True Landscape Landmark

Logos

In the mostly flat landscape of the Ouse Washes Landscape Partnership (OWLP) area the local churches really stand out. There are nevertheless also numerous churches and chapels in the landscape which go largely unnoticed, but which have their own, unique and fascinating story to tell.

Here, we pick out one of these, St. Mark’s in Ten Mile Bank, near the top end of the OWLP area, now a Grade II listed church. The research for this blog post was carried out as part of the research for the partnership’s stage 2 submission and was kindly provided by a former colleague here at Cambridgeshire ACRE, Scilla Latham, who worked here until very recently as Church Buildings Support Officer.

Churchsmall

Church as seen from across the River Ouse. Source: http://www.tenmilebank.com/page_6.html

St Mark’s church stands on the west bank of the River Great Ouse, a short distance north of the Hilgay Bridge. Built between 1846 and 47, with a burial ground of half and acre, it served as a chapel of ease within the parish of Hilgay and was consecrated in 1852.

The Rev. W Joseph Parkes MA who was the rector of All Saints church Hilgay was described as the “munificent contributor” to the total cost of £1,000. The architect is unknown.

old postcard

Old postcard of St Mark’s, from Norfolk record Office. Source: Stephen Heywood, Statement of Significance 2006, http://hbsmrgateway2.esdm.co.uk/norfolk/DataFiles/Docs/AssocDoc1387.pdf

A Nonconformist church

The church, which seats 150 people, is built of Gault brick with a slate roof on a simple rectangular plan with two entrance doors on the south side – one at the west end of the nave, the priest’s door to the chancel at the east end. In style it is influenced by the Early English Gothic with triple lancet windows at the east and west ends, and simple lancets on each of the side walls. Its extreme simplicity indicates the influence of the Tractarian principles of the Oxford Movement in the mid 19th century.

font

Font

The original furnishings remain: of note are the fine poppyhead pew ends and the 17th century balustraded communion rails – possibly re-located from Hilgay church. The luxuriant foliage and grand design of the font which was installed when the church was consecrated in 1852 is strangely at odds with the simplicity of the rest of the building.

Big changes in the middle of the 19th century

St Mark’s was built to serve the needs of the growing population of Ten Mile Bank which is two miles from the medieval parish church in the village of Hilgay. It may also have been built to counteract the ascendancy of the two Methodist chapels already open  close by – the Wesleyan chapel in Ten Mile Bank opposite the river crossing and a Primitive Methodist chapel on the east bank.

The first steam engine drainage pump constructed at Ten Mile Bank in 1819/20, followed by a larger engine in 1842 led to the land being easier to cultivate and a consequent arrival of more farm labourers. The 1842 Ten Mile Bank drainage engine was constructed for the Littleport and Downham drainage commissioners and worked in conjunction with “one 9 miles distant, in the Isle of Ely”: between them they drained 30,000 acres. The Ten Mile Bank engine emptied about 130 tons of water a minute into the River Ouse.

The church’s construction coincided with the opening of Hilgay Fen station on 25th October 1847 which was a mile from the church and provided easy access to King’s Lynn and Cambridge.

From Yorkshire to Ten Mile Bank to Sydney to Wales

White’s directory of 1854, records the Curate of St Marks as the Rev Wesley Farrer, MA.  Born in Yorkshire in 1823. He went to Oxford University and then took Holy Orders – and by March 1851 he was curate of Lanchester in Durham and married (to Elizabeth who was born in Liverpool  in 1827) with a two month old son, John.

Ten years later he was Curate of Holy Trinity church, Sheffield Brightside and the father of six children. During the intervening years he had spent at least two years as curate at Ten Mile Bank but more interestingly his two youngest children were born in Sydney, New South Wales in 1858 and 1860.  It seems likely he went there as a missionary but this story is yet to be researched.

The next two Censuses find him settled as Vicar of Castleside, Durham and then in 1891 he living in Rhys in Flintshire, North Wales with his wife and youngest daughter Harriet. Wesley Farrer died aged 76 in 1898. His wife, Elizabeth had died two years earlier: her burial being recorded at St  Pancras in London.

Subsidence and restoration

An awareness of the difficulty of building on water-logged ground is demonstrated by the use of a suspended floor with rose-shaped cast iron vents to provide under-floor ventilation. However, the fact that the whole building was later underpinned with brickwork suggests an ongoing struggle with subsidence caused by the water-logged conditions.

Old image of church_displayed in church_cropped

Old image of St. Mark’s, as displayed in the church

Significant alterations carried out in 1934 were aimed at strengthen the  building to alleviate subsidence to the west end of the church. At this time the south west door was moved eastwards, reusing the existing stonework, to the original position of the western-most window on this side, almost certainly to strengthen the south west corner. Additionally, two of the lancets in the west window were blocked and the bellcote reduced in height at this time.

In 2002 the condition of the church was so serious that without the intervention of the local community it would have been closed. Its architectural heritage was recognised by English Heritage registering it and the War Memorial as Grade II on account of their significance as a rural group. Local fundraising achieved £36,000 and English Heritage awarded £245,000 towards the restoration of the building. The National Churches Trust provided a grant of £6,500.  The church was re-dedicated by Bishop Anthony on St Mark’s day, 25th April 2009.

Interesting War Memorial

The War Memorial (Grade II listed) erected after the 1st World War commemorates 22 men killed in that war and a further 7 killed during the 2nd World War.  It is made of rough hewn granite.

