More information : (NZ 62090666) Baysdale Abbey on site of (NAT) Priory of Basedale (NR) (Cistercian Nunnery founded c AD 1189) (NAT). (1)
Priory of St Mary for Cistercian Nuns, founded at Hutton circa 1169, moved to Nunthorpe circa 1167, then to Baysdale (Basedale) circa 1189. Dissolved 1539. (2)
An inscribed tombstone was seen by R Close in 1956 at NZ 62120663. (3)
The Priory of St Mary was founded circa 1162 for an 'abbess' and nuns at Hutton by Ralph de Nevill who moved it to Nunthorpe in circa 1167. In circa 1189 it was moved to Baysdale which had been granted by Guy de Bovincourt. The priory was suppressed in 1539, assessed to have an income of only £20 and housed 11 nuns including the prioress.
The large farm house (NZ 6210 0667) that now occupies the general area has two date stones,: 1633 and 1839. The building is considered to be early nineteenth century and although stone built does not appear to retain any medieval architectural fragments. The farm house lies on a large level building platform which is defined on the south west side by a ha ha. The group of buildings to the north east are brick built late eighteenth/nineteenth century farm buildings occupying a lower level. To the north of these there are further modern farm buildings. To the south west of the farm house there is an L shaped section of ditch cut into the rising ground, the corner of which is at approximately NZ 6205 0660. This feature shows on the aerial photograph ANY 291/12. This may be the south western corner of the precinct with the eastern and northern sides formed by a pair of narrow but deeply cut streams. The northern stream is crossed at NZ 6204 0676 by a medieval bridge which is scheduled as NY1265. This bridge now only carries occasional light traffic and could be closed entirely to vehicles as a new bridge has been built some 100m to the west.
As there is as yet no evidence of archaeological survival of remains of the priory, it is recommended that this site cannot be put forward for scheduling at this time. It is recommended that archaeological conditions should be put on developments within the area. If in the future it can be demonstrated that further remains do survive then the site would be a candidate for scheduling. (4) |