network of conservation sites set up through Europe known as the Natura 2000 series. On land, almost all candidate SACs are, or will be notified as SSSIs. Natural England needs to be consulted before any operations likely to damage the special interest are undertaken. SAC is a statutory designation with legal implications.
13
Knotted Hedgeparsley
Torilis nodosa Orobanche hederae
2003
SX474537
DN2
14
Ivy Broomrape
2003
SX474537
NS; DN2
- 1 -
- 3 -
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): these are notified by Natural England because of their plants, animals or geological features (the latter are geological SSSIs or gSSSI). Natural England needs to be consulted before any operations likely to damage the special interest are undertaken. SSSI is a statutory designation with legal implications. County Wildlife Sites (CWS): these are sites of county importance for wildlife, designated on the basis of the habitat or the known presence of particular species. This is not a statutory designation like SSSIs, and does not have any legal status. County Wildlife Sites are usually included in Local Plans as sites of substantive nature conservation interest and are covered by Planning Policy Statement note nine (PPS9). CWS recognition does not demand any particular actions on the part of the Landowner and does not give the public rights of access. However, it may increase eligibility for land management grants. Biodiversity Network: Areas of semi-natural habitat likely to make a significant contribution to the overall movement/dispersal of species within the local landscape as wildlife stepping stones or corridors. These include for example, areas of species-rich semiimproved grassland, double hedgerows/hedgebanks, significant belts/areas of scrub, semi-natural or plantation broadleaved woodland and ponds. The best habitats are described a Key Network Features.
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Hoe Park
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
15 16 17 18
Rat's-tail Fescue Toothed Medick Wild Clary House Sparrow
Vulpia myuros Medicago polymorpha Salvia verbenaca Passer domesticus
Legally protected & notable species within 2 kilometres of SX480538 (2010) Enq no. 4748
ID
1 2 3 4 5
19 20
Sea Spleenwort Prickly Lettuce
Common Name
Narrow-leaved Pepperwort Lesser Seaspurrey Linnet Sea Fern-grass Sea Fern-grass
Scientific Name
Lepidium ruderale Spergularia marina Carduelis cannabina Catapodium marinum Catapodium marinum
Location
Millbay Docks, wasteland Millbay Docks, wasteland Millbay Docks, wasteland Millbay Park, nefacing wall Rusty Anchor, derelict site
Date
1997 1997 1997 1997 2002
Grid Reference
SX470539 SX470539 SX470539 SX470540 SX471536
UK protection
Asplenium marinum Lactuca serriola
West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland The Hoe, amenity grassland The Hoe, amenity grassland The Hoe, amenity grassland Leigham Street, pavements et al; The Hoe, wildflower meadow; Leigham Street, Car Park MADEIRA ROAD, Tinside; THE HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock; Cliff Road, pavements et al THE HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock; MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Tinside
2003 2003 2003 1998
SX474537 SX474538 SX474538 SX474538 NERC 41
DN2 NS; DN1 DN1 UKBAP (P); Red
20022003 2002
SX474539 SX474540
DN3 DN2
Status
DN1; DR DN3 UKBAP (P); Red DN2 DN2 22 Dark-green Mouseear Cerastium diffusum 21 Sea Spleenwort Asplenium marinum
19921996
SX4753
DN3
19921996
SX4753
DN3
- 2 -
- 4 -
174
Alan Baxter
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
MILLBAY TRINITY PIER; Tinside, rockfaces; WEST HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock; East Hoe, East Hoe grassland; PIER STREET MILLBAY TRINITY PIER PIER STREET MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Tinside PLYMOUTH SOUND WEST HOE PARK THE HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock PIER STREET; WEST HOE TENNIS COURTS THE HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
East Hoe, East Hoe grassland; West Hoe, Dog Rock, rock outcrops; Hoe, grassland WEST HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock; THE HOE, Hoe grassland Tinside, rockfaces; East Hoe, East Hoe grassland; West Hoe, Dog Rock, rock outcrops THE HOE Civic Centre, Armada Way Civic Centre ROYAL PARADE GUILDHALL Civic Centre, Armada Way Dog Rock, WEST HOE