On the north side are the names of two men killed on active service with the British Army in less well remember conflicts, which were added in November 2001.  The first killed in Malaya in 1946, fighting Communist guerrillas, and the second during the Korean War in 1952.

war memorial

The war memorial at St. Mark’s, Ten Mile Bank

Related posts:

The new OWLP Landscape Boundary

Logos

As part of the development phase works we have reconsidered the boundary for the OWLP scheme area. This was included in the work done as part of the Landscape Character Assessment , commissioned by the Ouse Washes Landscape Partnership to Sheils Flynn.

Redrawing the boundary

For our stage 1 submission, back in early 2012, the boundary drawn was still relatively simple. Not anymore. Following the recent finalisation of the Landscape Character Assessment for the OWLP area and the Landscape Conservation Action Plan as part of our stage 2 submission, I can now show you the final results of this work.

First of all, spot the differences:

A4_Boundary

Boundary as drawn for the OWLP’s stage 1 application, February 2012

337-LA-10 - Parish Boundaries

OWLP boundary as defined for the stage 2 submission, November 2013. Map created by Sheils Flynn for OWLP. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013 – not to be reproduced.

In their comments on our stage 1 bid, the HLF considered the OWLP area boundary somewhat vague and arbitrary; despite numerous hours of discussion between partners had already gone into this.

A coherent landscape

A requirement for the stage 2 submission was, thus, to come up with a better described, understood and more coherent boundary. The new landscape boundary is based on careful consideration of a number of related factors:

  • The boundary surrounds a strongly coherent landscape. The vast majority of the OWLP landscape is below the 5 m contour line.This is a distinct landscape, with a unique history, linear waterways, significant wetlands and which plays an important role in food production, drainage and flood prevention.
  • The boundary is driven by the landscape using natural boundaries.
  • The boundary is understood by local people – as part of the community consultations held during the Audience & Access work, people were shown draft versions of the new map, to which people responded positively, as the boundary line follows local landscape features such as roads, drains and other, locally recognised landscape features.
  • The boundary reflects historic patterns of land use: the ‘territory’ associated with the Fen Isle villages, including for instance historic field patterns, droveways and outlying farmsteads, together describe historic patterns of land use and the present-day sense of community in this part of the Fens. Settlements developed on ‘islands’ of higher land in an otherwise expansive and historically marshy landscape. The most productive arable fields were concentrated on the more elevated, relatively well-drained land surrounding the villages, with pasture on seasonally water-logged meadows. The marshy fenlands, which covered vast areas of the Fen Basin, were an important economic resource, used for cutting peat, reeds and sedge and to provide a constant supply of wildfowl, fish and eels.
  • The boundary contains a relatively empty landscape, with a scatter of settlements on the areas of higher land on and around the edge; relatively well-drained soils fringe the low-lying fen that was the focus of the Ouse Washes drainage scheme. The settlements function as individual gateways to the central, lower landscape.
  • The boundary coincides with the historic road pattern: the alignment of roads and causewayed tracks connects the villages and forms a loose ring around the Ouse Washes.
  • The boundary contains an internationally significant wetland landscape: recent wetland and fen restoration projects and opportunities for new wetlands as part of the Great Ouse Wetland and Fens Wetland Vision projects contribute to the international value of the Ouse Washes and have the potential to provide superb opportunities for public access, recreation and environmental education.

Crossing multiple boundaries

The OWLP area covers two Counties (Cambridgeshire and Norfolk), five different Districts (Kings Lynn & West Norfolk BC, Fenland DC, East Cambridgeshire DC, Huntingdonshire DC and South Cambridgeshire DC) and no less than 29 Parishes.

In the process of redefining the boundary for the OWLP landscape, the total area increased from 199 km2 at the stage 1 bid to 243 km2 now, stretching for 48.5 km between Denver and Downham Market at the northern end and Fen Drayton and St Ives to its south.

The OWLP residents

The OWLP area contains 25 villages/settlements which are either fully or partially within, or directly abutting the area’s boundary:

  • In Norfolk these are Denver, Salters Lode, Fordham, Nordelph, Ten Mile Bank, Welney, Tipps End and Lakes End.
  • The Cambridgeshire settlements are Manea, Pymoor, Wardy Hill, Coveney, Witcham, Mepal, Sutton, Earith, Aldreth, Over, Swavesey, Fen Drayton, Holywell, Needingworth, Bluntisham, Colne and Somersham.
  • Close by are also the settlements of Hemingford Grey, Willingham, Haddenham and Little Downham (Cambridgeshire) and Hilgay (Norfolk).

The resident population of the LP area is 33,010. Outside the Ouse Washes LP area the neighbouring towns within a c10km zone are Downham Market, Littleport, Ely, Chatteris, March, St Ives, Huntingdon and Cambridge; they have a collective resident population of 236,688. The OWLP scheme’s delivery phase focuses on both the local residents and market town residents.

337-LA-001 - Location Map

Ouse Washes Landscape Partnership area – Location Map. Map created by Sheils Flynn for OWLP. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013 – not to be reproduced.

Click on the above map (X 2) to zoom in; the maps displayed here can also be viewed in our Resources section.

What do you think?

What do you think? Does this boundary indeed reflect local people’s perceptions of what makes a coherent landscape? Let me know your thoughts – click on the balloon at the top to leave a comment, or contact me directly. Thank you.

 

Related Posts: