Conservation Management Plan - Tamworth Borough Council

Tamworth Castle
Conservation Management Plan
Contents
pages
List of Figures 2
List of Plates 2 - 3
Executive summary 4
Policies 7 - 11
Introduction 13 - 17
• The Brief
• Background and Purpose
• Basis and structure
• Format of the Conservation Plan
• Preparation of the Conservation Plan
• Acknowledgements
pages
Part One (Vol. 1)
Understanding and Significance 19
1.1 Understanding the site 20
1.2 Historical overview 21 - 46
1.3 Assessment of significance 47 - 59
pages
Part Two (Vol. 1)
Conservation Issues and Policies 61
Introduction
2.1 Conservation Policy Aims 62
2.2 Existing Policy Framework 62
2.3 Issues affecting the significance 64 - 96
of the castle
2.4 Policies to address the issues 97 - 112
A Principles and approaches
B Conservation, repair and maintenance
C Protection of fabric and setting
D Information, recording and research
E Access and visitor services
F Engagement
G Presenting and interpreting the site
H Collections management
J Site management
2.5 Recommendations and next steps 113 - 114
Consultees 115
Sources 116 - 118
Picture credits 119
Appendices 120 - 132
Part three
Gazetteer (Vol. 2)
pages
Phasing 4 - 6
Exterior, Medieval Castle 7 - 40
Ground Floor 41 - 79
First Floor 90 - 101
Second Floor 102 - 116
Exterior, Park & Grounds 117 - 143
Figs & Plates 114 - 191
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 1

List of figures
Volume 1
p.24 Elevation drawing of Norman Tower,Wessex Archaeology 2011
p.78 Bat Survey plan, Baker Shepherd and Gillespie 2009
Volume 2 Gazetteer
Fig 1. Plan of Mercian Tamworth
Fig 2. Plan of Late Anglo -Saxon Tamworth
Fig 3. Plan of Medieval Tamworth
Fig 4. Plan of the Castle Liberty, superimposed on modern street plan, based on Eagle J 1810
Fig 5. Contour Survey of motte and bailey
Fig 6. Profile through the motte and buildings within the shell keep
Fig 7. Ground floor plan of Norman phases of shell keep
Fig 8. Phased elevation of shell keep
Fig 9. Ground floor phased plan of shell keep and interior
Fig 10. First floor phased plan of shell keep and interior
Fig 11. Second floor phased plan of shell keep and interior
Fig 12. Plan of Medieval gatehouse, lodging range and ditch
Fig 13. 1741 survey of the Castle Liberty to the north of the river Anker
Fig 14. 1883 1:500 Ordnance Survey Map 1st edition, extract
Fig 15. Elevation drawing of south face of north range
Fig 16. Same view, east side of late medieval hall, butting up against Norman Tower
Fig 17. Plan of rooms in north range and tower as listed in 1680
Fig 18. plan of rooms in south range as listed in 1680
Fig 19. Key to rooms and features described in gazetteer
Fig 20. Key to external features described in gazetteer
Fig 21. Detail of plan of the Castle Liberty south of the river Anker, Eagle, J 1810
List of plates
Volume 2 Gazetteer
Plate 1. Oblique aerial view of castle
Plate 2. Elevation of Tower and Shell Keep
Plate 3. Impact of the High Rise Tower Blocks on the setting of the castle
Plate 4. Aerial photo of Tamworth Castle in its landscape setting (1960s)
Plate 5. Aerial photo of Tamworth Castle in its landscape setting (1960s)
Plate 6. Aerial photo of Tamworth Castle in its wider landscape setting (1960s)
Plate 7. Photo of castle and Ladybridge from the south
Plate 8. Photo of castle with pollarded trees (c.1899?)
Plate 9. Photo of Thomas Cooke outside main entrance to Castle
Plate 10. Detail of 17th century view of Tamworth from the south
Plate 11. 17th century view of Tamworth from the south
Plate 12. South East View of Tamworth Castle, Buck 1729
Plate 13. Tamworth Castle from south east, Richard Godfrey 1788
Plate 14. Tamworth Castle from the south around 1780
Plate 15. Tamworth Castle around 1789, Stebbing Shaw
Plate 16. The prospect of Tamworth Castle from the road near the stables
Plate 17. View of Tamworth Castle from the Castle Inn Yard
Plate 18. Buildings around the Courtyard
Plate 19. View of Tamworth Castle from the south east (Courmouls) c.1820
2
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Plate 20. Romantic Watercolour of Tamworth Castle, Richard Thomas Underwood, 1799
Plate 21. Late 19th century photo of trees along the south rampart
Plate 22. Medieval gatehouse during excavation, 1987
Plate 23. Medieval gatehouse during excavation, 1987
Plate 24. Photo of Holloway Lodge from Holloway, early 19th century
Plate 25. Photo of Holloway Lodge Castle Grounds, early 19th century
Plate 26. Photo of the Cooke family, circa 1873
Plate 27. Daisy Radcliffe Clague and Ethelflaeda Cooke with the urn at the top of the Dell, 1895-7
Plate 28. Photo of the interior of the Drawing Room as furnished by the Cooke family c.1870-1880
Plate 29. Photo of Cooke workforce in Dell, late 19th century
Plate 30. Photo of Tamworth Corporation outside the entrance to the south range 1899
Plate 31. Photo of castle grounds and bandstand circa 1913/14
Plate 32. Photo of castle grounds and bandstand circa 1913/14
Plate 33. Millenary celebrations 1913
Plate 34. Inauguration of the Aethelflaeda Monument 1913
Plate 35. Historical Pageant in the Dell
Plate 36. Herringbone wing wall, early 20th century
Plate 37. Watercolour of Great Hall by A E Everitt 1868
Plate 38. Watercolour of Oak Room by A E Everitt 1868
Plate 39. Photo of the Oak Room 1949
Plate 40. Photo of the Ferrers Room 1949
Plate 41. Photo of the Drawing Room 1949
Plate 42. Photo of the King James Room 1949
Plate 43. Photo of Great Hall with display of arms and armour after 1952
Plate 44. Photo of the Bird Room in the Tower, 1949
Plate 45. Photo of the entrance porch to south range, 1949
Plate 46. Photo of historical Masque around 1960
Plate 47. Photo of St Ruffins Well 1960
Plate 48. Friends of the Castle with heraldry project, 1989
Plate 49. Ornamental flower beds in castle grounds c.1980
Plate 50. Tamyouth Consultation Panel 2009
Plate 51. Conservation Plan display and consultation 2009
Plate 51. Conservation Plan display and consultation 2009
Plate 53. Conservation Plan display and consultation 2009
Plate 54. Hands on Georgian Costumes, fun for families
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 3

Executive Summary
4
Significance (Vol. 1)
To establish an understanding of the historic site, the Conservation Management Plan reviews the sources for the
history of Tamworth Castle and sets out seven chronological phases for it’s development, from the construction of
the motte to the present day (Sections 1.1 and 1.2)
It establishes criteria for assessing the significance of the site and its elements: motte, bailey and associated
structures; buildings within the curtain wall on top of the motte and collections and proposes areas of exceptional
or other degre es of significance (section 1.3). In terms of statutory designations Tamworth Castle is a Scheduled
Ancient Monument (and grade one listed building).
Assessments are organised broadly chronologically. Tamworth Castle is identified as a complex historic site of
exceptional value and significance, deriving from the importance of particular features or phases, and from factors
which make up its overall heritage merit and interest:
• Setting and associations
• The high motte
• The Norman shell keep and integrated tower
• The Norman Herringbone masonry wing wall
• The Late Medieval Great Hall
• Tudor and Jacobean house
• Georgian renovations in antiquarian style
• Georgian landscape garden and lodges
• Social and community history, and borough museum 19 th -20 th century
• Important tourism and amenity resource
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Conservation Policies (Vol. 1)
After a review of factors which have affected the site in the past, or which may do so now or in the future (section
2.2) the Plan provides policies for its conservation. Nine principal policy areas are set out in section 2.3, which
aim to protect or enhance the significance of the site as a whole and realise its potential for public access and
understanding:
A Principles and approaches
B Conservation, repair and maintenance
C Protection of fabric and setting
D Information, recording and research
E Access and visitor services
F Engagement
G Presenting and interpreting the site
H Collections management
J Site management
These principal policies, which are supplemented by more detailed subsidiary policies through which they may be
implemented, are listed in summary on the pages following this summary.
Gazetteer (Vol. 2)
The final section of the document is a schedule of the individual elements of the site, including the buildings on
top of the motte and individual elements of the bailey and historic features within the castle pleasure grounds.
It attempts to develop a more detailed understanding of the site, including for each element its own particular
development and significance, its principal features, displayed collections, the risks and vulnerabilities which affect
it and the specific policies for its conservation or other treatment, reflecting the overall policies for the site set out in
Part Two.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 5

6
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Polices for the Conservation of
Tamworth Castle
A Principles and approaches
Policy A1: Place the conservation of Tamworth Castle at the heart of planning for future uses and the day
to day management of the site.
Policy A2: Secure the repair of the historic asset and provide for its future maintenance to high standards
of conservation care.
Policy A3: Promote public access to enjoyment and understanding of Tamworth Castle.
Policy A4: In securing these policies, to manage the site so as to make best use of financial
and other resources.
B Conservation, repair and maintenance
Policy B1: Establish a conservation philosophy for the site, that protects its historic integrity and areas
of significance and makes them accessible to public understanding.
Policy B2: Establish regular, effective and funded programmes for buildings inspection, maintenance
and repair, where necessary revising existing arrangements.
Policy B3: Ensure that all works to Tamworth Castle, whether new work or repair, are informed by a
clear understanding of the site, are preceded by appropriate investigation of the historic fabric
and are fully recorded.
Policy B4: Ensure that all works are carried out to the highest standards of historic building conservation
and are based on the best available professional advice and quality of workmanship.
Policy B5: Widen the quinquennial inspections to include: both faces of the herringbone masonry wing
wall; the exposed remains of the medieval gatehouse and the retaining wall at the base of the
motte, on its north side.
C Protection of fabric and setting
Policy C1: Minimise risk of damage to the historic fabric and contents of Tamworth Castle, from normal
public access and from arrangements for special events through the development of a policy on
carrying capacity.
Policy C2: Ensure that the historic fabric and contents of Tamworth Castle are maintained to acceptable
standards of environment and security, while securing adequate conditions for users.
Policy C3: Observe effective regimes for fire and security for the site, buildings and collections and maintain
counter-disaster systems.
Policy C4: Ensure that the contents and historic fabric of Tamworth Castle are maintained to acceptable
standards of housekeeping.
Policy C5: Protect and where appropriate enhance the setting of the castle, removing intrusive elements and
guarding against inappropriate future development.
Policy C6: Understand and protect the ecological value of the Castle, Motte and its riverine and
parkland setting.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 7

D Information, recording and research
Policy D1: Promote further studies of Tamworth Castle, its setting and the documentary sources relating to
its history, with an agenda for investigations and an ability to respond to opportunities.
Policy D2: Create and maintain a formal archive or information base relating to Tamworth Castle, distinct
from working files, to include a record of all interventions in the site.
Policy D3: Ensure that archaeological analysis and recording of fabric is undertaken in advance of repairs and
that recording of repair/conservation works is undertaken and curated in the castle archive.
Policy D4: Promote further documentary research, to inform the understanding and presentation of the
castle and its relationship to the town of Tamworth through further studies of the Court Leet and
other documentary sources.
Policy D5: Undertake archaeological investigations into: the putative outer bailey; bailey defences;
castle mill; fisheries and deer park, if the opportunity arises in advance of development.
E Access and Visitor Services
Policy E 1: Develop a visitor management and circulation policy to distribute visitors around the site
and minimise the impact on sensitive areas at peak periods, and for this to inform the siting and
design of interpretive media and events to take account of the carrying capacity of the site and
significance and vulnerability of specific rooms and features.
Policy E2: Make enjoyment and understanding of the significance of Tamworth Castle and the people who
have lived and worked in it, accessible to all.
Policy E3: Extend public access and understanding to all significant areas of the castle, where practicable
Policy E4: Manage access and site operations for minimum impact on the site, by the sensitive location of
visitor services and administrative areas.
Policy E5: Promote Tamworth Castle for a broad range of community and cultural activities for a wide range
of audiences.
Policy E6: Develop an integrated Visitor Welcome, Signage and Orientation policy from the point of entry
(station, jolly sailor car park, Ventura shopping centre) to draw visitors to the castle using the
concept of a gateway and trail through park and from station, at town centre car parks, TIC.
Policy E7: Undertake and regularly review Disability Awareness training for staff and volunteers, to minimise
the physical access constraints of the site.
Policy E8: Enhance the visitor welcome, and provide family-friendly orientation.
Policy E9: Review and manage the visitor circulation route, up to and around the castle; consider access via
the steps from Holloway Lodge and exit via the current ramp along the wing wall.
Policy E10: Explore the possibility of moving the shop and cafe to the Market Lodge (with seasonal external
seating between the lodge and medieval gatehouse to the Market Lodge exit from the castle).
Policy E 11: Consider reinstating a gate at the bottom of the herringbone wall causeway/current entrance to
control access onto the perimeter path and summit of the motte at night, to restrict anti-social
behaviour.
8
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

F Engagement
Policy F1: Re-engage with the Friends of Tamworth Castle and offer a more active role again through
recruitment capacity development and training
Policy F2: Actively consult more widely, on the development and presentation of the castle though the use
of social media networks.
Policy F3: Develop training for volunteers in: research; conservation tasks; living history; costume making
collections management tasks; interpretation and in support of customer service roles
Policy F4: Relate volunteer tasks to their skills and experience.
Policy: F5: Seek people’s memories of and reactions to the castle. Collect and curate these in partnership
with local groups, to extend the castle collections on the social history of Tamworth.
Policy F6: Provide space for temporary displays by local schools and community groups, which record the
castle and park over the seasons.
Policy F7: Develop a display about caring for the castle and the collections. Develop a regular guided walk/
talk programme on ‘how we care for collections and castle and how you can do the same at home’
Policy F8: Make provision for those who visit when no re-enactors are on site, and develop the capacity and
range of volunteer re-enactors.
G Presenting and interpreting the castle
Policy G1: Develop presentation of all phases of Tamworth Castle within a clear interpretation plan that
encourages full visitor enjoyment and understanding (to include the significant Norman,
Medieval, and Jacobean phases which are currently under represented).
Policy G2: Consider a re-ordering of room uses, decoration, presentation and circulation to make best use of
the building for interpretation and visitor services and minimise the impact on the fabric.
Policy G3: Improve the quality of presentation of Tamworth Castle to a consistent high standard and to
minimise intrusive elements, to make provision for visitors attending when there is no living
history event.
Policy G4: Build on the success of the costumed interpretation at Tamworth to widen it to include the
important Saxon (for the town of Tamworth), Norman, Medieval and Jacobean phases.
Policy G5: Recruit, engage and train volunteers to research and present the story of Tamworth Castle
through living history and costumed interpretation workshops for families and school groups.
Policy G6: Draw on the historical and archaeological sources to inform and enhance the presentation of
room settings and functions, and tell the stories of the people who lived and worked at Tamworth
Castle over 1000 years.
Policy G7: Enhance interpretation and presentation of the bailey and wider castle park to create an
appropriate setting and to aid historical understanding.
Policy G8: Enhance the interpretation of the nationally significant aspects of the castle which are at present
poorly understood and not presented: The Motte; The Norman Shell Keep and Integral Tower; the
Herringbone Masonry Wing Wall, the Medieval Gatehouse, and Late Medieval Great Hall as well
as the wider medieval castle park, mills and fisheries.
Policy G9: Explain the work routinely carried out to care for the castle, the bailey and the collections, and
how they can be damaged.
Policy G10: Move away from perpetuating myths (Dungeon, haunted bedroom) in the presentation and draw
on the fascinating true stories which can be presented in a lively and engaging way (sieges; royal
visits; royal champions; bats; disputes with local residents etc).
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 9

Policy G11: Continue to develop the range of educational provision for school and other groups, as an
important element in interpretation and the promotion of access.
Policy G12: Develop Tamworth Castle’s tourism and cultural provision role through effective marketing, both
of the Castle and the town as a whole and its key role in the Saxon kingdom of Mercia.
Policy G13: Develop and implement a policy on the sustainable sourcing, design and production of
exhibitions and displays.
Policy G14: Build in a budget for maintenance of interpretive media and technology.
H Collections Management
Policy H1: Ensure effective management of collections, by dealing with the documentation backlog, so that
informed decisions may be made on their future care, use and location.
Policy H2: Consider the integrity of objects and archives and their conservation requirements as paramount
in decisions affecting their packing and storage.
Policy H3: Ensure sustainable access to and use of collections, to enhance learning and research.
Policy H4: Collections will be stored and displayed in a managed environment that minimises their rate of
deterioration.
Policy H5: Provide and maintain systems to monitor the condition of the objects and the environments in
which they are kept and to minimise damage by insect pests.
Policy H6: Remedial conservation will only be undertaken on extremely significant items, when it is
necessary to ensure their continued survival and accessibility.
Policy H7: The main priority for documentation is to establish an accurate record of the condition of all
objects and archives within the collections, to meet minimum standards for accreditation.
Policy H8: Develop, resource, implement and regularly review a backlog policy and procedures for
documentation, to meet the minimum standards for accreditation.
Policy H9: Carry out an audit of the archival collections and storage with a view to making recommendations
on future policy for the location of the archival material.
Policy H10: Develop and implement an Emergency Policy and Plan.
Policy H11: Continue to provide appropriate storage and display conditions for collections, against agreed
sector benchmarks.
Policy H12: Take measures to slow deterioration of, and prevent damage to, objects through the
implementation of a preventative housekeeping policy.
Policy H13: Review conservation standards against appropriate benchmarks.
10
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

J Site Management
Policy J 1: Meet all statutory and legal requirements for protection of the site, the health and safety of
individuals and the requirements of disabilities legislation, by means which ensure minimum
impact on the significance of the castle.
Policy J 2: Ensure the management arrangements at Tamworth Castle safeguard its historical integrity
and the public interest in access, through shared aims and objectives and consistent methods of
working in partnership.
Policy J3: Develop an effective strategy for staff and contractor parking that minimises the risk to visitors
and park users and minimises the impact on the historic fabric and setting of the castle, its bailey
and landscaped grounds.
Policy J4: Review facilities for visitor parking, including disabled access drop off point, within an overall
framework for visitor parking for the town.
Policy J5: Implement the motte management policy and ensure that contractors and officers are aware of
the significance of the motte and how it might be damaged.
Policy J6: Ensure that castle staff and grounds maintenance teams working in the bailey are aware of
archaeological constraints and consents procedures.
Policy J7: Re-introduce and monitor a regular programme of cleaning within the castle and litter picking
within the bailey and the budget to support it.
Policy J8: Develop a strategy and procedures for effective volunteer management and motivation.
Policy J9: Develop a policy for regularly reviewing the effectiveness , maintenance and replacement of
visitor orientation, waymarking and interpretive signage.
Policy J10: Enhance the visitor welcome and orientation at key gateways (Station, Jolly Sailor Car Park,
Ventura Retail Park, Car Park at foot of castle mound) to the castle and other town centre
attractions.
Policy J11: Develop a waymarked interpretive trail leading to and from the castle, and other town centre
attractions, across Ladybridge, through the historic castle park and modern Castle Pleasure
Grounds, for pedestrians and cyclists linked to the main gateways.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 11

12
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Introduction
The Brief
The Tamworth Castle Heritage Lottery Fund project is developing proposals to conserve and improve physical and
intellectual access to three key areas: the inner bailey, the motte and the keep courtyard. Enhanced interpretation
will be complemented by a programme of physical works to conserve and repair some of the historic fabric, to open
up access routes within and without the castle walls.
The Conservation Management Plan will be produced during the Development Phase of the project along with
a number of other technical surveys that will also help to inform the Conservation Plan. It will collate a range
of information and specialist studies carried out over the last two years, setting clear policies for the future
conservation and management of the Castle site and its setting. The plan will be used to inform project proposals;
set out a long term maintenance and management strategy and identify maintenance and management costs.
The plan will also be used to:
• Support applications for Scheduled Monument Consent for this project and all future works that
require statutory consent
• Support applications for matched funding for the Heritage Lottery Bid and future funding applications
for Castle projects
• Inform Tamworth Borough Council as to how it can manage the future conservation of the castle site and
how this model can be used to guide the conservation of other historic buildings within the
Council’s stock
• Show partners and associated organisations the Council’s commitment to managing the built environment
in a responsible way
• Provide the local community with an expression of their contribution to local heritage, through their
consultation on the development of the plan
Scope of Works
The document should cover all of the following:
• All the castle buildings located on the Norman Motte
• The castle motte and its setting within the castle pleasure grounds park
• The scheduled area which consists of the castle inner bailey and the Holloway Lodge and stables building
• The castle’s object and archives collections
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 13

Detailed surveys and investigations
The detailed studies include: a condition survey carried out in 2005; draft conservation management plan and
historic architectural assessment produced between 2006 - 2008; survey of historical sources 2006 (Collections for
the History of Tamworth Castle); Structural Survey; Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and bat survey carried out over
summer and autumn 2009; Access Audit 2008; Tamworth Castle Collections Care Manual 2009; Tamworth Castle
emergency Plan 2009; measured survey of the castle and mound 2010; geophysical assessment of the perimeter
path 2009; archaeological evaluation of the courtyard area 2009. Photographic survey from mini helicopter 2011.
A separate management and maintenance plan has been produced by the project architects so only a summary
management and maintenance plan is included within this document.
The detailed descriptions of individual elements of the castle are summarised in the gazetteer using an annotated
photographic survey carried out in 2010 and reference to the detailed architectural descriptions produced in 2006.
Background and purpose
Tamworth Castle was built around 1086. It is remarkable for the size of its motte, with its early Norman stone
shell keep, well preserved integral tower and the fine herringbone masonry of the causewayed wing wall. Within
this shell keep there is an impressive late Medieval Hall and Tudor, Jacobean and Georgian House. Its bailey was
transformed into a private Georgian pleasure garden and now forms an attractive and popular local park with the
castle as its backdrop.
The castle is sited on the southern edge of the Saxon burh of Tamworth overlooking the rivers Tame and Anker. It
was purchased by Tamworth Borough Council in 1897 and opened as a popular Borough Museum with collections
donated by local worthies. It currently draws around 30,000 visitors each year from a wide area of the West
Midlands and beyond. It has a well regarded education programme, which holds a Sanford Award, and reputation
for good quality living history events.
It is an important symbol of local pride and figures prominently in the corporate identity for the Borough Council.
It acts as focus for local cultural activity and its bailey/park is an important recreational amenity close to the town
centre, and popular location for events. Beyond this a more extensive park, known as are the castle pleasure
grounds, was laid out on ground reclaimed from the flood plain of the river Tame in the 1930s, and occupies a small
part of the original massive Norman deer park, associated with the castle.
The Conservation Management Plan was commissioned by Tamworth Borough Council to inform a bid to the
Heritage Lottery Fund. Its purpose is to provide a basis for both day to day management and the consideration
of development proposals for the site. It draws together existing information about Tamworth Castle in order
to develop an understanding of its development through time; assess the significance of the castle and its
components; define issues which impact on the castle; and proposes policies for guiding future management and
protecting significance.
This Plan will help Tamworth Borough Council understand why Tamworth Castle is important and how it is
important in different ways t o different groups of people. This information can then be used by the council to help
look after the Castle and its historic setting.
The information contained within this document should aid Tamworth Council and its contractors to:
• Design new work
• Plan conservation and restoration works
• Improve physical access
• Manage and maintain the site in the long term
• Develop new ways of involving people in caring for Tamworth Castle and Historic Tamworth
• Plan activities to help people learn about the significance of Tamworth Castle and Tamworth
The process of developing the Conservation Management Plan has also involved discussion with the local
community and potential new partners for the delivery of the conservation objectives and long term management
of the Castle and its setting within the Castle Pleasure Grounds.
14
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

This document takes account of the archaeological, historical and architectural significance of the castle and its
setting, but also the biodiversity, collections, educational, amenity, social, cultural and economic significance. By
integrating all this information in a single management document potential conflicts are discussed, anticipated and
hopefully resolved.
It is essential to recognise that Tamworth Castle is important to different groups of people for different reasons.
In order to care for the various elements of the castle, its setting and its collections we must understand and
document the different values, as they can be damaged by inappropriate interventions and use. The process of
preparing the plan has hopefully enabled stakeholders to recognise and take account of the values, needs and
requirements of others. The results of the consultation process are summarised in section 2.3.29.
The plan will help to ensure that capital and revenue investment is spent wisely and does not damage the heritage
values of the castle and it setting, and that there is a long term commitment to managing and caring for all aspects
of the significance of the castle.
Information contained within this document will help the HLF project architect design new work to improve
access in the short term and the interpretive planners to plan the most appropriate location, media, activities
and storylines. The plan includes a Heritage Impact Assessment which identifies the likely impacts of the works
proposed under the current HLF project.
However the document has a longer term and wider role and should also be used to inform any future long term
plans for the development and presentation of the castle and its setting within the castle pleasure grounds and the
associated townscape.
To inform this plan, consultation was carried out between July and November 2009 (plates 51 - 53), and has
identified what local people and visitors value about the castle and castle grounds and what are the challenges in
terms of access. This information is also valuable to inform the interpretive themes and activities that family groups,
special interest groups and schools would like to participate in.
The Conservation Management Plan also identifies opportunities to refresh the storylines for the presentation and
interpretation of the castle based on an informed understanding of the significance and role of different parts of the
building and its wider landscape setting. It also identifies opportunities to improve the day to day care of the castle
and its collections and provides recommendations on how both of these might be enhanced by training of staff and
volunteers.
The plan identifies a range of options for generating environmental benefits. It highlights opportunities for
enhancing the biodiversity of the motte and parkland setting of the castle bailey and for ensuring the protection of
designated species within the castle.
This plan collates, and has been informed by, a series of specialist reports and surveys which, along with the
additional community consultation during 2009, have helped to identify the conservation issues and policies, these
studies are referenced in full in the appendices. This document is a synthesis and intended to be a user friendly
management tool to aid general managers. Accordingly the detailed architectural descriptions produced by Bob
Meeson in the draft Conservation Management Plan (2006-8) have not been replicated but are summarised in the
site gazetteer and the annotated photographs within that gazetteer.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 15

Basis and structure
The format of the plan is based on the Heritage Lottery Fund guidance Conservation Management Planning 2008.The
underlying principles derive from The Conservation Plan, by James Semple Kerr, 1996. It is also informed by a number
of international charters, especially the Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance ,Australia
Icomos, 1999 (The Burra Charter). The international charters are enshrined in English Heritage’s Policies for the
sustainable management of the Historic Environment Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, 2008. The idea
of ‘significance’ lies at the core of these principles. Significance is a collective term for the sum of all the heritage
values attached to a place, different people value places for different reasons:
Evidential value: the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.
Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the
present - it tends to be illustrative or associative.
Aesthetic value: the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place.
Communal value: the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective
experience or memory.
The principle of understanding historic sites as a proper basis for decision making is well recognised. The
requirement to protect significance during processes of change or conservation is enshrined in the government’s
new planning policy statement for the Historic Environment: Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5)
Format of the Conservation Management Plan
The plan follows a three part structure:
16
Understanding and Significance summarises the evidence for the castle and its historical
development. It identifies the key phases of development and sets out elements of significance for
these and for the site overall.
Conservation Policies identities a series of issues affecting different aspects of significance and
develops principles for protecting and enhancing the site’s significance and making it accessible to
public understanding and enjoyment
The Gazetteer is a schedule of the individual elements which make up the site, setting out their
historical development and significance, identifying risks and vulnerabilities, and proposing policies
and recommendations for their conservation or other appropriate treatment.
Preparation of the Conservation Management Plan
The author prepared an interactive conservation display which was exhibited in Tamworth Castle throughout
August, September and October and at special events. In addition a special evening youth consultation event was
held in the castle and another at the local youth centre (plate 53).
Local resident non-visitors were consulted via a questionnaire and facilitated discussions within Market Street on
market days and at two neighbourhood residents’ association meetings. A piloi touch screen kiosk was placed at
the entrance to the south range. In total more than 1000 people, both visitors and non-visitors, provided feedback
which has informed the preparation of this plan and the audience developemnt plan.
Briefing meetings were held with Tamworth Borough Council staff from other departments to raise awareness of
the Heritage Lottery Fund project, the significance of the castle and to discuss the issues affecting its management
within the setting of the Castle Pleasure Grounds.
www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Cabinet members were given an evening walk around the castle to look at access, collections storage and
conservation issues and discuss resourcing and the need for a commitment to long term management of the fabric
of the castle and its collections.
The author attended an inaugural meeting of the Tamworth Town Centre Partnership to brief local business leaders
and council officers on: the significance of the castle; the role and purpose of the Conservation Plan; the need for an
integrated pedestrian, vehicular access and signage strategy, and how the castle should be central to plans for the
economic development of the town centre.
Articles highlighting the ongoing work and Open Days appeared in the Tamworth Herald, and included debate
around the future of the horse chestnut tree at the base of the castle mound. During the preparation of this plan the
Staffordshire Hoard of Saxon Gold was uncovered and this prompted massive coverage of the significance of Saxon
Tamworth; the value of Tamworth’s Heritage to its Place Making agenda and future prosperity; the importance of
the castle; and the need to provide a suitable level of security, conservation and access for the display of items from
the Hoard should the opportunity arise.
The responses from consultees were collated and are summarised in section 2.3.30 they informed the development
of the policies within the plan, particularly around access, presentation, engagement and learning.
The draft plan was reviewed in response to comments received from these consultees.
Acknowledgements
This Conservation Management Plan was written by Marion Blockley. She would like to thank a number of people
who participated in its production and the consultations that informed it:
It was prepared with the considerable help of the staff of Tamworth Castle, especially Louise Troman, Sarah Williams
and Monica Perez. Louise Troman, Heritage Services Manager Tamworth Borough Council , made available a wide
range of documentation including all the previous studies and helped with discussion of the key issues affecting the
management of the site, she also facilitated office space within the castle, access to files on previous works and did
everything within her power to assist the completion of this document.
Sarah Williams Collections Officer Tamworth Borough Council provided considerable help to enable access to
primary sources held within the archives of Tamworth Borough Council and to the museum stores both on and
off site. Monica Perez, part time Audience Development Officer funded with development phase grant from the
Heritage Lottery Fund, organised several of the youth and community consultation events. Kirsty Sherwood
Education Officer, discussed the needs and requirements of the schools and events programme and Audrey Pulcella
discussed operational and visitor management issues
Bob Meeson, former Staffordshire County Archaeologist kindly made available his draft Conservation Management
Plan and discussed the issues affecting the site. Steve Mason consulting engineer discussed the implications of
the cracking visible within the structure of the monument, the perimeter path and the retaining walls at the base
of the motte. Katy Stiles ecologist walked the motte and castle with the author and discussed issues affecting the
management and enhancement of the motte and parkland setting of the castle. The comments on condition in
the gazetteer are based on the continuing issues identified during the quinquennial inspection carried out by Bob
Tolley, former consultant architect, in 2005.
Additional help was provided by Duncan Geary, NGM land Surveys; Bob Davis and Paul Cripps, Wessex Archaeology;
Jane Parry Conservation Officer Tamworth Borough Council; Ian George Inspector of Ancient Monuments English
Heritage and Fred Gibson, Consultant Architect, ST Walker and Duckham.
The high quality aerial photos of the castle were provided by Paul Watkins of Sky Lens. Marion Blockley and Louise
Troman would like to record their thanks to him for providing an efficient and effective service at very short notice.
The photos published in this report are a small selection from a much larger project archive of detailed views of the
Shell Keep, the motte and roofs of buildings within the Shell Keep, to inform future quinquennial inspections and
specification of the programme of repairs.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk 17

Marion Blockley: Paul Watkins - Sky Lens

Understanding and
Significance (Vol.1)
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan: Marion Blockley

1.1 Understanding the site
1.1.1 Scope of the survey
The area covered by the Conservation Management Plan includes:
• All the castle buildings located on the Norman Motte
• The castle motte and its setting within the castle pleasure grounds park
• The scheduled area which consists of the castle inner bailey and the Holloway Lodge
and stables building
• The castle’s object and archives collections
As well as the visible buildings and landscapes, the scope includes features which have been ‘lost’ or removed,
but which could survive as archaeological deposits beneath the modern ground surface. The various collections
of material displayed in the castle are also included as well as the documentary sources which inform our
understanding of the castle and the town, and themselves have specific conservation requirements.
The castle is in public ownership, which requires that it is protected for future users, whilst also providing enjoyment
and understanding for the present. The challenge is to ensure a reasonable balance so that it is not used and
exploited to the detriment of its fabric, and not so over-protected that those for whom it is being kept can rarely
enjoy it. A reasonable balance must be kept between these demands, ensuring conservation of its significant
aspects, while recognising their role in attracting new generations, and encouraging a local sense of pride,
ownership and involvement.
This broad range of concerns, for the range of features within the castle, has informed the approach to the
Conservation Management Plan, and the scope of the Gazetteer.
1.1.2 Review of sources
There is a considerable quantity of primary evidence and secondary material relating to the history and archaeology
of Tamworth Castle (see appendix A sources and bibliography). The primary source is the castle itself, including the
buried remains of lost buildings and structures, and its townscape and parkland setting. Some phases of the castle’s
existence are better documented than others, there are historical records for most periods, but much remains to be
studied.
There has been no systematic study since Palmer’s history of Tamworth Castle, 1845. Between 1955-6 Miss M K Dale
of the Institute of Historical Research transcribed the Tamworth Court Rolls for the Borough Council. Extracts from
these were discussed by Gould (1972) and Wood (1958, and 1972). Copies of her transcriptions are held within the
castle collections.
Dr Nat Alcock prepared a transcription of relevant entries in the calendars of state records at the William Salt library
in Stafford, to inform the Conservation Management Plan. He also identified a number of primary documents at
various locations. He has summarised the most useful evidence in a draft document entitled Collections for a history
of Tamworth Castle, (Alcock 2006) which is available for consultation at Tamworth Castle. (NB this does not include all
the transcriptions of the Court Rolls by Miss Dale).
There are however, important references in Wood 1972 to primary sources relating to the castle (including a
thirteenth century reference to Philip Marmion encroaching onto the market place to extend the bailey, perhaps
a reference to the construction of the medieval gatehouse?) which are not cited in his catalogue of Tamworth
Borough Records (Wood 1952) or in those described by Alcock in 2006. Have they been lost or are they at the
University of Keele? Clearly further historical research would yield more insights into the development and
significance of the castle and its components.
Within the castle there is a good collection of topographical views, watercolours and early photographs, which
record the changes in the appearance of the exterior, environs and some room interiors (Plates 3 - 49; Figs 13, 14, 17
& 18). The records of research, cleaning, repair and replacement carried out over the last 50 years are a key historical
resource to inform future conservation and management of the castle.
20 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