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
24 25
1994 1996
SX4753 SX4753
DN1; DR NS; DN2
38
Plymouth Thistle
Carduus pycnocephalus
1997
SX4753
DN1; DR
Ivy Broomrape
26 27 28 29
Cabbage Storm Petrel Dunnock Starling
Brassica oleracea Hydrobates pelagicus Prunella modularis Sturnus vulgaris Lactuca serriola Sagina maritima
1996 1996 1996 1996
SX4753 SX4753 SX4753 SX4753
NS Amber Amber Red
39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Lesser Seaspurrey Broad-leaved Everlasting-pe House Sparrow Peregrine Cabbage Starling Rough Clover
30 31
Prickly Lettuce Sea Pearlwort
1996 1996
SX4753 SX4753
DN2 DN2
Spergularia marina Lathyrus latifolius Passer domesticus Falco peregrinus Brassica oleracea Sturnus vulgaris Trifolium scabrum
1997 1992 1992 1995 1995 1992 2003
SX4753 SX4753 SX4754 SX4754 SX4754 SX4754 SX475537 NERC 41 WCA 1
DN3 DN2 UKBAP (P); Red Amber NS Red DN2
- 5 -
- 7 -
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
THE HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock; East Quay, Millbay; PIER ST CAR PARK; MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Tinside Tinside, rockfaces; THE HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock WEST HOE TENNIS COURTS; MADEIRA ROAD, Tinside; Hoe; Tinside, walls East Hoe, East Hoe grassland; West Hoe, Dog Rock, rock outcrops; MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Tinside Tinside, rockfaces; East Hoe, East Hoe grassland; PIER STREET; WEST HOE, West Hoe, Dog rock
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
West Hoe, Cliffs; The Hoe, wildflower meadow; West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland The Hoe, amenity grassland; The Hoe, West Hoe Park The Hoe, amenity grassland The Hoe, wildflower meadow; Hoe Road, grass embankment; The Hoe, amenity grassland; West Hoe, Cliffs The Hoe, wildflower meadow; The Hoe, amenity grassland; The Hoe, walls & paths The Hoe, wildflower meadow; Madeira Road, grass embankment
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
32
Round-leaved Crane's-bill
Geranium rotundifolium Elytrigia atherica
46 1996 19961997 SX4753 DN3 47 SX4753 DN3 48
Plymouth Thistle
Carduus pycnocephalus Passer domesticus Sagina maritima
19982003 19982003 1998
SX475537
DN1; DR
House Sparrow Sea Pearlwort
SX475538 SX475538
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red DN2
33
Sea Couch
34
Torilis nodosa
19961997
SX4753
DN2 Salvia verbenaca
49 19961997
Wild Clary
19982003
SX476537
DN1
35
Toothed Medick
Medicago polymorpha
SX4753
NS; DN1 50 Toothed Medick
Medicago polymorpha
19982006
SX476537
NS; DN1
36
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
19961997
SX4753
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red
51
Bulbous Meadowgrass
Poa bulbosa
19981999
SX476537
NS; DN1
- 6 -
- 8 -
Alan Baxter
175
23
Sea Fern-grass Narrow-leaved Pepperwort
Catapodium marinum Lepidium ruderale Orobanche hederae
19921997
37 SX4753 DN2
Wild Clary
Salvia verbenaca
1997
SX4753
DN1
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
The Hoe, amenity grassland; Hoe, amenity grassland; The Hoe, wildflower meadow; West Hoe, Cliffs The Hoe, amenity grassland; The Hoe, wildflower meadow The Dome, rock faces Plymouth Hoe; West Hoe, Cliffs; Hoe, Tinside, coastal cliff & paths Plymouth Hoe; West Hoe, Car Park/Wasteland Plymouth Hoe Plymouth Hoe; The Hoe, walls & paths; Madeira Road, amenity grassland THE HOE Hoe Approach, amenity grassland & pavements
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
72 73
Common Name
Knotted Hedgeparsley Knotted Hedgeparsley Wild Clary Prickly Lettuce House Sparrow Dark-green Mouseear Sea Fern-grass Crested Hair-grass
Scientific Name
Torilis nodosa Torilis nodosa Salvia verbenaca Lactuca serriola Passer domesticus Cerastium diffusum Catapodium marinum Koeleria macrantha Asplenium marinum
Location
Plymouth Hoe Hoe Road, the Mound Hoe Road, the Mound Lambhay Hill, pavements et al. Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road; Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road; Lambhay Hill, amenity grassland; Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland; Lambhay Hill, amenity grassland
Date
2003 2003 2003 2003 19992003 2003 2003 1999 19992006
Grid Reference
SX480537 SX480539 SX480539 SX480539 SX481536 SX481536 SX481536 SX481536
UK protection
Status
DN2 DN2 DN1 DN2
52
Sea Couch Knotted Hedgeparsley House Sparrow
Elytrigia atherica
