Context 160 - July 2019

C O N T E X T 1 6 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 9 35 In Seaton Delaval in Northumberland, the ha-ha walls are not strictly a ha-ha, but a means of providing a massive plinth, with defensive overtones, on which the principal building stands. The walls are constructed using a battered rubble inner retaining wall with ashlar facing stones, quite atypical of the coursed rubble walls typically used for the average ‘invisible’ ha-ha. A failure to appreciate the more complex construction methods used could have resulted in serious underestimates in the cost of conservation repairs, but careful archaeological investigation early on in the conservation process revealed the construction method used and the causes of failure. This informed the conservation repair specification which, with more than 750 metres of wall to address, this approach was of great benefit. The walled garden at Seaton Delaval stands out as the only brick-built structure in an otherwise stone composition.Why the departure from the universal and more readily available stone used elsewhere on the site? Brick walls provide better environmental conditions for growing tender plants – for displaying horticultural prowess and investment – and investment in expensive hand-made bricks in large numbers was a highly visible statement of wealth. Given the prominence of the walled garden within the layout of the Seaton Delaval landscape and the materials used, it would be incorrect to treat the resultant space as simply a kitchen garden. Rather it was a highly significant, high- status outdoor space for exhibiting wealth, taste and horticultural expertise. In this respect, when repairs became necessary – to the point of demolishing one stretch of wall and rebuilding it – careful brick-by-brick dismantling resulted in saving large quantities of the original material. And care taken to select appropriate mortar for repointing will revitalise the walled garden to something like its former splendour. Very similar ornamental display gardens can be seen across the country, for example at the rather neglected walled garden of Londesborough Park,Yorkshire, to designs by the third Lord Burlington, with its orangery, canal, cascade and c lairevoie ironwork screen. The tyranny of the term ‘kitchen garden’ applied to so many walled gardens, implying something ancillary and purely functional, has resulted in many damaging developments, uses and neglect. As such, before change to any walled garden is proposed it is essential to fully understand its significance within the overall design and its material, aesthetic and evidential values. The type of bonding, jointing and mortar (the inclusion of highlighting materials such as coal dust and shell fragments can be seen in highly decorative wall pointing) are all equally important to understanding and maintaining significance. Often overlooked or misunderstood, however, is the importance of analysing the horticultural function of a wall within a designed landscape, particularly the way in which plants where displayed against the wall. Careful and accurate recording of metal (and occasionally wooden) plant fixings (such as vine-eyes, nails and plant tags) can provide clues to the function of the wall, and the ways in which plants were intended to be displayed. Too often conservation repair and maintenance strips away this archaeological record without regard. Boundary walls can have great importance and provide a narrative about the nature and Left: Lime-rendered, early-19th-century brickwork that was once the interior to an extensive glasshouse in the walled garden at Windlestone Hall, Co Durham (careful analysis reveals a bricked-up earlier door, heating vents and fixings for training plants); right: Wall defects at Hickleton Hall Reinforced concrete columns in the garden ‘forum’ at Thornton Manor, Wirral, designed by TH Mawson, show signs of advanced deterioration due to corroding reinforcement and ivy growth.