1.2 Historical Overview
1.2.1 Topography and setting (Figs 1 & 3 ; Plates 4, 5 & 6)
Tamworth lies about 23km (14.5 miles) north –east of Birmingham and 10km (6 miles) from the cathedral city of
Lichfield to its north west. The boundary between Warwickshire and Staffordshire, originally divided the medieval
borough, but following boundary changes in 1889, it now lies entirely in the south east corner of Staffordshire.
The castle was built by the Normans in the south west corner of the Late Saxon burh, which was refortified by
Aethelflaed in 913. Accordingly the castle has always been in the medieval borough, although the castle and
borough were in separate ownerships.
The Motte and Bailey castle at Tamworth was established within about 20 years of the Norman Conquest on the
southern edge of the Saxon burh. Although it was not set out on the highest ground in Tamworth, (this was
occupied by the church of St Editha) it dominated both the settlement and the confluence of the rivers Tame and
Anker. It also dominated the important ford/ later the medieval Ladybridge, across the river Anker which brought
the main route to Tamworth from Coventry and Roman Watling Street to the south, via the historic Holloway (Plates
5 & 7).
Tamworth castle overlooked the extensive water meadows, which still regularly flood, and which formed a watery
landscape setting for the castle. The river course, mill leet and mill pond at the foot of the motte have been
substantially altered by land reclamation schemes following the demolition of the castle mill in 1920 (Fig 14).
The land rises gently in all directions from the confluence of the two rivers. There is a slight rise in land up to St
Editha’s church and falling away to the north. There is a steep gradient up Holloway adjacent to the castle. The
castle itself commands long range views across the flat floodplains of the Tame and Anker to the south, which are
still at risk of flooding.
Associated with the castle and its bailey were: an extensive deer park which skirted the eastern side of the river
Tame water meadows and extended south of Watling Street to Dosthill (Fig 4 & 21); three mills including the castle
mill at the foot of the motte; a fishery and an orchard (Fig 14). Wood (1958:30) suggested that there may originally
have been an outer bailey as well and this is discussed below.
In the 18 th century the motte and bailey were landscaped as a private garden (Fig 13). The castle and its associated
park were purchased by the Borough Council in the 1898 century. Part of the extensive deer park associated with
the castle was incorporated into a municipal recreation ground, ‘ the castle pleasure grounds’, in the 1930s, and
much of the remainder of it has been destroyed by housing, car parks and the southern bypass. The bailey has been
landscaped as a municipal park and the bank of the bailey landscaped as flower beds with paths.
The castle cannot be divorced from an understanding of the town of Tamworth. The reason the castle was originally
sited here and with such a large motte, is linked to the strategic and cultural importance of the Saxon burh of
Tamworth. As the town became less significant and the castle changed from being an important strategic, political
and military symbol to a private residence and eventually, a popular local amenity, so the castle was altered to
reflect these changes in fortune and use. The castle also has a connection with Tamworth’s most famous politician
the reformer and former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, whose father rented the castle mill and maintained a forge
in the Great Hall, during a period of decline in the castle’s fortunes in the 18 th century.
The Tamworth Court Rolls provide clear evidence of strains in relations between the lords of the castle and the
burgesses of Tamworth, particularly in the time of Philip Marmion (who encroached onto the Warwickshire Market
Place, probably to build the gatehouse) and Sir Baldwin Freville, who quarrelled with the burgesses, who besieged
the castle and cut off all food supplies for a time. However the benefaction of the various owners of the castle over
time can also be seen in alterations and adornments to St Editha’s church and the creation of the Chantry Chapel of
St James which later became St James Hospital, or ‘Spital’.
Today the story of Tamworth is told in an exhibition within the castle, and surveys show that this is one of the most
popular aspects of the current castle tour. However the display is more than 15 years old and the story could be
refreshed to take account of the national and international interest in the recent discovery of the Staffordshire
Hoard and its potential links to Tamworth, and the new insights provided by the Conservation Plan. Also the
exhibition is currently inaccessible to those who cannot climb the stairs to the first floor
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
21

1.2.2 Early Medieval Tamworth
The Anglo Saxon Burh
The recent discovery (July 2009) of the hoard of Anglo-Saxon metalwork 10 miles from Tamworth has highlighted
the importance of the kingdom of Mercia and caught the imagination of a regional national and international
audience. Local residents have been vociferous in expressing their pride in Tamworth’s historical significance at
the heart of the Kingdom of Mercia and the need for this story to be told and celebrated at the Castle. It has also
highlighted the confusion that still exists in the minds of many that the Saxon noblewoman Aethelflaed erected the
motte in 913 as a defence against the Danes.
Early Medieval place name evidence (Figs 1 & 2)
It is likely that Tamworth is the Tomtun (tun on the river Tame) mentioned in the charter of 675. If this is the case,
Tamworth was already an important centre by this time, (contemporary with the Staffordshire Hoard) for the tun
element at this period was generally used to denote a royal vill or estate centre. A number of important early Anglo
Saxon centres such as Northampton and Wolverhampton were originally called hamtun-the chief estate centre.
Tamworth was an important centre at the heart of the kingdom of Mercia and therefore of England as a whole.
There are historical references to a palace or monasterium (high status ecclesiastical establishment) at a place called
Tomtun.
The first definite mention of Tamworth is in the charter of 781. At this stage it is referred to as Tamworthy
(Tamuuorthie) and it continues to be referred to by variants of this name throughout the medieval period. Again
the place name evidence indicates the importance of the site, for the ‘worthy’ or ‘worthig’ element was at this time
applied to places of particular importance. Derby was originally Northworthy (Northworthig) and Hart (1992, 37,
fn37) has suggested that it was the ‘capital’ of the north Mercians, while Tamworth was the ‘capital’ of the south
Mercians. The other interpretation of this place name is ‘the enclosure by the Tame’, Tamworthy, which would imply
a reference to the ditch and rampart around the town in the 8 th century, around the time of Offa.
Tradition has it that the large ditch, known as King’s ditch, surrounding the town was the work of Offa (discussed
below. If the ditch surrounding the town at the time of Offa was on the same line as that of Aethelflaeda’s 10 th
century Burh , and several commentators seem to think this is the case (Bassett 2008, Gould 1969, Meeson 1979.)
enclosing an area of 22 hectares, this would be internationally important.
All parallels for enclosed areas of this size and shape are 10 th century in date, and if the mid 8 th century enclosure
at Tamworth is the same size it makes it the model for these later enclosures. Sadly the various trial excavations
carried out have been too limited to provide reliable dating evidence from the earliest ditch on the line of the town
defences. An alternative theory recently proposed by Shaw, is that the first phase of the town ditch might actually
belong to the period of Danish occupation of Tamworth (Shaw 2010).
It is also clear from the charter evidence that between 781 and 855 Tamworth was a regular important meeting
place for the Mercian bretwalda (high king or overlord), his court and bishops. At this time there was no concept
of a permanent fixed capital, the centre of political focus was wherever the peripatetic bretwalda and his court
happened to be at that time. However there is sound historical evidence (at a time when sources are frustratingly
thin on the ground) that many important charters were signed at Tamworth at either Easter of Christmas, the main
religious festivals, suggesting that this was the favoured royal residence, and that there was a church nearby.
The other widespread myth is that the castle motte was built by Aethelflaed in 913. This attribution can be
traced back at least as far as the Tudor period and the antiquarian Sampson Erdeswicke (facsimile 1844 add p.
ref) and repeated by Dugdale (1675). Wood was still repeating these myths in the late 1950s (Wood 1958:5). In a
later publication (Wood 1972:3-4), he amended this by reporting a lecture of Dr F.T. Wainwright, at the time of his
excavations in the Bailey in the 1960s that the mound was constructed by the Normans when they built the castle.
However the myth is persistent and remains uncorrected in current planning guidance Town Centre Conservation
Area Statement of Designation and Reasoned Justification (Tamworth Borough Council 2005:5).
22 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

From the place name evidence the late 7 th century Tomtun (contemporary with the Staffordshire Hoard) was already
marked out as an important place at that time. We can be more certain that Tamworth was a major centre for Mercia
by the late 8 th century. A large number of Mercian charters were witnessed at Tamworth between 781 and 857
(Meeson 1979: 17) and the settlement is referred to in terms such as ‘in loco sede regali’ (at the royal seat) in regali
palatio (in the royal palace), in loco celeberrimo (at the most celebrated/splendid place).
All surviving Mercian charters dated to Christmas or Easter are ratified at Tamworth, indicating that the Mercian
kings regularly came there for their main Christian festivals, together with many of the important people in the
kingdom, archbishops, bishops, abbots and ealdormen, who acted as witnesses to the charters. Although the
Mercian kings, like their contemporaries in other kingdoms, were peripatetic, staying at royal vills and monastic
sites, Hart (1977: 58, 60) suggest that there was an annual royal progress by the Mercian kings between their major
residences at London and Tamworth and that a permanent royal treasury was maintained at Tamworth.
Tamworth would have comprised a major royal residence or palace, one or more churches, residences for the king’s
reti nue and servants, and industrial and commercial structures to meet their needs. This would not have been a
town, as such as this stage, but a proto, or developing town, where a significant proportion of the population is
engaged in non-agricultural occupations.
The location of the ‘palace’ at Tamworth is not known. Traditionally it has been suggested that it might lie within
and beneath the bailey area of the castle overlooking the river Anker (H.M.Taylor 1966). Wainwright carried out a
trial excavation in this area in 1960, but found no evidence of Anglo-Saxon occupation. His excavation records are
incomplete and the work was never published, but the records do survive within the castle archive in Holloway
Lodge. However traces of stratigraphy containing saxo-norman pottery were found during a watching brief, within
the bailey which suggests that early deposits survive beneath the turf of the castle park, which makes this an area
of high archaeological importance.
Bob Meeson suggested that the site of the palace enclosure may have been around the area of St Editha’s
churchyard and extending south of Church street (Fig.1) (Meeson 1979: 22-30). This 1.5ha elevated enclosure
at the centre of the area defined by the defences, may have formed the site of the palace together with one or
more associated churches. Or it could have been entirely ecclesiastical, the site of a monasterium. John Blair has
suggested that ecclesiastical sites which were fixed and permanent, as opposed to the itinerant secular royal
sites, are likely to be the focus for later town development, and certainly provided hospitality to kings during their
progress round their kingdom (Blair J 1996).
The importance of this central enclosure is entirely plausible, lying at the highest point and close to the junction of
the main roads. Was it lying at the heart of an even larger 22ha enclosure, which ran on the same lines as the later
Saxon and medieval defences.
Meeson’s theory has not been tested by excavation or geophysical survey and later burials within the churchyard
are likely to have destroyed traces of any earlier timber buildings. However, there is at least one decorated late
Saxon tomb-stone re-used in the ceiling of the crypt on the south side of St Editha’s.
The Town Defences (Figs 1 & 2)
A large number of sections have been cut across the town defences, but all have been small scale and the sequence
is therefore uncertain. Bob Meeson summarised the known evidence in his dissertation in 1979 (Meeson 1979:
112-120 and this was repeated by Bassett 2008). Meeson suggested four phases, plus an additional two potential
phases. His phase three was a timber fronted rampart and ditch separated from the rampart by a berm. This has
10 th century dating evidence and would fit with Aethelflaed’s Burh defences built in 913. Phase 4 is a re-facing of the
rampart in stone. Phase 5 is refurbishment in 11 th century, with the excavation of a new ditch and rampart, perhaps
coinciding with the construction of the castle. Phase 6 is the silting up of the rampart in the 13 th century, suggesting
that the defence of the settlement is no longer a priority.
Meeson has also identified two earlier phases on the same line which appear to predate the Aethelflaedan rampart
and perhaps belong to Offa’s palace (757-796). The central palace/monasterium enclosure may have been
surrounded by a larger enclosure of 22ha which could have provided accommodation, garrison, industry, trade,
agriculture or a combination of any of these.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
23

Mercian Kings in late 8 th or early 9 th century fortified Hereford, Tamworth and Winchcombe to protect their royal
residences and important churches sited in those places, but also enclosing enough space for streets and houses.
The area covered by the late Saxon and medieval defences, 22 ha (50 acres) fits well with evidence from elsewhere
eg Northampton and Hereford.
The Court Leet Rolls provide a useful source for the condition of the town ditch in the later medieval period. In
the 14 th century it seems to have been managed as gardens, controlled by the Bailiffs. Eleven burgesses appeared
before the court in 1310 for encroachment onto the ditch with hedges; in 1324 a person was fined for cutting down
trees growing in the ditch; thirty one persons were fined on 8 th May 1332, for encroachments and it was ordered that
the land must be restored; on 18 October 1356, eight persons were similarly fined and the hedges and enclosures
ordered to be removed ‘ this very day’; on 29 April 1404 it was necessary to order ‘that if any tenant is occupying the
king’s dyke without paying rent, he shall appear at the next court to show his charter and to make fine; if not the
Bailiffs and community may enter’. At the same time the ditch around the motte was also rented as a garden.
The Saxon Watermill (Fig 2)
The discovery and subsequent excavation of a horizontal-wheeled watermill of 9 th century date in the 1970s, was of
international importance, for its evidence of Anglo-Saxon milling practices and sophisticated carpentry techniques
(Rahtz and Meeson 1992) The waterlogged timbers from this mill were accessioned as part of the castle collection
(probably the most important items in the collection) and buried at the waterworks on Lichfield Street in an attempt
to preserve them in anaerobic conditions.
Sadly their precise location is unknown and they are likely to have deteriorated beyond recovery.
The site of the watermill lies in the south east corner of Tamworth, just outside the Saxon town defences. The
foundations of the mill pool, wheelhouse and outfall revetment were uncovered along with Neidermendig lava
querns imported from Germany, which are on display in the castle, along with a working model of the mill. The
dating of the timber suggests a mid 9 th century date for this mill. Tamworth was apparently sacked by the Danes in
874, and the mill appears to have burnt down around this time, but this may have been coincidental accident in a
highly flammable environment.
The mill would have been capable of processing huge quantities of grain. Was this stored in the town for
distribution elsewhere? Does it suggest a large population (proto-town) within the settlement to be fed? Mills were
about control and power and there is a parallel with the castle mill. In 1275 Philip Marmion came into direct conflict
with the town residents because he forced them to bring their grain to his mill against their will (Wood 1972:69).
Burh (Fig 2)
In 913 Aethelflaed led a major military campaign against the Danelaw. She advanced to Tamworth and built a burh
(fortified settlement) here. Tamworth was strategically important on the boundary of the Danelaw. A fort here was
able to control the crossing of the river Tame, was close to the crossing point of the two Roman roads of Watking
Street and Ryknield Street, and provided protection to the Bishopric at Lichfield. In addition its historical association
as the former residence of King Offa may have given the construction of a fortress here, important associative value.
An area of 22 hectares is enclosed within the defences. Aethelflaed also constructed burhs at Bridgnorth, Stafford,
Tamworth and Warwick.
The defences of the Aethelflaedan Burh, survived in part as a landscape feature to be mapped in the 1:500 scale
ordnance survey map in 1884. They were extensively sampled by small scale trial excavation between 1960 -1978,
yet there is limited reliable dating evidence for the various phases of re-cutting. There has been limited excavation
within the historic interior to test the hypothesis about the extent of the putative palace enclosure, and the date
and origins of the street layout.
It has been suggested that the Burh was originally laid out by Offa in the eighth century (Gould 1969) and refortified
by Aethelflaed in 913 in response to the threat posed by the Danes. When Aethelflaed died at Tamworth in 918, (she
was buried at Gloucester) her brother Edward of Wessex quickly occupied Tamworth, no doubt to suppress any
suggestion that Tamworth might become a focus for Mercian resistance for his rule.
The new burhs of Stafford and Warwick were established in the 10 th century to become centres for administration of
the new shires and perhaps to slight the old Mercian centre of Tamworth. It is possible that Edward also introduced
the division of Tamworth between the two shires of Staffordshire and Warwickshire at this time in order to slight any
focus for Mercian resistance.
24 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

An alternative theory is postulated by David Palliser who noted that the northern, Staffordshire half has a more
irregular street plan and has the only Danish street names Ellergate and Gumpegate. He suggested that the original
town lay to the north bounded by the triangle of streets surrounding
St Editha’s (Palliser 1975:144, fig 12) and was taken and settled by the Danes. He suggests that Aethelflaed laid out
the southern ,Warwickshire, half with a more regular street pattern when she doubled the area of the town by
digging the defences which cover an area of 22 ha. Sadly the lack of archaeological evidence makes it impossible to
be certain either way. The ditch postulated as the outer bailey ditch of the castle may throw light on the layout of
the town, if any other opportunities arise to excavate its primary deposits.
Mint
There was a mint at Tamworth from at least the reign of Athelstan (924-939). This is important in showing the status
of the settlement at this time, for Athelstan had forbidden the minting of coins, except in a port or Market Town.
There are a few coins from the early years of Edward the Confessor (1042-1056) suggesting that there was only a
single moneyer working in the town at this time. More are known from later in the reign of Edward the Confessor
(1056-1066) and there are known to have been at least two moneyers working in the town at this time (Danson EW
1969-70 ‘the Anglo – Saxon and Norman mint of Tamworth’ Trans South Staffs Arch Soc 11: 32-57). Most of the known
coins from the Tamworth mint are in Scandinavia, indicating that they were probably paid as Danegeld, a tax or
tribute to pay off the Vikings to stop them ravaging the land.
St Ruffins Well (Fig 1; Plate 47)
St Ruffins well was at the east end of the castle bailey. It is known to have been in existence by 1276, according to
a thirteenth century hundred roll of Edward Ist cited by Allsopp which refers to someone blocking the route to
St Ruffin’s well Rotuli Hundredorum, 4 Ed I, 1276, ‘Will’s Chelle obstruxit viam q’ducit ad fontem S’ci Ruffany ‘ (Allsopp
1959). It may possibly date back to the early medieval period. Ruffin is said to have been one of the two sons of
Wulfhere, a pagan king of Mercia, and to have been converted to Christianity by St Chad along with his brother
Wuifade. As a consequence they were slain by their father. He later repented and tradition has it that he dedicated
the well here as a holy well in atonement. If true, this would imply a link with Mercian nobility in the mid 8th century
(pre-Offa and contemporary with the recently discovered hoard) but these legends are often later attributions. The
story of Ruffin would appear to have originated from the Isle of Wight, when it reached Staffordshire is unknown.
The 1741 plan of the 2nd Marquis of Townshend’s landholdings (Fig 13) shows a cold bath belonging to Mr Wills. This
was in the vicinity of what is now known as ‘St Ruffins Well’. It was presumably sited on a natural spring issuing from
the foot of the river terrace at this point. In the same way that it was fashionable for some 18 th century property
owners like Townshend to refurbish their homes in antiquarian style, they also liked to ascribe romantic and
antiquarian origins to features of their parks and gardens and this may be the case with Mr Wills’ cold bath.
Aethelflaed’s fortification and location of Offa’s palace
Local antiquarian tradition has it that Aethelflaed built the original motte, (Erdeswick writing between 1553 and
1603 wrote: ‘she here erected a tower, on a round artificial mount, called the Dungeon, which we now behold, and
which forms the site of the present castle’ (Erdeswick facsimile 1844: 437) Dugdale appears to have drawn heavily on
Erdeswick when he wrote in 1656 that Aethelflaed restored the town: ‘to its antient strength and splendour, raysing
a strong tower upon an artificial mount of earth, called the dungeon, for defence against any violent assault thereof:
upon which mount that building now called the castle hath of later times been erected; for the body of the old castle stood
below towards the Mercate Place’ (Dugdale 1656:) The contention was repeated again by Henry Norris in his History of
Tamworth Castle (Norris 1899: 13-14).
This explains why the statue commemorating Aethelflaed’s refortification of Tamworth was sited at the foot of the
motte, rather than on the line of the ‘King’s ditch’ (Plate 34). This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical
reference to a Saxon fortification. At this time ‘Burh’ meant a fortified settlement, or fortified residence (Williams
A 1992) rather than a castle, and her fortification is the ditch and rampart enclosing the settlement at Tamworth.
However these myths are tenacious and the recent Town Centre Conservation Area Designation still persists with
this fundamental misunderstanding (Tamworth Borough Council 2005:5) as does a recently produced leaflet on
Saxon Tamworth (Tamworth Borough Council 2010), quite apart from coverage in the local history columns of the
local papers.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
25

Wessex
Archaeology
Digital data
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. 0No unauthorised reproduction. 1
Scale: 1:50 @ A3
Path: X:\PROJECTS\72371\For Linda
Digital data
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date: 01/03/11 Revision Number: 0
26
Wessex
Archaeology
Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan
Scale: 1:50 @ A3
Illustrator: Var.
Path: X:\PROJECTS\72371\For Linda
78.6648m OD
0 1
Date: 01/03/11 Revision Number: 0
Illustrator: Var.
78.6648m OD
NE Facing elevation Figure ?
2m
2m

A widely promulgated theory is that early Norman Motte and Bailey castles might be deliberately sighted on former
Saxon high status sites in order to slight them (Liddiard 2004:30). It has been suggested that Tamworth Castle might
have been sited on the site of Offa’s palace (Meeson 2006:7).Wainwright dug in the bailey in 1960 to try and locate
‘Offa’s Palace’ but found nothing conclusive, although he did not publish his results and the records, housed within
the castle archives are piecemeal and tantalising. What survives of the Bailey remains an area of high archaeological
significance, and the potential buried remains of Saxo-Norman timber buildings would be particularly fragile, so it
must receive full protection in its management.
As recently as 1966, scholars interpreted the herringbone masonry wall of the causeway leading up the motte as
late Saxon (HM Taylor 1966) and others have suggested it was part of Offa’s palace, and that motte was built up
against it. Herringbone masonry is widely used in churches, but it is not in itself diagnostic and it can be impossible
to distinguish between pre-and post-conquest work.
Meeson has provided a plausible, and widely accepted suggested location for the palace in the enclosure
surrounding St Editha’s church (Meeson 1979: 22-30). However Blair, has suggested that many potential high
status ‘palace’ sites, like Northampton and Cheddar may actually be high status religious houses, which provided
hospitality to itinerant kings. It is entirely possible that the religious and secular high status sites at Tamworth were
in separate enclosures, perhaps this is one interpretation of the large ditch running east west between Church
Street and Market Street?
St Editha’s Church
Although none of the fabric of St Editha’s church is definitely pre-conquest there is little doubt that there was a
church on this site in the Saxon period. The location of the church at the dead centre of the Saxon defences and
within the smaller enclosure postulated by Meeson, makes it highly likely that there was an important Saxon church
or monasterium here. In the medieval period the church was administered by a college of priests rather than by a
single rector/vicar and was by the 14 th century a royal free chapel, both of which are indicative of an early status as a
minster church from which priest s were sent out to preach in outlying areas before the establishment of the parish
system. William Marmion, son of Robert Marmion III (the Justiciar) was Dean of St Editha’s in the mid 12 th century.
The collegiate church of St Edith, was founded in the 10 th century, and had a full prebendal system introduced in
the 1130s, by Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry. There is confusion over which Editha the church was dedicated
to. Roger of Wendover, writing in the 13 th century, is the source of this confusion. He wrongly stated that Editha,
sister of Athelstan married Sihtric, king of Northumbrians and later founded a monastery at Polesworth, close to
Tamworth. Earlier sources make it clear that Athelstan married his sister Editha to the Emperor Otto in 930 and that
she died at Magdeburg in 946 as the recent identification of her body there reminds us.
The nunnery at Polesworth may have been associated, with the church. Ninth century sources list Edgyth as abbess
of an unknown nunnery. Gould has suggested that the most likely candidate is Edith sister of the West Saxon king
Aethelwulf (839-858) an alternative is Edith the daughter of King Egbert, who founded Polesworth Abbey in 827. The
most likely date for the dedication of the church to St Edith is the 12 th century when it was rebuilt by the Marmion
family who also held churches with the same dedication at Polesworth and Pulverbatch. (Gould 1985-6; Meeson
1979, 47-8).
We don’t know what happened to the church in era of Danish invasions. The Viking army over-wintered at Repton,
only 15 miles from Tamworth in 874-5, and the Mercian King Burghred was driven out and replaced by King
Ceolwulf II who followed a policy of appeasement. In 877 the Mercian kingdom was divided between the Danes and
king Ceolwulf.
The Anglo Saxon chronicle tells us the kingdom of Mercia was ravaged at this time and it has been suggested that
Tamworth was destroyed by the Danes. However there is no specific mention of this in the Anglo Saxon chronicle.
It is possible that the first phase of the Town Ditch actually belongs to a Danish phase of occupation of the town
(Shaw 2010), which is recollected by the Danish street names Gumpengate and Alldergate.
In 913 Tamworth was retaken by Aethelflaed, and she died there in 918. A measure of its strategic importance as
a place at this time, is that after Athelstan seized control of Mercia, the Saxon nobles gathered at Tamworth for a
Great Council and declared Athelstan ‘King of all the English’. In 925 it was chosen to be the site of a peace treaty
between Athelstan and the Danish King Sihtric of Northumbria at which time Sihtric married one of Athelstan’s
sisters and briefly accepted the Christian faith.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
27

1.2.3 The Phasing of the Castle (Figs 8, 9 & 10)
The draft policies and recommendations specified in the following sections are based on an understanding of
the development of the castle over a 1000 year period. The appearance and setting of the castle today, reflect a
sequence of changes of ownership and evolution in use from the late Anglo Saxon period to the present day. It
is essential to understand the history of the castle in order to make recommendations to protect and enhance its
significance
The important pre-castle context of Late Saxon Tamworth has been described in section 1.2.2 above.
Phase 1 The first Motte and Bailey castle at Tamworth c 1086 (Figs 3 - 6)
Tamworth Castle was built for Robert Despencer, a contemporary of William the Conqueror, within about twenty
years of the Norman Conquest (Armitage 1912, Gould 1972). When he died without children it passed to Roger
Marmion. Robert le Despencer was a Royal Steward, and considered to be the most important royal steward. He
was granted the castle and its associated Liberty, which included a park which extended south beyond Watling
Street, and Polesworth, the site of the Saxon Abbey.
The Motte is one of the largest and oldest Norman castle mounds in England. This perhaps suggests that the
Normans s felt that it was important to make an architectural and psychological statement to suppress the once
important Saxon settlement at Tamworth. The base of the motte was encircled with a substantial ditch.
The earliest motte was probably defended by a timber palisade that was later replaced by the stone shell keep
between 1170 and 1190 (Meeson 2006: 13-14).
It would appear that the bailey was set along the edge of a natural river terrace, with the river Anker flowing directly
along the foot of the scarp (Meeson 1997, 1980).
The bank of the bailey defences appears to have been retained by a jointed timber framed structure (Meeson
2006:11, fig 4) There is also evidence that defences were renewed and that a small ditch was enlarged at a later date.
There has been no systematic excavation of the southern bank of the bailey, but this is likely also to have been
retained by timber framing.
There is no evidence to suggest that the medieval bailey was ever enclosed or fortified in stone on the south side,
overlooking the river. It is likely that the first buildings on top of the motte and within the bailey were made of
timber.
Associated with the castle was a large deer park, that extended to the south, three mills and a fishery. Wood
(1958:29) and Meeson (2006:8-9) have suggested there was also a larger outer bailey associated with the first phase
of the castle. This is discussed below (p.46).
Phase 2 The Norman Stone Castle (c.1170-1190) Robert Marmion
The stone curtain shell keep, with its integral tower, enclosing the top of the motte probably replaced an earlier
timber palisade. The purpose of the shell keep was to create an enclosed circular courtyard in which stone or
wooden buildings would have been constructed, either free standing or butted up against the shell keep. The Shell
Keep served the same function as the tall stone tower keeps of Norman Motte and Bailey castles providing both a
last refuge and living quarters.
The first stone shell keep curtain wall and integral tower were built of roughly coursed sandstone rubble masonry,
with yellow sandstone quoins at the angles of the shell keep curtain wall and at the corners of the tower. The main
entrance through the Shell Keep was adjacent to the Tower and there was a small postern on the north side. The
shell keep was constructed with an inner and outer wall with a ground floor intra mural passage looking out over
Ladybridge and Holloway (Fig 7; Plate 2).
The tower has one doorway opening into the courtyard within the shell keep and one large first floor display
window. The window is also constructed with the same yellow sandstone as the quoins and string courses (Plate 2).
The impressive double walled herringbone wing wall up the motte also has the same yellow sandstone quions
courses, suggesting that it is contemporary with the Shell Keep. It provided a causewayed (or possibly stepped?)
access up the motte to the main entrance to the castle.
28 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

It formed the main approach to the castle and would have created an impressive show facade leading up to the
tower and dominating the former Saxon burh and the Market Place which built up just outside main entrance to
the castle (Plates5, 12, 36).
Given the uncertainty over the descent of the earliest Marmions, the lack of dating evidence, and the pitfalls of
dating and comparing castles with similar architectural features, on purely stylistic grounds, it would be unwise to
try and allocate the construction of the Shell Keep to a specific Marmion.
Phase 3 Medieval, 13 th -14 th century (The gatehouse and lodging range) Philip Marmion
Excavations carried out by McNeil confirmed a mid 13 th century date for the twin towered gatehouse, which is
therefore likely to have been built by Philip Marmion between 1260-70 (McNeil 1989:47).
There are historical records of grants of 16 Oak trees being donated for building works at Tamworth Castle in 1261
and a further 20 oaks in 1266, indicating the extensive scale of roofing and flooring works undertaken by Philip
Marmion.
The ditch at this point was 16m wide and 7 m deep, with a flat bottom, and was originally crossed with a timber
bridge at this location.
The projecting twin towers of the gatehouse were built of carefully shaped green sandstone ashlar blocks.
The basements survived in good condition with several fish-tail arrow-loops, one on each tower pointing across the
ditch and another pointing out diagonally to east or west. There was a central arrow loop with smaller embrasure,
pointing forwards beneath the bridge (Plates 22 & 23).
The arrow loops were in front of 2.1m high embrasures (niches within the wall for archers to stand in). These would
have been fine for crossbows but not large enough for long bows.
On each side of the basement, stairs climbed up inside the walls. The stairs on the left were lit by three narrow
windows (loops) and probably reached ground level at the site of the 18 th century market street lodge which still
survives on the site of the medieval lodging range.
A stone pier was constructed inside the ditch to support a reconstructed timber bridge, which was later replaced
by a stone bridge between the market street and the pier. The gap between the gatehouse and the former pier was
probably filled in at the same time.
There is evidence of a range of buildings associated with the towers (Fig 12) and both the foundations of the
western tower and attached range are visible on a plan of 1741 (Fig 13).
The walls of the original Norman shell keep were clearly taken down and rebuilt at various stages. There is a
historical context for partial demolition of the shell keep and causewayed curtain wall in 1215. The third Robert
Marmion fought for the king in Normandy but then defected to the French. The king ordered Thomas of Erdington
to throw down the castle at Tamworth. There is considerable evidence within the shell keep (and curtain wall) for
partial demolition followed by reconstruction (Fig 8; Plates 1 & 2).
The shell keep may have collapsed of its own accord, sited close to the edge of a steep motte, but the more massive
Norman tower has remained standing for all this time, with only superficial and relatively recent evidence of
cracking. The original Norman shell keep walls only survive to a height of between 3-5m in height.
The upper part of the shell keep curtain wall is built of more regularly shaped coursed, larger sandstone blocks
and the corners are not emphasised with yellow sandstone quoins. Within this phase there is a short length of intra
mural passage that extended round to a former latrine/garderobe. There are no buildings within the shell keep that
are contemporary with this phase.
As stated above, it is possible that there might have been a fore-building attached to the tower at the top of the
causeway. If so, this might have been built by Robert Marmion III or either of his two sons or by Philip Marmion.
The Medieval North Range was constructed with a high wall of large regularly shaped red sandstone blocks butting
up against the perimeter wall of the shell keep. The size and grandeur of this range cannot easily be appreciated
as it is obscured by the later phases of buildings, especially the 15 TH century Great Hall, butted up against it and
obscuring most of its surviving facade
The Medieval castle received a number of Royal visits, as it was convenient for the Royal Hunting Forest of Cannock
Chase and the Lords of the castle were for many generations Royal Champions. Although little evidence survives
there must have been suitably lavish accommodation in the north range.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
29

In 1157 Henry II visited Robert Marmion III , accompanied by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas a Becket, at
that time Lord Chancellor. King Henry III visited Sir Philip Marmion at the castle in 1257. Edward II was entertained at
the castle by Alexander Freville in 1325.
Much of the structural evidence to interpret the facade of the medieval north range is either buried below ground
or obscured by later fabric such as brick, timber panelling or plasterwork, which makes it difficult to interpret with
any confidence. The 13 th /14 th century north range is likely to have consisted of either a hall or the best private
chambers on the first floor and undercrofts/cellars on the ground floor.
There are several windows and doors in the medieval facade of the north range, but all those opening onto the
courtyard are later insertions so provide no dating evidence for the construction of the medieval north range. There
is one medieval doorway, possibly thirteenth or fourteenth century in date. It is plastered on both sides so it is not
possible to tell whether it was built as part of the wall, and therefore dates it, or whether it was inserted into it at a
later date.
Most of the partition walls in the north range are post medieval, so it is not possible to determine the original
medieval plan form without damage to the fabric of the later phases. There is evidence to suggest that the medieval
north range was only two stories high. The former eaves line is marked by a horizontal crack in the plaster on the
top floor of the north east stair turret. Also when the 15 th century great hall was built, its north end rested on the
north range wall. The gable was infilled with herringbone timber framing above the height of the north range.
Robert the Justiciar served King Richard I and King John in Normandy, but changed allegiance and sided with the
Barons who obtained Magna Carta from King John. King John commanded that the castle be raised to the ground
in 1215, but whether or not this was fully carried out, the castle was not destroyed. However the shell keep and wing
walls do show evidence of several phases of reconstruction (Fig 8; Plates 1 & 2).
Phase 4 Fifteenth century - The fifteenth century open hall
The late medieval open hall is one of the most impressive architectural spaces within the castle, and of outstanding
architectural importance. Traditionally it was described as the ‘Tudor banqueting hall’, but Bob Meeson was able
to demonstrate through the carpentry used in its construction that it was pre-Tudor in date (Meeson 1983: 329-
40). This hypothesis was subsequently confirmed by dendrochronological analysis carried out by Nottingham
University which suggested a felling date of 1437. Thomas Ferrers inherited the castle in 1423, and it is likely that he
commissioned the new hall.
The hall is a very important and rare survival of carpentry from the late medieval period, both for its width and the
design. Whilst shorter than many halls on less constrained sites, it is remarkably tall and wide.
The three bay hall was wedged into the space between the north range, and the site now occupied by the Jacobean
South range, which must itself have replaced an earlier medieval building. The complete absence of framing below
the tie beam makes it clear that south end of the 15 th century hall was also built up against a wall belonging to an
earlier building.
Although much of the framing of the side walls has been replaced over the years, the original design of the close
studding can be deduced (Meeson 2006:24, fig 11). The current windows are not original and would have been
recycled from other buildings, although there is no evidence of when this might have occurred.
This is the only substantially complete medieval building standing within the shell keep. Based on our knowledge
of other more complete medieval castles, it is likely that if the north range contained the hall and best private
chambers, that the south range, probably set at right angles to the hall, would have contained the service rooms.
This functional arrangement continued with the Jacobean building that replaced the medieval south range.
30 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Phase 5 The Tudor and Jacobean Castle (late 16 th to 17 th century)
The Tudor and Jacobean apartments
From the late sixteenth century through to the end of the seventeenth century the castle buildings evolved from
their medieval appearance, with a great communal hall set in a defended circuit, into a set of more lavish private
apartments designed to display their wealth and to provide accommodation fit to entertain the monarch on a royal
progress. Whilst the Ferrers’ spent much of their time living at their private rural estate at Walton on Trent, they also
spent considerable sums of money refurbishing Tamworth Castle with splendid show apartments.
The alterations took place in several phases and also involved demolition and rebuilding of much of the north
side of the shell keep curtain wall. The first phase of refurbishment was undertaken for Humphrey Ferrers II. He
refurbished the medieval north range and had the south range and the entrance porch and loggia built. Following
the fashion for grand Tudor country houses on more extensive sites this created two discreet suites of rooms that
could serve either a single household or two separate households, and even provide hospitality for a royal visit.
Each suite had its own grand entrance, and it is from this period that the fine decorated door surround and porch
was inserted in the corner of the south range (Plate 45). Another branch of the Ferrers family also organised their
house at Baddesley Clinton so that it would provide two discreet suites.
Remodelling the north range (Humphrey Ferrers II, circa 1560-1588)
Humphrey Ferrers II married Ann Bradbourn in 1562 and it is possible that at this time, or after the death of his father
(John Ferrers III) in 1576 that he carried out a programme of refurbishment of the north range. Dendrochronological
dates from structural timbers from the floor of the north range provide felling dates of c.1578, and between
1563-1588. Drawings within the archives of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust show the three bay windows that lit
the first floor dining room (Plate 17). The stone bases of these windows were left in situ when they were replaced
by George Ferrers Townsend in the Georgian phase or refurbishment (Plates 8). At the same time it is likely that
Humphrey Ferrers also built the stair turret to link the open late medieval hall with the chambers in the north range.
This still has traces of the diaper pattern brickwork also visible in the gables of the bay windows in (Fig 17).
Building the south range
The interior of the south range was substantially altered during the Georgian phase with fireplaces, panelling and
other fixtures and fittings relocated and elements imported from other buildings to create a suitably ‘antique’
appearance. This makes it difficult to provide a secure date from existing fixtures and fittings. However the entrance
porch and surviving mullioned windows suggest a late sixteenth century date. Prints made in 1780 and 1788 prior
to the alterations by George Ferrers Townsend show ogee-shaped gables, similar to those at Moreton Corbet
(Shropshire) which date from 1579 (Plates 12 & 13).
The storeyed porch (the ‘Porters Lodge’) (Plate 2)
In the late 16 th century the Ferrers family attempted to create a fashionable refurbishment of their property within
the confines of a medieval motte. Elsewhere at this time old medieval halls were abandoned for new halls, or new
accommodation ranges were built for visitors. It might have made sense to build a new fashionable house within
the more extensive bailey. Perhaps they were referring back to their antiquity as a family by staying within the shell
keep? The constraints of the motte inevitably led to compromises over detail, symmetry and proportion. However,
they were able to create a fashionable loggia at the entrance with the additional accommodation on the upper
floors supported by two yellow sandstone columns. The ‘Ferrers Room’ above the loggia is lit by a canted bay
widow, similar to those from the south range, prior to its refurbishment by George Ferrers Townsend.
The Perimeter Walk
It seems likely that also around this time (late 16 th century) the perimeter walk around the top of the motte, was
constructed, creating in effect a large prospect mound, to enable fashionable gentry and perhaps even royalty to
promenade and be seen (compare with the recently recreated prospect walk at Kenilworth Castle). Despite many
different phases of repair (the perimeter path and its retaining wall seem always to have been unstable and in
danger of cracking and slipping down the motte) there are traces of late 16 th century brickwork in the retaining wall
of the path (Figs 13 & 14; Plates 8 &14).
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
31