19982006 19982002 Jun-05
SX476538
DN3
74 75
53 54
Torilis nodosa Passer domesticus
SX476538 SX477537 NERC 41
DN2 UKBAP (P); Red
76 77 78
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red DN3 DN2 DN1
55
Sea Fern-grass
Catapodium marinum Orobanche hederae Carex extensa
20022006 20032006 Jun-05
SX477538
DN2
79
56 57
Ivy Broomrape Long-Bracted Sedge
SX477538 SX477538
NS; DN2 DN2
80
Sea Spleenwort
SX481537
DN3
58 59
Round-Leaved Crane's-Bill Knotted Clover Knotted Hedgeparsley
Geranium rotundifolium Trifolium striatum
19992006 Jun-05
SX477538 SX477539
DN3 DN2
81
Torilis nodosa
20032006
SX481537
DN2
82 Jun-05 SX477541 DN2
Musk Stork's-bill
Erodium moschatum
20032006
SX481537
NS; DR
60
Torilis nodosa
- 9 -
- 11 -
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Hoe, amenity grassland;Hoe Road, grass embankment; Madeira Road, grass embankment Hoe Road, grass embankment; Hoe, amenity grassland Hoe Road, grass embankment; Madeira Road, grass embankment; Hoe, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland Hoe Road, amenity grassland Catherine Street, Baptist Church Abbey place, pavements et al Drakes Circus, flowerbed Madeira Road, amenity grassland - 10 -
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
83
Common Name
Prickly Lettuce Primrose Round-leaved Crane's-bill Knotted Hedgeparsley
Scientific Name
Lactuca serriola Primula vulgaris Geranium rotundifolium Torilis nodosa
Location
Madeira Road Madeira Road Madeira Road, amenity grassland Charles Cross, amenity grassland Madeira Road, Plymouth. Just below the road beside the entrance to the Royal Plymouth Corinthian Yacht Club. Madeira Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland; Fisher's Nose, car park Madiera Road, amenity grassland Madeira Road, amenity grassland; Lambhay Hill, amenity grassland
Date
2006 2006 19992003 2003
Grid Reference
SX481537 SX481537 SX481537 SX481546
UK protection
Status
DN2 DBAP DN3 DN2
61
Torilis nodosa Salvia verbenaca
19972006 19981999
84 SX478537 DN2 85 86
62
Wild Clary
SX478538
DN1
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Rough Clover Sea Couch Knotted Hedgeparsley Tree-mallow Musk Stork's-bill Primrose Prickly Lettuce Cabbage Wild Clary
Trifolium scabrum Elytrigia atherica Torilis nodosa Lavatera arborea Erodium moschatum Primula vulgaris Lactuca serriola Brassica oleracea Salvia verbenaca
19981999 Jun-05 Jun-05 Jun-05 Jun-05 1998 2003 1997 20032006
SX478538 SX479537 SX479537 SX479537 SX479540 SX479542 SX479543 SX479547 SX480537
DN2 DN3 DN2 DN3 NS; DR DBAP DN2 NS DN1 91 89 90 87 88
Japanese Knotweed Ivy Broomrape
Fallopia japonica Orobanche hederae
2001 2003
SX482536 SX482536
WCA 9 NS; DN2
Wild Clary Toothed Medick
Salvia verbenaca Medicago polymorpha
2003 19992006
SX482536 SX482536
DN1 NS; DN1
Rough Clover
Trifolium scabrum
1999
SX482537
DN2
- 12 -
176
Alan Baxter
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Madeira Road, amenity grassland; Lambhay Hill, amenity grassland; Fisher's Nose, car park; Barbican, Commercial Wharf Madeira Road, amenity grassland; Fisher's Nose, car park; Barbican, Commercial Wharf Madeira Road, amenity grassland; Commercial Wharf, car park; Barbican, Mayflower Steps Sutton harbour, quayside Charles Cross r/about Fisher's Nose, car park Barbican, Commercial Wharf Sutton Harbour, quayside Sutton Harbour, quayside
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space; Coxside allotments; MOUNT BATTEN CLIFFS, Mountbatten hard cliffs; Mount Batten Castle Batten Bay Strandline MOUNT BATTEN, Mount Batten Hangars Mount Batten Castle Coxside allotments; Mount Batten Castle Batten Bay Strandline MOUNT BATTEN, Mount Batten Hangars Mount Batten wasteground MOUNT BATTEN, Mount Batten Hangars
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
109 110 2003 SX482537 DN2 111 19982006 2003 2004 2003 2003 2003 2003 112 SX482537 SX482542 SX482546 SX483536 SX483538 SX483543 SX483543 WCA 8; NERC 41 DN3 DN2 UKBAP (P); DN1; DR; endg DN2 DN2 DN2 DN3 113 114
SX4853 SX4853
DN3 DN1
93
Sea Fern-grass
Catapodium marinum
Sea Sandwort
1996
Bee Orchid Garden Parsley Red Goosefoot Sea Rocket English Scurvygrass Pale Toadflax
94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Sea Couch Prickly Lettuce Plymouth Pear Greater Seaspurrey Greater Seaspurrey Greater Seaspurrey Sea Spleenwort
Elytrigia atherica Lactuca serriola Pyrus cordata Spergularia media Spergularia media Spergularia media Asplenium marinum
