At a time when many of our least assuming vernacular buildings may reasonably beconsidered under threat of further damage and destruction at the hands, not only ofmodernising and thoroughly modern builders, but by changes to Parts L and F of thebuilding regulations, I would like to make a plea for the sensitive and informedtreatment of all the ‘little’ buildings that may be expected to fall unnoticed throughthe net of protection offered by the guidance of English Heritage in this matter. EHencourages discretion from the people who will enforce these rules, the majority ofwhom, in my experience, have little understanding of, or wish to understand, thebasic needs of traditional buildings, and whose training and experience is in modernmaterials and the requirements of modern buildings built to entirely differentprinciples. I would like to couple this plea with details of a recent project in Malton,North Yorkshire.

saddleback collar of roof truss, earth mortar packing above,36, Old Maltongate, Malton, North Yorkshire

This project illustrates, I hope, the inadequacy of reliance upon existing, formalassessments of the relative importance, or age, of very much of our historic buildingstock; it illustrates the straightforward economic sense of a conservative, as opposedto a modernising, approach. Also, that the desire of a client for a comfortable homeis entirely consistent with such an approach when the building in question is oftraditional construction. I would assert that the use of modern methods andmaterials is contrary not only to the well-being of the historic fabric, and to themeaningful survival of the common cultural property of our communities, but to thatof the client as well.

As far as the inappropriate imposition of building regulations is concerned, it issimply not enough for discretion to be counselled in the treatment of ‘historic’buildings when the definition of these is far too narrow, and excludes very manybuildings, listed or not, the true cultural value of which is either unnoticed or under-estimated. Discretion, nay exemption, should be guaranteed for any building of

traditional construction. To perform successfully, a building must be allowed toperform as its builders intended (Oxley); it must be allowed to breathe and to haveflexibility. These needs are inconsistent with the use of most modern materials.(The employment of any contractor who believes otherwise is equally inconsistentwith the successful repair or conservation of the building, and will bring onlyproblems for the person that employs them).

The need for vapour permeability and flexibility in the structure must be the startingpoint of any repair project. This will generally require the removal of cementitiousinterventions and their replacement with materials compatible not only with anethical approach, but crucially, with those materials of which the building isconstructed. The work should be preceded by as comprehensive an assessment ofthe building’s age, evolution and importance as possible, as well as of the buildingmaterials, decay issues and their likely causes. Work upon any old building should beguided by a basic faith in the good sense of those that built it in the first place, andin their choices of methods and materials. The older a building, the many morelayers of intervention and adaptation there will be. These should be valued inthemselves, not only as sources of delight and amusement, but as useful tools in theanalysis of the building and its alteration over time. They should not be removed,unless they are demonstrably contributing to decay. Modern interventions fall intothis last category.

It is my opinion, and my secret pleasure as a stonemason, that, however learned andexperienced the observer, there is only so much that may be understood or deducedabout a building by the looking at it. One comes ever closer to a properunderstanding of its evolution and its history by working upon it; picking it apart inthe course of its rescue. One comes to ‘feel’ its age, and to touch the hands of itsbuilders and these can lead you off into many avenues of, often obsessive, inquiryand internal debate.

Malton, North Yorkshire is a small market town clogged with traffic for much of theday, which leaves many of its buildings sooty, soiled and unadmired. It was animportant Roman settlement and then a walled Norman town very largely owned bythe wealthy and thoroughly capitalist Gilbertine Priory nearby, which earned much ofits income from the building and letting of urban, as well as rural property. Maltonwas burned in 1137, which provided an early impulse to build in stone and the townitself stands upon plentiful resources of oolitic limestone and calcareous sandstone.Brickworks have existed nearby since the Roman period. Since its inception as aborough in the early medieval period, Malton has remained largely in singleownership, although the owners themselves have changed over the years and withthe vaguaries of history. Extensive Terrier maps and other documentary archives ofthe town survive. Based upon my experience of working in the town over the last 2years, I am convinced that significant amounts of medieval fabric remain,unrecognised, within the boundaries of the old town wall. This conviction informs –

possibly distorts – my approach to any building that I am called to work upon orinvestigate.

Number 36 Old Maltongate is an unassuming cottage close to the centre of town. Itcomprises a vertical pile of three rooms, none more than 12’ by 10’, with a tinybathroom inserted into one of these, through which one passes to reach the atticbedroom via a ladder-stair. It was a shop within living memory, the shop-fronthaving been reduced to a sash window in the recent past. At the same time,probably, that the walls of the ground floor, and parts of those on the first, wererendered with sand and cement, and the flag-stoned ground floor laid to concrete. Acritical reading of its exterior would suggest that it formed part of a larger house,now divided into two. This impression is dramatically reinforced once inside, since aformerly huge inglenook fireplace dominates the whole of one wall of the groundfloor. This has been much closed down, but its grandeur remains. A bressummerspans the full length of the room supported by two carved stone columns thatframed the earlier fireplace opening. A wide stone chimney breast rises from this,over two more stories.

