chester amphitheatre conservation plan sept 2001 vol ii

8/13/2019 Chester Amphitheatre Conservation Plan Sept 2001 Vol II

1/18


2/18

Chester Amphitheatre Conservation PlanPart II

prepared for

English Heritage

by

Donald Insall Associates Ltd

in association with

Mason Welland

and

The Architectural History Practice


3/18

Chester Amphitheatre Conservation Plan i Donald Insall Associates

September 2001

CHESTER AMPHITHEATRE CONSERVATION PLAN

PART II

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Summary

3 Future Options for the Amphitheatre Site

4 A Draft Strategy for the Future Management of the Study Area

5 Recommended Actions


4/18

Chester Amphitheatre Conservation Plan 1 Donald Insall AssociatesSeptember 2001

Part II

Study of Future Options and Draft Strategy

(not part of the formal plan)

1 Introduction

The second, informal, part of the conservation plan is in two sections. The first section,

Future Options for the Amphitheatre Siteexamines various options for the future of the

site and the way in which these may impact on the various known or potential heritage assets.

Then, based on that analysis, an outline Draft Strategy for the Future Management of the

Study Area is put forward as recommended by the studys consultants.

2 Summary

The principal focus of this strategy is the dilemma presented by the amphitheatre and Dee

House. The proposed strategy takes a long term view of the site and the issues involved. The

main practical constraint to full excavation of the amphitheatre is the County Court and its car

park and it is highly improbable that its removal could be afforded or justified for at the very

least 25 years (the term of the Courts lease) and a considerably longer term is much more

likely (say 40-50 years dependent on costs and funding).

In relation to this problem and the uncertainty about the extent and importance of any later

archaeology which should possibly remain in situ, the debate about the removal of Dee House

is premature. The examination of the various Options reveals that, in terms of revealing

further parts of the amphitheatre, there would be little to be gained from the early removal of

Dee House over and above the extent of excavation which could be achieved while still

retaining the building. Guided by the above analysis, the key points of the proposed actionplan in relation to Dee House and the amphitheatre area are summarised as follows:

Build up as complete an understanding of the archaeology of the site as possible by noninvasive means.

Undertake further investigations of the area already exposed. Provide a much better display interpret the amphitheatre already exposed and the other

heritage assets of the study area taking into account the latest tourism studies.

Repair Dee House (on the basis that it will remain for at least 50 years) and manage thebuilding as an asset which will help to provide financial support for the archaeologicalinvestigation and interpretation of the site and through uses which promote tourism.

At appropriate stages review the progress of archaeological investigations of theamphitheatre site and gradually increase the area of excavation as archeologically

appropriate and as resources allow.

At a stage when the acquisition of the County Court site becomes a viable possibilityconsider, in the light of the then enhanced understanding of the site and its tourist

potential, whether the public benefit gains of full excavation would outweigh the loss of

Dee House.


5/18


3 Future Options for the Amphitheatre Site

Purpose and Method

This section discusses and analyses the various options for the future of the amphitheatre site.

The Issues section of the Conservation Plan identifies a range of possible options andexamines those in terms of practicality, deliverability costs and their relative heritage impact.

(The Issues section does not test the options against the policies or consider them relative to

each other). An illustration showing the proposed layout of each option is provided and

adjoining keys for each can be found in the main text.

The conservation plan policies include a wide range of broad policy statements both to guide

development proposals for the study area as a whole and provide criteria against which the

appropriateness of new plans can be tested. Many are not crucial to the analysis of the

Options for the amphitheatre site or relevant at this stage while other policies can be

accommodated to a greater or lesser extent by all the options. To assess each Option against

all the policies would be impractical and unnecessary.

This analysis proceeds on the basis of a step-by-step discussion, guided by the broad content

of the options and the policies where appropriate (an analysis based on numerical weighting

of benefits and disadvantages would be fraught with difficulties because of the subtle

variables).

The consideration begins by looking at a possible end state objective, the total excavation and

display of the Roman Amphitheatre. Within the conservation plan this is illustrated as Option

D. The paper then examines other options involving varying degrees of partial excavation

both with and without the retention of Dee House.