Ophrys apifera Petroselinum crispum Chenopodium rubrum Cakile maritima Cochlearia anglica Linaria repens Trifolium striatum
1996 1996 1996 1996
SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853
DN1 DN1 DN1; DR DN2
115 116
1996 1996
SX4853 SX4853
DN2 DN2
117
Knotted Clover
1996
SX4853
DN2
- 13 -
- 15 -
ID
101
Common Name
Lesser Seaspurrey
Scientific Name
Spergularia marina Salvia verbenaca
Location
Mountbatten, rocky foreshore National Marine Aquarium, pavemnets et al MOUNT BATTEN CLIFFS, Mountbatten hard cliffs Mount Batten Castle Mount Batten Castle MOUNT BATTEN CLIFFS, Mountbatten hard cliffs; Teats Hill open space, cliff Batten Bay; TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space; CLOVELLY BAY, Mountbatten Coxside allotments; Mount Batten, Mount Batten Hangars; TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space
Date
1998
Grid Reference
SX484532
UK protection
Status
DN3
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Medicago polymorpha Petroselinum segetum Tyria jacobaeae Tyto alba
Location
MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Madeira Road, Hoe foresho Mount Batten Castle Mount Batten wasteground; Mount Batten Castle Mountbatten, Mount Batten wasteground MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Madeira Road, Hoe foresho MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Madeira Road, Hoe foresho Mount Batten Castle CLOVELLY BAY, Mountbatten; Batten Bay Strandline; TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
102
Wild Clary
2003
SX484540
DN1
118 119
Toothed Medick Corn Parsley
1996 1996
SX4853 SX4853
NS; DN1 NS; DN1; IUCN-vul
103 104 105
Tree-mallow Ivy Broomrape Common Lizard
Lavatera arborea Orobanche hederae Zootoca vivipara
1992 1992 1992
SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 WCA 5 (KIS); NERC 41 Bern III
DN3 NS; DN2 UKBAP (P)
120 121
Cinnabar Barn Owl
1996 1996
SX4853 SX4853
NERC 41 WCA 1, 9
UKBAP (P) DBAP; Amber
106
Lesser Seaspurrey
Spergularia marina
19921997
122 SX4853 DN3 123
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
1996
SX4853
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red
Sea Spleenwort Downy Oat-grass
107
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
19921997
SX4853
Red
124
Asplenium marinum Helictotrichon pubescens
1996 1996
SX4853 SX4853
DN3 DN2
108
Sea Fern-grass
Catapodium marinum
19921997
SX4853
DN2
125
Sea Couch
Elytrigia atherica
19961997
SX4853
DN3
- 14 -
- 16 -
Alan Baxter
177
92
Torilis nodosa
2003
SX482537
DN2
Round-leaved Crane's-bill
Geranium rotundifolium Honckenya peploides
19921997
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Teats Hill open space, cliff; MADEIRA ROAD FORESHORE, Madeira Road, Hoe foresho CLOVELLY BAY, Mountbatten Mountbatten, cliff face grassland Clovelly Bay Mount Batten Castle Batten Bay Mountbatten, castle plateau Batten Bay Clovelly Bay Batten Bay Batten Bay; Clovelly Bay Mount batten, Mount Batten Hangars Mount batten, Mount Batten Hangars
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
148
Common Name
Prickly Lettuce
Scientific Name
Lactuca serriola
Location
NATIONAL AQUARIUM SITE TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space & NATIONAL AQUARIUM SITE NATIONAL AQUARIUM SITE; Teats Hill open space, cliff Teats Hill open space, cliff TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space Mountbatten, rough grassland/scrub Mount Batten, cliff; Mountbatten, bare ground Mount Batten; Jennycliff, scrub Jennycliff, scrub Mount Batten, grassland Mount Batten, grassland
Date
1996
Grid Reference
SX4854
UK protection
Status
DN2
126
127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138
Dark-green Mouseear Small-flowered Buttercup Corky-fruited Water-dropwort Gadwall Kestrel Oystercatcher Swallow Common Gull Black-headed Gull Shag Cormorant Dunnock Redwing
Cerastium diffusum Ranunculus parviflorus Oenanthe pimpinelloides Anas strepera Falco tinnunculus Haematopus ostralegus Hirundo rustica Larus canus Larus ridibundus Phalacrocorax aristotelis Phalacrocorax carbo Prunella modularis Turdus iliacus
19961997 19961997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997
SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 SX4853 WCA 1
DN3 DN3 DN3 Amber Amber Amber Amber Amber Amber Amber Amber Amber Red
149
Dark-green Mouseear
Cerastium diffusum
19961997
SX4854
DN3
150 151 152 153 154
