HER 153 DESCRIPTION:- Scheduled Monument Description:- Not available Dates from 12th or 13th century, the site being chosen in preference to the lower position further east which was originally selected for a Norman motte and fosse (HER 152). The Castle was said to have had a massive central keep with four towers at the angles and the discovery in the ruins of finely carved stone head of c. 1240, now in Gloucester Museum, suggests the existence of a chapel within the walls. Castle destroyed 1321 by Edward II and all that remains to mark its site is a mound with an outer bank (surrounding an area of several acres), and the base of the main gateway. The south and east sides are bounded by steeply sloping ground, but the north and west were defended by a large, deep and presumably dry moat. On the south side are remains of the 13th century gatehouse uncovered c.1920 and again in 1936. In the Upper Bancroft field are traces of buildings which may represent the site of a walled court outside the bailey occupied by buildings for cattle and retainers. {Source Work 862.} A deep dry moat enclosing an area sub-divided into three parts. At the eastern end, a squarish depression may indicate the site of the keep. This is on higher ground but cannot be described as a motte. To the west of this the central area appears to be a ward. Another ward occupies the west end with a gatehouse entrance at the south-western corner, where portcullis grooves are visible in the excavated masonry. The gap and causeway in the north-western angle is probably a modern access. Museum identified finds, viz and a penny of Edward II, a groat of Edward III and a 14th century spur. Reference to traces of buildings in Upper Bancroft field. {Source Work 2858.} These almost certainly represent the deserted village and are not part of the castle complex. {Source Work 862.} The site is visible on APs including Source Works 3140, 3149 and 3268. Interior features are not visible as they are shaded by trees. (pers. comm. S. Brown). Built in the 13th century of stone, demolished 1322 after owner, John Giffard, rebelled against Edward II. Moat and mounds are all that remain of the keep and 4 towers. Medieval sculpture has been discovered in the ruins - description of artefacts in GADARG. These are now in Gloucester City Museum. {Source Work 902.} Substantial dry ditch with inner bank enclosing a sub-rectangular area which is subdivided by banks which presumably indicate cross walls. Site kept under pasture and has no public access. Sheep are grazed in the castle field with feed trays in the castle interior so in wet conditions the state of the interior and ditch is pretty rough. Immediately south of the castle the spring area is embanked, which could be contemporary and there are other terrace and platform like features in the field on the south-facing slope. Tree and grass covered. {Source Work 470.} A historical account and reconstruction illustration of the castle and account of the Gifford family appears in Glevensis 25. 1896 - Rev W Bazeley contributed an article to the Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society which discussed the castle and it's owners. {Source Work 8714}. 1975 - A survey was carried out in September 1975 by D R Rudman and P Jillings of the whole of the castle site. This work surveyed the earthworks and claimed to identify the buildings referred to in the historical documents relating to the site. Standing portions of the walls were also recorded in this work. The earlier work reported in the Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society is considered incorrect in light of this survey work. In particular the curtain wall is thought to possess no interval towers and that there was a separating stone curtain wall - whose width is suggested to be evidence of a wall-walk - and gatehouse across the bailey area. The gatehouse works are evidenced by the presence and visibility of a portcullis slot. The keep is also thought to have possessed a fore-building, measuring 75ft by 60 ft. {Source Work 10035.} 2004 - This area was mapped at 1:10,000 scale as part of the English Heritage: Gloucestershire NMP project. This site is visible on aerial photographs. {Source Works 4249, 7549, 6880 and 7821.} 2011 - The measured drawing and photographic recording of the eastern and west sides of the gatehouse passage through from the outer ward to the surrounding area was carried out by Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology Service between 13 and 23 June 2011 as part of the Monument Management Scheme of Gloucestershire County Council. The work revealed that the masonry, which had been left open following 1920s and 1930s excavations of the gatehouse, was in a good state of preservation and displayed many of the original features of the passage. The western side of the masonry was recorded as at least 6.8m and from 0.65m to 1.0m high though some dislodging of the stones was noted to have occurred through the development of roots, with the porticullis slot and door jamb exposed. The eastern side of the gatehouse was recorded with masonry of at least 7.9m length and 0.40m to 0.75m height. Evidence of door jamb, portcullis slot as well as a spiral stair. A trench excavated within the central portion of the gatehouse revealed that the passage was originally paved as a level floor surface of consolidated stone. This is in a good condition and at a shallow depth below the present ground level. {Source Work 10737.