6/18


OPTION D: Maximum possible excavation and display of the amphitheatre

Firstly, it should be noted that complete excavation is not possible without the removal of the

road that services the old Bishops Palace. But only approximately 5% of the amphitheatre is

affected and this discussion is based on the premise that as the removal of the road wouldrender the Grade II* listed building unusable, it would not be justifiable.

The vision presented by this option is the fullest possible excavation of the site to reveal the

roman remains and to display it to public view, so that its scale and ground plan can be

readily and directly appreciated by visitors. The aim would also be to learn more about the

site and address a wide multi-period research agenda. The process of excavation would be

managed at least in part as a visitor attraction. Once completed, the display of the remains of

foundations walls and arena floor could be supplemented by interpretive material, which

would give an idea of the superstructure. A further and essential aspiration would be to create

an indoor interpretation centre of the highest quality and innovation that would make the

whole site into a heritage attraction of international status.

This paper cannot assess the commercial viability or the economic benefits of such a venture

but if achievable in those terms it is obviously one which Chester should give very serious

consideration.

How would such a vision measure up to the Conservation Plan Policies? The great concern

about this option in heritage terms is the fact that, in displaying the amphitheatre, all of the

material evidence of the following 1600 years of history will be removed from the site.

This material is in two forms, the listed buildings of Dee House representing the last 300

years and the 1300 years of buried archaeological remains from the sub roman Saxon,

medieval and later periods. Firstly, we consider the archaeological remains and the issues

associated with their removal. We also set aside, for this section of the analysis, the

constraints created by the construction of the new law courts.


7/18


The Conservation Plan demonstrates that the site has much potential interest for what it can

tell about the sub Roman and Saxon periods and that this may well rate as being of national

significance. However, there is little hard information. The material is likely to be

fragmentary but it is not impossible that there may be clusters of a substantial nature, which

relate to the early Christian foundation and possible Saxon predecessors of the Norman

church of St. John the Baptist. It is not possible to speculate on whether such remains would

be best safeguarded and displayed in a museum environment or weather they should be kept

in situ. Policy states that the highest level of protection must be given to safeguarding

heritage assets from adverse change. The fact is, that our present understanding of the site is

only partial, even concerning the extent of Roman remains. In these circumstances it is not

possible at this stage to evaluate the heritage impact of a proposal to completely excavate and

display the Roman amphitheatre.

The conservation Plan policies stress the need to learn from the site about all the periods of

which it contains evidence (Policy B1). The plan encourages the pursuit of an active research

agenda but only on the basis that any programme of excavation should proceed with great

caution and a degree of flexibility regarding the final objective (Policy B2). It would be

particularly important that the initial programme was devised in the light of the best possiblenon invasive survey techniques, that it should be phased over a long period to allow for

developing technologies and that the objectives should be kept under periodic review to take

account of information learned and what may emerge as future priorities. A better

understanding of the site, gained through carefully planned and phased investigations and

excavations, may reveal that none of the 1600 years of Post Roman archaeological remains

should appropriately be retained on site, however this certainly cannot be prejudged. It may

be that some areas have to remain in situ and so compromise the total excavation of the

Roman remains.

Whilst it is obviously not as significant in a heritage sense as the amphitheatre, the loss of

Dee House would be a very major disadvantage. The physical presence of Dee House records

and testifies to the last 300 years of the sites history. It is also regionally significant in itsown terms because of its architecture and its historic associations, particularly with 18th

century Chester and the Roman Catholic revival of the mid 19thCentury. (Policy C2 indicates

the level of protection relevant to this regionally significant building.) It is also important

in regard to its townscape value, although this may be difficult to appreciate at present

because of its neglected appearance. Policy E1 indicates that preference should be given to

buildings of townscape value. Dee House is properly Listed and adds to the interest and

significance of the site as a whole and policy C2.4 highlights the tests that would have to be

satisfied in relation to any proposal for its removal. It is evident from the forgoing that the

demolition of Dee House in favour of Option D, which is in itself cannot be justified at this

time, would be premature.

A further consideration in relation to Option D is the major financial and ownershipconstraint, which prevents it being realised except in the long term. 40% of the amphitheatre

is already partially exposed, but beyond is the 20% occupied by Dee House and its grounds.