Wild Clary Lesser Seaspurrey Sea Couch Starling Ivy Broomrape
Salvia verbenaca Spergularia marina Elytrigia atherica Sturnus vulgaris Orobanche hederae Lactuca serriola Lasiommata megera Carduelis cannabina Catapodium marinum Koeleria macrantha
19961997 1997 1997 1992 1998 19982003 19982005 1998 2002 2004
SX4854 SX4854 SX4854 SX4854 SX485531
DN1 DN3 DN3 Red NS; DN2
155 156 157 158 159
Prickly Lettuce Wall Linnet Sea Fern-grass Crested Hair-grass
SX485531 SX485531 SX485531 SX485532 SX485532 NERC 41
DN2 UKBAP (P) UKBAP (P); Red DN2 DN1
- 17 -
- 19 -
ID
139 140 141
Common Name
Curlew Wild Clary Knotted Hedgeparsley Greater Seaspurrey
Scientific Name
Numenius arquata Salvia verbenaca Torilis nodosa Spergularia media Catapodium marinum
Location
Mount batten, Mount Batten Hangars TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space Mount Batten Castle MOUNT BATTEN, Batten Bay Strandline Coxside allotments; TEATS HILL, Teats Hill open space EXETER STREET FLEET CARE SERVICES CARPARK; CHARLES CROSS R/ABOUT; REGENT STREET, OLD SUTTON H.S.; Coxside allotments CHARLES CROSS R/ABOUT COXSIDE QUARRY; CHARLES CROSS R/ABOUT Coxside allotments - 18 -
Date
Grid Reference
SX4853 SX4853 SX4853
UK protection
Status
UKBAP (P); DBAP; Amber DN1 DN2
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Mount Batten, scrub; Mount Batten, reserve car park; Mount Batten, cliff Coxside, cliff Coxside, cliff TEATS HILL; Fisher's Nose, car park Coxside, cliff Coxside, cliff TEATS HILL; National Marine Aquarium, pavemnets et al Shepherd's Quay, wasteland; Sutton Harbour, quayside & slipway; Teats Hill, allotments Sutton Harbour, quayside & slipway
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
1997 1997 1997
NERC 41
160 161 162
Round-leaved Crane's-bill Greater Seaspurrey Annual Beardgrass
Geranium rotundifolium Spergularia media Polypogon monspeliensis Trifolium scabrum Torilis nodosa Hippophae rhamnoides
19992003 2003 2003 19922003 2003 2003
SX485532 SX485539 SX485539
DN3 DN2 NS
142
1992 19921996
SX4853
DN2 163 Rough Clover Knotted Hedgeparsley Sea-buckthorn
SX485539 SX485540 SX485540
DN2 DN2 NS; DN1
143
Sea Fern-grass
SX4854
DN2
164 165
166 19921997 1996 SX4854 SX4854 WCA 8; NERC 41 DN3 UKBAP (P); DN1; DR; endg
Rough Clover
Trifolium scabrum
19922003
SX485540
DN2
144 145
Round-leaved Crane's-bill Plymouth Pear
Geranium rotundifolium Pyrus cordata Passer domesticus Chenopodium rubrum
167 168
Round-leaved Crane's-bill Sea Fern-grass
Geranium rotundifolium Catapodium marinum
19972003 2003
SX485542 SX485543
DN3 DN2
146 147
House Sparrow Red Goosefoot
1996 1996
SX4854 SX4854
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red DN1; DR - 20 -
178
Alan Baxter
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Sutton Harbour, quayside & slipway; wasteland; Access Lane, cobbles, walls, etc; Mount Batten, Mount Batten Bay Mount Batten, reserve car park Mount Batten Mount Batten, rock face Mount Batten, wildflower meadow Mount Batten peninsula, Plymouth. Mount Batten Mount Batten, wildflower meadow Coxside, Coxside open space & cliff Teats Hill, allotments; Access Lane, cobbles, walls, etc
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Teats Hill Road, pavements et al; Clovelly Road, waste ground; Coxside, Coxside open space & cliff Lane off Clovelly Road, pavements, walls, etc; Commercial Road, pavements et al; St Johns Street, amenity grassland; Access Lane, cobbles, walls, etc Teats Hill, allotments Access Lane, cobbles, walls, etc Commercial Road, pavements et al; Teats Hill, allotments Clovelly Road, waste ground
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
Status
169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178
Black Redstart Garden Parsley Meadow Oat-grass Badger Rough Clover Cabbage Cinnabar
2004 19971998 2002 2002 19962004 2005 1998 2003
SX486531 SX486531 SX486532 SX486532 SX486532 SX486532 SX486532 SX486539 NERC 41 WCA 6, BA Bern III WCA 1
DN1 Amber DN1 DN1 190 191 DN2 NS UKBAP (P) 192 Prickly Lettuce Japanese Knotweed Sea Spleenwort Round-leaved Crane's-bill Sea Fern-grass
Meles meles Trifolium scabrum Brassica oleracea Tyria jacobaeae
Lactuca serriola Fallopia japonica Asplenium marinum Geranium rotundifolium Catapodium marinum
2003 2000 2003
SX487540 SX487540 SX487542 WCA 9
DN2
DN3
193 194
2003 2003
SX488540 SX489539
DN3 DN2
179
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
20002003
SX486540
NERC 41
