Updated. This blogpost started with the destruction of a tree in Peterborough. A 600-year-old oak that would have been part of the ancient woodland of Grimeshaw Wood was chopped down by the council due to a perceived cost of repairing modern houses built too close to the tree. In short, it was cheaper to cut down a 600-year-old habitat than fix a modern house, so the tree had to go.
I was horrified by the decision and knew that should this
have been a historic building, the scene would have looked very different
indeed. I knew that St John’s church in the middle of Peterborough was built in
1402 and was therefore a similar age. In contrast to the tree being removed,
the church benefitted from recent improvements to increase its visibility and
the addition of green spaces (there were trees in planters, but they weren’t
replaced when they died); the church is also grade I listed. To so carefully curate a space around an old building is of
course a wonderful thing, but to treat a living item of the same age as an
annoyance and see only the expense in potential damage (when the church must
cost a lot of money to maintain every year) is short-sighted at the very least.
The sooner we can apply similar listed status to trees – the current tree
protection orders are no better than the paper they’re written on – and respect
them with the same integrity we do buildings, the better.
This led me to wonder what other buildings are the same age
as the oak and how it fitted into the history of the area, so I set about
making a list of the ages of local buildings. I realised very early on that for
the task to be manageable I would need to reduce the date parameters for the
task, so all of the buildings included in the list are pre-1700. This date
ensures that only the oldest buildings are included, and they should (should!)
be listed.
One of the issues with creating a list of buildings by date
is that many of the buildings are mixtures of dates, having been rebuilt, added
to, or adjusted. I therefore had to decide whether the building be dated based
on one feature retained in it, or a significant amount of the structure? For
example, St Augustine’s Church in Woodston features a Saxon wall and window
with a handful of medieval features, but is largely a Victorian rebuild –
should that be included?
I decided that for the building to be included it would need
to contain a substantial structural element from before 1700. This could be part
of the building e.g. a chancel or a hidden core and I would take my lead from
the building’s listing. Some of the building dates are therefore supplemented with
probably or possibly. That said, I expect the list to change as further
information is gained. Buildings can move up or down the list as they are
inspected, dendrodated, or researched; some might move onto it and some might
fall off it. One of these buildings is Peterborough Museum. The building
appears to be Georgian (pre-1816) but the core of the building is potentially
older and some of the features in the cellar appear to be medieval. For now, I
am leaving it out of the listing, with the understanding that if research,
dendro, etc reveals otherwise, then I’ll add it in.
It is absolutely no surprise to anyone that the oldest
buildings in the area are churches and ecclesiastic buildings. Centuries of
devotion (and money) have ensured their survival and their listed status should
(hopefully) support their continued survival. For ease, I have separated out religious
and domestic buildings into two lists and this post will focus on religious buildings. The list revealed something I hadn’t
appreciated before: the oldest and youngest churches (pre-1700) are both St John
the Baptist! Location is key here; the oldest is St John’s Barnack and the
youngest is St John’s Peterborough. Saxon elements are an integral part of the
structure of St John’s Barnack, which also feature in second place All Saints’
Wittering. Third in the list is St Mary Wansford and fourth is St Mary and St
Botolph in Thorney; all four have been used for worship for over a thousand
years, which is quite incredible.
Peterborough Cathedral has ended up in 8th place behind three churches built in the Norman period. It is likely that this is the
wrong location given that there were ten churches built in the Norman period or
12th century, and it doesn't take into account the first Saxon church on the cathedral site. Further research may help to narrow down the building
dates of the churches and I expect the placing of these churches to change.
Having a list of buildings means that conversations can be had, and experts can
add their voices. It might also encourage people to go out and visit the
churches to see what they can discover, for some of them contain research by
locals in guidebooks and noticeboards inside the buildings (as well as the fascinating
architecture) and that information can help guide the list too.
I’m going to write another blog on the domestic buildings
because this is very long, so here’s the list of churches.
Church Location Date
St John the Baptist |
Barnack |
Saxon 1020 |
All Saints |
Wittering |
Saxon (and 12-14th) |
St Mary |
Wansford |
Early Norman |
St Mary and St Botolph |
Thorney |
1085-1108 (1638) |
St Botolph |
Helpston |
Norman |
St Kyneburgha |
Castor |
Norman |
St Peter |
Maxey |
Norman |
Cathedral Church of St Peter, St
Paul, and St Andrew |
Peterborough |
1118 |
St John |
Stanground |
1150 (and 1300) |
St John |
Upton |
12th (17th) |
St Michael |
Sutton |
12th (15th
and 19th) |
St Benedict |
Glinton |
12th |
St Pega |
Peakirk |
12th |
St Mary |
Marholm |
12th and 13th
|
St Andrew |
Northborough |
Late 12th /early 13th
|
St John |
Werrington |
12th/13th |
All Saints |
Paston |
1220 |
St Botolph |
Longthorpe |
1250 |
St Stephen |
Etton |
13th |
Holy Trinity |
Orton Longueville |
1275 |
St Mary |
Ufford |
Late 13th |
St Mary |
Orton Wistow |
Late 13th |
St Margaret |
Fletton |
1300 |
St John the Baptist |
Peterborough |
1402 |
Sorry to pop up on a 2-year-old post - but we suspect that Wittering is pre-1,000AD and therefore I think it might be older than Barnack church. As rector of both, I have no axe to grind between them. Unlike the folk who carved the big arch at Wittering, who clearly did have axes to grind, as that's how they carved the stone! Regards, Gary Alderson gary.aldersonwrites@gmail.com.
ReplyDelete