Beyond that a further 20% lies under the new County Court and its servicing and car parking

areas. The acquisition and removal of the Courts would cost very approximately 12m. It

must be an unjustifiable use of public funds to remove a multi million pound development

which has only just been completed for public use and be a counter to all arguments for the

sustainable use of resources. In the long term, however, the building and associated public

investment will have paid for itself. The Courts Service has a lease for 25 years. This is

likely to be the minimum term before acquisition could be a possibility. Even then there

would still be considerable value in the existing structure and substantially longer time would

be required before an acceptable return on the totality of recourses put into the building had

been realised.


8/18


Furthermore, the removal of Dee House would preclude the possibility of its assisting, in the

long term, the funding of further investigations of the site or interpretation as encouraged by

Policy H.

The policies encourage a dramatic enhancement of the display of the amphitheatre but this

does not require its complete excavation. An improved physical display, together with state

of the art I.T. and multi-media techniques, could combine to produce a considerably improved

visitor attraction without full or even major excavations. Whether a total excavation would

produce a scheme of such outstanding public benefit that it would outweigh the loss of Dee

House should not be discounted, but neither could it be anticipated. It must also be true that

no general conclusions could be drawn. On the basis of the information currently available

Policy C2.4 and A1 indicate that such a proposal would have to be judged on its individual

merits and be subjected to rigorous testing. A most important consideration would be

economic benefits, which are outside the scope of this report. Further more, any such scheme

would, as indicated above, have to be developed well in the future and again benefits could

not be prejudged.

In conclusion: The heritage impact in relation to the archaeology of the site cannot beassessed because of insufficient information about the sub Roman, Saxon and early Medieval

remains, which may be nationally significant.

Dee House is valuable in its own right and in its contribution to the sites 2000 year history.

Any economic benefits that could be derived from the complete excavation of the

amphitheatre and which could just conceivably outweigh the loss of Dee House cannot be

tested. With the acquisition costs of some 12m it is almost impossible to anticipate that a

firm proposal for total excavation could be developed in the short or medium term.

On this basis there is no justification for the removal of Dee House, at this time, to make way

for Option D


9/18


OPTION A: The demolition of Dee House and the fullest possible excavation of theamphitheatre

It could be argued that irrespective of whether the full excavation would ever prove feasible

because of the Courts building, the fullest excavation made possible by the demolition of Dee

House should still be pursued. Two such options are illustrated. A(i) shows the full arena

floor exposed, together with its internal enclosing wall. As this option extends beyond the

boundary of the Dee House grounds and would require the acquisition of a part of the Courts

car park, an alternative Option A(ii) illustrates what could be achieved by excavating within

that constraint.

Both of these A options have the same difficulties in terms of assessing heritage impact in

heritage terms as Option D, but do not have the advantages of full excavation. Option A(i)

also presents further problems.

SCHEMATIC OPTION A(i) SCHEMATIC OPTION A(ii)

Policy B2 indicates criteria for phased excavations. In particular it states that any partial

excavation must make a vertical cut line which follows a line of least damage to the

remaining unexcavated part. The illustration of A(i) shows a minimum land take on the

Courts car park. This is in order to:

keep the considerable costs of acquisition as low as possible, leave sufficient parking for the building to continue functioning. leave a margin between the excavation and the Courts raft foundations and maintain

access to the fire escape on the north elevation.

In practice the 3m change in level between the amphitheatre floor and the Courts car park

would require a substantial retaining wall to be constructed. This would quite obviously not

be on a line of least damage. Rather than following the shortest radial line through the seating

area as does the present retaining wall, it would cut through the south seating area either

tangentially or following the curve. Both would be potentially damaging. Also, once the

boundary with the courts had been agreed it would be inflexible and the line could not be

varied should items be uncovered which should be excavated as a whole. The line would also

cut through the south entrance where as the policy states that major elements should beexcavated as whole.


10/18


In conclusion: Option A(i) fails the tests of being a well planned and considered excavation.

Although not revealing the amphitheatre floor is potentially less damaging and does not

require expensive land acquisition as A(i) does, A(ii) still exhibits the disadvantage of the loss

of Dee House. Furthermore, it does not present a substantial increase over Option C in the

area of Amphitheatre that could be excavated.

In addition to the policy conflicts regarding archaeology, these options also expose the rear of

the courts building. This, in townscape terms, is a very major disadvantage (Policy E1).

In conclusion:Options A (i) and (ii) both appear to be unsatisfactory either as end states or as

phases towards Option D.