UKBAP (P); Red
- 21 -
- 23 -
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Chenopodium rubrum Tyria jacobaeae Sturnus vulgaris Calamagrostis epigejos Lavatera arborea
Location
Teats Hill, allotments; Shepherd's Quay, wasteland Shepherd's Quay, wasteland Shepherd's Quay, wasteland Shepherd's Quay, wasteland Mount Batten, amenity grassland & shrub beds Mount Batten, road verge; Mount Batten, reserve car park; Mount Batten, amenity grassland Mount Batten, amenity grassland; Mount Batten, strandline MOUNT BATTEN Teats Hill Road, pavements et al
Date
Grid Reference
UK protection
NERC 41 Status
NERC Act (2006) Section 41: Species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). These are the species found in England which have been identified as requiring action under the UK BAP. All local authorities and other public authorities in England and Wales have a duty to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions. Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Schedule 1: birds which are protected by special penalties at all times.
180 181 182 183
Red Goosefoot Cinnabar Starling Wood Small-reed
19972000 2003 2003 2003
SX486540 SX486542 SX486542 SX486542 NERC 41
DN1; DR UKBAP (P) Red DN2
WCA 1
WCA 5 (KIS) Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Schedule 5: (killing & injury): species protected against killing, injury and sale only. WCA 6 WCA 8 WCA 9 Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Schedule 6: animals (other than birds) which may not be killed or taken by certain methods Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Schedule 8: plants which are protected. Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Schedule 9: animals and plants for which release into the wild is prohibited. Protection of Badgers Act 1992: badgers may not be deliberately killed, persecuted or trapped except under licence. Badger setts may not be damaged, destroyed or obstructed. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) Appendix III: Exploitation of listed animal species to be subject to regulation UK Priority Species (Short and Middle Lists - UK Biodiversity steering Group Report 1995) i.e. species that are globally threatened and rapidly declining in the UK (by more than 50% in the last 25 years). Has a Species Action Plan. Devon Biodiversity Action Plan species: these have been identified as species of key conservation concern in Devon.
- 24 -
184
Tree-mallow
2003
SX487531
DN3
185
Small-flowered Buttercup
Ranunculus parviflorus
19992003
SX487531
DN3
BA Bern III
186 187 188
Swallow Knotted Clover Round-leaved Crane's-bill
Hirundo rustica Trifolium striatum Geranium rotundifolium
2003 1995 2003
SX487532 SX487533 SX487539
Amber DN2 DN3
UKBAP(P)
DBAP
- 22 -
Alan Baxter
179
Prickly Lettuce Black-necked Grebe Tall Rampingfumitory
Lactuca serriola Podiceps nigricollis Fumaria bastardii Phoenicurus ochruros Petroselinum crispum Helictotrichon pratense
2003 1998
SX485543 SX486530 WCA 1
DN2 Amber
189
Prickly Lettuce
Lactuca serriola
2003
SX487539
DN2
NS
Nationally Scarce: 15-100 10km squares in Atlas of British Flora 1962.
Devon Notable Species: Selected species recorded from over 50 2km squares in the Atlas of Devon Flora 1984 (R.B. IvimeyCook, Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Exeter). DN1 Devon Notable1: 1-25 2 km squares in Atlas of Devon Flora 1984. Devon Notable2: 26-50 2 km squares in Atlas of Devon Flora 1984. Devon Notable3: Selected species recorded from over 50 2 km squares in Atlas of Devon Flora 1984. Devon Rarity: native species recorded from 3 or fewer localities within Devon. Bird species of high conservation concern, such as those whose population or range is rapidly declining, recently or historically, and those of global conservation concern. Bird species of medium conservation concern, such as those whose population is in moderate decline, rare breeders, internationally important and localised species and those of unfavourable conservation status in Europe.
A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable (see Red List Categories and Criteria booklet for details), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. Endangered. A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Endangered (see Red List Categories and Criteria booklet for details), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.
DN2 DN3 DR Red List Amber List