32 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Royal Visits
We know that the enhancements to the accommodation were successful as King James I visited on three occasions
in 1619, 1621 and again in 1624. There are apotropaic (evil-averting) marks on the entrance porch to the south range
to ward off witches and they may well belong to the time when James I was visiting. These marks are usually sited
around any apertures such as doors and windows where witches might slip into a building. James had taken a
particular interest in witches and witchcraft and considered himself somewhat an expert on the subject. In Scotland
in 1590 300 witches were accused of gathering to plot the murder of James. He is known to have had a morbid fear
of violent death. In 1604 he passed the Witchcraft Act.
The Castle during the Civil War
The Castle was occupied by Royalists in autumn 1642. On 23 June 1643 parliamentary troops laid siege upon the
castle and the royalists surrendered after 2 days. In the following March Royalists troops from Lichfield assembled
a force to try and retake Tamworth, but the attempt failed. In October the parliamentary garrison was ordered to
leave. Cromwell later ordered that many castles should be dismantled, but there is no tangible evidence that this
was ever carried out at Tamworth.
Sir John Ferrers V Probate inventory
The probate inventory of John Ferrers, made in 1680 is the most important document referring to the post medieval
castle, providing remarkable insight into room functions and contents at this date, as well as the overall planning
and organisation of the buildings. It is a valuable for the furnishings and decor of the domestic interiors around the
time of the restoration of Charles II.
Although the inventory was listing only moveable goods, it also names many of the rooms, and the route around
the accommodation, so it is possible to assign descriptions and functions to specific rooms.
However, there has been considerable change to the north range, since John Ferrers’ time: the attics in the north
range were taken down by the Townsends and at least one partition wall has been removed, the service rooms on
the west side of the open hall have been replaced and a partition wall has been removed from the top floor of the
storeyed entrance porch.
In the south range the top floor has been dismantled, so there is a degree of speculation about the contents of
some of the seventeenth century rooms. It is likely that some of the service buildings were sited in the bailey, and
the brief notes of the excavations by Wainwright in 1960 did refer to ‘Tudor’ buildings within the bailey.
North Range
We can identify ‘My ladyes chamber’ on the top floor of the tower, with an adjacent nursery on the floor below in
what is now described as the ‘Ferrers Room’ above the storeyed entrance porch.
The former dining room with fine bay and oriel windows looking out over the town on the north side of the castle,
was described as the ‘Guilt Leather’ room. The current municipal cream painted walls give no indication of how
warm and sumptuous this room must have been, with its walls lined with stamped and gilded leather. There are
numerous National Trust and other properties where this ‘gilt leather’ or ‘Cordovan leather’ survives and these are
illustrated and discussed in the room data sheets within the gazetteer.
Clearly at this time this room and its associated service rooms and annexes would have provided the main
accommodation suite for significant visitors such as King James.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
33

South Range
In the South Range, although it is possible to identify the principal chambers on the first floor, it is more difficult to
locate the service rooms on the ground floor. The kitchen and pantry may have been located in what is now the
shop and cafe, with the current staff office as the servants’ hall /dining room. However the current cafe/shop has
two good windows facing onto the courtyard, which suggests a more prominent role than that of kitchen/pantry,
perhaps a stewards room?
On the first floor, the room currently known as the ‘withdrawing room, or state drawing room’, was described as the
Greene Room. This is confirmed by paint sample analysis carried out by Ian Bristow, although he does speculate that
the green paint may belong to the later Georgian renovation. The small closet leading from this room was not listed,
presumably as it had no contents.
The room adjacent to it, and currently described as the ‘oak room’ was known as the ‘newe dining room’.
The kitchen
The building that stood west of the main hall (on the site of the current staff room) ,may have been the servants
hall, but the brick chimney breast of that building still visible against the curtain wall is large enough to have served
a kitchen, and this seems more likely. This seems an appropriate location for a kitchen given the door at first floor
level through into the service room adjoining the principal apartments in the north range, the guilt leather room
(12 on Fig 15). A kitchen located here would have been centrally placed to serve both north and south ranges and
the medieval hall.
Phase 6 The Georgian Renovations of George Ferrers Townshend
The prospect from and setting of the castle changed during the Georgian period when there were three corn mills
and a fulling mill on the river Anker at the foot of the castle mound (Fig 13; Plate 14). Robert Peel established two
large cotton mills on Lady Meadow in 1788-91, which further industrialised the setting of the castle (Sherlock 1976,
57). At the same time Peel, presumably had a short lease on the castle as he converted the medieval Great Hall into a
smith’s shop, which remained in use until 1792 (Palmer 1845:402).
However there was still a prospect over open countryside to the south across the floodplain of the rivers Tame and
Anker, and it was deemed worth renovating the property to provide a modern gentleman’s residence. Arguably
at this time proximity to industrial buildings was not an entirely negative thing, witness the Ironmasters of
Coalbrookdale whose homes overlooked their foundries and coke hearths.
We don’t have a precise date for the re-facing of the south range. Contemporary illustrations suggest that The
Tudor gables were still in place in 1780 (Plate 14) but the Georgian gothic elevation of the south range was certainly
complete by 1798 and the attic floor behind it had also been remodelled by that date (Plate 17). At the same time
the kitchen on the ground floor was modernised, and several small rooms behind the medieval hall were replaced
by a second kitchen. The panelling in the drawing room and oak room may also have been installed at this time
along with a Jacobean fireplace.
The north range was substantially remodelled, the Jacobean attics projecting above the shell keep curtain wall were
removed. The former bay windows on the north elevation facing the town, were taken down; the upper portion of
the shell keep curtain wall was rebuilt and the current windows inserted to create the exterior facade of the castle as
it appears today.
The private landscaped garden
At the same time, he created a suitable private landscaped garden setting for a Georgian gentleman’s residence
(Plates 14 & 19). Between 1808 and 1811 the grounds were landscaped and the motte was replanted.
Isaac Satterthwaite was paid £13 12s 6d for ironwork. Mr Hilditch was paid for ‘surveying and planting the
Moat Paddock and other lands of his Lordship’, and more than £100 was spent on importing topsoil, seeds and
landscaping.
A ‘new wall round the hill of the castle’ and the ‘Castle wall’ were constructed at a cost of more than £180 for stone
and stone masons. This presumably refers to repairs to the revetment wall for the perimeter path around the shell
keep as well the creation of a new suitably gothic wall to enclose the grounds and privacy for private recreation
34 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Holloway Lodge was built as a suitably grand entrance from Holloway for the George Ferrers Townshend in 1810.
It was originally built as a single storey lodge, but was raised to two storeys following the purchase of the castle by
Tamworth Borough Council in 1899.
Presumably the gothic revival coach house and stables with hay loft above were also built at this time.
The mature trees and gently sloping lawn that overlies the ditch around the base of the motte were probably part
of Townshend’s landscaping scheme. The motte was not planted with trees in 1788 (Plate 13), but immature trees
were depicted in views made some time after 1814 (Plate 20) , so they were also part of Townshend’s scheme along
with the row of trees along the edge of the bailey (Plate 21). It is likely that the ornamental steps leading diagonally
up the motte from Holloway Lodge were also built at the same time as the refurbishment of the perimeter path
retaining wall.
The decorative wrought iron gate and arch at the top of the steps up from Holloway Lodge is probably that
constructed by Isaac Slatterthwaite, along with the short stretch of iron railings along a low wall terminating in
stone piers topped with fashionable stone pineapples, symbols of friendship and welcome.
Three Portland stone urns stand on plinths within the castle pleasure grounds (the medieval bailey). Peter Edden
dates them on stylistic grounds to around 1710-1730 and states that they were probably imported into the castle
grounds from elsewhere around 1807. So they too are probably part of the Townshend campaign of creating a
private pleasure ground (Plate 27).
When the Marquis died with significant debts in 1811, all work was stopped. Complicated disputes arose amongst
the trustees and those owed money. His son agreed to sell Tamworth castle to one of the creditors, John Robins, a
London auctioneer.
On acquiring the castle he built the Market Street Lodge in 1814, over and adjacent to the medieval gatehouse, with
an arched entrance way into the former bailey/landscape garden from Market Street. Palmer records
(Palmer 1845: 403) that at the time this lodge was being built workmen uncovered the remains of an ancient
staircase but had it immediately backfilled. This was the staircase uncovered during McNeill’s excavations in 1974, as
part of the thirteenth century gatehouse and lodging range, currently visible as part of the medieval gatehouse site.
The anchor standing east of Holloway Lodge beside the main carriage drive is Russian and was brought from the
Crimea by Captain Sir William Peel (son of Robert Peel the Prime Minister).
Phase 7 Victorian Municipal Asset, Public Museum and Public Pleasure Grounds
1899 – 1930s
Following the death of John Robins in 1831, the castle was restored to the Townshends. The 1834 sales particulars
noted that the castle had been ‘recently repaired and fitted up by a nobleman with acknowledged antiquarian
research’. It was then occupied by a series of tenants, including Thomas Cooke, a local man, and wholesale clothing
manufacturer, who traded in Tamworth and Manchester. He leased it from 1869 at an annual rent of £65. In 1897 5 TH
Marquis Townshend offered it for sale to the Borough of Tamworth and Thomas Cooke and his family were evicted
(Plates 26 - 29).
The castle was bought for £3000 to mark the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria. A plaque commemorating the
acquisition of the castle was mounted on a brick panel built into the loggia under the storeyed porch.
In 1913 a statue of Aethelflaeda and her nephew Athlestan was commissioned to commemorate the supposed
millennium of the construction of the castle mound by Aethelflaeda in 913 (Plates 33 & 34).
This prompted a tradition of historic costumed pageants staged by the residents of Tamworth proud of their rich
heritage, starting with the Millenary Pageant in 1913 and continuing right through to the present day by the Friends
of Tamworth Castle (Plates 33, 35 & 46).
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
35

The watermill was demolished in 1920 and the trees were removed from the south end of the castle bailey and
replaced by a bandstand (Plates 31, 32). The flower bed terraces were constructed, and the Castle Pleasure Grounds
were inaugurated in 1930 (Plates 49). The full extent of the wider castle pleasure grounds occupied part of the much
larger park associated with the medieval castle.
Phase 8 Housing, Retail and leisure redevelopments 1960s onwards - the setting of the
castle
In response to the need to house overspill families from Birmingham in the 1960s five tower blocks were built to the
east of the castle. They and the council offices Marmion House, now dominate the setting of the castle.
In the 1970s a retail unit (currently occupied by Nationwide Building society) was built on Market Street adjacent to
the medieval bridge and gateway into the bailey
In response to proposals to develop the east end of the bailey, excavations took place south of 22-24 Market Street
in 1972 (Mc Neill 1989).These confirmed that no medieval deposits survived at the eastern end of the former castle
bailey. The soil and rubble from that end of the bailey had been used to infill the northern bailey ditch, probably
before 1741.
The Ankerside shopping centre was built over the east end of the former castle bailey in 1980. The facade looking
out over the bailey is decorated with stained glass windows depicting Aethelflaeda and local historic buildings
including the castle. A series of terraces look out over the remainder of the bailey towards the castle.
The developer donated a landscaping scheme in the bailey area adjacent to the shopping centre.
Further afield the snow dome, out of town shopping centre and hotel have been built on the wider medieval
parkland and are clearly visible from the promenade around the motte and the parapet walkway around the walls?
The detailed descriptions of the various elements of these phases are illustrated with annotations in the separate
site gazetteer in section three.
1.2.4 The castle in its modern setting
Today the Shell Keep on top of the motte dominates the town and its market place, overlooks the confluence of the
rivers Anker and Tame, and still guards the southern, now pedestrianised, approach to Tamworth over Ladybridge.
The six high rise tower blocks on Lichfield Street are highly prominent in views north west from the castle, and
appear to be advancing on the castle, significantly detracting from its setting (Plate 3). Views of the castle on the
historic approaches from the south , over the Lady Meadow and Ladybridge are dominated by the high rise tower
blocks.
To the east, the sprawling mansard roof of the Ankerside shopping centre, and pub terrace, with its noisy late night
drinkers, overlooking the bailey and the massive bulk of the Snow dome and hotel beyond, all now significantly
detract from the castle’s setting. It is hard to imagine that this was once all part of the historic parkland setting for
the castle.
South of the castle the rivers Anker and Tame define the western and northern limits of much of the area of the
Castle Pleasure Grounds, a large open space planted with mature trees. This area was reclaimed from the floodplain
of the river Tame, by dumping a vast extent of municipal waste.
There is a tree-lined avenue that runs north-west/ south-east along the length of the Castle Pleasure Grounds and
aligned on the castle itself, reaching it via an attractive concrete Modernist bridge over the river Anker.
The Pleasure Grounds have a series of attractive 1930s recreational buildings including a very fine former swimming
baths. They reflect the period and their former uses well, and are sympathetically scaled to fit the landscape and
setting of the castle, unlike the more modern structures (Snowdome, Ankerside Shopping Centre).
There are two large car parks at the far end of the Pleasure Grounds and one at the foot of the motte, on the site of
the demolished Castle Mill.
The Castle Pleasure Grounds are a significant open space, for the setting of the town and in providing an important
leisure facility for residents. They are used for a popular programme of large and small events, some of which are
run in conjunction with the castle and celebrate the history of Tamworth.
36 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The modernist concrete bridge over the river Anker at the foot of the motte, is the main pedestrian access from the
town centre to the leisure facilities in the Pleasure Grounds.
The former historic bailey is now an attractive mix of open space, municipal planting beds, natural landscaping
and historic structures. There are attractive views looking out across the site of the medieval gatehouse, from the
grounds towards Thomas Guy’s Town Hall and its arcaded market. However, this view is diminished by the sharpangled
bulk of the 1960s Nationwide building. The proximity to the town and its shopping centres gives this area a
busy feel, with people continually passing through.
The grounds of the castle bailey provide a pleasant green space that serves as a tranquil urban park just off the busy
Market Street. It is well used by children, families and workers enjoying a sandwich lunch with a fine view of the
castle. Couples come here to have their wedding photos taken with the castle as a backdrop (ref. to article in Herald).
There are distant views over the river Anker to the Pleasure Grounds and countryside beyond. From the perimeter
path on the shell keep there are fine views across the historic roof-scape and street pattern of the town, past the
white painted cupola on the town hall to St Editha’s church.
There are a number of mature specimen trees, including a large Spanish Chestnut, and a number of other evergreen
species such as holly and yew, all of which enhance the leafy character of the area. The river terrace either side of
the bandstand is now crossed by two diagonal paths and covered with brightly coloured municipal flower beds,
with low stone walls.
Today tall mature trees screen the car park on the site of the former Castle Mill. It was demolished in 1920, and there
has been considerable re-landscaping of the land on which it stood, and the island and river channels have become
incorporated into the Pleasure Grounds. Tall willows flank the former mill pool. The 18 th century crenellated wall of
the Private Pleasure Garden of the Marquis Townshend separates the castle grounds from the car park.
The octagonal bandstand was built in 1900, and originally had rustic timber detailing and a slate roof (plate 32).
Unsympathetic repairs over the last 20 years have significantly detracted from the significance and character of this
building, although it is still used for its original function. Beyond the bandstand is a sensory garden created in 1991,
by the Rotary Club, on what was the site of Ruffins Well (Plate 47).
1.2.5 Descent of Tamworth Castle
The families who owned Tamworth Castle and their status, relationship to royalty, political and social aspirations,
successes and failures, provide the context for understanding the development and potential slighting of
Tamworth Castle. In a sense the architectural evolution of Tamworth castle is a tangible representation of the
aspirations and mixed fortunes of these families.
Through the centuries several distinguished families have made the castle their home. The Marmions, immortalised
in a poem by Sir Walter Scott, were Norman Lords and Royal Champions to the early medieval kings. The Ferrers
were the wealthy owners in Tudor times who added most of the buildings within the shell keep and hosted three
visits by James I. The Townshends made substantial alterations in the late 18th century, replacing the gabled attic
stories with slender neo-Gothic windows and creating bedrooms on the second floor. Alderman Thomas Cooke and
his family were tenants in Victorian times before the Town Corporation purchased the castle at auction in 1897 for
just £3,000.
It is fair to say however that the Norman origins are confusing and by no means certain. Some accounts state that
Robert le Despencer and Robert Marmion are one and the same, but it seems likely that Roger Marmion inherited
Tamworth castle after marrying the niece of Robert le Despencer (Lloyd 1951; Sanders 1960). It would be unwise
therefore in the absence of absolute dates or firm historical contexts to try and relate the different phases of the
medieval castle too closely to specific individuals.
The following table lists the families that owned the Castle, beginning with its founder Robert the Despencer, and
continuing with the Marmion and Frevile families. Several generations of Ferrers transformed the medieval castle
into a Jacobean house.
Robert le Despencer
It seems likely that Tamworth Castle was built for Robert le Despencer, who was the main steward for Duke William
of Normandy aka William the Conqueror (Armitage 1912: 218, BM Add ms 28024 f.126b). It is therefore likely to have
been built in the first phase of castle building in the years immediately following the conquest. When Robert le
Despencer died without children, the castle and his other extensive property passed through the daughters of his
brother, Urse d’Abitot, Sheriff of Worcester.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
37

The Georgian facade of the South Range by George Ferrers Townshend
The North Range, with the bases of the bay windows of Humphrey Ferrers II (1563-1588) replaced by The
Georgian fenestration of George Ferrers Townshend
38 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The setting of the Castle, dominated by the High Rise Tower Blocks
Detail showing the Norman Wing Wall and the derelict buildings butting up against its north face
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
39

At the end of the civil war between Stephen and Matilda the castle passed to Roger Marmion. Some historians have
suggested that Robert Le Despencer, may actually have been a Robert Marmion, as he appears to come from the
same area as the Marmions. The title ‘Le Despencer’ refers to his role (Early French despense= Larder, or espenser, the
dispenser of money), in the same way that Robert Marmion III was known as the Justiciar, because of his extensive
role as a travelling justice of the peace.
The Marmions c.1070-1291
The Marmions were lords of Fontenay le Marmion in Normandy, and are reputed to have been hereditary champions
of the Dukes of Normandy. This would have meant that they jousted in the king’s colours at tournaments, and
offered a ceremonial challenge at coronation ceremonies to anyone who might oppose the new king.
Roger Marmion was the son of Robert Marmion of Fontenay le Marmion, who died around 1100. He married Robert
le Despencer’s niece, and inherited the castle around 1095. Palmer states that Henry I (1100-1135) granted hunting
rights to a Robert Marmion.. ‘as his father had before him, and by name here at Tamworth’ (Palmer 1845: 333).
In 1139 Robert Marmion, son of Roger, with his wife Millicent, restored to the nuns at Polesworth ‘those lands... that
had been taken from them by the Normans’ (Gould J 1987: 37, quoting Cal Pat R 1396-1399:287) This is the historical
context for the local legend behind the haunted bedroom: that Edith appeared to Robert Marmion in the night and
struck him with a crosier, causing him to restore their lands to them (Caley, et al 1846: 365-6). However in 1143 he
expelled the monks of Coventry and made a castle of their church. He met an untimely end in a skirmish with the
Earl of Chester, he was thrown from his horse and broke his thigh. As he lay on the ground he was despatched by a
cobbler with his knife. He was buried at Polesworth in unconsecrated ground as an excommunicated person.
The castle passed to his son Robert II and he too had a son Robert III (the Justiciar). Robert III had two sons named
Robert and one William, who became Dean of Tamworth (presumably he was responsible for much of the work
on St Editha’s church?). Robert III was a justiciar at Caen in 1177, and Sheriff of Worcester. He was an itinerant justice
for Warwickshire and Leicestershire in 1187-8; Staffordshire in 1187-92; Shropshire 187-94; Herefordshire 1188-90;
Worcestershire 1189; Gloucestershire 1189-91 and 1193 and Bristol in 1194. In 1195 he was with Richard in Normandy,
and during the early years of King John’s reign he was with the king in Normandy. In 1215,while on campaign with
King John in Poitou he defected to the French. King John ordered Thomas of Erdington to ‘ go without delay to the
castle of Tamworth and to hold and retain it..with all possessions..., horses, arms and harnesses: so that he shall throw it
down immediately’. We can’t be sure whether or not this actually happened, but both the Shell Keep and wing wall
show signs of having been partially demolished and rebuilt. He sided with the barons against the king, but after
John’s death he rejoined the royal party. He died on May 15 1218. The Shell Keep and Wing Wall both show plenty of
evidence of partial demolition and rebuilding.
In 1218 the younger Robert agreed to pay a substantial fine of £500 to the Bishop of Winchester for the possession
of the castle. This was on the understanding that he would surrender the castle to his older brother, in exchange for
land elsewhere, when his older brother returned from abroad. In 1219 the younger Robert was ordered by the King
to pay an instalment of 100 marks to the Bishop. In 1220 the principal estate was restored to the older Robert. In
1233 the older Robert assigned all his property and custody of his son Philip to the bishop of Winchester.
Philip Marmion married Joan daughter of Hugh of Kilpeck and inherited Tamworth Castle around this time. He
prospered during the reign of Henry III, and his wealth and influence enabled him to undertake major works at
Tamworth Castle, including the gatehouse. From 1258 he received an annual fee of 40 marks (add ref) and received
annual gifts of deer and oak for building work at the castle, and in 1266 he was given the royal demesne lands of
Tamworth and Wygginton (McNeil 1989: 2).
He was Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire between 1249 and 1251, and saw military service in Gascony and
Wales. In 1246 he collected tallage from the Jews during the Barons revolt led by Simon de Montfort he remained
loyal to the crown and became Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, with custody of Norwich and Orford castles and
warden of Nottinghamshire in 1263.
He seems to have been as unpopular in Tamworth as the legendary Sheriff of Nottingham. He received grants of
the two parts of the Borough, Tamworth and Wygginton in 1266. In exercising this proprietorship he antagonised
the burgesses in a number of ways: by forcing them to bring their grain to the castle mills (Wood 1958:39); by
attempting to deprive them of their rights to elect the town bailiffs and by encroaching on the market place to
extend his grounds (Wood 1958:90). The castle deer park would also have been a source of dispute and tension
between Philip and the burgesses.
40 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

However, on the accession of Edward I in 1272 his royal service came to end and he received his final annual fee.
Following on from this King Edward pursued him for his debts and stopped providing gifts of deer after 1280.
He founded and endowed a chantry chapel in 1274, north of Tamworth on the Ashby road, and dedicated it to St
James. When the Black Death came to the town in 1349 the chapel was converted to a hospital and became known
as the Hospital of St James or Spital chapel.
In 1290 Roger de Conyngesby and John de Coyly were nominated to act on his behalf ‘on account of his debility’ and
he died in 1291. He owned extensive properties in nine counties as well as Tamworth Castle with its three mills and a
fishery. He was the last of the male line of the Marmions.
His estate was divided between his three surviving daughters and Tamworth Castle passed to Joan de Mortain.
When she died it passed to her niece, also called Joan, who was wife of Alexander Frevile.
Frevile 1291-1423
Sir Alexander Frevile and his wife Joan assigned the castle to their son Baldwin in 1323, on condition that they
were allowed to live in it for the rest of their lives. Alexander was the last Lord of Tamworth Castle to hold the
office of Royal Champion, he performed at the Coronation of Edward III in 1327. His son Sir Baldwin Frevile I held
the Warwickshire part of Tamworth by grant from Edward II, from 1317 to 1319 when the king granted it to the
burgesses. Baldwin Frevile II quarrelled with the burgesses in 1348, who besieged him and his castle and cut off
all food supplies for some time (Wood 19:90) He fought in wars with France, where he died having spent his later
years there. Baldwin III lost his claim to act as Royal Champion at the coronation of Richard II in 1377. The right was
attached to the manor of Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire, an estate which descended through the Marmion family. Sir
Baldwin V died while still a minor in 1418. The estate was divided in 1423 and the castle passed to his sister, Elizabeth
who was married to Thomas Ferrers.
Ferrers 1423-1688
Thomas Ferrers made Tamworth his principal seat, and the castle remained in the Ferrers family until the third
quarter of the 17 th century. He built the new Great Hall around 1437-40,replacing an earlier Great Hall. His son, also
called Thomas succeeded him in 1458, but pre-deceased him and was buried in St Editha’s church. In 1498 sir John
Ferrers, grandson of the original Sir Thomas, inherited the castle and was appointed High Steward of Tamworth. He
too is buried in St Editha’s.
In 1512 Sir Humphrey Ferrers I, son of Sir John, inherited the castle and the role of High Steward. During his
stewardship Leland visited Tamworth and noted that ‘ the base court and great ward of the castle is cleane decayed,
and the wall fallen down, and therein be now but houses of office, of noe notable building’ referring to the bailey.
He described the motte and buildings within the Shell Keep: ‘the Dungeon Hill yet standeth, and a great round
tower of stone wherein Mr Ferrers dwelleth, and now repaireth it’. Sir Humphrey spent the later years of his life at his
manor of Walton-on Trent. He was succeeded by his Son John II in 1554.
In 1557 John’s son, Humphrey Ferrers II succeeded to the seat and role of High Steward, until the Earl of Essex was
appointed to that office by the charter of 1588. He married Ann Bardbourne of Lea in 1562. His son John III was MP
for Tamworth in 1586, 1592, 1603 and 1615. Humphrey II lived alternately at Tamworth and Walton on Trent.
John’s son Humphrey Ferrers III, was born in 1600 and died in 1633 the same year as his father. There is uncertainty
about which members of the Ferrers family lived at Tamworth and/or Walton at this time. Wood states that Sir John
III entertained King James I at the castle which he repaired and altered, although he spent much of his life at Walton
on Trent (Wood 1972:92). Palmer believed that Humphrey lived at Tamworth while his father lived at Walton, but
both had a strong interest in the castle. King James was entertained at the castle in 1619, 1621 and 1624.
There is also a possibility that tenants were in residence at this time, which would add to the already complicated
need for accommodation and service rooms for two generations of the same family and of sufficient quality to host
visits by the king. John Ferrers IV, was only a minor when his father died and was placed under the guardianship of
Lady Ann Ferrers until he came of age in 1650. In 1642 the castle was occupied by Royalists in the Civil War, but it
surrendered to Cromwell’s forces in the following year. In 1680 Ann Ferrers , John’s granddaughter succeeded to the
castle as her father had been accidentally drowned in the Trent in 1678. In 1688, she married Robert Shirley and he
inherited the castle.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
41

Shirley 1680-1715
Robert Shirley was the eldest son of Baron Ferrers of Chartley. He seems to have taken little interest in Tamworth
Castle, which went into decline until it was inherited by George Townshend. Sir Robert died in 1699, and his son
died unmarried in 1714, so the estate was inherited by his daughter Lady Elizabeth Shirley.
Compton 1715-1754
In 1715 Elizabeth Shirley married James Compton 5 th Earl of Northampton, who owned Castle Ashby and Compton
Winyates, so had little interest in Tamworth Castle. Their only surviving child was Lady Charlotte.
Townshend 1754-1814
George Townshend married Lady Charlotte Compton in 1751, and in doing so acquired the Castle and Honour
of Tamworth. When Charlotte died in 1770, her eldest son, George, became Baron de Ferrers during his father’s
lifetime. His father became Marquis Townshend of Rainham in 1786. He took a considerable antiquarian interest
in the decor of Tamworth Castle and its estates (fig. 13 & 21, Palmer: 376-8; Shaw 1801: 419) until his death in 1807.
His son George, died in 1811 leaving considerable debts and a complicated will which entrusted his brother lord
John Townshend and Robert Blake to sell or mortgage a large part of the estates to cover the costs of maintaining
Tamworth and Raynham.
Robins/Bramall 1814-1834
This led to complicated disputes between the trustees and other interested parties. In 1814 John Townshend
and Robert Blake agreed in the High Court to sell the Tamworth portion of the estates to John Robins a London
auctioneer, who was one of George’s creditors. In 1821, after seven years delay involving legal proceedings Robins
occupied the castle and his son-in-law Thomas Bramall took up residence.
Townshend 1834-1897
Following Robins’ death in 1831, the castle was restored to the Townshends, having been bought by Lord Charles
younger son of George Marquis Townshend and brother of George Junior. The 1834 sales particulars noted that
the castle had recently been repaired and refitted by a nobleman, with acknowledged antiquarian research and
taste. On the death of Charles it passed to the 5 th Marquis , and again became a tenanted property. In 1869 it was
leased to Thomas Cook at an annual rent of £65. Cooke, a Tamworth man, was a wholesale clothing manufacturer in
Tamworth and Manchester.
Tamworth Corporation 1897 onwards
In 1897 the 5 th Marquis Townshend offered the castle for sale to the Tamworth Corporation and it was purchased
for public benefit to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee and fitted out and opened as a public museum for
Tamworth. The contents had been sold off, so various collections were acquired for public display. These included
a natural history collection from the Tamworth Natural History Society, a collection of arms and armour and a
collection of Saxon coins from the Tamworth mint. Councillor Frederick Allsopp, who also published historical notes
on Tamworth, donated his personal collection of Egyptology, Ethnography and Natural History.
42 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Name Born Acquired castle Died
Robert the Despencer ? c. 1073? , brother Urse d’Abitot After 1105
Roger Marmion c.1101, Holds Tamworth and Scrivelsby,
Lincolnshire. Married niece of Robert le
Despencer. Entertained King Henry I at
the castle.
Robert Marmion C.1095 1129, Son of Roger Marmion
Married Millicent de Rethel, restored
Polesworth Abbey to the nuns.
He is believed to have entertained King
Henry I at the castle.
Killed during dispute with Earl of Chester
at Coventry, and buried in unconsecrated
ground at Polesworth.
Robert Marmion II 1143, Received Henry II and Thomas a
Becket at the castle. Spent much of his
time in Normandy and died there.
Robert Marmion III
(the justiciar)
C.1160 1185, Sheriff of Worcester, itinerant
justice appointed by Henry II, serving
in this capacity in the Midland counties
for many years. Joined the Barons in the
struggle against King John, and the king
ordered the destruction of the castle
in 1215. How far this was carried out is
uncertain.
His son ,William, was Dean of Tamworth
and he had two sons named Robert (the
elder and the younger)
Robert (the Elder) C.1182 1220,Spent time abroad and regained
castle from his younger brother, in 1220.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Died 1129
1143/4 killed at
Coventry
Died 1185
In Normandy
Died 15 May 1218
C.1241-43
Robert (the Younger) C.1190 1218 (by fine) C.1241/2
Philip Marmion (son of
Robert the Elder)
C.1215 C.1242-44 (married Joan de Kilpeck)
Son of Robert the Elder, entertained
Henry III at the castle. Sheriff of Warwick
and Leicester, received the manor of
Tamworth and Wygginton from the king.
Several disputes with burgesses.
Died before 5 Dec
1291
Joan de Mortain 1291, Daughter of Philip Died 1295
Alexander Frevile 1295, by his wife Joan (niece of Joan de
Mortain).
Assigned castle to son Baldwin in 1323,
on condition that they be allowed to live
in it for the rest of their lives. He was last
Died 1328
Joan Frevile Dower rights until 1340 Died 1340
Baldwin Frevile I 1340, held the Warwickshire part of
Tamworth, from 1317-19
Baldwin Frevile II 1343. 1348 quarrelled with the burgesses,
who besieged him in the castle and cut
off his food supply.
C.1343
1375
Died in France,
having lived there
Part 1
43

Name Born Acquired castle Died
Sir Baldwin Frevile III 1375, lost hereditary claim to be royal
champion
44 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan
1387
Baldwin Frevile IV 1387 1400
Baldwin Frevile V 1400, died while still a minor, castle
passed to his sister Elizabeth
Thomas Ferrers I In 1423 via his wife, Elizabeth Frevile, built
the Great Hall
Thomas Ferrers II 1458, buried in St Editha’s son died
before him
Sir John Ferrers I 1498, succeeded Thomas Ferrers II, his
grandfather. High Steward
Died a minor in
1418
1458?
22.8. 1498, buried
in St Editha’s
buried in St Editha’s
Sir Humphrey Ferrers I 1512, High Steward Sept. 1554
Sir John Ferrers II 1554, High Steward 1576
Humphrey Ferrers II 1576, High Steward until 1588 1607-8
Sir John Ferrers IV 1607-8, MP for Tamworth, entertained
King James at the castle, 1691,1621,1624.
which he repaired and altered, although
he spent much of his time at Walton on
Trent
Sir Humphrey Ferrers III 1600 Lived at Tamworth, while his father
was at Walton, owned it for only a few
months
1633
Buried in St Editha’s
1634
John Ferrers V 1629 Son drowned 1678 14.8.1680
Ann Ferrers Granddaughter of John Ferrers V 27.9.1697
Robert Shirley I 1688 married Ann Ferrers 1697-8
Robert, grandson of
Robert Shirley I
Period of decline and neglect 1714
Elizabeth Shirley 1714-period of neglect 13.3.1740
James Compton Married Elizabeth Shirley 3.3.1715 3.10.1754
George Townshend I 8.8.1729 Married Charlotte Compton 1751, carried
out major programme of antiquarian
restoration
George (Ferrers)
Townshend
1770 ran up gambling debts and
trustees had to sell off the estate on his
death
John Robins (from 1815) Purchased in part settlement of debts
Owed by George Townshend
Charles V.F. Townshend By auction after 1833
5 th Marquis Townshend Sold to Tamworth Corporation
Borough of Tamworth 1897 Purchased by Tamworth
Corporation for public benefit
Charlotte died 1770
19.9.1807
1831