11/18


OPTION C: the further excavation of the amphitheatre within the curtilage of Dee

house (but not to the extent of requiring demolition of the building or compromising

future beneficial use)

The two options C (i) and (ii) examine what could be achieved in terms of further excavation

while still retaining Dee House.

Option C(i)

SCHEMATIC OPTION C(i)

The line of excavation on Option C(i) as drawn is unsatisfactory in that it tapers to a fine

point, making the legibility of the excavation as it narrows increasingly untenable. This does

not satisfy the requirements of Policy B2.


12/18


Option C(ii)

SCHEMATIC OPTION C(ii)

Option C(ii) presents a line which appears may satisfy Policy B2 in terms of its physical plan

in that it:

has a degree of flexibility takes the shortest and potentially least damaging cut through the seating banks has the potential, subject to further investigation to reveal the west entrance as a complete

component.

As illustrated, the option benefits from a new access to service Dee House via the Courts car

park. This would require collaboration with the owners of the Courts site who are the only

party who can invoke such a right of access.

In conclusion:Option C fares well when tested against the plans policies. It may

enable the presentation of a more extensive area of amphitheatre than currently displayed(approx 15%) and reveal a hitherto buried component the western entrance.

provide the focus and impetus for an improved display and interpretation scheme. provide possible financial support for through the release of finance made possible by the

reuse of Dee House.

be part of a long term strategy to work towards Option D, if this proved desirable andappropriate through the knowledge gained by further excavation.


13/18


OPTION B: The retention of Dee House and environs (no excavations within its current

curtilage)

SCHEMATIC OPTION: B

This Option retains the status quo in that Dee House is retained and that no further major

excavation is anticipated in the short term. This would not preclude learning more about the

site through non invasive investigation and of course would allow the further exploration and

better display of the area of amphitheatre already exposed. Dee House would be restored and

brought back into use within its grounds as existing. The setting of the exposed section of theamphitheatre could be much improved by the demolition of the high boundary wall (above the

retaining wall). Access to the amphitheatre and St Johns Church could be improved by a new

footpath along the northern boundary of the site. The Option is the least demanding in terms

of capital or revenue resources.

In conclusion: This option does not conflict with the conservation plan. Neither would it

preclude a later implementation of Option C or the realisation of Option D in the long term.


14/18


4 A Draft Strategy for the Future Management of the Study Area

The Amphitheatre and Dee House

The central questions within the core area relate to the future of Dee House and the further

excavation of the amphitheatre. Whether the Roman amphitheatre should be excavated andDee House removed has been the subject of a long and polarised debate within Chester. This

conservation plan was commissioned primarily to assist in resolving that issue and to weigh

the costs and benefits of preserving Dee House compared with the costs and benefits of

exposing the Roman remains. These questions have been examined through developing

various options and assessing these against the conservation plans objectives and detailed

policies. But it is apparent that because of the limited understanding of the site and the

practical and ownership constraints no clear answers can be given at this stage. It has also

become apparent that focusing on this dilemma may be diverting attention from more

fundamental issues.

Strategies for the future of this nationally and internationally important heritage site should

not be based on preconceptions; rather, they should be founded on a thorough understandingof the site. The answers to the question, how best to manage the heritage assets must be based

on a sound knowledge of what those assets are and their significance.

Archaeology

Gaps in our current knowledge about the amphitheatre site and the land adjacent to St Johns

Church have become increasingly apparent. We know the plan form of the Roman

amphitheatre and have theories about its development. From circa.1600 we can begin to trace

from map evidence how the site has been used since that time. But between the Roman

period and the 17thcentury, the 1200 years history of the site is obscure. The difficulty with

determining the heritage impacts and costs and benefits of the total excavation of the Roman

amphitheatre is that the project would require the removal of all the evidence of the siteshistory since the Roman period. At this time we have not the knowledge to understand the

heritage impact of such a decision.

Recent thinking and some evidence suggests that within the 1.8 m of material which has built

up on the site since the Roman occupation there may well be remains from the sub Roman

and Saxon periods which could be of national importance. As a result of the excavations of

summer 2001, the City Councils Archaeology Service is now questioning whether the east

entrance to the amphitheatre shows evidence of later sub Roman alteration and whether it

functioned as an early Christian cell. Also, it is the buried remains of being asked whether

there is a Saxon predecessor to the Norman Church within the vicinity, as could be expected.