IUCN-vul Endg
- 25 -
180
Alan Baxter
Appendix 9 Schedule of Priorities from Access Audit Assessment, 2005
Alan Baxter
181
Appendix 9 - Access Audit Assessment Schedule
Appendix 10 Bore hole logs
182
Alan Baxter
Alan Baxter
183
184
Alan Baxter
Alan Baxter
185
186
Alan Baxter
Alan Baxter
Prepared by Alan Baxter (Lucy Markham, Anthony Hoyte, William Filmer-Sankey, Gemma Bryant); Keystone (Jo Cox, John Thorp); Exeter Archaeology (Sandra Turton); David Evans; Bailey Partnership (Jeremy Mears); Ambios Ecology (David Fee) Reviewed by James Weeks Drafts Issued March 2010, May 2010, September 2010 Final Report Issued November 2010
T:\1311\1311-100\DTP Data\Indesign Docs\1311-100-Royal Citadel Conservation Managment Plan PART 3 Jan 2010.indd This report is the copyright of Alan Baxter & Associates LLP and is for the sole use of the person/organisation to whom it is addressed. It may not be used or referred to in whole or in part by anyone else without the express agreement of Alan Baxter & Associates LLP. Alan Baxter & Associates LLP do not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from any unauthorised use of this report. Alan Baxter & Associates LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England, number OC328839. Registered office 75 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6EL. Alan Baxter & Associates LLP 2010
75 Cowcross Street London EC1M 6EL tel 020 7250 1555 fax 020 7250 3022 email aba@alanbaxter.co.uk