1.2.6 The Castle Collections
The Castle was purchased by Tamworth Borough Council in 1897 without any contents. This means that although
the records of the appearance of historic room interiors exist as either historic photos, sketches, paintings and
inventories, there is no original furniture or other personal items to ‘dress’ them. The lack of furniture and other
effects belonging to the families who lived in Tamworth Castle, is presumably because these effects were sold
off in a succession of house sales. This to some extent diminishes the significance of the historic interiors, but also
provides more flexibility in the way they are displayed. It is clear from consultation that the majority of visitors to
the castle assume that the furniture and other items within the room sets they gaze at are original to the castle.
The collections have been acquired since 1897 through gift, bequest, long term loan from other museums, and
through purchases. A significant section of the collection comprises items that were acquired around 1897 to
provide the castle with display items. This included a natural history collection from the Tamworth Natural History
Society, a collection of arms and armour and a collection of Saxon coins from the Tamworth mint.
Items were acquired with little rationale until the 1960s because there was no professional curator until the 1960s
and no formal collections policy until the 1980s.
Some rationalisation took place in the 1980s when three collections were transferred to Birmingham Museums and
Art Gallery which had the resources to care for them. These were the Egyptology, Ethnography and Natural History
Collections which formed part of the Allsopp collection, a private collection formed over a lifetime by Councillor
Frederick Allsopp in 1952.
Cases of stuffed birds were formerly displayed in the Norman Tower and in the drawing room in the south range.
During the consultation for this Conservation Management Plan many older residents spoke fondly of the stuffed
polar bear that was formerly displayed in the Great Hall. This was disposed of in the 1960s and sadly there don’t
appear to be any photos of this iconic exhibit.
Since 2002 active collecting has slowed, with an average of 40 items per year being accepted. Objects have been
specifically collected for the handling collection, and some reserve collection pieces have been de-accessioned into
the handling collection.
Given the lack of rationale the collections of Tamworth Castle are diverse and vary in quality, size and significance.
Some of the collections have come into existence through the collecting activities of local philanthropists during
the nineteenth century and accordingly reflect their tastes; others through local archaeological excavations,
probably the most significant of which is the excavation of the site of the Saxon Watermill in Bolebridge street. The
large structural timbers from this excavation remain buried within a water treatment plant along Lichfield Street,
but are part of the castle collection. Other items within the collection include replicas commissioned and acquired
by Tamworth Castle and as donations from private individuals.
Due to the documentation backlog it is only possible to estimate the number of items within Tamworth Castle’s
collections. Estimates in the 1980s put the figure between 5000-8000 items, although more recent estimates have
suggested around 1200 items.
The reserve collections are known to consist of the following:
Archaeology; Art; Coins and Medals; Allsopp collection(weapons, armour, books); Edith Gater Collection (designs
and examples of tube lined ceramics); Gibbs and Canning Collection (mainly architectural terracotta and company
records); Skeys pottery collection; Mac Gregor Collection (Egyptology); Peel Collection; General social history
and costume; documentary archive; photographic archive and Tamworth Trade records and a fossil and mineral
collection donated by Tamworth’s natural history society in the 1890s.
The handling collection
The handling collection makes social history objects available to schools and other groups available for handling in
a series of boxes, based on the following themes, influenced by the need of the National Curriculum:
Britain since 1948; holidays at the seaside; Victoriana; Victorian childhood; Victorian housework; Victorian working
life; Edwardian leisure time; toys from the past; Britain since the 1930s, domestic life; Britain since the 1930s, Saturday
night out.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
45

Collecting Policy
Most items in the collections have been collected because they are relevant to the history of the Tamworth area. In
1988 Tamworth Castle’s first acquisitions and disposals policy defined the geographical collecting area as within a
twelve mile radius of Tamworth town centre (The Staffordshire hoard was found 10 miles away). However before
1988 the geographical remit was not established and there are items which are not relevant to the history of
Tamworth or the castle. It is planned as part of the collections audit and disposals policy, to offer items that are more
relevant to other geographical areas to more suitable museums.
Collecting criteria
Tamworth Castle has a special responsibility to collect, safeguard and make accessible material evidence relating
to the history of the local area. The guiding principle is that items must be locally made, found, collected or used.
Beyond that, there must be relevance to the local area, for example a connection with a local character, another
object in the collection, or an aspect of the town’s heritage and history (for example the Tamworth Two pigs that
escaped the abattoir and achieved national acclaim).
Tamworth Castle will actively acquire material by donation or purchase, which relates to the history of Tamworth
and its development, including the lives of the people who lived and worked within the borough. This will
incorporate objects, archive material, including photographs, works of art, archaeological finds and oral testimonies
relating to the following themes:
• The history of Tamworth Castle
• The history of Tamworth local area and its development
• Trades and industries based in Tamworth Borough
• The lives of local people including key local personalities eg owners of Tamworth Castle, Peel family etc
• Local schools and community groups
• The expansion of the Borough as a residential area for the Birmingham overspill
Documentary archive
The archive forms a very significant element of the collections held by Tamworth Castle. It was assessed by
Staffordshire County Archive Service in 1999 and they made recommendations on its appropriate storage and
curation. Some of the documents are very significant to the history of Tamworth. The document archive includes:
• The 1680 Ferrers inventory of the castle, accounts and estate papers
• Copies of the Tamworth Town charters of 1560, 1588, and 1663; letters patent, manorial searches,
court leet and court baron
• Court rolls 1288-1788 (the originals are at Keele University Library)
• Willington Family Pedigree (Waldyve Willington was one of Cromwell’s captains and governor
of Tamworth Castle)
• The Henry Wood catalogue, referred to as the Wood catalogue
• Boundary records, minute books, accounts, rates and charities
• Records of Tamworth Borough council and related bodies from the 19 th century to the present day
• Trade records for Gibbs and Canning
• Peel family records and papers
• Deeds, accounts, wills and probates, conveyance and indentures
46 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

1.3 Assessment of significance
1.3.1 The significance of the Norman Castle
How typical is Tamworth Castle of this ubiquitous class of monument? Norman castles were a new feature in the
urban setting, representing a type of private fortification, that stood in marked contrast to the communal defensive
tradition of the late Saxon period. What effect did this new high status presence have on the urban community at
Tamworth?
Castle building in medieval England was a predominantly rural phenomenon. For complex social and political
reasons the medieval elite tended to build their defensible residences in the countryside rather than in urban
settings (Higham and Saunders 1997: 122). In England, those castles built in urban settlements, were predominantly
royal in origin. The Lords of Tamworth Castle had very close links with royalty, initially as the Chief Royal Steward
and subsequently a succession of Royal Champions.
Castles built within the urban centres of late Anglo-Saxon England form a coherent group in terms of their settings,
initial functions and the date of their foundations. These sites, including some of the most imposing mottes and
largest ringworks in Britain, were raised with very few exceptions, in the unique socio-political context of the
immediate post-Conquest years (c.1066-80), and the majority , like Tamworth, are sited in Saxon burhs (Armitage
1912:94-6; Drage 1987: 117). Almost 50% of all castles documented positively before 1100 have urban settings.
In a very short space of time, the majority of towns acting as major centres of regional administration in the first
half of the 11th century had castles imposed on them. Most of these towns had royal connections (as did Tamworth)
Robert le Despencer was the King’s main steward, hence the title ‘le Despencer’; many contained mints (as did
Tamworth) and collectively they represented the machinery for political control.
With the towns of England on the eve of Conquest containing an estimated 5-7 % of the population, William’s policy
suppressed population centres and wealthy and powerful enclaves with the potential to challenge royal authority
(Hinton 1990:115) The original Stafford castle was built in 1070, as opposed to the baronial castle, which was built
some distance from the town (Soden 2007). Most castles (like the second Stafford castle) were built to further the
aims of individual lords rather than as part of a national strategy. Urban castles were the notable exception.
The early castles, constructed under the express orders of William as tools of military conquest, and the most
‘Norman’, are paradoxically similar in concept (if not appearance) to the late Saxon burhs of Aethelfled. The
Aethelfledan burhs like Tamworth, were primarily fortified enclosures for the containment of garrisons, built to
dominate centres and control communication routes. This contrasts with the earlier burhs built by her father Alfred
in Wessex, which were planned to enclose the population and centralize the means of production. The defensive
circuit around the town of Tamworth is very similar, both in form and function, to what survives of the Tamworth
Castle bailey defences.
In the years immediately following the conquest, urban castles were not seigneurial residences in any real sense.
Built under royal control these castles were nearly always entrusted to appointed officials such as castellans,
stewards (Robert le Despencer) or sheriffs (Robert Marmion, Philip Marmion). It is only later that they emerge as the
seats of feudal baronies.
The castle was a potent symbol of the newly established Norman regime and a reminder to the indigenous
population of who held power in the new order. At the White Tower in London, the strongest, most impressive and
best maintained defences of the White Tower, built around 1078, faced towards rather than away from the Saxon
town and its resentful citizens (Vince 1990: 39).
At Tamworth the principal point of access faces the town, and the 13 th gatehouse may be on or close to the site of
Norman entrance. Invariably in an urban setting the castle gatehouse faces into the town. The exceptional height
of the motte at Tamworth, was necessary to create an elevated structure that loomed over the town and the former
palace/monastery enclosure on the higher ground to the north. The psychological impact of the massive motte,
stone shell keep with its tall tower (and display window) and massive herringbone masonry wing wall, would have
been pronounced, as it was a conspicuously elevated structure, at a time of low rise timber buildings.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
47

The possible outer bailey ditch
A number of authors have speculated on the impact of Norman castles on the Saxon townscape. There are 11
instances in Domesday Book, where clearances of the existing town took place to accommodate the bailey of a
Norman castle, and this is likely to be a significant underestimate (Armitage 1912: 230-31). Might this have happened
at Tamworth also?
The town clerk, Henry Wood suggested (1958: 29) that a large ditch running east west between Church Street
and Market Street (Wood 1958 fig 2) might have been dug by Robert le Despencer to define a very large outer
enclosure, within which to build the Motte and Bailey castle. The ditch was located at Silver Street in 1908, and
again when the Middle Entry shopping centre development was built. It was also traced when the Peel Arms site
was developed in 1994 (Moloney 1995). The most recent excavations made it clear that the 8m wide ditch remained
open for much of the medieval period. It has only been partially excavated so its date and function are uncertain.
Moloney, following Wood and Meeson has suggested that this may be ditch of an outer large enclosure for the
Norman Castle However, the legal boundary of the Castle Liberty does not follow this ditch, but closely follows the
ditch at the base of the motte, south of Market Street. (Fig 2). Also there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed
outer bailey ditch curves down towards the river to enclose the castle (Meeson 2006 Fig 2) and the property
boundaries imply that it continues further east (Fig 2). Further, it is clear that the castle faces south and east from
its bailey to the upper park , which continues the eastern boundary of the bailey across the Tame (Fig 4, 13). In
common with other urban castles it presents an impressive defended face to the town with its combination of tall
motte, shell keep with integral tower, deep ditch, and tall herringbone masonry wing wall. It is likely that there was
also a Norman gatehouse at the foot of the wing wall, later replaced by the twin round towers of Philip Marmion’s
gatehouse in the 13 th century, which encroached on land formally part of the market place, which had developed at
the entrance to the castle.
The ditch has not been fully excavated, and dating evidence has only been recovered from the latest recuts and
fills. A ditch of this size could possibly be part of the Saxon defences, maybe even the southern boundary of the
enclosure of Tamworthy referred to in the 8 th century? It may perhaps define a larger enclosed area, or haga within
the burh, perhaps a potential high status enclosure? Although, the ditch does seem large for an internal enclosure
ditch. In the 10 th century Aethelflaedan burh at Worcester, land along the high street appears to have been divided
into plots (hagas) about ¾ acre (0.3ha) in area with 160ft (50m) street frontages subdivided into smaller building
plots (Baker and Slater 1992: 58-59, fig.3.3).
This should be a priority for further research into the extent and origins of the Tamworth Castle and Tamworth.
The location of the castle and its setting
Tamworth Castle is sited to command an important bridge, Ladybridge which provided the main route into the
town from Watling Street and Coventry to the south, and effectively control access in and out of the town via
Holloway, which it overlooked. Holloway and Ladybridge could be monitored from the small loops in the first floor
intra-mural passage and the ground floor intra mural passage (Fig 7; plate 7). It is perhaps no surprise that the intra
mural passages survive on the south and west side of the shell keep overlooking the bridging point, they are in
marked contrast to the large window prominently displayed in the tower looking out over the town.
The Normans favoured siting urban castles in the corner of extant defensive circuits of early medieval origin. In
this way they form a peripheral feature of the townscape, in which the castle overlooks and overawes the civilian
population. This is certainly the case at Tamworth.
Association with previous high status site
Clearly the decision to site a Castle at Tamworth, owes something to the former importance of Tamworth to the
kingdom of Mercia. There would have been an immense psychological impact by building a large motte on or
overlooking a late Saxon power base. One of the fascinating questions, is whether or not it was actually situated on
a specific former high status site (or ‘palace’), connected with Offa or Aethelflaed. The various theories have already
been discussed above, and the evidence from Wainwright’s excavations is inconclusive. The Bailey does however
remain an area of high archaeological importance that might hold the key to this mystery.
Castles on sites of previous high status, include Wallingford (Renn 1973: 337) and Colchester,(Renn 1973: 151-4)
which is on the site of Late Saxon villa regalis. The Great Keep at Colchester (with its herringbone masonry dividing
wall) was one and a half times the size of the White Tower at Tower of London and it’s siting was used to legitimise
48 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

the claim to power of new regime. At Southampton there was a large Saxon hall beneath the bailey (Holdsworth
1984:340-1).
At Thetford in Norfolk, the motte is a colossal earthwork, the second largest artificial mound in Britain, second only
to the prehistoric Silbury Hill. It stands almost 20 m high and has a base diameter in excess of 100m. With a timber
superstructure, it must have towered above the double ramparts of the pre conquest D-shaped enclosure in which
it was imposed. This earlier enclosure probably formed the royal and administrative nucleus of Thetford. Its effective
subjugation was essential for the Norman conquerors to main an effective grip on the prime inland trading centre of
East Anglia (Everson and Jecock 1999: 105).
At Stamford, the castle reoccupied a knoll with royal connections (Renn 1973: 315). There is a lack of evidence for
other urban castle on sites of previous significance. This may be partly due to a lack of large scale open area urban
excavations of the type carried out from the late 1960s to the early 1980s and it does emphasise the importance of
the deposits beneath the bailey.
What was the impact of the castle on the town? As stated above there is clear evidence that the Saxon town
defences were re-fortified when the castle was built. A market place built up immediately outside the castle
gates, no doubt much earlier than the first market charter. Nationally there is no evidence to suggest that any
towns collapsed following the imposition of a Norman castle. In many cases castle building positively enhanced
urban areas. Earlier civil defences at Colchester as well as those at Tamworth, may also have undergone Norman
phases of rebuilding (Bond 1987: 112) This is an area for future research, and underlines the fact that Norman kings
perpetuated the royal ties with towns established by their Saxon predecessors.
Tamworth Castle and the market place
The market place formed the focus of commercial activity outside the castle gates. The multiple functions of the
castle would act as a natural focus for commerce.
Wood cites a reference to Philip Marmion encroaching on the Warwickshire market place (presumably to build
the gatehouse) in 1276 (Wood 1972:90). The original document cannot currently be traced to verify Wood’s claim,
presumably it was one originally transcribed by Miss Dale in the 1950s?
The Lords of Tamworth Castle would have been keen to foster markets near their power base for social and
economic reasons, although it was not until Philip Marmion in the 13 th century that they became Lords of Tamworth
and Wygginton and there was always tension between the burgesses and the Lords of Tamworth Castle.
The castle was sited at a key node on communication network, on the route from Coventry, and at key river crossing,
and therefore benefitted from the volume of passing commerce. A castle gate market is a natural focus for activity.
The social significance of the castle and its Medieval Deer Park
Tamworth Castle was also a badge of wealth and status that proclaimed the status and coercive power of its owners
to the surrounding population. It was a status symbol, and residence as well as a fortress.
In cultural terms the rebuilding of an existing centre of authority or social importance was a deeply political act.
When a Norman succeeded an English thegn, building on or close by his predecessor’s residence was not only an
attempt to promote his authority, but also his legal right to claim the rents and services that the tenants owed him.
This was not the case at Tamworth, as the town remained in the ownership of the King until the time of Philip
Marmion in 1276. When Philip Marmion tried to oblige the burgesses to bring their corn to the castle mill, he met
considerable resistance.
However, might the Old English obligation to work on the burh defences have transferred to work on the castle? It
has been calculated (Mc Neil 1992:) that it would take two years to build a Motte and Bailey castle, and Tamworth
was a massive motte, surrounded by a wide and deep ditch. The construction of the motte and bailey was a
demonstration of Lordly, and by association, royal power to the residents of Tamworth and the wider population.
The Norman tower at Tamworth is still a prominent and imposing structure, with its large first floor window. How
much more so would it have been to the residents of Tamworth in the Norman and Medieval period?
There is an Anglo-Saxon tradition of lordly display, through entrance towers, or burh geat, intended for display
rather than defence (Williams A 2003). Renn and others have suggested that the Normans adopted this display
tradition in castles like Ludlow, Richmond (Yorkshire) and Bramber (Sussex). At Ludlow castle, built around 1080
Derek Renn described the row of windows facing south above the now blocked entrance, which show a potential
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
49

attacker that the wall was weak at this point, but add an impressive feature to the facade (Renn 2000:136, Renn
2003:74-76, figs 8-12) He described it as a ‘parade front’.
The large first floor window in the tower at Tamworth would also have made it vulnerable to attack, from the top
of the wing wall. However, perhaps the large window and the highly decorative herringbone masonry of the wing
wall; the architectural detailing of the shell keep, tower and wing wall, picked out in yellow sandstone quoins; were
all designed to impress, drawing on the Anglo Saxon tradition of lordly display rather than primarily for defence?
The Norman and Medieval Deer Park
The extensive deer park was an important part of the medieval castle, yet because it is substantially destroyed, it
tends to be overlooked and its importance to the Norman and Medieval castle underestimated. From Domesday
Book it is clear that the countryside around Tamworth at the time of the Conquest was well wooded. Cannock Chase
was a royal forest and its boundaries extended to the river Tame. So Tamworth would have been a popular place to
visit. Henry I, Henry II, and his chancellor Thomas Becket, and Henry III, came to stay at Tamworth, taking Marmion
hospitality at the castle. There are a number of references to the king granting deer from the royal forest at Cannock
to the Marmions, perhaps in return for their hospitality when he was hunting in the royal chase of Cannock?
Clearly Tamworth was well sited as a royal hunting lodge. This would imply that there must have been impressive
apartments to house royalty, from an early period within the shell keep, although little survives from the later Tudor,
Jacobean and Georgian developments.
The castle park appears to be in two sections, a smaller park connected to and extending south east from the bailey
and river Tame down to an area just south of the Snow Dome and A453 (Fig 4) and a much larger Great Park on the
higher ground to the east of the flood plain of the River Tame, down to Dosthill (Fig 4 & 21).
Economic significance
The castle was also the centre of a much wider estate in the medieval landscape, and this also tends to be forgotten
when we look at Tamworth castle today. Most think of the castle as only the structures on top of the motte, without
realising that there was a bailey associated with it.
The much more extensive deer park which extended south of Watling Street to Dosthill would have involved the
forcible taking of a considerable area of productive land from local peasants. They would also have been excluded
from this private hunting ground by a high fence or park pale (literally beyond the pale).
The castle had three mills and a fishery associated with it and these would have generated a significant annual
income. There was also an extensive castle orchard just beyond of the town ditch, west of Aldergate (Fig 3).
Targeted excavation of the castle bailey might provide an important window into the economy of the medieval
town
A private pleasure ground or watery ornamental landscape?
The confluence of the rivers Anker and Tame at the foot of the motte was modified to create an island and mill leet
to power the corn mill. No doubt the fishery was carefully constructed, with fishponds to aid spawning, it may also
have been engineered to create a suitable watery enhanced landscape setting for the castle. Over the past 20 years
landscape archaeologists and historians have demonstrated many examples of managed (often watery) landscapes
to enhance the setting of castles such as Kenilworth, Clun, Ravensworth, Bodiam and many others (Creighton 2002,
Everson 1996 Liddiard 2005, Taylor 2000)
Liddiard comments (2005: 97) ‘ the recognition of....designed’ or ornamental landscapes at castle sites has led to the
appreciation that some of the structures were not constructed simply for utilitarian purposes, but had been contrived
partly to improve the setting of the residential buildings. Thus features such as fishponds, mills.. and dovecotes may have
been placed in specific locations around the castle in order to enhance its aesthetic appeal.’ The view of the castle from
the south with Ladybridge and the Castle Mill in the foreground has long been a popular subject for landscape
artists (Plates 7, 10, 12, 14, 20). It is sad that this iconic view is now ruined by the enfilade of five tower blocks and the
council offices, named in honour of the Marmions.
50 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The Castle and the town
There is no entry for Tamworth in Domesday Survey, although some of the surrounding townships did hold
properties (burgages in the town). This was a common practice for late Saxon towns and shows the importance of
the town at this time for its surrounding hinterland.
The town and castle were in different ownerships, though the presence of the castle and its owners must have
influenced the form of the development of the town. The castle and its surrounds formed a separate liberty,
including a hunting park to the south, a common attachment to medieval castles.
Further evidence for this is on the 18 th map of the Castle Liberty (Fig 4 & 13) which shows the historic landholdings
of the castle and its associated deer park or chase and closely follows the line of the ditch around the motte at its
northern boundary, not the putative outer enclosure ditch to the north (Fig 2).
Bailey
The bailey of the Norman castle is quite small, although some have suggested there was a short lived outer bailey
to the north. Excavations at the north east corner of the bailey in 1977 demonstrated that it had originally been
surrounded by a sophisticated timber-framed rampart. A small outer ditch was replaced by a much larger one at a
later date (Meeson 1977).
The bailey is connected to the motte by an impressive herring bone masonry causewayed wing wall. Herringbone
masonry has been traditionally dated to the Anglo Saxon period. Hence earlier writers tended to ascribe the
impressive herringbone masonry wing wall to the Anglo Saxon period and connect it to either Offa’s Mercian Palace
or Aethelflaed’s burh. There is a monument to Aethelflaed erected in 913 at the foot of the motte, to commemorate
the millennium of ‘her’ castle. However herringbone masonry is also well attested from early Norman castles
(Colchester, Peveril, Brough etc) and is used both as a structurally sound technique for walls on steep slopes and
across ditches and also for its decorative qualities as an impressive architectural statement on the wall facing the
former centre of Mercian power.
No defences survive on south side of bailey, either they were demolished or there never were stone defences on
the river side. Stone defences overlooking town may have been constructed as much for display and prestige as for
defence. Excavations by Tom Mc Neil in 1974 (1989) uncovered the twin towers of a 13 th century gatehouse, which
protected the main entrance to the castle. Again this lay on the north, town side of the castle, and was no doubt
designed to impress as much as to defend.
The Medieval castle was obviously a significant building and hosted royal visits in 1157, 1257, and 1325. It may also
have been slighted by on the King’s orders in 1215, and was besieged by the inhabitants of Tamworth, who cut
off supplies for sometime during the plague of 1384. Much of the medieval fabric within the shell keep does not
survive, having been replaced by late medieval, Tudor, Jacobean and Georgian phases. For example we do not know
where the chapel was sited within the shell keep.
Post-Medieval Castle c.1540-1700
The castle continued to be the principal residence of the Ferrers family from the late medieval/Tudor period to
the early 17 th . Between 1550-1620 and they undertook a lavish building programme within the shell keep on top
of motte. The principal elements were the refurbishment of the north range, construction of the south range and
storeyed porch adjoining the Norman tower.
Full advantage was taken of the opportunities for display presented by the elevated site, especially the north side
looking out over the town. No expense was spared in fitting out the elaborate interior, as is clear from the 1680
inventory.
At the outbreak of the Civil War in (1642-51) the head of the Ferrers family, John Ferrers V was still a minor. The
family still supported the king and the castle was garrisoned by royalist forces in the autumn of 1642. It was
besieged by parliamentary forces in June 1643 and forced to surrender. An attempt by royalists to regain the castle
in 1644 failed, but the parliamentary garrison was ordered to leave the castle in Oct 1644. Cromwell subsequently
ordered that many castles should be dismantled, but there is no evidence that this order was carried out at
Tamworth.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
51

There was a serious outbreak of plague in the town in 1626, but to what extend this affected the Ferrers family
looking down from their motte, is unknown. The castle would have had to be provisioned from the town, so
residents within the shell keep were just as vulnerable as those in the town.
1.3.2 Basis of the assessment: values employed
Fundamental to the management of a site where competing issues may arise, is an understanding of relative
significance, so that a proportionate weight can be given to the care of the more important elements. Assessments
of significance relates to the intrinsic interest of the feature and a number of other factors such as rarity, association,
or documentation. Less tangible values, such as community memory or pride has been be measured by consulting
with local residents and other stakeholders during the production of this Conservation Management Plan.
English Heritage enshrines the idea of ‘significance’ at the core of its latest conservation principles Conservation
Principles, Policies and Guidance, 2008. They define significance as ‘a collective term for the sum of all the heritage
values attached to a place’, and note that ‘different people value places for different reasons’:
Evidential value: the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.
Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the
present -it tends to be illustrative or associative.
Aesthetic value: the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place.
Communal value: the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective
experience or memory.
1.3.3 Degrees of significance
The relative importance of key elements or phases, and individual elements in the gazetteer, have been assessed
according to the following criteria:
Exceptional significance
This would include aspects of the site which are of key national or international significance, as among the
best examples (or the only surviving example) of an important class of monument or artefact; of outstanding
representativeness of important social or cultural phenomena; or of very major regional or local significance.
Typically this might equate to Grade I or II * Listed Building designation and all Scheduled Ancient Monuments,
although other individual elements of the site might be of lesser significance.
Elements of Exceptional Significance:
The Shell Keep, Tower, Herringbone Wing Wall and Motte are key elements of a scheduled monument of national
importance and exceptional significance.
The polygonal Shell Keep with its integral tower and architectural detailing is one of only three surviving in Britain
the others are all smaller and without usable structures inside. Despite some rebuilding of the upper portions of the
Shell Keep walls and the insertion of replacement windows in the 19 th century, the Shell Keep, and especially the
tower, has retained much of its original Norman character.
The Herringbone Wing Wall, is unique and exceptionally well preserved. It is still used for its original function to
provide access up the motte to the castle.
The impressive motte is one of the largest and oldest Norman castle mounds in England, and is exceptionally well
preserved.
The remains of the thirteenth century gatehouse and bridge over the bailey ditch are a scheduled monument and
are of exceptional significance
The Medieval Banqueting Hall is of exceptional significance as the only open hall of this design and construction in
any castle. It has one of the widest tie-beam open roof trusses in England.
52 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

It is important to note that the elements of the castle of greatest significance are currently least interpreted. Their
significance is not explained.
Considerable significance
Elements which individually constitute good and representative examples of an important class of monument or
feature, have particular significance through association (although surviving examples may be relatively common
on a national scale) or are major contributors to the overall significance of the site. This degree of importance might
typically equate to Grade II in terms of Listed Buildings, though other related elements might be of greater or lesser
significance.
Elements of considerable significance
The post medieval castle (in the time of the Ferrers family) typifies the 200 years between the late 15 th and end of
17 th century, when the duties, education, and life style of the gentry changed more radically than in any comparable
period. At the same time their homes evolved from buildings that were still medieval in appearance and amenities,
into houses that are recognisably of the modern world’ (Cooper, N 1999:3)
The renovations and additions to the North and South Ranges by 2 nd Marquis Townshend are of considerable
significance, representing a consciously antiquarian approach to the architecture and interior decor of the castle.
The revetment wall to the perimeter path around the top of the motte is of considerable significance, dating from
the Tudor period and possibly even as early as late medieval. It shows evidence of the addition of abutments,
patching and rebuilding from the 17 th to 20 th century.
The two Georgian Gothic Revival gate lodges and the Private Pleasure Garden reflect the antiquarian taste of the
Marquis Townshend and Mr Robins are of considerable significance.
The three Georgian ashlar urns on plinths in the castle pleasure grounds at the foot of the motte are an important
survival of the 18 th century and Victorian private pleasure garden and therefore of considerable significance.
The Georgian coach house built into the motte, is of considerable significance. The grade II listing includes the
attached boundary wall joining Holloway Lodge. The coach house and wall form an important element of the
setting of the castle.
The statue of Aethelflaeda, built in 1913 at the foot of the motte, to commemorate her supposed building of the
motte in 913, is of considerable significance as tangible evidence of the importance of the castle and Saxon heritage
of Tamworth to the town.
Ladybridge spanning the Tame, is of medieval origin, and may well mark the site of the Saxon crossing and main
way into Tamworth via Holloway. It was rebuilt in the 18 th century after the old bridge was destroyed by flooding, it
was widened in 1840. It forms a significant element in the landscape setting of the castle.
The municipal park incorporating the remains of Tamworth Castle established in the 1930s is of considerable
significance and accordingly forms part of the town centre conservation area.
Moderate significance
Elements which show some cultural significance, or contribute to the character and understanding of the site, or
help to provide an historical or cultural context for features of individually greater significance. This may include
buildings and features not individually listed, but where presumption is towards protection and enhancement as
part of the site’s essential character.
The Bandstand in the bailey would fit into the category of moderate significance. It is locally listed, but the repairs
carried out to it in the 1980s have diminished its significance and character.
St Ruffins Well, at the east end of the bailey has historical context but has been substantially landscaped in concrete
to create a sensory garden in the late twentieth century, which has diminished its significance
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
53

Low significance
Elements which are of individually low value in general terms, or have little or no direct significance in promoting
understanding or appreciation of the site, without being actually intrusive.
The street lights in the bailey are of low significance
The benches and brick wall in the bailey are of low significance, and arguably intrusive
Arguably the bright flower beds on the bailey ramparts are of low historical significance, but they are a popular
feature of the municipal park.
Intrusive
Items which are visually intrusive or which detract from or obscure understanding of significant elements or values
of the site. Recommendations may be made on removal or other treatment.
The staff room and kitchen and the toilets are all intrusive.
The fire exit from the first floor of the north wing, out through the Shell Keep is intrusive.
The shop is intrusive and hides aspects of the architecture and fittings of the South Range.
The electricity sub-station on the Herringbone wing wall, is particularly intrusive and insensitively sited.
The grit bin sited next to the medieval gatehouse is intrusive
The Ankerside Shopping Centre is intrusive and negatively affects the setting of the castle and its bailey.
The 1950s extension to Holloway Lodge is intrusive.
The 1970s retail unit (Nationwide Building Society Building) is intrusive and affects the setting of the medieval
gatehouse and bridge and the important route through to the bailey from the Market Place.
Lower degrees should not be taken to imply that elements so assessed can be lost or damaged without having an
impact on the significance of the site as whole. Each element contributes to the overall values and character of the
site and should not be sacrificed without assessing the broader implications.
1.3.4 Assessments of Significance
Overview of Significance - what is special about Tamworth Castle?
In overall terms Tamworth Castle represents:
• A monument and a group of buildings that are of national archaeological, architectural and historic
interest and importance. This significance is reflected in its current designations as a Scheduled
Ancient Monument with several listed buildings within the scheduled area.
• One of the oldest and largest of all Norman castle mounds
• An exceptional survival of a rare Norman polygonal shell keep with integral tower
• An exceptional survival of a rare (possibly unique) Norman herringbone masonry double walled
wing wall causeway up the motte
• A place with good historical evidence for compelling royal associations
• A major monument accessible to the public in the care of Tamworth Borough Council
• An authentic and atmospheric place with the power to evoke a sense of direct contact with
those who have lived in it over 900 years
54 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

1.3.4.1 Significance of the Medieval Castle
An exceptional survival of a single period late 15 th century hall
The medieval great hall within the shell keep, with its wide-span tie beam and double collar roof, has no direct
parallel, according to Meeson. It is an unusually complete late medieval high-status hall of timber-framed
construction.
Power to evoke the social life and functions of the hall
The planning of the buildings within the Shell Keep vividly reflects the daily life of a major post -medieval
household.
The survival of both formal and domestic and service buildings
The medieval north range was remodelled and the south range was completely rebuilt in brick by the Ferrers family.
By the Jacobean period, together with the open hall, the flexible accommodation could be used as a single dwelling
or subdivided to accommodate two major households. This made it fit for three visits by King James I.
The architectural significance of the herringbone curtain wall/causeway
This was built from motives of display and splendour, to overawe the residents of Tamworth, as much as of defence.
An evocative demonstration of Norman lordly aspirations and symbolism
The architectural ambition of the motte, shell keep, and herringbone masonry of the curtain wall demonstrate the
power of the Norman Lords.
A place with royal associations throughout the Norman and Medieval period
Robert the Despencer was the chief steward of William the Conqueror. The castle was conveniently located close to
the royal hunting grounds of Cannock Chase. Royal visits took place in 1157 (Henry II and Thomas a Becket); 1257
(Henry III); 1325 Edward II.
A castle which has survived an unusual number of sieges
It was besieged by the townsfolk in 1348 and during the Civil War 1642-3, and may have been slighted on the king’s
orders in 1215. (contrary to popular belief, most medieval castles have never experienced a siege).
An evocative demonstration of medieval lordly aspirations and symbolism
The architectural ambition of the late medieval Great Hall is a significant example of late medieval building by a
powerful courtier and magnate.
Major surviving element of the medieval town, along with the church of St Editha
With continual change in the town, the castle has a significance in being the largest and most visible survival of the
medieval town, with direct associations with the church of St Editha.
High archaeological potential
The bailey is an area of high archaeological potential for late Saxon, Norman and medieval, Tudor remains.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
55

1.3.4.2 Significance of the post-medieval castle
In its later development the castle acquires further elements of significance from:
The transformation of the medieval castle into a grand private residence
Significant as an example of the changes made by a representative of the new gentry, succeeding old medieval
nobility.
Creation of a private landscaped garden from motte and bailey
The planting and landscaping of the motte and bailey as a private landscaped garden, with gate lodges in archaic
style at either entrance, bath house close to St Ruffins Well is of significance as an example of an example of 18 th
century picturesque and romantic landscape gardening. It incorporates medieval ruins into a picturesque , antique
private landscape with views from the top of the motte over the river, mills, Ladybridge and river meadows.
Extent of documentation and illustration
The documentation of the castle, in written records and illustrations, is of importance for understanding its
appearance and use, and the changes that have taken place, and the appearance of lost features.
Royal connection with Kings James I
Illustrates the significant changes that courtiers would make to attract a visit from the King.
The re-use of a grand medieval building for less elevated functions
The descent of the medieval hall from an aristocratic house to a public building through many and varied uses,
including as a smithy, is a vivid and significant example of a historical process whereby high status buildings in
towns descend the social scale.
Evocative detail of users and inhabitants
The historical documentation of former owners, users and their activities, and the archaeological record, are
significant for evoking the past uses of the castle.
1.3.4.3 Significance of 19 th century features
An example of romantic/antiquarian style of interior decor
The importation and re-use of doors, doorways, fireplaces, panelling and suits of armour, in the Great Hall,
withdrawing room, and banqueting hall during the 19 th century phases of restoration of the medieval castle
demonstrate the antiquarian interest in late medieval buildings, and the efforts expended in recreating them and
their lost elements.
Early public use and awareness of the castle as an ancient monument
The interest by the council in the purchase of the castle show a significant awareness of the importance of the
castle/civic pride. This exemplifies the early stages in the history of building conservation.
Fine example of 19 th century craftsmanship
Some elements of the repairs to the castle are themselves of significance as examples of 19 th century craftsmanship.
56 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