In practice the answers to these and other questions will only emerge through further

investigation and excavations designed to reveal the full multi period interest of the site. It

may well be that all post Roman remains prove to be fragmentary and could appropriately

preserved and displayed off site. But this cannot be assumed at this stage and they may

warrant retention in situ.

The fact is also that we do not know sufficient even about the excavated portion of the Roman

remains to determine how they should best be displayed. The limited excavations of summer

2001 have shown that the 1960s excavations of the seating zone and concentric and outer

walls were very partial. More of the structures may well survive below present ground level

than previously thought likely. Theories about the amphitheatres early form and construction

are still open to question. It is clear that the existing exposed site has still much to reveal and

there will undoubtedly be exciting ways in which this can be presented for public display.In summary, the archaeology of the site may have valuable information to reveal about the

Dark Ages and early medieval periods as well as that of the Romans. We cannot begin to


15/18


consider how all this could be best displayed for public enjoyment and to support the visitor

economy until the site is understood in far more detail than at present.

Dee House

In relation to these issues the debate about the removal of Dee House is premature. It is also

premature in terms of ownership and practical constraints. The examination of the various

Options reveals that, in terms of Roman excavation, there would be little to be gained from

the early removal of Dee House over and above that which could be achieved while still

retaining the building (compare Option A(ii) with C(ii).

A principal constraint to fuller excavation of the amphitheatre is the County Court and its car

park. The examination of the Option of total excavation (Option D) suggests that it is highly

improbable that its removal could be afforded or justified for at the very least 25 years (the

term of the Courts lease) and a considerably longer term is more likely (say 40-50 years

dependent on costs and funding).

In considering the future of Dee House let it be assumed that, for the purposes of argument,the Courts site can be purchased in 25 years and that in the mean time a thorough programme

of archaeological investigation and review of the display and visitor potential of the excavated

portion, reveals that the full exposure of the amphitheatre is highly desirable. At that point it

would then be proper to consider whether the costs and advantages of this outweighed the loss

of Dee House. Indeed, it is only at that time that such that a judgement would be possible.

Even then, such is the timescale of multi period excavations that it would be a further five or

ten years before the removal of Dee House was required (the dig could work around towards

Dee House from the east and south).

On this basis, if repaired now, Dee House would have a life of at least 30 years and most

likely considerably longer. Although this remains to be tested, a thirty year life should be

long enough a pay back period to make the costs of repairs a viable proposition, dependent onthe building use. Over a greater time span time span (40 years +) income from the building

could possibly assist in generating funds to support the excavations and could certainly

provide support accommodation in terms of some interpretation, and visitor facilities. The

early removal of Dee House is not a prerequisite for the full excavation of the

amphitheatre, even if full excavation eventually proved to be the best way forward.

Furthermore, The conservation plan has demonstrated the significance of Dee House and the

fact that it is certainly worthy of its Grade II Listed status and warrants the level of protection

provided by that designation.

Guided by the above analysis, the key points of the proposed action plan in relation to Dee

House and the amphitheatre area are summarised as follows:

Build up as complete an understanding of the archaeology of the site as possible by noninvasive means.

Undertake further investigations of the area already exposed. Provide a much better display the amphitheatre already exposed and the other heritage

assets of the study area taking into account the latest tourism studies.

Repair Dee House and manage the building as an asset which will help to providefinancial support for the archaeological investigation and interpretation of the site and

through uses which promote tourism.


16/18


At appropriate stages review the progress of archaeological investigations of theamphitheatre site and gradually increase the area of excavation as archeologically

appropriate and as resources allow.

At a stage when the acquisition of the Count Court site becomes a viable possibilityconsider, in the light of the then enhanced understanding of the site and its tourist

potential, whether the public benefit gains of full excavation would outweigh the loss of

Dee House.

Other Issues

The approach to Dee House and the amphitheatre also needs to be viewed within the context

of strategies for the study area as a whole and the need to enhance its cultural and tourist

assets. A number of priorities exist but of special importance is the need to protect the long

term future of the remains within the Roman garden and reducing the traffic in Little St John

Street so that the area as a whole can be better integrated with pedestrian movement to and

from the city centre

5 Recommended Actions

The above key priorities are presented as Recommended Actions for the Study Site. They

refer to the need for detailed strategies for managing the study site. It is important that these

strategies are holistic and which address a wide range of issues including funding,

programming and planning implementation.