} AREA ASSESSMENT :- No plough damage. {Source Work 470.} 2019 - This monument was previously recorded within the Historic England National Record of the Historic Environment. That record, formerly held within the AMIE database, is quoted below: “(SO 940127) Castle (NR) (Site of) (1) Brimpsfield Castle dates from the 12th or 13th centuries, the site being chosen in preference to the lower position originally selected for a Norman motte and fosse (SO 91 SW 11). It was said to have had a massive central keep with four smaller towers at the angles, and the discovery in the ruins of finely carved stone heads of about AD 1240, now in Gloucester Museum, suggests the existence of a chapel within the walls. The castle was destroyed in AD 1321 by Edward II, and all that remains to mark its site is a mound with an outer bank surrounding an area of several acres, and the base of the main gate-way. (2-4) The south and east sides are bounded by steeply sloping ground, but the north and west were defended by a large, deep and presumably dry moat. On the southern side of the castle are the remains of a 13th century gate-house uncovered c1920 and again in 1936. In the Upper Bancroft field are traces of buildings which may represent the site of a walled court outside the bailey, occupied by buildings for cattle and retainers. (5) Brimpsfield Castle comprises a deep dry moat enclosing an area subdivided into three parts. At the E end a squarish depression may indicate the site of the keep. This is on higher ground but cannot be described as a motte. To the W of this the central area appears to be a ward. Another ward occupies the western end with a gatehouse entrance at the SW corner where portcullis grooves are visible in the excavated masonry. The gap and causeway in the NW angle is probably a modern access. The owner Mr Ticehurst, Castle Cottage, has some museum-identified finds, viz, an Ed II penny, and Ed III groat, and a 14th century spur. Authority 5 refers to traces of buildings in Upper Bancroft field. These almost certainly represent the deserted village and are not part of the castle complex. (See SO 91 SW 45) Surveyed at 1:2500. (6) Scheduled as 'Brimpsfield Castle'. (7) Listed by Cathcart King. (8) This site is visible on aerial photographs.(9, 10)” {Source Work 4249.} 2021- (Pers Comm Tongue J) A heritage and landscape study was undertaken due to the A417 missing link road scheme, this did not get and individual event but was seen as a point in time study. Looking at the wider landscape in the Birdlip area. This report addresses the historic character and significance of the landscape around National Highways’ proposal for a 3.4 mile (5.5km) length of new dual carriageway and associated infrastructure, to enable the movement of traffic along a currently congested length of the A417/419 between the Brockworth and Cowley roundabouts. It seeks to better understand the landscape as the result of the interaction of human and natural factors over millenia, in order to provide context to National Highways’ aim to ‘create a landscape-led highwaysimprovement scheme’, through: • demonstrating a unified approach to interpreting and mapping the historic and natural character of the landscape, in relationship to designated and non-designated heritage and natural assets • comparing and contrasting the evaluation undertaken with the summary conclusions produced in the Development Consent Order (DCO) Environmental Statement (as set out in Chapter 6 Cultural Heritage and Environmental Statement Appendix 6.3 Historic Landscape Characterisation) • assessing and considering what mitigation could be developed to respond to the envisaged impact, focusing specifically on areas where the commissioned assessment of impact is greater than that of Highways England’s consultants. In order to do this: • the Environmental Statement has been reviewed • the Gloucestershire and Cotswolds Historic Landscape Characterisation has been subject to analysis, and has been simplified so that it serves as a strategic framework for understanding the variety of heritage and natural assets within it • the significance of heritage assets, as ranked in the Environmental Statement, has been assessed • finally, this report has considered the sensitivity of the historic landscape to the predictable effects of the principal elements of the proposed road scheme as set out by National Highways. The emphasis in this report is on the provision of text in order to articulate and better understand the historic landscape context for the area around the scheme. GIS shape files and Historic Environment Record data for the study area assessed in this report have been submitted as a project archive, but due to resource constraints maps have either used existing data or sought to interpret key areas of the landscape around the scheme. Conclusions With the information contained within the ES, submitted by National Highways, the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State do not have a full and appropriate assessment of the landscape significance, which is fundamental to the setting of Crickley Hill and other heritage assets (as set out in 5.128 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks, 2014). The SOS will thus be unable to confirm with full clarity that harm has been avoided or minimised (5.129 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks, 2014). {Source Work 18157 & 18158.} |