1.3.5 Contemporary Significance
Because of the significance of its long historical development, Tamworth Castle continues to be important in the
present day community.
High Visual quality
The castle makes a significant contribution to the historic environment and townscape of Tamworth, and to the
visual and aesthetic qualities of the Castle Pleasure grounds. It forms a backdrop to many weddings and family
picnics and days out.
Symbol of Civic Pride
Tamworth Castle is a highly valued part of the town, valued both by the residents and Tamworth Borough Council
who own and manage it on their behalf. The Castle along with the swans on the adjacent river, form the town crest.
The high level of statutory protection afforded to the castle and its environs should result in minimal development
pressure on the castle.
Community involvement and sense of place
Tamworth Castle is much valued by the residents of Tamworth, as a symbol of the town’s depth of history and
for stimulating a local sense and pride of place. In addition to its heritage significance it also has a long period
of community use which has created for it a particular value in the town’s communal traditions and individual
memory. It is also a popular wedding venue.
The castle is used as the ceremonial base for the modern Mercian regiment, drawing on the proud tradition of
Saxon Mercian warriors. The castle acts as the repository for communal memories and celebrations of: Offa’s palace;
the Saxon burh of Tamworth; Aethelflaeda and Athelstan. Its collections include artefacts from the excavated Saxon
Mill, a tangible expression of Tamworth’s former Saxon significance. The castle also acts as a valuable social history
museum differentiating Tamworth’s sense of place from its much larger neighbour Birmingham and reinforcing
local pride.
It houses a fascinating collection of historic photos, which continue to be added to by local volunteers. These
document local traditions such as the Millenary Pageants, celebrating Aethelflaeda. The castle has had a Friends
group for many years who continued the 100 year local historic pageant tradition by stages living history events
at the castle and in the park. They continue to volunteer their services at the castle, and it is hoped to increase this
volunteering activity and offer training to them to develop their skills.
Tamworth has suffered from the impact of significant change over the last 50 years, as an overspill town for
Birmingham. Over the years many fine medieval buildings such as the old Paregoric shop have been lost and the
footprint of the medieval market town has been obscured. The creation of high rise flats and 1960s modernist
shopping centres (Middle Entry, Ankerside) destroyed the character and grain of medieval market town, as well as its
and sense of place and local identity, much to the disappointment of long term local residents, who have expressed
their views through the local paper.
The castle, along with St Editha’s church and Thomas Guy’s Town Hall and south side of Market Street and
Holloway, still preserve the medieval and post medieval character of a small West Midlands market town. Although
the setting of the castle and its park to the south, have been compromised by the Ankerside Shopping Centre,
Snow Dome, out of town shopping centre, ring road and hotel.
The Castle Park still remains the place where Tamworth residents of all ages choose to enhance their quality of life,
by spending their leisure time, with views over the rivers overlooked by the castle on the mound.
A site in public ownership
Tamworth Castle has a major regional significance as a publicly owned resource for education and understanding,
events and activities. The castle museum curates and interprets a collection of furniture, social history and paintings
that reflect local and social history. The Museum is MLA accredited and it has a widely respected education service
that as achieved the Learning Outside the Classroom (LOTC) quality standard and holds a Stanford Award for
Heritage Education. There is a popular events programme and the museum has developed a reputation for good
quality living history interpretation.
Tamworth Castle is a publically accessible heritage site where it is possible to explore over 900 years of history in
this magnificent motte and bailey castle that once belonged to the Royal Champion of England. Tamworth Castle
opened as a museum on 22 May 1899 and has Registered Museum status. Delightfully restored period rooms and
exhibitions give a glimpse into the life and times of past occupants. The ancient walls hold many secrets - from
sieges to royal visits and bankruptcy. A visit to Tamworth Castle is a journey of discovery - following in the footsteps
of servants and nobility through a labyrinth of 15 rooms off intriguing winding stairs.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
57

Importance to cultural life, tourism and regeneration (place making)
Tamworth Castle makes an important contribution to tourism and economic regeneration of Tamworth Town
centre. It creates significant economic benefit through the encouragement of tourism and has the potential to
make a significant contribution to establishing and maintaining economic vitality and sustainable communities. As
stated above much of the fabric of medieval and Georgian Tamworth has been lost (unlike Lichfield) which puts it at
a disadvantage when trying to attract visitors. This makes the castle in its parkland setting such a key asset for the
tourism offer for Tamworth.
The intense level of local, regional, national and international interest in the Staffordshire hoard and calls for part
of it to be displayed in the castle, demonstrates the level of importance history makes to the sense of pride of
Tamworth and the West Midlands region.
The local development frameworks (LDF) should set out a positive, proactive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of what survives of the historic environment of Tamworth, including the castle and its setting within the
town centre conservation area.
• Its influence on the character of the environment and an area’s sense of place
• It’s potential to be a catalyst for regeneration in the area, in particular through, leisure, tourism
and economic development
Quality of Place
The detailed guidance for PPS5 states that the government’s strategy for improving quality of place, World Class
Places CLG (2009) recognises the essential role of the historic environment in providing character and a sense of
identity to an area.
Tamworth Castle, as a heritage asset can inform and inspire place-making. It can also deliver wider community
benefits, such as better health and education outcomes, reduced levels of crime and improvements in community
cohesion and social inclusion.
Tamworth Castle can play a key role in defining place and in building local pride. The castle has a totemic value to
the community, providing a local focal point and a space for recreation and for people to meet (the bailey/castle
pleasure grounds).
Contribution to economic vitality and sustainable communities
• The social value to the community (custodian of community memories)
• The potential for heritage-led regeneration
• The potential to improve quality of life and sense of place
• The wider public benefits of conservation of the castle, in providing opportunities for recreation,
preservation of habitats and improved environmental quality
• Contribution to the attractiveness of the town centre streetscape and public open space.
• How to increase accessibility to and participation in the historic environment
• The economic potential of the castle
1.3.6 Ecological Significance
No statutory or non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest are present within the curtilage of the castle,
castle bailey area or immediately adjacent to it. The broad leaved woodland cover on the north side of the motte
is considered to be of ecological value at a local level for the range of fauna that it is likely to support, including
mammals and birds. However it is not considered to be of particular intrinsic value for the plant species that it
supports.
Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out guidance in relation to biodiversity and the planning process. Paragraph
10 on Ancient Woodland and other Important Natural Habitats states that aged or veteran trees are particularly
valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided. Planning authorities should encourage the conservation
and retention of such trees as part of their development proposals.
58 Part 1 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The horse chestnut tree at the foot of the motte given its possible age, size and position would be classified as
a veteran tree. The removal of this tree would be contrary to the guidance set out in PPS9 and would result in a
negative ecological impact. The impact would be significant at a site level.
There is clear evidence that bats are roosting and feeding in the castle and within its parkland setting. Bats are
protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Crow Act 2000). The law provides strict
protection for bats, and it is an offence to disturb bats or damage bat roosts, whether or not the bats are present at
the time.
The ecological survey highlighted the presence of three common pipistrelle bat roosts, features with potential
to support bats, and six trees on the motte with potential to support bat roosts. The evening bat activity survey
highlighted the presence of common pipistrelle bats feeding and foraging around the castle associated with the
edges of the broad-leaved woodland on the north and west side of the motte, and highlighted the presence of
Daubenton’s bats feeding and foraging over the River Tame. The observed areas of bat activity are discussed below
in section 2.3.28.
1.3.7 Significance of collections
The collections at Tamworth Castle are variable in significance. The collections serve a dual purpose for recreating
period interiors/room settings to interpret the story of the castle and also as the Borough Museum to interpret the
wider social history of Tamworth.
The collection is of considerable significance for interpreting and as research resource for:
• The history of Tamworth Castle
• The history of Tamworth local area and its development
• Trades and industries based in Tamworth Borough
• The lives of local people including key local personalities eg owners of Tamworth Castle, Peel family etc
• Local schools and community groups
• The expansion of the Borough as a residential area for the Birmingham overspill
Some of the less historically significant items have enhanced educational value, as part of a handling collection.
No unique items are placed in handling collections as they could be lost or damaged.
Some of the most significant items in the collection are the artefacts from the excavated Saxon watermill, which is
itself of international significance.
Items of furniture and paintings of the Jacobean and Georgian eras have been acquired or borrowed on long term
loan from other institutions to furnish the some of the rooms. The most significant of these items are listed in the
gazetteer.
The archive forms a very significant element of the collections held by Tamworth Castle and several documents are
of considerable significance to understanding the history of Tamworth Castle and its changing relationship to the
town over time:
• The 1680 Ferrers inventory of the castle, accounts and estate papers
• Copies of the Tamworth Town charters of 1560, 1588, and 1663; letters patent, manorial searches ,
court leet and court baron
• Court rolls 1288-1788 (the originals are at Keele University Library)
• Willington Family Pedigree (Waldyve Willington was one of Cromwell’s captains and governor
of Tamworth Castle)
• The Henry Wood catalogue, referred to as the Wood catalogue
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
59

Conservation Issues
and Policies (Vol. 1)
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan: Marion Blockley

Introduction
The second part of the plan proposes policies for protecting and making accessible the significance identified in the
first part, based on the understanding of the site set out there. Some policies are for long term development, others
aim to meet more immediate concerns. The overall aim is to ensure that what is valuable about the Castle survives
for the future as well as serving the uses and enjoyment of the present. In applying the policies, it is desirable that a
balance is sustained between conservation, interpretation and public expectations.
2.1 Conservation Policy Aims
Policies are intended to encourage a high-quality of care and protection for the castle, as well as to provide a
framework for decision making and a benchmark against which to assess future proposals. In particular policies
aim to:
• Preserve the significance of Tamworth Castle for future generations
• Define policies for the care and maintenance of the site
• Encourage the further development of understanding about the castle
• Provide guidance on appropriate uses , and on the processes of site development and management
• Promote public access and appreciation
2.2 Existing Policy Framework
2.2.1 The Heritage Protection Review
The statutory and non-statutory controls protecting the historic environment are currently subject to a review
intended to simplify and streamline the process. A draft Heritage Protection Bill was published for consultation on
April 2008. This proposed that the statutory list of buildings and schedule of monuments, and the non-statutory
registers of historic parks and gardens and battlefields, be combined into a single List of Historic Sites and Buildings of
England, subject to a single unified consent regime.
A policy framework for the statutorily designated buildings and setting of Tamworth Castle already exists in national
and local policies and in guidance notes. The statutory policy framework
is contained in the recently produced Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5) which replaces the old
PPG 15: Planning and the Historic Environment and (for Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) and PPG 16:
Archaeology and Planning (for Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological remains).
PPS 5 is supported and extended at a local level by the Tamworth Town Centre Conservation Area designation and
guidance, and the by the policies of the Tamworth Borough Local Plan.
2.2.2 Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment)
The government published PPS5, which replaces PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG 16
Archaeology and Planning in March 2010
Nothing in the new PPS 5 changes the existing legal framework, and the basis on which scheduled monument
consent and listed buildings consents may be required. Whilst the new PPS5 covers planning decisions concerning
the scheduled monument, it does not cover scheduled monument consent.
HE 7.2 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
asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposals.
62 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

HE 9.1 There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of the designated heritage asset, 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.
Relevant general policies of the Local Plan are those covering buildings and areas of architectural or historic interest,
General Aims and Objectives and the value of tourism.
2.2.3 Statutory protection: Listing and scheduling
The castle is both a grade I listed building and a scheduled monument, but under current legislation scheduled
monument consent controls over ride the listed building consent regime.
The present designations (scheduling and listing) adequately reflect the importance of the castle. However the
scheduling at present omits part of the medieval gatehouse which is clearly an important part of the castle.
Consultation with the English Heritage Inspector of Ancient Monuments is essential at an early stage before any
new works affecting the castle. Certain categories of limited works, including routine gardening and grass cutting
on the motte, can proceed lawfully without an application for scheduled monument consent, providing these meet
the description in the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1994. The English Heritage Inspector can advise
on the applicability of this. It is also strongly recommended that the advice of English Heritage is sought before
seeking consent for any significant repairs, including repointing or replacing joinery, and that the County Council
Historic Environment Team and English Heritage Inspector should be consulted in advance for any application for
consent for below ground interventions.
The scheduled and listed status of the Castle does not supercede the need to apply for planning permission. Where
works constituting development are proposed, planning permission must be sought in parallel with scheduled
monument consent or listed building consent as appropriate.
2.2.4 Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Planning and Biodiversity
Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out guidance in relation to biodiversity and the planning process. Paragraph
10 on Ancient Woodland and other Important Natural Habitats states that aged or veteran trees are particularly
valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided. Planning authorities should encourage the conservation
and retention of such trees as part of their development proposals.
The horse chestnut tree given its possible age, size and position could be classified as a veteran tree. The removal of
this tree may therefore be contrary to the guidance set out in PPS9 and would result in a negative ecological impact.
The impact would be significant at a site level.
2.2.5 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Crow Act 2000)
Bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Crow Act 2000) and under
European legislation. The law provides strict protection for bats, and it is an offence to disturb bats or damage bat
roosts, whether or not the bats are present at the time. A licence may be obtained to disturb bats or bat roosts, but
only if:
• The proposal is necessary ‘ to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of
overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial
consequences of primary importance for the environment’;
• ‘there is no satisfactory alternative’;
• The proposals will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a
favourable conservation status in their natural range’.
• There is clear evidence that bats are roosting and feeding in the castle and within its parkland setting and
this is discussed further below.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
63

2.3 Issues affecting significance
This section identifies all the risks to the castle and its setting and how its significance might be vulnerable, as well
as issues affecting its long term future including:
• Impact on setting
• Building condition and risks
• Structural stability of the motte and perimeter path
• Budgets for repairs
• The impact of visitors on the fabric of the castle
• Light levels and insect pests damaging the collections, and textiles within room interiors.
• Inadequate storage conditions for collections and archives.
• The need to increase visitor numbers/income and the need to conserve historic interiors.
• Increased access/conservation
• Managing visitor/local expectations
• Managing the impact of large scale events
• Impact of conservation work on bats and other habitats
• Development proposals and park management/impact on the setting of the castle motte and its
setting within the castle pleasure grounds
• Impact of developments within the town, visual impact on setting of the scheduled area of the
castle inner bailey, the Holloway Lodge and stables building
• Climate change
• Emergency Planning
• The economic recession and constraints on local authority funding/staff/resources
Policies need to be informed by an understanding of factors which have affected the significance of the castle and
its setting in the past, or which might do so in the future. This section sets out the issues which the policies are
framed to address.
Issues have been identified during the assessment of the castle and its significance, and through a programme of
consultation, with staff, council employees and representatives of relevant bodies such as the Friends of Tamworth
Castle, as well as with 500 individual members of the public. The latter exercise involved visitors to the Castle
completing questionnaires and commenting on an interactive display in the castle and non-visitors consulted in the
market place and Castle Pleasure Grounds.
2.3.1 The Setting of the Castle
Setting is the surroundings in which the castle is experienced. Elements of the setting may make a positive or
negative contribution to the significance of the castle, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may
be neutral.
The main intrusions in external perceptions of the castle are partly visual (cars parked at the foot of the entrance
causeway; staff parking at the base of the motte and adjacent to Holloway Lodge; grit bin adjacent to the remains
of the medieval gatehouse, electricity sub - station at the foot of the wing wall causeway) and partly conceptual (in
the layout of the municipal park/castle pleasure grounds, which inhibits understanding of any earlier defensive or
private residential setting for the castle and its bailey). However, the character of the immediate location overall,
has considerable aesthetic and visual qualities in its own right.
The views from the perimeter pathway, especially from the entrance to the castle across the roof tops to the Town
Hall and church of St Editha are very fine, as is the view across the water meadow to the south. Unfortunately the
wider context is compromised by the hotel and leisure developments to the south and the high rise blocks of flats
to the east.
64 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views
of and from the castle play an important part, the way in which we experience the castle in its setting is also
influenced by other environmental factors such as noise (from the balcony of the pub overlooking the bailey) ;
traffic and parking (from lorries delivering to the Ankerside Shopping Centre, or to the flower shop on the south side
of Market Street and staff parking at the foot of the motte).
Ladybridge, the buildings on Holloway, The Castle Hotel and Market Street are important aspects of the setting of
the castle, and significant changes or deterioration to them will impact on the setting of the castle.
Of particular concern is poor maintenance, inappropriate extensions and rubbish accumulation in the rear yards of
many properties fronting onto the south side of Market Street and backing onto the motte. Also, of concern is the
fragmented and poor quality maintenance of the boundary wall between the motte and properties fronting onto
Market Street.
Setting is more extensive than curtilage and its perceived extent may change as understanding of the castle and its
former extent improves.
The contribution that setting makes to the significance does not depend on there being public rights of access.
Nevertheless, proper evaluation of the effect of change within the setting of the castle will usually need to consider
the implications if any, for public appreciation of its significance.
Negative features affecting the setting of and views from the castle:
• The Five High Rise tower blocks and Marmion House
• The Snow Dome
• The new hotel
• 1970s retail unit adjacent to the medieval gatehouse and bridge
• Back yards of houses backing onto the motte
• Ankerside shopping centre
• Ventura Retail Park
• The elevated A5 Relief Road
• Middle Entry shopping centre (impact on historic streetscape and visual connection between castle, town
hall and St Editha’s church)
• Noise from bar terrace at Ankerside overlooking the bailey
Positive features enhancing the setting of the castle:
• Riverside and watermeadows
• Ladybridge
• The Castle Pleasure Grounds
• Market Street
• Thomas Guy’s Town Hall
• Holloway
• View across the roofscape to St Editha’s Church
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
65

Assessing the implications of change affecting setting
The five High Rise flats, Marmion House and Ankerside Shopping Centre, entirely dominate the setting of the castle
and the town centre conservation area by virtue of their intrusive design and massing.
The contribution of setting to the historic significance of the castle would be sustained or enhanced if all new
buildings were carefully designed to respect their setting by virtue of their scale, proportion, height, massing,
alignment and use of materials.
Where the significance and appreciation of the castle have been compromised by inappropriate changes within its
setting in the past, it may be possible to enhance the setting by reversing those changes.
It is too late and too costly to demolish the Ankerside Shopping Centre, Marmion House and the High Rise Blocks.
However, there may come a time when it is possible to remove the 1970s retail unit currently occupied by the
Nationwide Building Society next to the site of the medieval gatehouse and bridge leading from the Bailey into
Market Place.
Understanding the significance of the castle will enable the contribution made by its setting to be understood. This
is the starting point for any proper evaluation of the implications of development affecting its setting.
For example we know that the Medieval Deer Park associated with the castle extended a long way south towards
Dosthill, but has now been significantly destroyed by the out of town shopping centre Ventura Park, the ring road,
housing , snow dome and hotel.
The steep terraced gardens of the Castle Pleasure Grounds preserve the form of the bank and ditch of the Norman
Bailey overlooking the river Anker, which once flowed along the base of the bank.
Policies that relate to these issues:
C5 ; C5.1; C5.2
2.3.2 Building Condition
The most recent Condition Survey , carried out by Conservation Architect Bob Tolley in 2005, judged the castle to be
in generally sound condition, but identified some areas of concern for priority repair, and the need for regular long
term maintenance programmes.
A particular problem has been the extensive use of hard cementitious mortar for pointing and repairs over a long
period of time, which has exacerbated the deterioration of the softer masonry. Overall an approach to repairs is
required which maintains weathering capacity for an economically viable period, but which also retains visual and
historic character. There needs to be a specification for mortars used in repairs and repointing and a means to
ensure that all contractors use an appropriate lime based mortar.
There needs to be a funded continuing programme of stonework consolidation and replacement
The most visible areas for concern were the obvious cracks within the building at various points, on both North and
South Ranges, the Keep and on the perimeter path, especially on the north side. Historically these cracks had been
filled with bitumen. The English Heritage Conservation Engineer assessed the cracking in 2004 and the cracking
was also assessed by Weeks / Bureau Veritas in 2003 and 2005.
Bob recommended a further structural report, and in 2006 Steve Mason of Hancock Wheeldon Ainscough carried
out an assessment of the areas identified in the condition survey. He did not inspect woodwork or parts of the
structure which were covered, unexposed or inaccessible, so could not comment on these.
He concluded that as there were no major structural cracks in the Shell Keep wall that the motte and castle were
stable. The cracking within the interior of the castle related to localised failure of timbers as a result of beetle and
wood worm infestation or damp.
His assessment of the cracking of the perimeter path, was that this was progressive over a long period of time as the
path had been built onto the slope of the motte and did not have firm foundations. The retaining wall appeared to
be set onto a terrace cut into the motte and backfilled behind.
66 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Other issues identified in the Condition Survey were:
• A need to develop a continuing programme of stonework consolidation and replacement, to ensure that
the historic fabric is preserved wherever possible and replacement undertaken where deterioration
threatens structural stability or is likely to cause consequential damage to otherwise sound surrounding
fabric.
• The opposing archways of the main entrance into the south range with its eroding Jacobean decoration
was identified as ‘the largest single conservation challenge throughout the monument and careful review is
necessary to establish and appropriate repair strategy’
• Flat roofs on both north and south ranges are currently covered in modern bitumen based roofing felts
which are neither historically correct nor provide a life expectancy that a building of this significance
demands.
• Visible surface mounted cables and wiring at various locations detracting from the historic interiors
• Inappropriate paint finishes on walls and stone window surrounds throughout the interiors
• Repairs to floor boards and stair treads
• The wine cellar in the back basement of the North Range is in a poor condition, with evidence of active
woodworm infestation in the stud, lath and plaster partition walls
He identified a cost breakdown for a list of items for immediate action and for completion within two years. Most
worrying is that most of this work has not been carried out 5 years later. This will form the basis of the management
and maintenance programme to be carried out as part of this project.
In 2010 cracking in the partition walls of the Banqueting Hall in the north range was investigated and shown to
be a consequence of active furniture beetle infestation, that had not previously been noted in the timber decay
investigations carried out in 2006 (Ridout 2006) Given the evidence of current active furniture beetle infestation
in the partitions of the cellars beneath, this may suggest there is cause for concern and need for a more detailed
assessment, 6 years after the last condition survey was carried out.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A1; A2; B1; B2; B4
2.3.3 Cracking of the Perimeter Path
As noted above the cracking in the perimeter path has been subject to various assessments (Weeks 2003, Ellis 2004,
Bureau Veritas 2005, Mason 2006). English Heritage have been regularly consulted and their senior conservation
engineer Stuart Ellis has made recommendations.
Various theories have been put forward for this cracking including: the drainage from the reservoir under the
courtyard; drain collapses; removal of trees from the motte on the north side drying out the clay of the motte and
causing cracking; settling of the infill behind the perimeter wall; outward movement of the retaining wall; slumping
due to the lack of firm foundations.
The current proposal is to tie the perimeter path into the Shell Keep wall using cintec anchors as these will be least
damaging to the fabric of the wall and least visually intrusive. During the trial drilling for the ground anchors it
became clear that the foundations of the Shell Keep are set only 80-90 cm into the top of the motte on the north
side. This may have implications for the structural stability of the Shell Keep. It would be useful to know what
depth the foundations are on the south side of the motte, and this should be noted in any ground works, both for
archaeological and structural purposes.
Also, following surveys for the conservation management plan and ecological survey in 2010, it is clear that the
motte on the north side is considerably steeper than on the south side. This is because it has been truncated by the
boundary walls of properties built on the south side of Market Street butting up against the motte from the 17 th to
19 th centuries. This would explain why the evidence of cracking/slumping of the perimeter path is so pronounced on
the north side of the motte (Fig 6)
Policies that relate to these issues:
A1; A2; B1; B2; B3; B3.4; B3.5; B4
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
67

2.3.4 Monitoring structural cracking
Although tell tales for monitoring structural cracks/movement were installed in various rooms of the castle in 1996
(including the Keep; Storeyed Porch; South Gable of Great Hall; fireplace mantle in Great Hall; around the windlass
walls above the well; stair well in the South Range; Intramural cupboard in South Range and other areas) the budget
for monitoring and recording this information was subsequently cut. This should be reinstated as a high priority in
order to maintain records and monitor any progressive movement.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A1; A2; B2; B3; B3.5
2.3.5 Deterioration of entrance into the South Range
Historic photos show that this highly decorative Jacobean door surround has been damaged and in decay for more
than 100 years (plate 30). However there needs to be a strategy for long term consolidation if more decorative detail
is not to be lost. Map evidence from 1883 (fig. 14) and historic photos show that it had a glazed covered walkway
from the entrance porch across the courtyard, set into it. This was removed when the castle came into public
ownership in 1897. The scar of the pitched roof is visible in the brickwork of the south range.
No doubt this caused considerable damage both when constructed and removed and this has hastened its
deterioration. The left hand engaged column may have been removed to attach the covered walkway. The soft
stone used for the decorative detail is also susceptible to weathering and decay.
The author has observed the lower part of the door surround being damaged by unsupervised children kicking at
the stonework to dislodge more stone. Information about the significance and vulnerability of the door surround
needs to be made available to change visitors’ behaviour. It is especially vulnerable on Open Days when large
numbers of visitors convene in the courtyard to watch re-enactors.
There needs to be a detailed strategy for repair and consolidation by a specialist conservation mason. The
decorative detail needs to be fully recorded before any repair work is undertaken, so as not to lose important
evidence like the apotropaic marks (witches marks) scratched into the door surround, perhaps at the time of one of
King James’ visits? (Fig 14; Plate 45)
Policies that relate to these issues:
A1; A2; B1; B2; B3; B3.3; B3.4; B3.5; B4; E4
2.3.6 Budget for repairs
Most of the detailed repairs specified in the 2006 condition survey have not yet been carried out.
In the past, money allocated for repairs on annual basis has of necessity, occasionally been allocated to other
essential areas of expenditure, such as staffing. Pressure on the annual repairs budget is likely to increase as the
forecast reductions in Local Government Expenditure are imposed by Central Government to reduce the national
budget deficit. In order to protect the castle for the future it is essential that a regular programme of repairs and
maintenance is protected to minimise the need for more costly repair/or replacement.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A2; A4
2.3.7 Carrying Capacity
Most of the surviving floors of the castle are of 17th - 19 th century date (softwood boards and brick or tile floors) and
both are visibly suffering from visitor footfall and lack of maintenance and repair. Stair treads are similarly worn. It is
important that these are returned to a sound condition, whilst safeguarding historic character and with protective
measures and future monitoring.
The Stud and plaster infill walls are also vulnerable to wear and tear from visitors brushing against them in rooms,
corridors and stairwells.
The original Jacobean staircases are particularly vulnerable and were not designed to take thousands of people in
one day.
68 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
69

Likewise the plaster ceilings of rooms beneath the main visitor route are also suffering from significant footfall at
Special Events like Heritage Open Day when the castle is free entry.
The forthcoming display of the Staffordshire Hoard in August and September 2011, will attract large numbers of
visitors. It is important that a policy of timed ticket entry is developed, with a maximum number of visitors per day,
to protect the fabric of the castle and also improve visitor management and the visitor experience.
The route up to the castle via the ramped walkway on top of the herringbone wing wall is also vulnerable to
damage as well as being unsuitable for prolonged periods of queuing.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B3.5; C1; C:2; E 1; E4; F3
2.3.8 Risks of damage to furniture
Most furniture displayed in room settings is at some degree of risk from visitor wear and tear. Measures are in
place to protect main room settings behind rope barriers and through room stewards/custodians. Seat furniture
throughout the castle needs a consistent means of deterring visitors from sitting, (The National Trust makes very
effective use of dried teasel heads!) whilst those modern chairs provided for visitor comfort and to relieve ‘museum
fatigue’ need to be clearly indicated. There is some confusion amongst visitors at present.
A more serious risk to furniture is represented by the special events organised in the castle. These create risk of
damage from crowded conditions within the rooms and from visitors placing things on surfaces or re-enactors
placing candles or other hot items on wooden surfaces. A heavy concentration of people in the castle also
exacerbates the general risk of damage to the fabric of the building.
Policies that relate to these issues:
C1; E1; E4
2.3.9 Pest damage and timber decay
The castle has historically suffered from attack by death watch beetle, furniture beetle, woodworm and dry rot
in both north and south ranges. A survey of timber decay in nine separate areas was carried out in 2006, on the
recommendation of the last condition survey. It noted significant wet rot decay to timbers in three areas, but no
current wood-boring insect activity (Ridout 2006). However active woodworm activity was noted in the lath and
plaster partition walls of the wine cellar and in the partition walls of the Banqueting Hall of the north range in 2010.
Timber work needs to be regularly monitored for signs of decay as this can lead to structural problems. There needs
to be a regular programme of cleaning and monitoring of pest control traps and all furniture and wooden items
brought into the castle need to be checked for evidence of beetle infestation. One of the former collections stores
off site had evidence of active furniture beetle infestation and this could have been a source of the pest.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B2; C2; H4.2
2.3.10 Regular programme of repairs and maintenance
Regular maintenance programmes with time-tabled schedules of tasks, inspections, monitoring and repairs are
designed to prevent problems arising or to catch them before minor damage becomes major. In the long term they
save expenditure on repairs. The carrying out of works of maintenance or repair in response to problems occurring
is not an adequate regime for an historic building, and the standards applied to the maintenance of modern council
buildings will not be appropriate.
Proper standards and procedures may need to be drawn up with the advice of the consultant conservation architect
and English Heritage.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B2
70 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.3.11 Use of appropriate expertise
Compliance with the PPS5 policies and a key recommendation of the Conservation Management Plan requires that
Tamworth Borough Council use expert advice to inform their decision-making, where there is a need to understand
the particular significance of the castle and any proposed impacts on it.
This may be from in-house experts, expert advice from English Heritage, experts available through agreement with
Staffordshire County Council, or professional consultants.
There are several established registers that can be used to identify appropriately qualified individuals or
organisations. Including:
• The Institute for Archaeologists. The IfA requires their members to meet defined levels
of competency
• The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). The IHBC requires their members to
meet defined levels of competency
• The Institute for Conservation (ICON) operates a register of accredited conservator-restorers.
• The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors maintains a register of accredited
building conservation members.
• The Institute for Civil Engineers and the Institute for Structural Engineers operate a joint
register of engineers who have demonstrated to their peers that they are capable of producing
and implementing a conservation scheme to the required standard.
• Accon Ltd operates a register of architects accredited in building conservation
Policies that relate to these issue:
B4
2.3.12 Standards and Qualifications for Contractors
It is recommended that Tamworth Borough Council require that all contractors undertaking conservation, repair
and maintenance on the castle site encourage their craftspeople to hold, or be working towards the CSCS Heritage
Skills card. English Heritage is taking the lead towards a CSCS-carded workforce by 2010 by endorsing the Heritage
Skills NVQ level 3 and the new Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) Heritage Skills card. Guidance on
training and qualified contractors can be obtained from Cathie Clarke, Midlands Heritage Skills Coordinator
www.emcbe.com.
The Institute for Archaeologists has published standards and guidance on archaeological investigation of the below
ground, earthworks, standing remains and buildings (www.archaeologists.net).
English Heritage has published guidance on building recording, see Understanding Historic Buildings: a guide to good
recording practice (2006).
There is a lack of in house professional building conservation expertise within Tamworth Borough Council and there
needs to be a cost effective way of ensuring professional supervision of maintenance and minor repairs. Perhaps
it might be feasible to consider a service level agreement with the Conservation Team at Lichfield Borough for
guidance on and supervision of works to Tamworth Castle?
Policies that relate to these issue:
B4
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
71

2.3.13 Collation of information on earlier repairs
Information on the more recent phases of repair work (1950s-1980s) is filed within the Holloway Lodge. There may
be other earlier records of repair and adaptation elsewhere in other archives. There has been little formal analysis
or recording of the historic building associated with repair or conversion works (apart from the detailed analyses
of paint finishes carried out by Ian Bristow in 1986). As a result, understanding of the development of the castle is
incomplete. It would be of great value in developing a basis for future building analysis and the planning of future
repairs and studies if all records relating to repairs and conservation be collated, indexed and maintained as part of
the castle collection.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B3; D1; D2
2.3.14 Past approaches to conservation
Inevitably in a building which has seen repairs and conversion going back over 200 years, there are considerable
variations in approaches and techniques employed, especially for pointing, repair and replacement of stone/
brickwork, timber repairs or replacement and the treatment of smaller wooden elements such as doors, doorways,
windows and panelling. In some cases these variations will be of archaeological interest as a record of changing
technique, but they have led to a very variable and patchy appearance, which is in conflict with the presentation
of historically accurate interiors and can be visually intrusive. In some places modern materials have been used (eg
cream emulsion on the walls of the dining room/gilt leather room) which conflict with the character of the historic
places. The return of these elements to a more consistent and historically accurate appearance is desirable.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B4; G2
2.3.15 Consistent approach to future repairs
It is desirable that a coherent approach is adopted to every type of work or scale of work, that consistent advice
and control are available for all categories, and that an explicit philosophy of conservation is defined, agreed and
implemented.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B4
2.3.16 Restoration issues and principles
Restoration works are those that are intended to reveal or recover something of significance that has been eroded,
obscured or previously removed (eg the Jacobean Doorway into the south range; medieval gatehouse and
associated lodging range; or the backfilled ditch around the motte). In some cases, restoration can thus be said to
enhance significance. However, additions and changes in response to the changing needs of the various occupants
and owners over time (for example the covered glass walkway and domestic apartments of the Cookes) are also
part of the castle’s significance and this needs to be taken into account when deciding to remove later additions/
alterations.
Previous repairs and alterations may be historically important and may provide useful information about the
structure of the buildings within the castle, as will the recording of any features revealed by the work. New work
can be distinguished by discreet dating or other subtle means. Overt methods of distinction such as tooling of
stonework, setting back a new face from an old, or other similar techniques are unlikely to be sympathetic or
appropriate.
Restoration of parts of the castle would require its alteration and would need scheduled monument consent
and probably also listed building consent (although these consents will be combined under the new historic
environment legislation).
The practicality of restoration in the event of catastrophic damage (eg from fire , bomb damage or flood to
Holloway Lodge) would be established by an assessment of the surviving significance. Where the significance
72 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

elates to a design concept or a particular event, rather than being held directly in the original fabric of the castle,
restoration or replication is more likely to be acceptable.
Stripping off finishes such as plaster to expose rubble, brick or timber-framed walls never intended to be seen is
likely to have an adverse effect on the castle’s significance and the individual rooms within its ranges. This would be
caused by the loss of historic materials and original finishes and harm to the aesthetic.
If it is proposed to remove more modern coverings that are harmful to the significance or integrity of a room,
appropriate materials will need to be introduced to ensure an authentic and/or suitably detailed finish is achieved.
If there is any doubt about the authentic finish, it is better to create a simple finish rather than one with speculative
decoration.
Sometimes early framing or finishes were covered up because they were in a poor state and unacceptable loss of
original fabric may result from works to make the earlier surface visually acceptable.
Replacement of one material for another, for example on the roof, may result in a loss of significance, and will
need clear justification. Therefore while the replacement of an inappropriate and non-original material (such as
bituminous roofing felt) can be easily justified, more justification will be needed for changes for changes for one
type of lead, tile or slate roof covering to another.
Within the timber framed elements of the buildings within the castle the restoration should involve minimising loss
of original fabric and retaining structural integrity. Secondary elements , such as the infilling of timber frames, are of
value and their retention will maintain the integrity of the whole building. The reuse of original materials whenever
possible will meet conservation and sustainability objectives.
If convincing evidence is available, it may be appropriate to take opportunities to reinstate missing architectural
details, such as columns, balustrades and cornices or missing elements of a decorative scheme, using traditional
methods and materials. This might include for example a speculative simulation of a section of the decorative
scheme in the ‘Gilt Leather room’ described in the Ferrers Inventory, or the decorative detail around the Jacobean
doorway into the south range.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B3; B4; D3
2.3.17 Restoration of archaeological features
Restoration as opposed to repair, may be appropriate where there is compelling evidence of the former state of the
structure and demonstrable benefits to the significance of the standing remains would benefit. By weighing the
merits against any harm caused, including the archaeological interest, the acceptability of such an approach can be
established.
There needs to be a careful balance between the long term benefits of bringing a ruined structure (like the
medieval gatehouse lodging range) into use, with the impact on significance of the direct damage to the fabric that
might result from the restoration.
Restoration of elements to benefit the ongoing management and conservation of the motte, such as infilling gaps
in the mound, vegetation clearance and dealing with the effects of burrowing animals is a justified reason for
restoration.
Restoration of buried remains is unlikely to be acceptable. If the remains still form a structure (in form of
foundations, for example the lodging range adjacent to the medieval gatehouse) work to remove the soil
overburden and expose the remains may be justified, but will need to be balanced against the likely threat to the
sustainability and archaeological interest.
It is probably more appropriate to illustrate the past appearance and educate visitors about the site through
reconstruction drawings presented in a range of accessible media.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B3; B4; D3
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
73

