Context 160 - July 2019

36 C O N T E X T 1 6 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 9 development of a site. High boundary walls surrounding early cemeteries imparted a sense of security, protecting deceased loved ones from the clutches of body- snatchers. During the very late 18th century some parkland walls were reduced in height or removed completely in an attempt to subdue civil unrest and reduce the rise of revolutionary attitudes experienced across the channel.Walls will contain gates and openings, and other forms of decoration such as niches, finials and urns. This is much more natural territory for the conservation professional, but it can be easy to overlook the significance of an apparently plain door in a wall.When focusing on the architecture, the striking contrast in view gained when passing through a door may well be an intentional and important landscape design device. It is also worth noting at this point that other forms of boundary treatment can be highly significant within a historic designed landscape. Metal estate railing is commonly deployed as another form of ‘invisible’ boundary. The way it is used within the landscape often creates the impression of a seamless transition between parkland and garden. Less often found, but potentially of considerable significance, is the use of split chestnut or oak fencing; its use as a boundary treatment, particularly during the early-to mid-18th century within ferme ornée landscapes, deliberately suggested and reinforced the bucolic qualities of a ‘tamed’ rural landscape within the wider ‘polite’ landscape of park and garden. Most strikingly, perhaps, is the use of ornate artisan ironwork in screens and gates, a conservation topic meriting discussion in its own right. Many built structures within a landscape may be listed in their own right, or be curtilage listed1, with consent required before carrying out works to them. However, where any structures within a registered park and garden are affected by proposals requiring planning permission, the works will need to be considered in terms of the impacts on the landscape as a heritage asset in its own right. Follies, columns, obelisks and temples may all be considered buildings in their own right, and will again be more comfortable subjects for the building conservation professional, particularly regarding their repair and maintenance. The common problems of addressing decay and deterioration in stone, brick and occasionally timber structures within a historic designed landscape will have been considered elsewhere, but perhaps less commonly addressed is the process of analysing and understanding the function and relationship of such structures to the wider landscape, and balancing the significance of the structure with the significance of its role within the larger asset. For example, how much consideration should be given to prioritising the removal of a few recently planted trees to restore a designed vista as part of conservation measures directed toward a building? Should this be seen as contributing to the setting of the structure, or restoration and repair of another, larger heritage asset? To put it another way, contributing to the restoration of the landscape within which a building sits is less like repairing the frame around a painting and more like contributing to the restoration of the whole gallery within which many paintings hang. Chris Mayes, heritage-at-risk landscape architect at Historic England 1 https://historicengland.org . uk/images-books/publications/ listed-buildings-and-curtilage-advice-note-10/ Cleft oak rails in alternate stone and oak posts at Belsay Park, Northumberland, are a fine example of surviving 18th-century fencing. The grandeur and scale of the principal building at Hickleton Hall, Yorkshire, may draw attention away from equally important elements of historic fabric; surrounding the building complex terracing, boundary and retaining walls surrounding the building complex all require immediate attention.