The Core Area

The Amphitheatre and Roman Remains

RA.1 Prepare a long term strategy and funding for the multi period investigation andexcavation of the amphitheatre site, consistent with the policies set out in this

Conservation Plan, to accord with the following stages:

Stage I (short term)

(i) Non invasive investigation of the entire site as far as existing physical andownership constraints will allow.

(ii)Undertake phased excavations of the areas of the already exposed amphitheatre asfar as existing constraints will allow in order to gain a fullest possible

understanding of the archaeology of this part of the site and establish how it can

best be displayed.(iii)Undertake a detailed study of the long term atmospheric, weathering and public

use problems associated with the exposed Roman stone walls and artefacts within

the amphitheatre, the Roman Garden and the East Angle Tower and devise a

management plan for their long term protection.

(iv)Prepare an access and interpretation strategy and display of the key heritageassets within the core area in accordance with the conservation plan policies. The

strategy should take account of the separately commissioned report on the

feasibility of developing a visitor centre to interpret the site

Stage II (medium term)

(i) If appropriate, following a review of the information revealed in Stage I,undertake further phases of archaeological excavation within the grounds of Dee

House to the extent that these would not prejudice access to the use.


17/18


Stage III(long term +40 years)

(i) If appropriate, following a review of the information revealed in Stage II, acquire

and undertake further phases of archaeological excavation of the Law Courts site

and consider, in the light of the enhanced understanding of the site and its tourist

potential, whether the public benefit gains of full excavation would outweigh the

loss of Dee House.

Dee House

RA.2 Prepare a strategy for Dee House which is consistent with the conservation plan

policies and allows for:

(i) Investigations to establish the chronology and detailed significance of itsindividual elements.

(ii)A process which will secure the repair and reuse of the buildings on the basis of aminimum 50 year life span.

(iii)The best use of the Dee House site in terms of the Conservation Plan policies tobe secured and which support the role of the amphitheatre site as a visitor

attraction, through facilities contained within the building and/ or through mainly

cultural and leisure uses providing rental and/ or income generation. Other uses

may also be acceptable provided that they did not predominate.

Interpretation and Access

RA.3 Prepare a strategy for the access to and interpretation and display of the amphitheatre

together with other key heritage assets within the core area and St Johns Church, in

accordance with the conservation plan policies. The strategy should take account of

the separately commissioned report on the feasibility of developing a visitor centre to

interpret the amphitheatre site.

The Secondary area

Zone G

RA.4 Maintain and reinforce the character and use of the Groves as an historic riverside

walk and visitor attraction.

RA.5 Discourage further parking provision at the Groves.

RA.6 Clarify maintenance responsibilities and develop a strategy for the maintenance of the

care of the ground surfaces furniture and artefacts within the public domain.

RA.7 Protect the setting and distant views of St Johns Cottage, the Old Bishops Palace and

the Anchorite Cell.

RA.8 Maintain the character (boundaries and surface materials) of the lanes leading down

to the Groves.

RA.9 Enhance the appearance of the southern boundary of the Roman gardens as they abut

the Old Orleans Public House


18/18

Zone F

RA.10 Maintain, in their historic form, the site boundary walls and embankments which

form the interface between these private areas and the adjacent public spaces.

Consistent with the Policies of the Conservation Plan.

Zone H

RA.11 Retain and encourage the use of the Bowling Green site as an amenity space

RA.12 Undertake a further study of the anchorite cell to establish its authenticity as a

surviving element of the medieval collegiate centre at St Johns Church.

RA.13 Provide additional linking footpaths to the south of the church so that they provide a

walk with views looking down to the Anchorites Cell and across to the Groves and

River Dee.

RA.14 Devise an interpretation and display strategy for the artefacts contained within St

Johns church and link this with information revealed about the Saxon and later

periods through the archaeological investigations of the amphitheatre site

All Zones

RA.15 Prepare a vehicular circulation and parking strategy to meet the conservation plan

policies and objectives.

RA.16 Prepare a visitor trail and linked interpretation to present the study area as an entity

chester amphitheatre conservation plan sept 2001 vol ii

Documents