2.3.18 Presentation of the motte and bailey
The current appearance and layout of motte and bailey derives from a 1930s municipal planting scheme and flower
beds along the line of the southern bank of the bailey, rejuvenated in the 1980s at the same time as a planting
scheme of trees and shrubs was implemented on the motte by the parks department.
Since the 1980s there are less staff available for grounds maintenance and the tree and shrub planting on the motte
has become overgrown and masks the view of the motte and castle. The large horse chestnut tree adjacent to the
causeway up the motte was subject to considerable debate, including coverage in the local paper. Some consider
that it blocks the main view of the entrance to the castle, and of the decorative herringbone masonry of the
causeway. Many others have a strong sentimental attachment to it, as a key element in childhood memories of the
park and castle, spent collecting conkers in autumn. It is certainly popular with local children who enjoy collecting
conkers from it, and it is highly valued by the parks department who see it as a fine mature specimen tree.
The consultant ecologist sees it as an important habitat for bats.
Like many horse chestnuts across the country it is currently suffering from an unsightly fungal born disease known
as Guignardia Leaf Blotch. Although unsightly this disease does not kill the tree or render it dangerous.
Replacement of lighting, rubbish bins and flower containers needs careful consideration for its impact on the
setting of the castle.
Likewise poor quality repairs to the bandstand during the 1980s and 1990s have led to a reduction in its character
and significance (Plates 31, 32).
The Insensitive location of a yellow grit bin next to the medieval gatehouse diminishes the significance of the
scheduled monument. As does litter accumulating in the foundations and wood stain from the footbridge spilled
over the stonework of the monument.
Policies that relate to these issues:
C5 ; C5.1; C5.2; J5
2.3.19 Protection of exterior, motte and bailey
The grounds are open to 24 hour unrestricted access, with no surveillance outside normal opening hours. However,
intentional damage or vandalism to the castle and grounds are relatively low key, (compared to Weoley Castle) apart
from damage to the temporary chestnut paling fence at the base of the motte and recent graffiti on the 18 th century
urns. One of the urns was damaged a few years ago and had to be repaired.
There have been instances of trespass on the motte by children and free –runners using skateboards along base of
curtain wall and round perimeter path.
Noise from the balcony of pub overlooking the bailey has a negative impact on family groups and others enjoying
the bailey on summer afternoons/evenings, or taking part in events within the bailey.
Rubbish , including food waste which attracts vermin, is regularly dumped over the perimeter wall at base of motte
on north side, backing onto Market Street.
All these actions require a change in attitude and behaviour from certain sections of the castle audience to
encourage people to value the castle, understand its significance and perhaps even join in conserving and caring
for it. These aims are discussed below in section 2.3 and will be addressed in detail in the Audience Development
and Activity Plans.
There are no restrictions on night time access to the bailey and motte.
Delivery vehicles servicing the shops on Market Street and grounds maintenance vehicles routinely park at bottom
of entrance causeway. This is not only visually unattractive, but it blocks the main entrance to the castle, implying it
is closed, and is also potentially dangerous for groups of children visiting the castle.
Current arrangements for staff parking at the foot of the motte between Holloway Lodge and the Stables, need to
be regularised. This has a negative impact on the setting of the Aethelflaeda Monument, Holloway Lodge and the
Motte at an important gateway. When the diagonal path up the motte is re-opened it will also be dangerous and
form a barrier to access.
74 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Consideration needs to be given to providing a marked disabled access parking space/or drop off point close to the
entrance of the castle.
Vans and lorries entering the park (for deliveries and events) are damaging the archway of Holloway Lodge, there
needs to be a weight/size limit on vehicles entering the Castle Pleasure Grounds via this route and an alternative
access point identified for events/large contractors/delivery vehicles in the Castle Pleasure Grounds.
Policies that relate to these issues:
C5; E4; E11; G9; J1;J2;J3;J4;J5;J6
2.3.20 The condition of the North Face of the Wing Wall
Whereas the prominent herringbone south face of the wing wall up the motte has been regularly repointed over
the years (albeit with hard cementitious mortar) the north wall has received only piecemeal and ad hoc repair, and is
not generally covered in quinquennial condition surveys as it is difficult to access.
The north wall of the herringbone wing wall up the motte is being damaged by neglect, derelict buildings built up
against it and the growth of self-seeded trees. It is not possible to gain easy access to monitor the condition of this
wall as it backs onto the yards of properties on the south side of Market Street in separate ownerships. There needs
to be an agreement with all the owners to allow access for recording, repair and monitoring the condition of this
wall and removal of negative elements which are affecting its significance.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B5; J2
2.3.21 Management of the Motte
One of the most significant aspects of the castle is the motte. It is the most prominent feature of the castle that
visitors see when they visit or walk through the Castle Pleasure Grounds.
In the 18 th century the castle grounds were enclosed by a stone wall and the motte was planted as a private pleasure
garden. By 1897 at the castle’s formal sale the motte is described as being planted with well grown trees. Historic
photos show the evolution of vegetation cover on the motte (Plates 8, 12, 16, 19).
Until 2001 vegetation on the motte was regularly maintained by Tamworth Borough Council. In 2001 the
ornamental railings alongside the castle steps walk collapsed and were removed. The steps were closed and regular
maintenance on the motte ceased. By 2005 the motte was overgrown with brambles and ivy. With approval from
English Heritage major clearance of dead trees, brambles, self set trees and weeds took place on the south side of
the motte.
Following the guidance in the English Heritage publication ‘Managing Earthwork Monuments-a guidance manual
for the care of archaeological earthworks under grassland management’ a management plan for the motte has been
prepared.
The ecological survey undertaken for this Conservation Management Plan has made additional recommendations
for management and enhancement of the ecological value of the motte, and these should be included in the
updated motte management plan.
The broad leaved woodland cover on the north side of the motte is considered to be of ecological value at a local
level for the range of fauna that it is likely to support, including mammals and birds. However it is not considered to
be of particular intrinsic value for the plant species that it supports.
Within Health and Safety constraints it may be possible to engage local volunteers in habitat monitoring and
enhancement and simple maintenance tasks on the motte as part of the Castle Activity Plan.
Policies that relate to these issues:
J5; C6; J1; J2; J6; E11
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
75

2.3.22 Park Management/ protecting the archaeology of the bailey
An archaeological watching brief during cable laying in 1997 noted a thin black layer of burnt wood or charcoal,
sealed by a layer containing saxo-norman pottery. This suggests there are early medieval archaeological deposits
surviving close to the ground surface within the bailey area of the park and these need to be protected from
accidental damage during routine groundworks.
The original construction of the flower beds with their low stone retaining walls in the late 1930s, along the line of
the southern rampart of the bailey could unwittingly have destroyed archaeological evidence.
There needs to be a programme of training and awareness raising for park staff and contractors, to explain the
archaeological significance of bailey/castle pleasure grounds.
It would be beneficial to prepare a conservation management plan for the Castle Pleasure Grounds as part of a
wider park management plan to inform its bid for Green Flag Status
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; D3; D5; J1; J2; J6; E11
2.3.23 The impact of new work
All proposed new work should be subject to a Heritage Impact Assessment.
The junction between new work and the existing fabric needs particular attention, both for its impact on the
significance of the existing component of the castle and the impact on the contribution of its setting.
Where possible it is preferable for new work to be reversible so that the changes can be undone without harm to
the historic fabric. However reversibility alone does not justify alteration. If alteration is justified on other grounds
then reversible alteration is preferable to non reversible.
New openings need to be considered in the context of the architectural and historic significance of that part of
the castle. Where new work or additions make elements with significance redundant, such as doors or decorative
features, there is likely to be less impact on the aesthetic , historic or evidential value if they are left in place.
The plan form of each building within the castle is one of the most important characteristics, and internal
partitions, staircases (whether decorated, plain, principal or secondary) and other features are an important part
of its significance. Indeed they may be the most significant feature in some rooms. Proposals to remove or modify
internal arrangements, including the insertion of new openings, are subject to the same considerations of impact
on significance (particularly architectural interest) as for externally visible alterations.
The sub division of the main hall for example, which is significant for its open interior, impressive proportions, sight
lines and open roof structure, would have a considerable impact on its significance. This would need to be taken
into account in any proposals to enhance the interpretation and understanding of this space.
The introduction of new floors or the removal of historic floors would have a considerable impact on the
architectural, aesthetic, historic and archaeological significance. These changes would not generally be considered
acceptable interventions.
The insertion of new elements such as doors and windows is likely to adversely affect the significance of the
buildings within the castle, although it is fair to say that these have changed significantly over the 1000 years of its
use. The shop/cafe within the castle could be considered intrusive as it masks historic features in the south range
and limits their interpretation.
Small scale features, inside and out, including historic painting schemes, ornamental plasterwork, carpenters’ and
masons’ marks, chimney breasts and stacks, and inscriptions all contribute to the overall significance of the castle,
and removing or obscuring them will affect the significance.
Extant flooring materials can also be of interest in themselves. Additional care is needed on ground floors to ensure
that archaeological interest below the finished surface is not adversely affected by proposed works.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A1; B1; B3; C6; E10
76 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.3.24 Control over small scale erosion of character
New services can have a considerable and cumulative impact on the appearance of the castle, the motte and
its bailey and can affect significance. The impact of essential services can be minimised by avoiding damage to
decorative features by carefully routing and finishing and by use of materials appropriate to the relevant period,
such as cast iron for gutters and down pipes for Georgian and Victorian phases and lead for earlier phases.
Despite Conservation Area controls on building alterations which affect the character of the environs, there is a
constant risk of minor repairs and replacements to properties on Market Street backing onto the motte, affecting
the setting of the castle. This is especially true of the inappropriate modern brick used to repair the boundary wall at
the base of the motte facing Market Street and where it joins the masonry of the highly significant wing wall up the
motte.
Tamworth borough council needs to set good standards of repair, not only for the castle, but also in the
management of their own properties backing onto the castle on the south side of Market Street. This is essential to
encourage private householders to do the same. At a time of significant reduction in funding to local government,
it is likely that these buildings, key elements within the town centre conservation area, will be sold into private
ownership.
Alterations to and design of lighting, rubbish bins and planters within the bailey can have a negative effect on the
setting of the castle. It would be appropriate for parks staff to discuss the design of these with conservation officer
and conservation architect.
For example the repairs to band stand in the bailey resulted in loss of significance as rustic timbers were replaced by
poor quality plain softwood. This affects the overall setting of the castle.
The retention and restoration of surfacing and street furniture can make a positive contribution to the Town Centre
conservation area which provides the setting for the castle and its bailey. The quality of the historic streetscape
and historic garden/parkland setting of the former bailey could be enhanced by the re-introduction of missing
elements, where there is historical evidence and removal of inappropriately sited clutter like salt and grit bins.
The conservation officer should apply planning controls (with consideration of use of Article 4 directions) paired
with good relationships with neighbours.
Rubbish dumped on the motte, by property owners along the south side of Market Street, presents a general air of
neglect. For much of the year this is masked by the trees growing on the motte, which also cut out light into back
yards of properties along Market Street.
The castle team and conservation officer need to build good relations with their neighbours, especially over the
crucial area of back yards backing onto the north side of the Norman wing wall up the motte, one of the most
significant parts of the castle. There are derelict brick sheds and well established self seeded woody vegetation
growth obscuring and damaging the north face of the Norman wing wall up the motte.
Policies that relate to these issues:
C5; C5.1; C5.2; E10
2.3.25 Gaps in Understanding
Until the preparation of the Conservation Management Plan, little structured research had been carried out on
the development of the castle. Bob Meeson carried out research on the dating of the Great Hall (Meeson 1983)
and prepared a thorough descriptive analysis of the building during 2007/8 as part of his draft Conservation
Management Plan. There have also been a series of small scale watching briefs in advance of repairs. An
archaeological evaluation of the courtyard on top of the motte and the storeyed porch, was carried out in 2009 to
inform proposals for development and assess their impact (Wessex Archaeology 2009)
Limited archaeological excavations have taken place in the bailey. Wainwright carried excavations in the bailey
in 1960 to try and locate the site of Offa’s palace; Mc Neil excavated the site of the medieval gatehouse and part
of the associated lodging range. Meeson carried out excavations on the line of the defences in advance of the
construction of the Ankerside shopping centre (Meeson 1980). The ditch around the base of the motte has been
partially sampled by excavation.
There still remains considerable potential for further investigation of both the standing structure and the
archaeological deposits. A research design is needed to define questions to be addressed, with a clear
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
77

understanding of the need to provide time and resources to take advantage of future repair programmes: large
scale replacement of tiles in the roof, for example, would provide invaluable opportunities for recording and
sampling this important aspect of the building. The gate house range at the base of the Norman herringbone wing
wall would yield significant information, if assessed archaeologically during repair or construction work.
Key questions include:
• Was there an outer bailey ditch, or was it part of the Saxon burh?
• The extent, degree of preservation and date of any surviving archaeological deposits in the bailey
• Are there any archaeological remains in the flower bed at the foot of the wing wall?
• Is there any evidence of Saxon deposits in the bailey?
• What buildings and activities were located in the bailey and over what period of time?
• The extent of the survival of the lodging range associated with the Medieval gate house
• What date was the perimeter pathway, might it be late-medieval in origin?
• Where was the chapel?
• Is there any further evidence of the medieval domestic apartments?
• Evidence for the medieval mills and fisheries associated with the castle?
• What evidence is there for a ditch on the south side of the motte?
It is important to use a range of different data sources for research, and adopt an interdisciplinary approach. The
urban archaeologists John Schofield and Allan Vince noted that urban castle sites have the potential to seal some
of the best undisturbed stratigraphy (Schofield and Vince 1994: 46).In Tamworth this could be the case for the
important late Saxon period.
The need for research on bailey interiors (Higham and Barker 1992: 244-325) is a national priority for earth and
timber castles. The bailey has much to tell us about the economic life of the castle and its linkages with its
hinterland. A non-destructive approach to understanding the bailey would be to undertake a geophysical survey.
Of particular importance is the possibility of further evidence for the construction of the earliest phases of the
castle, surviving beneath the present buildings, or within their walls. Opportunities for further investigation will be
provided by works to floors or drainage works, and sufficient time should be allowed to pursue research questions
and record evidence. Hidden elements of the standing structure can also be regarded as archaeological deposits
in the same way as buried remains. It might be possible to involve research students from Universities of Keele
(historical documents) and Birmingham (archaeology/historic building recording).
There are still many unanswered questions about the bailey which could perhaps be resolved by a combination
of geophysical survey, which could reveal evidence for buried walls, backfilled ditches and other features, which
could be confirmed by selective excavation. Evidence for buildings within the bailey from its earliest phases right
through to the late Tudor phase as described by Leland. the range associated with the medieval gatehouse remains
unexplored and the large flower bed adjacent to the base of the Norman causeway could reveal buried structural
remains that relate to the different phases visible in the causeway wall. This is an area of high archaeological
priority.
There are good historical sources for Tamworth and the castle and more research could be done on these to
illuminate the sometimes challenging relationship between the town and the castle.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B3; D1; D1.2; D3; D4
78 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.3.26 Archaeological evaluation
Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of any
proposed new work, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the castle’s significance
through on-site evaluation.
This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may be potentially harmful to the fabric
of the castle or its archaeological deposits and will need careful consideration. These include ground penetrating
radar, trial trenching, test pitting, x-ray and other forms of remote sensing, geo-archaeological borehole
investigation, laser survey, opening up and building analysis and recording.
The necessary professional standards and practices should be adhered to for permissions for consents. English
Heritage should be consulted in advance regarding scheduled monument consents for evaluation. The Institute for
Archaeologists has published standards and guidance for desk-based assessment and on-site evaluation.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B3; D1; D1.2; D3
2.3.27 Protecting the archaeological significance
PPS5 draws a distinction between archaeological and historic interest with regard to protection and management.
In the case of the castle and its bailey, the interests of future expert archaeological investigation need protecting.
This includes not only potential evidence buried beneath the turf of the bailey area, or within the ditches, outer
gatehouse and motte, but also evidence of different phases of construction and demolition contained with the
fabric of the walls and buildings that make up the castle and its associated outbuildings.
Therefore repointing and repair of walls should always be preceded by a rapid archaeological assessment, and
recording, and all interventions should be recorded and archived. The context in which any archaeological evidence
is found is crucial to furthering understanding.
Where there is archaeological interest, conservation decisions should be aimed at sustaining the asset or the
relevant part of it, in a condition that would best suit the prospects of a future expert investigation. Any activity,
such as significant repointing, replacement of original stonework, or replacing original floors and roof structures,
or wall finishes that impairs the prospects of future archaeological investigation therefore harms the significance of
the castle.
This can make much of the castle, as a scheduled monument, very sensitive to change.
The archaeological interest of the castle can remain even after an excavation.
As techniques and the understanding of our past improve, a previously investigated area can be revisited, for
example using non invasive techniques such as geophysical survey, and targeted excavation to see what further can
be learned.
Instances of this are the bailey area that was partially excavated in 1960, the ditch at the base of the motte and the
apparent outer bailey ditch excavated on the Peel Arms site.
For all works requiring scheduled monument consent and/or planning permission a written scheme of investigation
will be required, see standards and guidance produced by the Institute of Field Archaeologists
(www.archaeologists.net).
Advice on what is proportionate and appropriate can be sought from in-house experts within Tamworth Borough
Council (you don’t currently have this expertise in house), expert advice from English Heritage (Inspector of Ancient
Monuments), experts available through agreement with Staffordshire County Council (there is no formal service
level agreement at present), or professional consultants.
In many cases of more minor loss where there is no archaeological interest, appropriate recording may amount to
no more than deposition of the plans showing the alteration with the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record.
Policies that relate to these issues:
B1; B3; D1; D1.2; D3
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
79

2.3.28 Ecological Potential
The ecological survey carried out for the Conservation Management Plan in 2009 identified the presence of three
common pipistrelle bat roosts, features with potential to support bats, and six trees on the motte with potential to
support bat roosts. The evening bat activity survey highlighted the presence of common pipistrelle bats feeding
and foraging around the castle associated with the edges of the broad-leaved woodland on the north and west side
of the motte, and highlighted the presence of Daubenton’s bats feeding and foraging over the River Tame.
Areas within the castle with evidence of bat activity: dungeon, hall, intra mural passage and elevated passage
across to perimeter wall walk.
TAMWORTH CASTLE
Bat Survey Plan
Legend
Bat Roost
Evidence of Bats
Features with potential for roosting Bats
80 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan
Limited Liability Partnership
Office: Bakewell
Tel: 01629 815544
Scale NTS
Checked KAS
10/09
Date
Approved KAS
N
4380
Job Ref
Drawn DKS
Status REV0
W E
S
FIGURE 2
Dwg No.
OS Licence No: n/a
Crown copyright reserved
Offices in: Bakewell, Oxford, Berwick-upon-Tweed & Monmouth Tel: 01629 815544 Fax: 01629 815577 Web: www.bsg-ecology.com Email: info@bsg-ecology.com

The broad leaved woodland cover on the north side of the motte is considered to be of ecological value at a local
level for the range of fauna that it is likely to support, including mammals and birds. However it is not considered to
be of particular intrinsic value for the plant species that it supports.
Aged or ‘veteran’ trees found outside ancient woodland are particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss
should be avoided. The horse chestnut tree at the base of the motte, given its possible age, size and position could
be classified as a veteran tree. The removal of this tree may therefore be contrary to the guidance set out in PPS9
Habitats PPS 9 Ancient Woodland and other Important Natural Habitats
Aged or ‘veteran’ trees found outside ancient woodland are particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss
should be avoided. The horse chestnut tree given its possible age, size and position could be classified as a veteran
tree. The removal of this tree may therefore be contrary to the guidance set out in PPS9 and would result in a
negative ecological impact. The impact would be significant at a site level.
The broad leaved woodland cover on the north side of the motte is considered to be of ecological value at a local
level for the range of fauna that it is likely to support, including mammals and birds. However it is not considered to
be of particular intrinsic value for the plant species that it supports.
External Curtain wall
The external face of the curtain wall is in good condition and there are few gaps or cracks which might support
bats. Some gaps in the stonework on the southwest face of the curtain wall could potentially support bats but no
evidence of bat activity was noted.
Perimeter path retaining wall
The dense ivy cladding the retaining wall of the perimeter path had been removed prior to inspection to enable the
engineers to carry out trial ground anchor fixing to tie the retaining wall of the Parapet walk to the foundations of
the curtain wall. The dense ivy may have had some potential to support roosting bats, but no suitable bat roosting
features were noted in the retaining wall itself.
First and second floor rooms
No suitable features to support bat roosts were found in the first and second floor rooms.
Ground Floor: Dungeon, Warders Lodge and Banqueting Hall
Two active pipistrelle bat roosts were noted within the ‘dungeon’, also a bat roost was noted under the eaves of the
Warders Lodge. Also bat activity was noted under the eaves in the south east corner of the Banqueting Hall.
Intra-mural passageway
Gaps between the bricks have the potential to support bat roosts but no evidence was found.
Trees on the motte
Three sycamore trees high on the south side of the motte were identified as having the potential to support bats,
due to the dense covering of ivy. Five other specimen trees on the south side of the motte were also identified as
having the potential to support bat roosts. There was no evidence to suggest the presence of a bat roost in the large
horse chestnut, but trees can be difficult to assess given the dense foliage cover and the tendency for bats to move
between several tree hosts
Policies that relate to these issues:
C6; E1; E4; J1
2.3.29 Access to the archive
The castle archive is stored within Holloway Lodge. Half of the collection is stored in archive standard storage.
Space in Holloway Lodge is severely limited and access to the collections can be difficult. Some items are stored in
the staff toilet, not an ideal location!
It is not possible to open the vertical plan chest to assess and record the contents as heavy volumes are stored on
top of it.
There is limited space for researchers to examine the archive, and perhaps it might be better located in Lichfield
record office and/or in the Local Studies room of Tamworth Library which has ample space for research and online
access.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
81

It is clear that some items held within the castle should be stored in an archive under current legislation (eg school
records). The Collections Officer is currently carrying out an audit of the archive to inform decisions about its future
resourcing and location.
The county Archivist carried out an audit of the archive in 1999 and recommended that they be transferred to the
County Record Office. However this led to considerable local opposition at the time, as people were unwilling to
travel to Stafford. However, it would seem appropriate to place much of the archive in the Lichfield Record Office,
with copies in the Tamworth Library Local Studies Room.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H2; H3; H7; H9; H11;H13
2.3.30 Public and Community Expectations
The way in which visitors, local residents and non-visitors from the local community value the castle, were assessed
by surveys and an interactive display on conservation issues, and through an experimental touch-screen kiosk
provided by Audiences Central.
More than 1000 people contributed their comments, including a group of young people from the Tamyouth group,
who were given a special guided tour round the castle of an evening and acted as a youth focus group.
Expectations are predictably diverse and depend to a degree on where users originate from and how regularly they
visit Tamworth Castle. Visitors from further afield look for high quality interpretation. More local users value the
educational provision and would like to see a greater range of events and activities at the castle.
The average length of a visit to Tamworth Castle was one hour.
Visitors would welcome opportunities for more hands on activities and workshops.
They would be interested in finding out more about how staff care for the castle, including housekeeping tours like
the National Trust.
There was a prurient interest in insect pests amongst younger audiences.
The living history events are very popular, with those who get to see them, others would like more regular, smaller
family friendly events and events which tell the Medieval and Saxon story.
Currently the most popular rooms in the castle are those which have permanent interpretive displays: The
Tamworth Story and the Norman Exhibition.
The areas people spend least time in and are least interested in are: ‘The Dungeon’, Breakfast Parlour, Courtyard,
Nursery and ‘Haunted Staircase’.
Many people commented that they would like to see and hear more about the medieval castle.
Several expressed disappointment at the Victorian areas of the castle, which did not meet their prior expectations
of a medieval castle.
Many people were disappointed that the talking head was not currently working.
The Friends of the castle would like more opportunities to get actively involved in the care and presentation of the
castle.
Disabled access was a real concern for many users and non-users. The high motte is by its nature, difficult to access
and within the building there is restricted access to the first and second floor by the original steep staircases.
The scale of charge is a barrier for local residents who are on a restricted income, especially older residents from the
High Rise Flats.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A3; E2;E3;E5;E8; F2;F5;F6;F8; G1;G3-G8;G14
82 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.3.31 Educational Users
The success of the formal education provision with living history workshops booked well in advance suggests
that expectations are largely being met and good levels of service maintained. The castle education service holds
a Stanford Award for Heritage Education and has the Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Standard. The
workshops are directly linked to the National Curriculum: Tudors, Victorians and World War II.
They could do more to tell the story of the Medieval and Jacobean history of the castle, which are the most
significant phases.
Some of the education workshops could be modified and delivered as informal learning activities for family
audiences and for Life-Long Learning/U3A audiences/ Friends
Other Life-Long learning themes could be: the story of the care of the building and its collections; and Saxon
Tamworth.
The dungeon with its stocks is completely misleading, there is no evidence that it was a dungeon. Rather prosaically
it is more likely to have been a secure store.
Policies that relate to these issues:
F6; F7; F8; G5; G11
2.3.32 Audience Development and promotion
A separate Audience Development Plan has been prepared as part of the Heritage Lottery Funded project. It has
become clear from consultation with local residents that, in common with many other heritage sites, it is under
used by local residents (and local schools). Partly this is to do with the cost of entry, partly the physical challenges
of getting up the motte and partly the effectiveness of the site promotion. However the HLF Project will enable the
quality of the visit and interpretation to be improved, which will provide an opportunity for enhanced promotion.
Already social media such as Twitter and Facebook are being used to build the local audience for events and
activities, in partnership with the castle grounds.
Policies that relate to these issues:
E5; G12; E7; E6; F1; J8
2.3.33 Access and Presentation
Access signage to the site (tourism brown signs) is not easy to follow, whether in a vehicle or on foot. There is a short
stay (one hour) car park at the base of the castle motte on the site of the castle mill, reached via Holloway. This is not
signposted for visitors to the castle as it is designated as a short stay car park for shoppers using the town. The one
hour length of stay is inadequate for visitors to the castle who need at least two hours.
Visitors arriving by car or coach to visit the castle are directed to the Jolly Sailor Car Park which is some distance to
the south of the castle. The visitor information signage at this car park is badly maintained and gives a poor first
impression of Tamworth and the castle. Visitors are signposted to cross the river by bridge and walk through the
Castle Pleasure Grounds to get to the castle. At various points along this route the castle is no longer visible and first
time visitors might easily lack the reassurance that they are following the right route.
A shorter route would be along the road leading across Ladybridge which provides a shorter, historic route to the
castle across the water meadows. From the railway station there is brown pedestrian signage to the castle, but again
this can leave the first time visitor stranded along the route to the castle. There needs to be downloadable advice on
how to reach the castle on the website.
There is a need for a dedicated disabled parking space/drop off point in the car park next to the castle and at the
base of the motte.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
83

The current entrance up the Norman wing wall is very steep. Intrepid wheelchair users and their families/attendants
have managed to push their way up the motte causeway. I have also observed intrepid users of mobility scooters,
travel up and back down the slope.
Visitors need a better welcome at foot of causeway (the notice board at the base of the causeway is difficult to read
as the plastic covering has become opaque with age).
Policies that relate to these issues:
E7; E9; J4; J9; J10; J11
2.3.34 Access within the castle
Most important rooms within the castle are publicly accessible, although access to the upper floors is difficult
or impossible for people with impaired mobility. The space taken by staff and administrative areas occupies a
significant proportion of the ground floor space, and if it were possible to transfer these functions elsewhere less
significant (Stables and Holloway Lodge) then more of the ground floor would be accessible and a circular tour of
these rooms would be possible along with enhanced interpretation of their original functions.
An access plan was prepared by the architects as part of the Heritage Lottery Fund development bid. This
recommended the installation of a lift to provide access to the upper floors for people in wheelchairs and with
limited mobility. Sadly there is inadequate funding at present to implement this proposal which would open up a
significant area of the castle to wider use and make it more compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Hopefully at some time in the future this option may once more be considered viable. A lift could be installed in the
area currently used for storage of tables and chairs, to the rear of the Great Hall, with the original door into the ante
room on the first floor being opened up.
Discussion with disabled users as part of this Conservation Management Plan identified the following issues as the
main barriers to access: the steep gradient on path up the motte; lack of access to the upper floors; lack of adequate
toilet facilities; irregular and variable floor/stair levels; lack of alternative accessible formats for interpretive media
and lack of awareness of events and activities.
Until the 1980s an 18 th century garden path which runs diagonally up the motte with level resting places and a less
steep gradient, used to provide access up to the castle. This was not maintained and so was closed to public access.
Re-opening this would provide a cost effective improvement on access up the steep motte for wheelchair users,
pushchairs, small children and most other visitors.
Policies that relate to these issues:
E2; E7
2.3.35 Visitor Route and Interpretation
The current visitor route, includes very little of the ground floor, and there is no visitor orientation area. Visitors are
directed from the courtyard into the ‘dungeon’ beneath the Norman Tower, for which there is no evidence of a use
as a dungeon and then into the north range via the Norman exhibition.
Most of the ground floor rooms are inaccessible to visitors as they are used for staff/support or storage purposes.
The current route up to the first and second floors is via the original stair case in the stair turret, which is difficult for
those with mobility restrictions.
At the time of production of the Conservation Management Plan there was no hand held plan available for visitors
to guide themselves around the rooms within the castle and time their visit. Therefore people were missing some
rooms and were unable to plan their visit.
An audio guide would be a useful option. Much of the interpretation of the castle is via the costumed interpreters
providing living history events. Whilst these are excellent and well received they are expensive to produce in terms
of staff time and costumes. So there needs to be more consistent interpretation for the casual visitor who has not
booked a school visit or is attending a special event.
84 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

A colourful cut away 3D orientation drawing/intro panel (like Sutton House, Hackney) could be used to welcome
visitors. It could also be made available to as a self guided trail leaflet, which could also be downloaded from a
website in advance to aid visitor orientation.
Consultation indicated that visitors would welcome more costumed interpreters, and this might be achieved
through recruiting and training an expanded team of volunteers for living history events.
Policies that relate to these issues:
E1; E2; E3; E6; E8
2.3.36 Intrusive elements and impediments to understanding
Intrusive elements for each room and/or element of the castle are mentioned in the gazetteer entries. The most
intrusive elements occur on the ground floor where the shop/cafe occupies one of the main ground floor rooms
on the south range. The staff kitchen/rest room block is a major intrusion. Likewise the toilets, but there have to be
toilets within the castle and this is probably the least intrusive place for them, although it does act as a block to a
potential circulation route around the medieval ground floor service rooms.
The chair, table and costume store room, in ground floor cellar range. These spaces seem to be currently managed
for the benefit of staff, rather than for the benefit of visitors.
Elsewhere elements are minor but do affect the atmosphere of the building, for example the cream emulsion paint
on the walls of the main dining room on the first floor, in the north range.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A3; C5; E2; E3; E4
2.3.37 Problems of presentation in a multi-phase site/multi-function site
The presentation of Tamworth Castle is challenging for a number of reasons.
The historic furnished room settings act as backdrops for small living history tableaux which tell aspects of the life
of the castle, from medieval, Tudor and Victorian eras. The main hall is also used for a number of different purposes,
such as school visits; weddings and functions. This means that much conventional interpretive media that might be
used to draw visitors’ attention to items of interest are not installed for lack of space and to retain the sense of an
‘authentic’ room set interior.
However much of the interior decor is not as original as it might seem as many elements such as door cases, doors,
fireplaces and panelling were introduced in the 18 th and 19 th century to create an antiquarian interior. This is not
immediately clear to visitors and is an interesting part of the story of the castle and the people who owned it.
Rooms are displayed at specific phases, but may include an eclectic mix of props, for example a replica 13 th century
pottery aquamanile and modern stools from North Africa in a purportedly 17 th century room setting.
This is a particular problem where spaces may carry significance for more than one period such as the Great Hall.
There is a lack of funding to refresh the interpretation, and repair elements such as the peppers ghost talking heads
which have ceased to work.
It has to be presented not only as an ancient monument with a coherent narrative, but also as the town museum for
Tamworth. This makes the presentation challenging. Whilst most rooms are displayed as room sets at a specific date
in the history of the castle, this cannot be presented in a coherent chronological narrative because of the layout and
carrying capacity issues.
Further, half way round the linear sequence of historic rooms the visitor is presented with the Tamworth Story, a
modern social history museum display about Tamworth as a whole. They then move back into historic room set
mode, exploring the narrative of the castle itself. This is confusing, although it is clear that the well interpreted
Tamworth Story remains one of the most popular aspects of the visit, despite its relative age.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
85