Conservation Management Plan For The Royal Citadel, Plymouth, UK. Vol 1 of 2 - Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Conservation Management Plan For The Royal Citadel, Plymouth, UK. Vol 1 of 2 - Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan Prepared for Navy Command November 2010

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

bore hole logs.

2.0 Understanding the Asset

Ownership, management and use

2.0 Understanding the Asset

Figure 2: Map of Plymouth showing location of The Royal Citadel

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

2.0 Understanding the Asset

Building 132 is used for storage.

2.0 Understanding the Asset

Guns and carriages

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

Figure 3: Building Numbers

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

2.0 Understanding the Asset

113 114 115 116 118A

Figure 4: Guard Room (Building 101)

Figure 5: Main Galley (Building 102)

Figure 6: QM Store (Building 103)

Figure 7: Junior Ranks Club (Building 104)

Figure 8: Junior Ranks Accommodation (Building 108)

2.0 Understanding the Asset

Figure 9: Junior Ranks Accommodation (Building 111)

Figure 10: Buildings 113-116

Figure 11: Junior Ranks Accommodation (Building 118)

Figure 12: St. Katherines Church (Building 119)

Figure 13: Officers Mess (Building 120)

Figure 14: WO and Sergeants Mess (Building 121)

Figure 15: WO and Sergeants Accommodation (Building 122)

Figure 16: QM Store (Building 123)

Figure 17: Store (Building 125)

Figure 18: Regimental Headquarters (Building 131)

Figure 19: QM Stores (Building 132)

Figure 20: The Adult School Offices (Building 134)

Figure 21: Armoury (Building 136)

Figure 22: POL Point (Building 153)

Figure 23: Gunk Park Garages/Offices (Building 160)

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

Figure 24: Workshop (Building 161)

Figure 25: Workshops (Building 162)

Figure 26: Stores (Building 163)

Figure 27: Covered Vehicle Parking (Building 166)

Figure 28: Gymnasium (Building 174)

Figure 29: Training Wing (Building 175)

Figure 30: Training Wing Offices (Building 176)

Figure 31: Welfare Facilities (Building 177)

Figure 32: Statue of King George II (Asset 178)

Figure 33: MT Sentry Post (Building 179)

Figure 34: Greenhouse (Building 250)

Figure 35: Main Gate (Building 340)

Figure 36: LPG Stores (Building 606)

Figure 37: Fuel Can Store (Building 608)

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

2.0 Understanding the Asset

2.0 Understanding the Asset

Figure 38: Building Uses

Figure 39: Use of Casemates

Royal Citadel, Plymouth Conservation Management Plan / November 2010

2.0 Understanding the Asset

2.2 Historic Development of the Citadel

Topography and Early History of the Site