Listed Building record MDO6410 - Knowlton Church, Lumber Lane, Woodlands

Former Parish Church, now in ruins. Originally twelfth century the tower porch and north chapel date from the fifteenth. The north aisle was added in about 1730, with the church finally being abandoned in the late eighteenth. Walls mainly of flint, tower of flint and stone banding.

Knowlton Church, a ruined building of unknown dedication standing near the centre of a Neolithic henge, has walls mainly of flint, with ashlar dressings of Greendsand and Heathstone; it has no roof. The Chancel and Nave are of 12th century; the North Chapel, West Tower and probably the South Porch are of the 15th century; the North Aisle appears to have been added in the 18th century. The church was in use in 1550, but it had become unfrequented by the middle of the 17th century and in 1659 an attempt was made to demolish it; the churchwardens were, however, prevented from doing this. Hutchins records a revival of use ‘about 40 years since’, that is c. 1730, to which period the North Aisle may be assigned. Later in the 18th century the roof fell in and the church was abandoned. {1} "Knowlton Church, small as it is, is of two periods - Early Norman and Decorated, The first builders laid out a plan for a nave, chancel, and narrow north aisle in the beginning of the twelfth century; the later builders - about 230 years subsequently - added the tower, certainly, and probably the porch and the chantry leading out of the chancel. But to decide the latter points I would invite the building experts among you to carefully examine the joints in the walling of both porch and chantry. I ask, at the points of union with the south wall of nave or northeast wall of chancel, are these joints straight joints or bonded into the adjoining walls? Dr. Noyes and I looked carefully at them the other day and came to the conclusion that they are straight joints, and so were additions to the original edifice. But the difficulty of ascertaining the latter, through the thick, almost impenetrable, mass of ivy and bramble with which this interesting building is enveloped, at that part in particular, is considerable. And here I must earnestly enquire why should coarse elder trees be allowed to interfere with the view of the proportions of the nave, and almost to stop the passage between nave and chancel, and why should a perfect jungle of briars be permitted to gather round the north-east end, both inside and out? A woodman, in an hour or two, with an axe and billhook, would improve the appearance of the place enormously, and enable those who are interested in old buildings to satisfy themselves on some points which are now veiled from their view. Whoever built the porch built it disproportionately long, and the north aisle is so narrow as scarcely, one would think, to have been worth building at all. However, if you stoop down and see how its foundations are bonded into those of the north wall, you will, I think, have no doubt that it is Norman work. The west jamb of the arch leading to it is original, and there is a stone that looks like a bit of the Norman impost, but the archway of modern brick, cemented over, is of course much larger than it was at first. The tracery of the south nave and east chancel windows is quite gone, but the width of the openings seems to point to the conclusion that the later builders acted here, according to their fashion elsewhere, i.e., enlarged their predecessors' window space. There is evidence that, for some reason, they partly blocked up the bottom of the south window when widening the upper part. You will see this on the outside. There is a large flat stone lying on the ground between the north aisle and chantry that we thought at first was the old altar stone, but we deemed it afterwards to be too thick for that purpose. The chancel bears evidence that it was paved with red tiles. I should have stated before that the church is built of flint with stone dressings; also that it was formerly a chapel of ease to Horton. In 1550 one Sir Richard Saunders is said to have been curate here, when there were three bells in the tower. "After 1650 it lay unfrequented many years, till about 40 years since (says Hutchins in the 1st Edition), when it was repaired and frequented." "The roof afterwards fell in. It has not been officiated in for many years," adds the editor of the 3rd Edition. This Church, which has been in a ruinous state for many years, consists of a nave 27ft. long by 14ft. 6in. wide, chancel 12ft. long by 10ft. wide. There are the remains of a Chantry Chapel on the north side of chancel 9ft. 6in. wide and the same length as the Chancel. The jambs of the opening between the Chancel and the Chapel are splayed to form a squint. There are two stone brackets walled in on each side of the altar at the east end of the Chapel. There was also a narrow aisle, 5ft. 7in. wide, on the north side of the Nave, and at the west end there is a tower built in three compartments, 8ft. 4in. from east to west, and 8ft. from north to south. The walls form an interesting example of mediaeval masonry and are built almost entirely of flints with bands of stone to bond them together. The ashlar work of the jambs and arches, especially of the earlier work, is beautifully executed and almost savours of Roman handicraft, and, considering the exposure it has been subject to, is in a wonderfully good state of preservation; the same may be said of the plaster on the walls. The early Norman work in the Nave is also most interesting ; the narrowness of the opening between the Chancel and Nave (only 4ft. l0in.) should be noted as being one of the characteristics of that period. The tower is of the Early Decorated period and is very pleasing in design, and the arch, although plain, is well proportioned and the execution of the masonry good." {2}

Record last edited

Jul 8 2014 3:48PM