The roof of the tower provides an excellent viewing platform to see the plan of the town of Tamworth and its wider
landscape setting.
The furnishings from the castle were dispersed at its sale, so most of what is on display has been purchased,
donated, or is loan from other museums such as the Victoria and Albert, or is a period replica.
Although the Living History approach is very popular with visitors, people who visit when there are no costumed
interpreters present have a poor visitor experience.
The frequency of costumed interpreter small scale family friendly events and activities needs to be increased
through the recruitment and training of a team of volunteers.
All visitors would benefit from a range of high quality portable media, including good quality interpretive self
guided trail leaflet and portable audio visual media such as iphone apps.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A3; G2; G3; G6; G10
2.3.38 Preservation versus presentation
Conflicts between preservation and presentation are common to all monuments, where the theoretical ideal of
maximum protection has to be balance against reasonable visitor expectations for access to common cultural
property. There will always be some tension between the economic and social necessities of managing a property
for maximum visitor enjoyment and understanding, and aspirations for conservation and protection.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A1; A3; C2; E1; E4
2.3.39 Scope of presentation
Tamworth castle has intrinsic interest and importance because of its own history of development, but it is also able
to represent broader themes on a local and national scale: The Normans; Medieval Society; 17 th century gentry ,
Royal visits, the Civil War, The Georgians, The Victorians. These provide context and enhance understanding of the
castle itself, but the multiplicity of potential themes could confuse visitor understanding and enjoyment, so there
needs to be a clear interpretation plan and orientation for visitors in advance on the web and at the start of their
visit.
The questionnaire completed as part of this Conservation Management Plan identified that most visitors have no
understanding of the full extent of the castle and its associated park, assuming that the castle is restricted to those
buildings within the curtain wall on the motte. There needs to be interpretation, using a range of different media,
within the Bailey/Castle Pleasure Grounds and around the town to convey the full extent and significance of the
castle, bailey, outer court and wider park.
A clear gap in the story told at Tamworth Castle is the important story of Saxon Tamworth and its central role in the
kingdom of Mercia. This has become even more significant since the discovery of the Mercian hoards of gold and
silver objects found a few miles west of Tamworth in 2009.
The story of Saxon warriors and their weapons could be told in the main hall which already has a collection of
medieval and post medieval arms and armour. This could be an opportunity for re-display and better use of this
space and collection. The hall also has the dimensions and appearance of a Saxon Warriors Hall and could be a
wonderful setting for the tales of Beowulf delivered by costumed interpreters.
The fascinating story of Aethelflaeda could also be told as a wonderful role model for girls and young women, and
to correct the myths about her and the motte.
Policies that relate to these issues:
G1; G4; G7; G8; G10
86 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.3.40 Relationship to other local heritage attractions
A clear gap in the story told at Tamworth Castle is the important story of Saxon Tamworth and its central role in the
kingdom of Mercia. This has become even more significant since the discovery of the Saxon hoard of gold and silver
objects found a few miles west of Tamworth in 2009.
Links could be made through a Mercian Trail linking St Editha’s church, the Saxon Watermill, Middleton Lakes Saxon
weir, town defences, Moat House, Wall, Polesworth Abbey, Lichfield Cathedral, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
and Stoke Museum.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A3; E5; G12
2.3.41 Presentation of interiors: authenticity
The high quality of available documentation for room uses and furnishings in the 1680 Ferrers probate inventory
allows an unusual degree of historical accuracy in the presentation of certain rooms, rather than the more usual
generalised attempt to recreate period room sets. A research -based presentation of some rooms could be
attempted with good quality replicas.
Policies that relate to these issues:
G6
2.3.42 Intellectual access and interpretation-hierarchies of information
Effective interpretation is tailored to the needs of specific audiences and a variety of different media and levels of
interest need to be catered for. Degrees of choice in what is explored and in what depth can help stimulate interest
and encourage return visits. Access to additional information about the castle, the people who visited, lived or
worked in it and the collections can be provided through online access, hand held audio visual guides, conventional
room files of via volunteer room stewards/guided tours. There is a need for an overarching interpretation strategy
linking the castle and town.
Policies that relate to these issues:
G1; G3; G7; G10
2.3.43 Methods of guiding-self guided trail, audio guide, guided tour and costumed
guide in character
There are range of available means to assist exploration of the castle, and many have been put to good effect.
The most effective are the costumed interpreters who act out roles in the first person. They also lead education
workshops and deliver performances at special events. The main period for re-enactments is Tudor. Given the
constraints of staff time and costumes these performances are offered on a limited number of days, although this is
increasing over the summer holiday period.
The present guidebook is a souvenir rather than a trail guide. There is confusion amongst first time visitors trying to
find their way round the warren of rooms within the castle and there is a need for a well designed and informative
self guided trail leaflet that not only provides a clear route to follow, but also identify the highlights not to be missed
and tells the significance of each room.
The same content could also be provided as a download for an MP3 player to guide people round.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
87

This could be activated by blue tooth so that as someone enters a room atmospheric music, ambient sounds, voices
of people working or relaxing there, and/or a story could be told by an historical character connected to that room.
Policies that relate to these issues:
F3; A3; G1; G5; G7
2.3.44 Green Issues, minimising carbon footprint
An important new consideration for the Heritage Lottery Fund and all major Heritage Organisations is the
environmental sustainability agenda:
• Encouraging visitors to use public transport
• Conserving energy
• Minimising waste
• Responding to climate change, floods, storms etc
As part of its Audience Development and Visitor Experience Plan the castle could encourage and provide incentives
for those visitors who travel by sustainable means, on foot, by cycle, train or bus.
The Museums Libraries and Archives is promoting a sustainable approach to the production of exhibitions with the
use of low energy lighting and minimising the use of MDF. This should be written into briefs for designers when
commissioning work.
The castle has recently completed a disaster and emergency plan as part of the requirements for Designation.
Policies that relate to these issues:
G13; C3
2.3.45 Collections
The collections at Tamworth Castle are variable in significance and value to the interpretation of the castle. They
serve a dual purpose for recreating period interiors and acting as the Borough Museum. Very few objects, items of
furniture or painting have important historical association with the castle, some items belonged to the Cooke family
who were the last people to live in the castle, before it was acquired by Tamworth Borough Council as a museum.
However there are a number of informative documentary sources which help to illuminate the history of the castle
and its owners, especially the 1680 Ferrers inventory of the castle, as well as accounts and estate papers. The locally
acquired Social History and Archaeology Collections are used to tell the story of Tamworth as a whole as well as the
history of the castle itself.
Caring for the Collections
Three important milestones have recently been achieved for the care of the collections: The preparation and
adoption of the first Collections Care Manual (2009) and Documentation Procedural Manual (2009) as part of the
process of achieving Accreditation. This demonstrates that Tamworth Castle meets national curatorial standards
and guidance in the care of its collections. Thirdly staff have recently achieved the removal and consolidation of the
inadequate and dispersed off-site and on site storage in a new storage facility April 2010.
Tamworth Castle has recently (Dec 2009) met the minimum conservation and collections care standard for
Accreditation:
‘Each museum must aim to store, handle, display and use its collections in such a way as to minimise the risk of damage
and deterioration, thereby increasing the long term access to and appreciation of the collections’
88 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The Tamworth Castle Collections Care manual produced in 2009 refers not only to objects and artefacts, but also
to archival material held within the museum’s collections. However there are separate standards for the curation of
archives which will be referred to below.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H1; H2; H4
2.3.46 Guiding Principles and Standards
As part of the process of Accreditation by the Museums Libraries and Archives, Tamworth Castle has committed
to meet a set of national standards for Conservation and to follow widely accepted good practice. This includes
the Museums Association code of ethics and the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation code of practice.
The Museums and Galleries Commission ‘Standards in Collections Care’ series has also informed the standards
and guidance of the Tamworth Castle Collections Care Manual. The key principles that Tamworth Castle and all
accredited museums follow are:
• Consider the integrity of objects and their conservation requirements as paramount in decisions
affecting their storage, uses and display
• Provide and maintain systems to monitor the condition of the objects and the environments in which
they are kept
• Take measures to slow deterioration of, and prevent damage to, objects
• Monitor and maintain the conditions of the objects and the environments in which they are kept
• Periodically review the effectiveness of the policy and its implementation
• Review conservation standards against appropriate benchmarks
The Collections Care Manual focuses on preventative conservation, practices that will reduce the rate of
deterioration of the collection as a whole and minimise further damage. This will include:
• Standards for the environment of museum buildings, including strategies for controlling agents of
decay: light, temperature, relative humidity, pests, dust and dirt.
• Standards for the provision of adequate, uncrowded storage areas that provide adequate
environmental control, security and acceptable access for staff.
• Standards to ensure the safety and condition of objects while on display, in storage or in transit
• Standards for assessing and monitoring the condition of objects
• Security and emergency plans
Policies that relate to these issues:
H1 - H13
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
89

2.3.47 Systems to safeguard the collections
Collections are safeguarded in the castle through the specification and management of the following systems:
• Qualified staff and resources
• Housekeeping (by staff and volunteers)
• Packing/storage
• Handling and the use of collections
• Environmental monitoring and control
• Integrated pest management
• Condition checking
• Emergency plan
• Building maintenance, security and key control
Qualified staff and resources
Tamworth Castle does not employ a trained conservator, so all remedial conservation work is carried out externally
by a trained conservator. The Collections Officer has responsibility for implementing preventative conservation
at Tamworth Castle, according to the policies, procedures , guidelines and strategies listed below. Volunteers may
occasionally assist the Collections Officer with preventative conservation, once full training has been provided by
the Collections Officer, or through the Renaissance in the Regions training programme.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H1-H13; F3; F4
2.3.48 Environmental Monitoring and Control
Environmental monitoring and control has been conducted at Tamworth Castle since the 1990s. There are
temperature records and dehumidifiers which are now out of use.
More recently temperature and relative humidity has been monitored, although the recording of results has been
inconsistent and there has been little attempt at interpretation of the results. The light levels have been limited by
blinds covering windows (and UV filters on windows?) and there have been attempts to monitor heat by turning
down radiators in stores and display rooms.
Light can cause fading, bleaching, discolouration and physical weakening of objects. UV light is high energy
radiation and is unnecessary for viewing objects, and should preferably be eliminated completely, using UV filters
on windows.
Deterioration caused by visible light is cumulative and irreversible.
Visible light levels for light sensitive objects such as watercolours, textiles, paper, photographs and plastics should
not exceed 50 lux. For less sensitive items such as oil paintings, wood, ceramic, glass, metals etc up to 250 lux is
recommended.
Although materials such as ceramics, glass and metals can be safely lit at higher levels, brighter areas within the
castle would make it harder for visitors’ eyes to adjust to rooms with lower light levels, so should be avoided.
There has been no consistent plan of monitoring all aspects of the environment, combined with interpretation of
the results and an action plan for improvement. Monitoring has been piecemeal, poorly recorded and interpretation
has not been documented.
90 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Monitoring UV levels
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 1
91

Items on display are not stored in display cases that control the environmental conditions. Therefore display items
are subject to the environmental conditions created for visitors and the fluctuations that occur when the castle is
open or closed.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H4; H5
2.3.49 Preventative Housekeeping
Dust and dirt can enter stores and display areas from outside, therefore Tamworth Castle attempts to reduce the
entry of external pollutants by ensuring that windows and doors remain closed as much as possible.
As budgetary cuts have resulted in the loss of paid cleaners, period display rooms, stairwells and exhibition areas
have become dusty and cobwebs have become widespread. Front of house staff are expected to carry out a regular
programme of cleaning, and this needs to be implemented effectively.
Policies that relate to these issues:
C2; C4; H12
2.3.50 Packing and storage of collections
The packing and storage of items at Tamworth Castle is at present inconsistent. There has been a move to
implement more protective, acid-free packing of items as part of the backlog policy. However this is incomplete and
standards implemented do not comply with current best practice as recommended by the National Preservation
Office and Collections Link.
Appropriate packing and storage is vital for the preservation of items under the care of Tamworth Castle. Items
within the collection can be damaged by insufficient or inappropriate packing and storage materials.
Parts of the archaeology collection and archive collection that are stored in chipboard boxes that are not acid-free.
Photographs are stored inside polyester packets in a filing cabinet with their catalogue cards. Some have been
glued to their backing cards, and this will need to be addressed through the implementation of the packing policy.
Damage to items is not just physical, damage can also be caused by chemicals present in packing materials,
accordingly Tamworth Castle is working towards only using materials recommended by Collections Link. These
include:
• Transparent polypropylene multi -purpose boxes which are acid free, used to store social history
objects, and archaeological collections
• Acid-free card boxes to store archive material, photographs and documents
• Acid-free card to make four-fold envelope flaps to protect damaged books
• Plastazote to create padded beds for objects
• Acid-free tissue to create padding around object, and wrap sensitive objects.
• Melinex pockets for storage of archive material, photographs and documents
92 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The new collections care manual provides detailed procedures for the packing and storage of specific items within
the collection. The Collections Officer has received training from conservators at Staffordshire Record Office on
current best practice for packing books and archival documents. Within the Collections Care Manual packing
procedures are described for:
• Books
• Archival documents
• Photographs
• Costume
• General guidance for other objects
Policies that relate to these issues:
C2; C4
2.3.51 Access to collections
Tamworth Castle is obliged to provide access to its Collections under the Freedom of information Act.
Requests for information may come from:
• Colleagues within the museum
• Staff in other museums or researchers
• Staff or members in Tamworth Borough Council
• General Public
Currently there is an incomplete Modes database so researchers cannot currently access an online catalogue. The
aim is to provide this as a facility via the castle website.
Staffing levels do not allow instant access to collections, therefore access is by appointment only
Space within Holloway Lodge is limited
Lone working by the Collections Officer is an issue and researchers need to provide identification on arrival to
ensure security of staff and collections.
There is also a separate handling collection of social history objects and replicas which can be used for formal and
informal education sessions, family friendly workshops and living history events. This is an important part of the
presentation of life in the castle at different periods and encourages direct connection with the past. However it is
important that items within the handling collection are not unique/fragile and can easily be replaced without loss of
overall significance to the collection.
Policies that relate to these issues:
A3; E3; F7; H3
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
93

2.3.52 Documentation and Collections Care
The Collections Officer has identified a significant backlog with documentation and collections care as part of a
review of the collections in preparation for Accreditation. In 2005 documentation standards were assessed by the
Collections Officer and found to be equivalent to level 2/3 of the MDA (Museums Documentation Association)
documentation guidelines. This is below the minimum standard for accreditation.
There was poor entry documentation, major backlogs and poor labelling.
Documentation procedures have lacked uniformity; frequent changes in procedures with staffing changes; and little
written record of procedures.
Therefore staff are currently focussing on improvements to meet Accreditation minimum standards.
A definitive inventory identifying the contents of the collections and their locations was achieved in 2009. The next
phase during 2010-2011, is to survey the condition of the collections and calculate areas for improvement
All objects within the museum’s collection require minimum standards of information to be recorded about them
in order to make them more accessible and to meet the requirements for the Museum Accreditation Scheme. This
is the minimum standards scheme for museums in the UK, administered by the Museums Libraries and Archives
Council (MLA).
There are eight primary procedures identified by SPECTRUM (the UK international standard for collections
management www.collectionstrust.org.uk/spectrum) as necessary minimum standards.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H1; H7; H8; H9
2.3.53 Collection Condition Survey
Tamworth Castle is committed to providing the best affordable levels of protection to objects in its care.
Examining objects to determine their condition is an important part of collections care, as it allows sensitive items
to be identified and appropriate action planned.
A fundamental principle to emphasise is that, deterioration caused by the use of an object (wear patterns, damage
and fading) is part of the object’s history and is different to deterioration caused by neglect once in the museum’s
care. This information needs to be recorded as part of the object’s documentation.
Tamworth Castle has a backlog in the information recorded, relating to the condition of objects within its
collections.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H5; H7; H9
94 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.3.54 Remedial Conservation
Tamworth Castle does not have suitably trained or qualified staff to undertake remedial conservation.
Due to funding constraints remedial conservation will only be undertaken on extremely significant items, where it is
necessary to ensure their continued survival and accessibility.
Policies that relate to these issues:
H6
2.3.55 Pest Management
Animal or insect pests can feed directly on objects or on the dirt around them. They cause damage by eating the
objects themselves, causing staining with their secretions, or by themselves acting as a food source for other pests
when dead. Therefore pests need to be managed within the castle, not only do they damage the collections there is
clear evidence of structural damage by beetles.
All collections are at risk from pest infestations and the structural timber of the castle itself has suffered from pest
infestation.
At particular risk are organic materials such as textiles, costume, furniture and archive material.
Insects that pose the greatest threat to object collections, room displays and structural timbers are:
• Woodworm
• Clothes moth
• Biscuit beetle
• Carpet beetle-especially larvae
• Silverfish
Structural Timbers are vulnerable to infestation by Woodworm and Death Watch beetle (and dry rot)
Pests that pose the greatest threat to other areas in the castle are:
• Mice
• Rats
• Pigeons and other birds
• Feral cats
The most common insect problems are:
• Old bird, wasp and bee nests in attics
• Old heating and ventilation ducts
• Cavity walls and floors
• Unused rooms and cupboards, especially attics and basements
• Gaps between walls and floors
• Empty spaces behind and under storage cabinets, display cases and plinths
• Felt lining on boxes and felt sealing on doors
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
95

Key risk areas:
• Areas where catering and food consumption is undertaken at Tamworth Castle (Great Hall and
staffroom) and Holloway Lodge
• Tamworth Story, Servants Chamber and Georgian Room as they have external doors leading
directly into areas where collection items are on display
The most vulnerable objects on display are:
• Loaned furniture from Victoria and Albert Museum (CNS6, CNS7, CNS10,CSS1, CSS3)
• Loaned chair from Nuneaton Museum (cns6)
• Paintings in cns6
• Archaeological metals on display in cgh
• Weapons on display in CGH
• Textiles on display in css3
• Wooden clocks and furniture on display in cns9
Policies that relate to these issues:
H5
96 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.4 Policies for the Conservation of Tamworth Castle and its collection
In this section a series of Conservation Policies are drafted with clear aims and objectives to:
• Conserve and/or enhance each type of heritage
• Resolve conflicts
• Meet conservation standards
2.4.1 Policy Objectives
This part of the plan sets out policies for protecting the significance of Tamworth Castle and realising its potential
for public access, enjoyment and understanding. After statements of general principle (section A), policies are set
out in seven main areas of responsibility and activity (sections B-H).
A Principles and approaches
B Conservation, repair and maintenance
C Protection of fabric and setting
D Information, recording and research
E Access and visitor services
F Engagement
G Presenting and Interpreting the castle
H Collections Management
J Site management
Within each of these sections, individual policies are proposed, with recommendations on ways to implement them
and achieve their objectives. Most of them are of general application, relating to the site as a whole or its place
in the town. More detailed recommendations which relate to individual elements of the site are contained in the
Gazetteer entries in Part Three of the Plan. Where relevant these are cross referenced to the principal policies set out
here.
Definitions
Words used in this plan have specific meanings as understood by International Conservation Conventions and
specifically the Burra Charter (Australia Icomos 1988).
Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its significance. It includes maintenance,
preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation, and will often be a combination of processes.
Maintenance means maintaining the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of a place.
Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state, and retarding deterioration.
Restoration means returning existing fabric to a known earlier state by removing accretions or re-assembling
existing components, without introducing additional materials, new or old, into the fabric.
Adaptation means modifying a place to proposed appropriate uses.
Protection is not defined by the Burra Charter. The meaning as used in this Plan is the guarding of significant fabric
or values against actual or potential damage, which might arise from planned activity or accidental events, or from
the normal process of decay.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
97

The Policies
A principles and approaches
Policy A1 To place the conservation of Tamworth Castle at the heart of planning for
future uses and the day to day management of the site.
Policy A2 To secure the repair of the historic asset and provide for its future
maintenance to high standards of conservation care.
Policy A3 To promote public access to, enjoyment and understanding of Tamworth
Castle.
Policy A4 In securing the policies, to manage the site so as to make best use of financial
and other resources.
B Policies for conservation, repair and maintenance
Policy B1 To develop a conservation philosophy for the Castle which protects its historic
integrity and areas of significance, and makes them accessible to public understanding.
Much of the evidence for the architectural and social history of Tamworth Castle lies in the surviving fabric, and it is
important to ensure that conservation of the building protects this historic character and significance. An approach
is required which avoids unnecessary losses through over-restoration, adopting instead a minimal intervention
approach that allows full historic significance to survive. In places it may be possible to enhance important aspects
of the building by removal of modern intrusions (especially on the ground floor). It is essential however, that one
aspect of significance is not sacrificed unnecessarily in enhancing the significance of another. This is especially
desirable as the development of the castle is, at present, incompletely understood.
Two primary elements of significance surviving in the fabric of the castle are the late 15 th century great hall and
the important episodes or repair and refurbishment and remodelling carried out in a consciously medieval and
Jacobean revival style in the 18 th and 19 th century. It is essential that these phases are carefully identified and
protected.
This means that the fabric of the castle should be conserved as it stands and that work of 18 th and 19 th century
should not be sacrificed to reconstruct lost medieval elements.
In line with this approach, the late medieval Great Hall would not be reconstructed with its screen and screens
passage, nor its doorways returned to historically accurate medieval forms, since this will destroy its significance as
an example of 19 th century medieval domestic revivalism. Careful protection and enhancement of existing character
is to be preferred to conjectural recreation of what has gone.
What survives of the work of the later 20th century to adapt the rooms within the castle for museum uses is mostly
of a superficial nature and there is no requirement to protect or retain it, especially where it intrusively detracts from
or confuses understanding of significant aspects of the castle (especially the medieval ranges on the ground floor).
These intrusions are identified and recommendations made about them in other policies or in Gazetteer entries.
Where such works are of a more extensive nature, such as the staff room and kitchen, or staff offices, the proposal to
provide public access to former ground floor historic interiors would be subject to the ability to accommodate the
present functions elsewhere, without further impact on the historic fabric.
98 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Policy B2 To establish regular, effective and funded programmes for building
maintenance and repair, where necessary revising existing arrangements.
The key to successful building conservation is the regular cycle of maintenance and inspection which prevents the
development of crises from quite minor problems. Present maintenance arrangements for Tamworth Castle are
ad hoc, reactive and not well funded. Maintenance or repairs tend to be done in response to problems occurring,
rather than in trying to avoid the problem in the first place. It is essential that the status and significance of the
historic building are recognised in the regularity and standard of specified regimes of maintenance and inspection.
Policy B2.1 The 2005 Condition Survey should be updated in 2010
Policy B2.2 On the basis of the survey, a schedule of maintenance tasks should be drawn up, specifying a timetable for
performance and an agreed set of standards and techniques. A contract for the specified work should be let for a defined
period to a contractor with experience of work on historic buildings.
Policy B2.3 The schedule should set out arrangements for regular monitoring, with a full quinquennial inspection to review
effectiveness and make adjustments
Policy B2.4 Separate from regular maintenance, responsibility for identifying the need for and commissioning works
of repair to the Castle need to be allocated, in order to ensure adequate specifying and timely performance. The Castle
Manager is a Museums Professional and does not have building conservation back up within Tamworth Borough Council.
It would be worth exploring the economics of a service level agreement with the conservation team at Lichfield Borough
Council and/or retaining a consultant conservation architect.
Policy B2.5 As major repairs to areas of the castle are carried out, their monitoring and maintenance should be included in
the regular schedules.
Policy B3 To ensure that all works to Tamworth Castle, whether new work or repair,
are informed by a clear understanding of the site, are preceded by appropriate
investigation of the historic fabric and are fully recorded.
Although Tamworth Castle has been subject to major programmes of repair for more than 200 years, there
is a shortage of detailed records for large parts of the castle, and a consequent lack of understanding of its
development. Planned research and survey (as proposed in Policy D1) will help redress the situation. It is also vital
that an appropriate level of investigation and recording precedes future works of repair so that affected fabric is
fully understood and that works can be designed to minimise or eliminate impact.
Policy B3.1 Scheduled Monument Consent will be obtained before any works, not covered by a class consent, are
undertaken within the scheduled area of the Castle. English Heritage will be consulted as part of the planning of any
such works. Where such works will take place on a regular basis, they will be permitted in the context of a management
agreement.
Policy B3.2 All works of maintenance, repair or alteration affecting the historic fabric or below ground archaeology should
be preceded and accompanied by appropriate analysis and recording in accordance with good archaeological practice
meeting IfA standards and guidance and statutory legislation. Analysis should aim to answer specific questions and be
tailored to the significance of the fabric likely to be affected. Information gained should be used to inform the detail of the
proposed works.
Policy B3.3 Where significant fabric has unavoidably to be removed from an original location, it should be carefully
recorded in situ and if practicable retained within the collections are part of the site archive (Policy D2). No element of the
castle should be destroyed unrecorded.
PolicyB3.4 Explicit records should be made of any intervention in the historic fabric of the site (above and below ground)
by written, drawn and photographic means , with summaries and conclusions incorporated in the site archive.
Policy B3.5 The interpretation strategy for Tamworth Castle (proposed in policy G1) should include provision for explaining
building and conservation works in progress, to encourage wider public understanding, interest and support for
expenditure.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
99

Policy B3.6 An archive documenting interventions at the Castle will be maintained and curated by the Castle Collections
Manager. This should include (but not necessarily be limited to):
• Copies of any applications for scheduled monument consent
• Copies of advice received from English Heritage in relation to any applications for
scheduled monument consent
• Copies of reports of any archaeological excavations, recording works or watching briefs
relating to the monument
• Copies of any investigative reports commissioned, including conservation plans and feasibility studies
• Records of any photographic or drawn surveys of any part of the monument
• Records of any structures erected or demolished within the area of the scheduled monument.
Policy B3.7 Copies of reports of any archaeological excavations, recording works or watching briefs relating to the
monument should also be sent to the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record.
Policy B4 To ensure that all works are carried out to high standards of building
conservation and based on the best available professional advice and quality of
workmanship.
Some future works at Tamworth Castle will aim to repair the effects of progressive decay and put the buildings in
good condition for the future. Others may adapt buildings, areas or rooms to new uses. It is important that these
separate processes are distinguished in developing specifications and that both are based on sound principles
of building conservation. It is also important that minor pieces of maintenance or repair observe the same high
standards as major conservation projects, and are fully recorded.
Policy B4.1 All works of conservation or repair should be based on the very best specialist advice and quality of
workmanship, with continuity of professional supervision. Any contractor employed for repairs to the castle must have
expertise in historic building conservation. There is also need for Tamworth Borough Council to have long term and
consistent advice available through the appointment of an experienced conservation architect.
Policy B4.2 Systems should be set up to control the need for and quality of workmanship for minor repairs such as
repointing, ensuring that no risk is involved to historic fabric through sporadic small scale works, such as inappropriate
re-pointing and use of cementitious mortar.
Policy B4.3 Where decayed or defective fabric is to be removed, replacement should be, as far as practicable, in the same
material as that removed. New materials may be preferred to re-use of old, though each case must be argued on it merits,
and all replacements should be recorded and date marked.
Policy B4.4 Historically accurate techniques of working should where practicable be followed for repairs and maintenance
Policy B4.5 Works, particularly of alteration, should as far as practicable be non –destructive
Policy B4.6 Restoration is only likely to be acceptable if:
• The significance of the elements that would be restored decisively outweigh the significance of
those that would be lost (eg the outer gate house range)
• The work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the castle, and is executed in
accordance with the evidence
• The form in which the part of the castle exists is not the result of a historically –significant event (for
example the appearance of the bailey and outer gate house range today)
• The proposed work respects previous forms of this part of the castle (for example restoration of the
private gardens from the 18 th -19 th century)
• No archaeological interest is lost if the restoration work could be later confused with the original fabric
• The maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable
100 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Policy B4.7 Restoration involving the stripping-off later layers of work or abrasive cleaning is only likely to be acceptable
where it can be shown that:
• The later layers are not of significance in themselves
• They are damaging the original and other significant fabric
• By their removal there would be an enhancement to the significance of the building that outweighs
the loss of the later addition (paint upstairs in the gilt leather room)
Policy B5 Widen the quinquennial inspections to include: both faces of the herringbone
masonry wing wall; the exposed remains of the medieval gatehouse and the retaining
wall at the base of the motte on the north side.
C Policies for protection of fabric and setting
Policy C1 To minimise risk of damage to the historic fabric and contents of Tamworth
Castle.
Day to day risks come through cumulative wear and tear from visitor access to the site. Evidence of damage needs
to be monitored and risks reduced by changes in management practice or physical protection measures. Some
softwood floors and especially original wooden stair treads have abraded and split softwood boarding, and loose
and defective brick and tiling on the ground floor. Following careful repair and rehabilitation, floors may need
protection by the use of druggets or other floor coverings. Some areas of walling are also vulnerable to damage.
Displayed furniture is at risk from abrasion or handling. The danger of damage from special events is a concern,
and from the moving of furniture to prepare rooms for use. While the advantages of attracting large gatherings to
enjoyment of the castle are clear, the resultant risk of cumulative damage to significant items of historic material
must be considered. Thought needs to be given to maintaining regular good levels of use, but planning events to
minimise their impact on collections and historic fabric. The siting of events marquees in the castle bailey may also
constitute a threat to buried archaeology.
Policy C1.1 Damaged floor surfaces (boarded and brick/tile) should be repaired to good conservation standards. In
the future wear and tear may be minimised by the use of floor coverings on heavily used sections, with monitoring of
condition.
Policy C1.2 Vulnerable wall surfaces should be protected from both environmental and physical risks.
Policy C1.3 The special events programme should be reviewed, changing any potentially damaging activities towards
more appropriate kinds of seasonal event, able to sustain good levels of use with reduced risks to buildings and contents.
Policy C1.4 An implications study for buried features, drawn up as part of the recommended geophysical survey of the
bailey, should identify archaeologically vulnerable areas where all ground disturbance, from special events or from other
activities is to be avoided.
Policy C2 Ensure that the historic fabric and contents of Tamworth Castle are maintained
to acceptable standards of environment and security, while securing adequate
conditions for users.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
101

Policy C3 To observe effective regimes for fire and security for the site, buildings and
collections and maintain counter-disaster systems.
In accordance with the requirements for Accreditation by Museums Libraries and Archives (MLA) Tamworth Castle
has an Emergency Plan (2009) which identifies policies and procedures for emergencies such as fire, flood damage,
which can arise from various sources. Other threats arise from terrorism, vandalism, IT/power failure, theft, gas leaks
or infestation.
Successful emergency planning can prevent or reduce the risk of an emergency damaging a museum, its staff,
visitors, buildings and their collections. It can also prepare staff to react appropriately and to recover from it in the
medium and longer term.
In a widespread emergency, museums are not as high a priority as hospitals and transport systems for example.
Therefore the emergency plan enables Tamworth Castle to independently respond to an emergency.
The emergency plan outlines Tamworth Castle’s response to an emergency. It acts as a manual of information and
a framework for action which can be referred to in an emergency. It outlines the most significant risks to Tamworth
Castle, and its stores, and the procedures and guidelines to be followed in an emergency, useful contacts, and
salvage procedures to be followed.
The plan is applicable to all situations that can be defined as an emergency or disaster.
The plan covers all buildings utilised by Tamworth Castle to display items or store items. This includes: the Castle,
Holloway Lodge, the Stables, Wyggington Lodge, Church Street and Mayor’s Garage, and the new collections store
at Amington.
Policy C3.1 To devise a structured approach for minimising the risk of an emergency, and allow staff to respond quickly
and effectively should such an incident take place.
Policy C3.2 To carry out a formal risk assessment: Identifying risks is the most important preventive and preparatory work
for coping with an emergency.
Policy C3.3 To plan and specify arrangements for staff and visitors as the first priority; and arrangements for collections
and buildings.
Policy C3.4 To improve response in the event of a fire, regular training and practice should be provided in fire drills and safe
evacuation procedures
Policy C3.5 To plan and train staff in the Fire Evacuation arrangements and Bomb Threat procedures for the safety of
visitors and staff in an emergency.
Policy C3.6 Allocate responsibility to carry out and record a regular maintenance check of external features such as:
gutters; drains; fence;; external security lights;; windows; lightening conductors; telephone lines and interventions such as
graffiti and rubbish accumulations etc to monitor potential security or other problems
Policy C3.7 Allocate responsibility for regular maintenance check and record of the condition of internal features including:
pipes; stop valves; flow meters; drains; sumps; heating systems; circuit breakers; water ingress into cellars and electrical
circuits.
Policy C3.8 Carry out regular familiarisation visits for fire officers, police and health and safety officers within Tamworth
Borough Council.
Policy C3.9 To test the plan regularly through simulations and review and update it as and when necessary.
Policy C3.10 Authorisation and Responsibility: The Collections Officer, in association with the Heritage and Visitor Services
Manager is responsible for devising the Emergency Plan. The Collections Officer is responsible for testing the efficiency of
the plan and reviewing, amending and maintaining it as required.The Collections Officer is also responsible for devising
and delivering appropriate training to all members of staff and volunteers, to ensure that everyone understands their role
in an emergency.
All members of staff and volunteers are responsible for adhering to procedures outlined in the plan in an emergency, and
for for ensuring that they fully understand their role in an emergency, if not they must inform their line manager or the
Collections Officer who will ensure that training is provided.
The Heritage Services Manager is responsible for ensuring that Tamworth Castle meets it’s obligations for the safety of
staff and collections or resources in their care.
102 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Policy C4 To ensure that the contents and historic fabric of Tamworth Castle are
maintained to acceptable standards of housekeeping.
Dust and dirt encourages mould and corrosion by attracting and holding moisture and it can act as a catalyst for
other chemical reactions such as fading and corrosion, and cleaning it off can abrade and scratch objects. Dust can
originate from both internal and external sources, so good housekeeping and simple preventative measures can be
used to reduce levels of dust and dirt to a minimum.
Dust and dirt can enter stores and display areas from outside, therefore Tamworth Castle attempts to reduce the
entry of external pollutants by ensuring that windows and doors remain closed as much as possible.
Housekeeping practices at Tamworth Castle have historically been poorly maintained and there is little evidence
of the existence of prior housekeeping policies. Because of financial constraints no cleaning staff are employed.
Cleaning is undertaken by front of house staff and volunteers in areas open to the public, and in areas where
collection items are stored, by the Collections Officer and volunteers. This has been piecemeal and it is fair to say
that some areas are better maintained than others.
The new housekeeping policy (May 2009) is a thorough document meeting current Museums Libraries and
Archives standards, outlines detailed aims, guidance, procedures and responsibilities. The challenge will be the
implementation of the policies, procedures and guidance.
Policy C4.1 Tamworth Castle aims to ensure that all buildings, including stores, displays and office space are cleaned
and inspected regularly on a rolling programme to minimise the potential damage from mould, pests, dust and other
contaminants.
Policy C4.2 Authorisation and responsibility: Front of house staff are responsible for undertaking regular cleaning of all
areas on the castle. There is a separate document ‘cleaning duties’ that forms part of the Tamworth Castle procedural
manual. Basic cleaning of items on display should be carried out quarterly, following training from the Collections Officer.
Policy C4.3 The Collections officer and trained volunteers are responsible for undertaking all cleaning of items on display
and the surface cleaning of items within stores. Any items that require anything more than surface cleaning must be
referred to a trained conservator.
Policy C4.4 The Collections Officer in discussion with the Heritage and Visitor Services Manager, is responsible for devising
and amending housekeeping policies and procedures and overseeing their implementation.
Policy C4.5 Preventative Housekeeping: where possible items are stored in archival quality containers to prevent the
settling of dust and dirt on the surface of the object.
Policy C4.6 When building work is to be undertaken in areas where there are objects stored or displayed, it is advisable to
temporarily relocate the objects to avoid the need for extra cleaning.
Policy C4.7 Any object that is accepted into the museum is inspected on condition and cleanliness to reduce the risk of pest
contamination and damage to existing collections.
Policy C4.8 Eating and drinking is not permitted in collection areas. Any area where human food is stored or prepared,
especially the kitchen, must be cleaned on a regular basis. When food is consumed in the museum buildings the area must
be cleaned up immediately. Food remains and wrappers must be deposited in sealed bins located in the kitchen facilities in
the castle and Holloway Lodge.
Policy C4.9 Housekeeping procedures, annual cleaning programme: A detailed set of procedures has been written and an
annual programme of cleaning for the entire castle and all off-site storage areas has been introduced (2009).
Policy C5: Protect and where appropriate, enhance the setting of the castle, removing
intrusive elements and guarding against inappropriate future development.
Policy C5.1 The borough council will continue to protect the setting of Tamworth Castle through the control of works that
may affect the character of listed and other buildings.
Policy C5.2 The borough council will continue to promote the repair, conservation and regeneration of the Market Street
premises through the Town Centre Partnership.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
103

Policy C6 Understand and protect the ecological value of the Castle, Motte and its
riverine and parkland setting.
D Policies Information, Recording and Research
Research investigations
A research investigation involving intrusive works requiring scheduled monument consent may be justified if there
will be a public benefit gained if the investigation results in an increased understanding of our past, and this will be
maximised if it is well planned, executed and the results properly publicised and disseminated.
Any intrusive investigation may reduce the significance of the castle and impair its capacity for future archaeological
investigation. It may also affect the historic and aesthetic values of the castle and bailey. Factors to be considered
include:
• Whether at least part of the investigation can be achieved using non-destructive techniques
• Whether the understanding sought could be found elsewhere, perhaps from another site
where destruction is inevitable
• The likelihood of the investigation yielding critical evidence to our understanding of the past
• The predicted rate of environmental decay of the asset
Metal detecting on a scheduled monument for any reason requires a licence and intrusive investigation for research
purposes will require scheduled monument consent. Further guidance is published by DCMS and advice can be
sought from English Heritage.
Policy D1: Promote further studies of Tamworth Castle, its setting and the documentary
sources relating to its history, with an agenda for investigations and an ability to
respond to opportunities.
Policy D2: Create and maintain a formal archive or information base relating to
Tamworth Castle, distinct from working files, to include a record of all interventions in
the site.
Policy D3: Ensure that archaeological analysis and recording of fabric is undertaken in
advance of repairs and that recording of repair/conservation works is undertaken and
curated in the castle archive.
Policy D4: Promote further documentary research, to inform the understanding and
presentation of the castle and its relationship to the town of Tamworth through further
studies of the Court Leet and other documentary sources.
Policy D5: Undertake archaeological investigations into: the putative outer bailey;
bailey; castle mill; fisheries and deer park, if the opportunity arises in advance of
development.
104 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

E Policies Access and Visitor Services
Policy E 1: Develop a visitor management and circulation policy to distribute visitors
around the site and minimise the impact on sensitive areas at peak periods, and for this
to inform the siting and design of interpretive media and events to take account of the
carrying capacity of the site and significance and vulnerability of specific rooms and
features.
Policy E2: Make enjoyment and understanding of the significance of Tamworth Castle and
the people who have lived and worked in it, accessible to all.
Policy E3: Extend public access and understanding to all significant areas of the castle,
where practicable.
Policy E4: Manage access and site operations for minimum impact on the site, by the
sensitive location of visitor services and administrative areas.
Policy E5: Promote Tamworth Castle for a broad range of community and cultural
activities for a wide range of audiences.
Policy E6: Develop an integrated Visitor Welcome, Signage and Orientation policy from
the point of entry (station, jolly sailor car park, Ventura shopping centre) to draw visitors
to the castle using the concept of a gateway and trail through park and from station, at
town centre car parks, TIC.
Policy E7: Undertake and regularly review Disability Awareness training for staff and
volunteers, to minimise the physical access constraints of the site.
Policy E8: Enhance the visitor welcome, and provide family-friendly orientation.
Policy E9: Review and manage the visitor circulation route, up to and around the castle;
consider access via the steps from Holloway Lodge and exit via the current ramp along the
wing wall.
Policy E10: Explore the possibility of moving the shop and cafe to the Market Lodge (with
seasonal external seating between the lodge and medieval gatehouse to the Market
Lodge exit from the castle).
Policy E 11: Consider reinstating a gate at the bottom of the herringbone wall causeway/
entrance to control access onto the perimeter path and summit of the motte at night, to
restrict anti-social behaviour.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
105

F Policies Engagement
Policy F1: Re-engage with the Friends of Tamworth Castle and offer a more active role
again through capacity development and training.
Policy F2: Actively consult more widely, on the development and presentation of the
castle though the use of social media networks.
Policy F3: Develop training for volunteers in: research; conservation tasks; living
history; costume making collections management tasks; interpretation and in support
of customer service roles.
Policy F4: Relate volunteer tasks to their skills and experience.
Policy: F5: Seek people’s memories of and reactions to the castle. Collect and curate
these in partnership with local groups, to extend the castle collections on the social
history of Tamworth.
Policy F6: Provide space for temporary displays by local schools and community
groups, which record the castle and park over the seasons.
Policy F7: Develop a display about caring for the castle and the collections. Develop a
regular guided walk/talk programme on ‘how we care for collections and castle and how
you can do the same at home.
Policy F8: Make provision for those who visit when no re-enactors are on site, and
develop the capacity and range of volunteer re-enactors.
106 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

G Policies Presenting and interpreting the castle
Policy G1: Develop presentation of all phases of Tamworth Castle within a clear
interpretation plan that encourages full visitor enjoyment and understanding (to
include the significant Norman, Medieval, and Jacobean phases which are currently
under represented).
Policy G2: Consider a re-ordering of room uses, decoration, presentation and
circulation to make best use of the building for interpretation and visitor services and
minimise the impact on the fabric.
Policy G3: Improve the quality of presentation of Tamworth Castle to a consistent high
standard and to minimise intrusive elements, to make provision for visitors attending
when there is no living history event.
Policy G4: Build on the success of the costumed interpretation at Tamworth to widen
it to include the important Saxon (for the town of Tamworth), Norman, Medieval and
Jacobean phases.
Policy G5: Engage and train volunteers to research and present the story of Tamworth
Castle through living history and costumed interpretation workshops for families and
school groups.
Policy G6: Draw on the historical and archaeological sources to inform and enhance the
presentation of room settings and functions, and tell the stories of the people who lived
and worked at Tamworth Castle over 1000 years.
Policy G7: Enhance interpretation and presentation of the bailey and wider castle park
to create an appropriate setting and to aid historical understanding.
Policy G8: Enhance the interpretation of the nationally significant aspects of the castle
which are at present poorly understood and not presented: The Motte; The Norman
Shell Keep and Integral Tower; the Herringbone Masonry Wing Wall and Late Medieval
Great Hall as well as the wider medieval castle park, mills and fisheries.
Policy G9: Explain the work routinely carried out to care for the castle, the bailey and
the collections, and how they can be damaged.
Policy G10: Move away from perpetuating myths (Dungeon, haunted bedroom) in the
presentation and draw on the fascinating true stories which can be presented in a lively
and engaging way (sieges; royal visits; royal champions; disputes with local residents
etc).
Policy G11: Continue to develop the range of educational provision for school and other
groups, as an important element in interpretation and the promotion of access.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
107

Policy G12: Develop Tamworth Castle’s tourism and cultural provision role through
effective marketing, both of the Castle and the town as a whole and its key role in the
Saxon kingdom of Mercia.
Policy G13: Develop and implement a policy on the sustainable sourcing, design and
production of exhibitions and displays.
Policy G14: Build in a budget for maintenance of interpretive media and technology.
H Policies Collections Management
To meet the requirements of Accreditation by Museums Libraries and Archives, Tamworth Castle has to comply with
a number of nationally agreed standards and policies for Collections Management. This includes the production of
its own Collections Care Manual which describes the issues affecting collections and the policies for their care and
enhancement.
There is considerable overlap in the principles for conservation of the Historic Environment and conservation of
collections. Collections Link defines conservation in the context of collections:
‘The management of change to our heritage. It is about minimising and controlling long term risk by understanding and
controlling the way objects are stored, transported and displayed to ensure collections have the best chance of survival
into the future.
Remedial, or interventive conservation, often involves cleaning and stabilising an object and is a painstaking and
sometimes very expensive.
Preventative conservation aims to improve the environment and conditions for an object to keep deterioration to a
minimum. The conservator’s main enemies are changes in humidity, inadequate or unsuitable lighting and dust.’
The Tamworth Castle Collections Care Manual aims to limit the impact of deterioration and decay and addresses the
main agents of decay and deterioration:
• Direct physical force, which includes unnecessary and/or incorrect handling, incorrect mounting
for display, and over cleaning
• Thieves and vandalism
• Fire
• Water
• Pests
• Contaminants such as dust
• Light radiation
• Incorrect temperature
• Incorrect relative humidity
Baseline Position
Tamworth Castle currently has the following in place relating to the care and conservation of collections:
• Piecemeal pest monitoring
• Piecemeal temperature and relative humidity monitoring
• Annual building maintenance review
• Security review of stores
• Lighting control, UV filters on windows in display rooms and black out blinds in stores
• Archival quality storage and packing for around half of the collection, some archive material,
social history collection, costume collection and large objects
• Consolidation of off-site storage in a new purpose designed storage space (April 2010)
108 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Policy H1 Documentation Backlog
Policy H1.1 The backlog policy will be published and reviewed at least once every five years, it is next due for review in
2014.
Policy H.1.2The Backlog Action Plan will be updated yearly to ensure that it remains relevant to current priorities.
Policy H1.3 The Collections Care Manual will be published and reviewed every 5 years, so the next review is due in 2014.
Policy H1.4. The Collections Conservation Action Plan (2009) is to be updated annually to ensure that it remains relevant.
Policy H2 Packing and Storage
This policy reviews the strengths and weaknesses of current packing and storage and outlines new guiding
principles for packing or repacking, and recommended materials.
The guidelines recommended are based on best practice advocated by the National Preservation Office for archive
material, Collections Link and MLA.
Policy H2.1 The overall principle is that items must be protected as much as possible from dirt, dust, pest and damage,
without restricting access to the items
Policy H2.2 Items are not to be over-packed, wherever possible packing should enable items to be viewed without
removing them from their packaging.
Policy H3 Ensure sustainable access to and use of Collections
The main reason for preserving items in the collection is to enable the general public and researchers to make use
of the information they contain and to learn about what they can tell us about the past.
Policy H3.1 Tamworth Castle will ensure sustainable access to objects in its collections.
Policy H3.2 The use of an object must ensure the long term preservation of the resource item itself.
Policy H3.3 The Handling Collection maintained for educational use shall not contain any unique items, or items with
direct connection to the castle or the families that occupied it.
Policy H4 Environmental monitoring and control
Tamworth Castle’s main aim is to ensure that there is minimal fluctuation in environmental conditions. It is
preferable to have conditions that may be slightly out of the recommended range, but are consistently stable, than
to have conditions that are mostly in the recommended range, but fluctuate dramatically.
Policy H4.1 Collections will be stored and displayed in a managed environment that minimises their rate of deterioration.
Policy H4.2 The environment in storage and display areas will be monitored to assess how far conditions resemble their
target. The following will be recorded:
• Relative Humidity (RH)
• Temperature
• Light Levels (both Ultra Violet and visible)
• Pests
Policy H4.4 Continuous recording systems will be used, as far as possible, rather than relying on on-the-spot readings from
hand held meters. This will allow for a clearer picture of fluctuations of environmental conditions over a 24 hour period.
Policy H4.5 Monitoring results will be interpreted and all the data kept together and filed so that it can be located easily.
Policy H4.6 A brief quarterly summary of results to be produced highlighting areas of concern and unexpected
fluctuations, with a note on weather conditions on the day if any anomalies are noted.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
109

Policy H4.7 A brief annual monitoring report on environmental conditions to be produced for management purposes it
will contain a summary of conditions in each display room (and the stores) including:
the minimum and maximum annual temperature; relative humidity; light levels and average fluctuation in a 24 hour
period.
Policy H4.8 Dataloggers will be used within display rooms and stores to measure temperature and RH at set intervals,
readings will also be taken outdoors to act as a control sample.
Policy H5 Insect Pest monitoring and management
Pests need to be managed within the castle, not only do they damage the collections there is clear evidence of
structural damage by beetles.
All collections are at risk from pest infestations and the structural timber of the castle itself has suffered from pest
infestation.
At particular risk are organic materials such as textiles, costume, furniture and archive material.
Policy H 5.1 The Integrated Pest Management Strategy aims to prevent or contain infestation through effective
management of the museum environment and the maintenance of high standards of cleaning and housekeeping.
Policy H5.2 By denying pests food and harbourage through effective housekeeping routines and also denying them
warmth and humidity through effective environmental control, Tamworth Castle will aim to prevent pests from becoming
established and causing damage (Pinniger 2004)
Policy H5.3 Areas containing collection items both on display and in store, will be monitored using sticky blunder insect
traps. These will be checked regularly every quarter and replaced annually.
Policy H5.4 All incoming items will be checked for signs of insect pest infestation prior to entering display or storage areas.
Policy H5.5 All items found to be infested will be isolated.
Policy H6 Remedial Conservation
Tamworth Castle does not have suitably trained or qualified staff to undertake remedial conservation.
Policy H6.1 Due to funding constraints, remedial conservation will only be undertaken on extremely significant items,
where it is necessary to ensure their continued survival and accessibility.
Policy H6.2 Tamworth Castle will only undertake remedial conservation to stabilise objects rather than restore them
Policy H 6.3 All conservation work will be undertaken in accordance with the standards set down in the code of ethics of
the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (UKIC).
Policy H 6.4 Treatments should be reversible wherever possible
Policy H6.5 Treatments should not affect the ability to retrieve information
Policy H6.6 All treatments will be photographed and documented on MODES and records will be maintained in
accordance with SPECTRUM standards.
Policy H 6.7 Documentation is to be maintained throughout the conservation process, relating to the object’s condition
before conservation work, the treatment and materials used during conservation and the condition of the object after
conservation. This information is to be stored in the object’s history file.
Policy H7 Documentation procedures
To meet the minimum standards for collections care a museum should undertake:
A collection condition overview: to ensure that awareness of the condition and needs of all items in the collection is
maintained. An appropriate programme is in place to ensure that a visual inspection of all the collections is carried out.
Sensitive or vulnerable items are identified and appropriate action planned.
110 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

The backlog action plan will involve a review and update of the documentation of every object within the
collections. As part of this process the condition records on each object’ s catalogue card will also be reviewed and
updated.
All information on catalogue cards will be updated onto a new MODES database as part of the Backlog policy.
The Collections Officer will be responsible for undertaking the condition survey as part of the Backlog Action Plan.
Policy H7.1 Due to the current backlog, the main priority is to establish an accurate up to date basic record of the condition
of all objects within the collections.
Policy H 7.2 The Documentation procedural manual complied in 2009 will be used to as a training manual for all new
collections staff and volunteers, to ensure uniformity of practice.
Policy H7.3 All documentation carried out will be done so in accordance with policies and procedures contained within the
manual.
Policy H8 Backlog Policy and Plan
Accreditation requires that a museum meets minimum requirements in the documentation and care of its
collections. As part of Tamworth Castle’s preparation for Accreditation a review of the collections has been
undertaken and significant backlogs have been identified.
The Accreditation standard requires the ‘creation of a written documentation plan, setting out actions, including the
timescale, for dealing with any backlog’
The term ‘backlog’ in this context means a procedure which has either not been implemented, or has been
implemented but not to accreditation standard.
Policy H 8.1 The backlog policy will be published and reviewed at least once every five years, it is next due for review in
2014.
Policy H 8.2 The Backlog Action Plan will be updated yearly to ensure that it remains relevant to current priorities.
Policy H9: Carry out an audit of the archival collections and storage with a view to
making recommendations on future policy for the location of the archival material.
Policy H10: Develop and implement an Emergency Policy and Plan.
Policy H11: Continue to provide appropriate storage and display conditions for
collections, against agreed sector benchmarks.
Policy H12: Take measures to slow deterioration of, and prevent damage to, objects
through the implementation of a preventative housekeeping policy.
Policy H13: Review conservation standards against appropriate benchmarks.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
111

J Policies Site Management
These policies are to ensure that Tamworth Borough Council meets all statutory and legal requirements for the
management of the site.
That its policies and procedures place protection of the significance of the castle, at the heart of all its decisions and
actions.
That an understanding of visitors’ comfort, needs and motivations are key to delivering a first class visitor
experience.
Policy J 1: Meet all statutory and legal requirements for protection of the site, the
health and safety of individuals and the requirements of disabilities legislation, by
means which ensure minimum impact on the significance of the castle.
Policy J 2: Ensure the management arrangements at Tamworth Castle safeguard its
historical integrity and the public interest in access, through shared aims and objectives
and consistent methods of working in partnership.
Policy J3: Develop an effective strategy for staff and contractor parking that minimises
the risk to visitors and park users and minimises the impact on the historic fabric and
setting of the castle, its bailey and landscaped grounds.
Policy J4: Review facilities for visitor parking, including disabled access drop off point,
within an overall framework for visitor parking for the town.
Policy J5: Implement the motte management policy and ensure that contractors and
officers are aware of the significance of the motte and how it might be damaged.
Policy J6: Ensure that castle staff and grounds maintenance teams working in the bailey
are aware of archaeological constraints and consents procedures.
Policy J7: Re-introduce and monitor a regular programme of cleaning within the castle
and the budget to support it.
Policy J8: Develop a strategy and procedures for effective volunteer management and
motivation.
Policy J9: Develop a policy for regularly reviewing the effectiveness , maintenance and
replacement of visitor orientation, waymarking and interpretive signage.
Policy J10: Enhance the visitor welcome and orientation at key gateways (Station, Jolly
Sailor Car Park, Ventura Retail Park, Car Park at foot of castle mound) to the castle and
other town centre attractions.
Policy J11: Develop a waymarked interpretive trail leading to and from the castle, and
other town centre attractions, across Ladybridge, through the historic castle park
and modern castle pleasure grounds, for pedestrians and cyclists linked to the main
gateways.
112 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

2.5 Recommendations and next steps
This section sets out the main aspects of the adoption and implementation of the Conservation Management Plan
policies.
2.5.1 Consultation and agreement
The Conservation policies outlined in this plan will be promoted within Tamworth Borough Council as the basis for
future management of Tamworth Castle. They will also help to ensure that separate areas of responsibility are based
on a common set of principles.
The plan and its policies will need to be subject to agreement with other departments within Tamworth Borough
Council, the support of elected members, and with other stakeholders including English Heritage and Staffordshire
County Council and the Friends of Tamworth Castle. This process of agreement may require further consultation to
resolve any remaining concerns, or new developments and secure full support.
2.5.2 The adoption of the conservation plan
The purpose of the conservation plan is to inform and guide the long term future management of the castle. Any
future management decisions should be informed by the assessment of significance and the policies set out in
the plan. In order to achieve this it is important that the document is adopted by the key stakeholder Tamworth
Borough Council, and distributed to, and used by all those involved in managing the site.
It is essential that the conservation management plan is a living document, which is updated and amended as new
information comes to light. After adoption, the plan itself will need to be reviewed at regular intervals to reflect
increased knowledge, altered circumstances, changes in legislation or guidance and the changing aspirations of
Tamworth Borough Council. The plan may ultimately need to be reviewed every five to ten years, though initially a
more frequent review process may be desirable.
Further information about the motte, and the castle is likely to be uncovered during the consolidation work.
The most appropriate place for this new information, is likely to be the gazetteer, which consequently will need
updating most frequently.
In order to ensure that the plan is updated regularly an electronic master copy should be held by Tamworth
Borough Council and responsibility for holding and updating this document should be allocated to a specific
person, or post holder. The most appropriate person to bear this responsibility would be the Heritage Services
Manager (though in practice the updating of the document would be delegated to commissioned specialists).
2.5.3 Gazetteer
The detailed descriptions of individual elements of the castle with a summary of their significance and the issues
affecting that significance are included in the separate gazetteer. This is also contains the illustrations referred to in
this report.
2.5.4 Impact Assessment and Mitigation
In developing new works and changes to the castle and its bailey, it will be necessary to prepare an assessment
which identifies the visual, architectural, historical, archaeological and ecological impacts of any proposal on the
fabric or significance of the site. Ways should then be found by which the potential impact can be avoided or
minimised, or by which its effects can be mitigated.
The process is in effect a three part scheme:
• Initial assessment to identify potential impacts of the proposal (which may include further building
and documentary studies and recording of fabric and application for statutory consents).
• Revision of the initial outline scheme
• Mitigation strategy (archaeological recording; control of intervention; preservation of record;
public interpretation and engagement)
A heritage impact assessment of the works proposed under the current HLF project is provided in the gazetteer.
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
113

Costed 10 year Action Plan
• Arrangements for annual inspection
• Detailed list of items for inspection and maintenance for short and long term
• Timing of work
• Resources
• Arrangements for Record Keeping
2.5.4 Adoption, Implementation and Review
It is recommended that the Conservation Plan is formally adopted by the Local Planning Authority as
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
It can also be used as the basis for a Heritage Partnership Agreement, drawn up with English Heritage to agree
consents for routine maintenance.
The plan should be reviewed in 5 years and the gazetteer periodically updated after significant new discoveries
during works on site.
A copy of this document and the gazetteer should be lodged in the castle archive along with the management and
maintenance plan and records of past interventions.
Tamworth Borough Council have commissioned this document as a sign of their commitment to the maintenance of
the significance of the Castle for current and future residents of Tamworth.
114 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Consultees
Louise Troman, Heritage Services Manager
Tamworth Borough Council
Sarah Williams, Documentation Officer
Tamworth Borough, Council
Kirsty Sherwood, Education Officer, Tamworth Castle,
Tamworth Borough Council
Audrey Pulcella, Front of House Manager, Tamworth
Castle, Tamworth Borough Council
Robert Mitchell, Director of Community and
Partnerships, Tamworth Borough Council
Bob Meeson, former Staffordshire County Archaeologist
and author of draft Conservation Management Plan for
Tamworth Castle
Steve Mason, Partner, Hancock Wheeldon and
Ainscough Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers
Katy Stiles, Senior Ecologist Baker, Shepherd and
Gillespie, Ecological Consultants
Cllr Bruce Broughton, Leader Tamworth Borough
Council (until December 2009, former portfolio holder
for the castle)
Cllr Jeremy Oates, Portfolio Holder for Economic
Development and Enterprise (including the castle)
Cllr Rob Pritchard, Portfolio Holder for Corporate
Governance
Cllr Mary Oates, Portfolio Holder for Quality of Life
Cllr Danny Cook, Portfolio Holder for Community
Cohesion
Cllr John Garner, Cabinet Member, Councillor for Castle
Ward
Jane Parry, Development Plan and Conservation Officer,
Tamworth Borough Council
James Roberts , Economic Development and Enterprise
Manager, Tamworth Borough Council
Matthew Fletcher, Economic Development Officer,
Tamworth Borough Council
Fred Gibson, Consulting Architect ST Walker and
Duckham
Richard Finnigan, Marketing and Publicity Officer,
Tamworth Borough Council
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Matthew Bowers, Development Plan Manager,
Tamworth Borough Council
Stacy Birt, Manager Tourist Information Centre
Tamworth
Ian Perkins, Tamyouth Leader Staffordshire County
Council
Ian Owen, Street Scene Development Officer, Tamworth
Borough Council
David Tomlinson, Manager Tamworth Assembly Rooms
Helen Trueman, Tamworth Council for Voluntary Service
Nicola Leadbetter, Youth Volunteer Adviser,
Staffordshire County Council
Ken Clayton, Tamworth Heritage Trust
John Harper, Local Historian and features writer
Tamworth Herald
Steve Greenhall, Friends of Tamworth Castle
Maureen Tonks, Friends of Tamworth Castle
Dave Ansell, Chair, Friends of Tamworth Castle
Brian Beasley, Friends of Tamworth Castle
Pat and Geoff Thompson, Friends of Tamworth Castle
Steve Dean, Staffordshire County Archaeologist
Dr Nigel Tringham, University of Keele, Staffordshire VCH
Part 2
115

Sources
Technical
Baker, Shepherd, Gillespie 2009 Tamworth Castle,
Tamworth Staffordshire, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
& Bat Surveys, Oct 2009
CGMS 2007 Tamworth Town Conservation Area Appraisal
English Heritage 2008 Conservation Principles Policies
and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the
Historic Environment
Henry A (ed) 2006 Stone Conservation, Principles and
Practice, Donhead
Heritage Lottery Fund 2008 Conservation Management
Planning
John Austin and Partners 2006 Order of cost nr.one
, Future Conservation Repairs and Improvements at
Tamworth Castle , March 2006
Reid J 1970 A report on the structural condition of
the retaining wall to the perimeter walkway, and
recommendation for repair and reinstatement (letter
within castle archives, no ref no.)
Ridout Associates 2006 Timber decay investigations at
Tamworth Castle, Tamworth, July 2006 (speaking knight,
annie cooke’s bedroom, passage, covered footbridge,
office, warders lodge, north stairs 2 nd floor, guardroom,
day parlour,)
Bob Tolley 2005 Quinquennial inspection, ST Walker and
Duckham 2005
Tamworth Borough Council 2005 Town Centre
Conservation Area, Statement of Designation and
Reasoned Justification, Interim Planning Guidance
Troman L 2007 Tamworth Castle Motte Management
Policy, Tamworth Borough Council
Peake G et al 2007 Survey of the motte for wild flowers,
from the base of the castle and the base of the motte
ST Walker and Duckham 2008 Tamworth Castle Access
Audit and Feasibility Study for Access Improvement
Williams S 2009
Tamworth Castle Emergency Plan
116 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Sources
Archaeological, Historical and
architectural history
Calendars of State Papers, Domestic 1642-1660 (HMSO)
Airs M 1995 The Tudor and Jacobean Country House
Alcock N 2006 Collections for a History of Tamworth Castle
Allsopp F 1959 The Ancient Well of St Ruffin
Armitage E 1910 The Early Norman Castles of the British
Isles, John Murray (pp 207, 230-231, 244)
Brown M and Farr C (eds) 2001 Mercia an Anglo Saxon
kingdom in Europe, continuum
Cane J 1989 Trial Excavations at Tamworth Castle,
Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit 1989
(post holes on motte and Stamford ware)
Cooper N 1999 Houses of the Gentry, Yale University Press
(ref to transition from late 15 th to 17 th century, Ferrers
typified this trend from med appearance and amenities
to modern in appearance, display)
Creighton O 2002 Castles and Landscapes, power,
community and fortification in Medieval England, equinox
Danson EW 1969-70 ‘ the Anglo – Saxon and Norman
mint of Tamworth’ Trans South Staffs Arch Soc (11): 32-57
Dugdale W 1765 The Antiquities of Warwickshire
(ref to Ferrers p.24)
Edden P 1986 Report on statuary garden urns in
the grounds of Tamworth Castle,
(handwritten note in castle archives, 1897.0.1)
Erdeswike S 1844 edition A survey of Staffordshire by
Sampson Erdeswike (ref to Tamworth pp 437-443) (based
on manuscripts of 1553-1603)
Gould J 1987 ‘Saint Edith of Polesworth and Tamworth’
Trans S Staffs Arch & Hist Soc (27) for 1985-6 (1987): 37
Johnson M 2002 Behind the Castle Gate, from Medieval to
Renaissance, Routledge
Hall L 2005 Period House Fixtures and fittings 1300-1900,
Countryside Books
Higham R 1989 ‘Timber castles a re-assessment’, in
Fortress i (1989):50-60
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Liddiard R (ed) 2003 Anglo Norman Castles, Boydell Press
Liddiard R (ed) 2007 The Medieval Park, new perspectives,
Windgather press
Litherland S 1995 Tamworth Castle, Staffordshire: A report
on watching briefs of drainage works on the motte and
coach house, Birmingham University Field Archaeology
Unit, Report No.381/01
Meeson R 1977 ‘Tenth Tamworth Excavation Report,
1977: The Norman Bailey Defences of the Castle’ Trans S
Staffs Arch & Hist Soc (20) for 1978-79 (1980):17
Meeson R 1979 The formation of Tamworth (unpublished
MA thesis, University of Birmingham) copy on deposit in
collections at Tamworth Castle
Meeson R 1997 Tamworth Castle Bailey: archaeological
watching brief Report 97/09 (Nov. 1997): 14 (zinc buckets
in lower lawn, modern date?)
Meeson R 1983 ‘The timber frame of the hall at
Tamworth Castle, Staffordshire and its context’
Archaeol. J cxl (1983): 329-40
Meeson R 2001 Tamworth Castle: archaeological watching
brief in the shell keep, March 2001 (rep.no.01/06) (in
basement cellar of north range, nothing survived, floor
deposits damaged by later services)
Meeson R 2003 Tamworth Castle: archaeological watching
brief 31 March 2003 (rep.no.03.10) (shell keep footings
lower than perimeter terrace path)
Meeson R 2006 Tamworth Castle Draft Conservation Plan,
part two understanding the castle
Mitchell H 1936 Tamworth tower and town
Moloney C 1995 Excavations at the Peel Arms site,
Tamworth Staffordshire, Trans S Staffs Arch & Hist Soc 34
for 1992-93 (1995): 5-20
Mc Grath E 1992 Letter/comment on the symbolism
of the chimney piece in the oak room, in room file at
Tamworth Castle
Mc Neil T 1989 Excavations at Tamworth Castle 1972 and
1974 Trans S Staffs Arch & Hist Soc 29 (1989)
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
Palmer C 1845 The History of the town and castle of
Tamworth
Part 2
117

Rahtz P and Meeson R 1992 An Anglo-Saxon watermill at
Tamworth CBA Research Report no. 83 (1992)
Renn D 1973 (2 nd Ed) Norman Castles in Britain, John Baker
Renn D 1994 ‘Burhgeat and gonfanon: two sidelights
from the Bayeux Tapestry’, Anglo Norman Studies xvi
(1994): 177-86 (reprinted in Liddiard 2003: 105-118)
Reid J 1969 Letter from Conservation Architect, report
on condition of floor in Great Hall
Rouse C 1959 Report on an examination of the north
wall of the Great Hall, Tamworth Castle (file ref.1897.0.4
Banqueting Hall)
Shaw M 2011 Tamworth:origins, growth and development,
for Staffordshire County Council and English Heritage
Shaw S 1801 The History and Antiquities of Staffordshire
vol.1 (1798-1801)
Smith, L T (ed) 1910 The Itinerary of John Leland in or
about the years 1535-45, 5 vols.
(p.103 ref to Tamworth)
Soden I (ed) 2007 Stafford Castle, Survey, Excavation and
Research 1978-1998, Vol. II The Excavations
Thompson M W 1987 The Decline of the Castle,
Cambridge University Press
Wessex Archaeology 2009 Tamworth Castle, The
Holloway, Tamworth, Staffordshire, Archaeological
Assessment of Loggia Porch and Courtyard evaluation (ref:
72370.01) Nov. 2009
Williams A 2003 ‘A bell-house and a burh-geat: lordly
residences in England before the Norman Conquest’, in
Liddiard 2003: 23-40
Wood H 1952 Tamworth Borough Records, being a
catalogue of civic records with appendices
Wood H 1958 Borough by prescription, a history of the
municipality of Tamworth (ref to outer bailey ditch, p29)
Wood H 1972 Medieval Tamworth
Wood H nd Guide to Tamworth Castle
Wood M 1965 The English Medieval House
Primary Sources
In 1952 Henry Wood, the town clerk retrieved the
Borough Charters, which were in a poor condition
whilst in store at Tamworth Castle, and arranged for
them to be conserved. At the same time he produced
a catalogue. This included charters, letters patent etc,
manorial searches, court leet and court baron.
In 1898, following the purchase of Tamworth Castle, the
corporation commissioned a search and transcriptions
to establish their manorial rights, copies of these
transcriptions were published by Wood, in his 1952
guide. Between 1955-56 at the request of the Borough
Council, Miss M.K. Dale transcribed parts of the 250 rolls
containing the proceedings of the manorial courts from
1288-1836. Summaries of the extracts were published by
Wood in 1958 and 1972 and Gould in 1972.
Dr Nat Alcock produced transcriptions of relevant
entries in calendars of state records at the William
Salt Library in Stafford to inform the Conservation
Management Plan. He also accessed a number of
primary documents at other locations.These papers are
described as: Collections for a History of Tamworth Castle
(CHTC) and are available to consult in the Tamworth
Castle archive.
The collection includes:
Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum I 1204-1224 (1833)
Patent Rolls1216-1225 Henry III (1901)
Cal Charter Rolls 1226-1257, i (1903)
Cal Close Rolls 1234-37 Henry III (1908)
Cal Liberate Rolls iv, 1267-72 (1964)
Cal Inquisitiones Post Mortem iii, Edward I (1912)
Cal Fine Rolls i, Edward I 1272-1307 (1911)
1810 Map of the Estates of Tamworth and in the counties
or Wawrick and Stafford, the property of the most noble
George, Marquis of Townshend & Earl of Leicester.
Surveyed by J.Eagle 1810 (Staffordshire County Record
Office D. 854)
118 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Picture Credits
Vol. 1 Significance, Issues and Policies
Cover, pp 38-39 Paul Watkins Sky Lens
p.26 Wessex Archaeology
p.80 Baker, Shepherd and Gillespie
All other photos Marion Blockley
Vol. 2 Gazetteer
Pages 7, 13 - 16, 22 - 23, 41, 42 (top), 44, 45 (bottom and top right),
117, 120, 129, 130 (bottom right) Paul Watkins Sky Lens
Page 64 Buckler 1849 Interior view of the Hall at Tamworth Castle 45/9805. Copyright Staffordshire County Council,
William Salt Library (with permission)
Figs 1-4 Michael Shaw
Figs 5,6 NGM Surveys
Figs 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 Bob Meeson
Fig. 8 Blockley after Meeson 2006
Figs 9-11, 19, 20 Blockley
Figs 13, 21 Copyright Staffordshire County Record Office (with permission)
Fig 14 Tamworth Castle Collection, Tamworth Borough Council
Plates 1, 2 & 3 Paul Watkins Sky Lens
Plates 4,9,12, 15, 19-36, 39-49 Tamworth Castle Collection, Tamworth Borough Council
Plates 10, 11 Copyright Staffordshire County Council, William Salt Library (with permission)
Plates 16-17 Copyright Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Archive (with permission)
Plate 18 Copyright British Library Add 29265 (with permission)
Plates 37, 38 Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
Plates 50-54 Marion Blockley
All other photos Marion Blockley
Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
119

Appendix 1
120 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
121

122 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
123

Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
125

126 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
127

Appendix 2
128 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan www.marionblockley.co.uk
Part 2
129

130 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan

Appendix 3
A map of that part of the Liberty of the Castle of Tamworth that lies on the north side of the river Tame, in the
county of Warwick, belonging to the right honourable James, Marquess of Northampton. Taken in the year 1741 by
W. Wyatt. (Staffs Record Office, D.854/1)
Key:
A The Castle inn with outbuildings, yards etc
B John James Houses, backyard with stables
and part of a shore
C Mr Oake’s backside
D Mr Pointon’s backside
E Mr Aston’s backside with brewhouse and stable
F Mr Machin’s backside with brewhouse and stable
G Joseph Wilcox’s backside with brewhouse
and stable
H Ben Moor and Joseph Wilcox’s building
I Joseph Smith’s house and garden with shop
and warehouses
K Part of Alport’s house
L Part of Dr Cotes’s
M Orchard in common
N The boundaries of an old tower
O The Bull Inn, outbuildings, yards and gardens
P Mr Daws’s buildings, yards and garden
Q Mr Vaughan’s buildings , yards and garden
R The Angel Inn with buildings, yards, stable
S Part of Mr Tristram’s house and garden
T Mr Will’s Cold Bath and garden
U Mr Homer’s garden and slang by the tenters
W Millers Garden
X Part of the mill
Y The mill stable with bowling green, being
all the flat part of the castle hill
Z Castle garden with part of the hill adjoining
A The other banky part of the hill without the
walls surrounding the castle
B Site of castle and walk around the same
C Castle Court an Oat Market
D Castle Barns, Stable and Barn Yard
E All the waste ground from the stile into the
castle court to the common shore
132 Part 2 www.marionblockley.co.uk Tamworth Castle Conservation Management Plan