Inglenook fireplace before and after;the reproduction fire surround wasremoved and the fireplace opened upbeneath the earlier chimney; sand andcement render was removed andreplaced with lime plaster; a new brick(using recycled C15 bricks) over-mantlewas built over a new portland stonechimney piece intended to be simple andof C17 character, and corbelled to meetthe bressummer. In the background, therubble stone wall was lime-washed afterremoval of the sand and cement render.Although it had been earth-plastered inthe past, there was evidence of an evenearlier limewash finish. There was also ablocked window in the corner, its jambbelow the bressummer bearing. Ablocked smoke chamber, and theremains of a domed bread oven werefound at right.

The house had been neglected; it was damp and dismal. The client’s budget was verytight and she needed to move in as soon as possible. To me, there seemed a naturalcoincidence of interests between her wish to keep the cost as low as possible and mydesire to retain the maximum of historic fabric. Setting out from the position

expressed above, there is no necessary reason why the conservation of a buildingshould cost more than its wholesale renewal. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The starting point for the project was straightforward: persuade the client of theneed and utility of returning the building to a breathable condition; retain as muchoriginal fabric as possible; use compatible and historically authentic materials, andmarry these objectives with hers for an affordable, comfortable and characterfulhome. Utterly charmless modern interventions had severely compromised theperformance of this building, as well as having concealed much evidence of itsantiquity, which was very soon to become apparent.

Behind the opc, the walls were built of local Malton oolite rubble laid in mud mortar.No lime added. This was damp, but very soon dried out upon removal of the cementrender. The exterior was formed of more regular limestone ashlar. The walls upstairswere plastered with earth mortar beneath a thin finish coat of haired lime plaster.Mud mortar and earth plaster is commonly found throughout Malton. It has rarelyfailed, or contributed to any deflection and offers reliable breathability and flexibilityto the older buildings of the town. Both were the materials of choice for masonslocally at least until the mid-18th Century.

Chimney in attic; formerwindow, now blocked byadjoining building. Aseverywhere, the stone (and eventhe brick) is bedded in mudmortar. Except to one side, thishad failed and was removed.The brick flue comes from nextdoor.

At number 36, much earth plaster was sound, but some had failed. It had shrunk atthe time it was laid on, the cracks having been filled with the lime finish coat, evenproviding some key, since earth mortar scratch coats in Malton were never, in fact,‘scratched’, but were left smooth from the tool. However, the material had beenrobbed of breathability by a thick gloss paint, and the outside rear wall of the househad been rendered with cement. The earth plaster had come loose in places.Elsewhere it had been laid onto wide and contorted oak lath: the vibration, and sheerbrutality of ‘improvement’ works in the past had broken its key. In these areas, itwas removed-but knocked up once more and, a little sharp sand and mineralisedhemp added, reapplied.

Saddleback-collared roof-trussand stud wall, attic. All had beenhidden by a cupboard andmodern tongue and groove.Note earth packing abovetruss. This was remixed and suc-cessfully reinstated. Earth plasterwas detached from the oak lath ofthe central panel. The truss hadbeen heavily gloss painted. Thiswas carefully chipped off.

Earth plasters locally contain a minimum of straw and no more than 10% clay,frequently less. They would seem to be no more than top-soil, as found. They are apleasure to work with and – in this case – with a minimum of improvement, theyperform very well. They are less troublesome to work with than more standard limeplasters: they were, and can be, laid on at a greater thickness and do not shrink atall, even when used to fill significant voids. They are eminently fit for purpose. Thecost saving, as well as the satisfaction, of re-use is significant.

Panels to the left weresound; recycled earthplaster to the right;new clay plaster(1 clay: 5 sharp sand)to central section;recycled earth packingabove truss

A thin finish coat of hairedplaster was applied overand lime-washed. Onedegraded stud was lime-washed also to consolidateit.

It had quickly become obvious that the house was very much older than its listinghad suggested, and that it contained many layers of intervention. Beneath the sandand cement had been remnants of earlier earth plaster, of course, but alsocompelling evidence that the original interior finish had been lime-washed stone:that even the earth plaster was a later addition.

The stone columns of the fireplace had clearly been ‘reclaimed’ from the nearbypriory in Old Malton. Removal of opc mortar from the early brick partition walls theyadjoined had shown them formerly to have been attached columns. They were ofHildenley Limestone, a fine-grained material garnered some four miles from Maltonand used extensively for ecclesiastical buildings of the Norman period locally. Thisrecycling may have been at the time of the dissolution, but a visit to what remains ofthis formerly magnificent Early English church revealed identical columns still part ofthe west tower, and research showed that the lost east tower of which they werealmost certainly a part was severely damaged by fire in the 15th Century and hadnever been rebuilt. That 36 Old Maltongate belonged to the Priory at this time ishighly likely.

Column recycled in the past from Old Malton Priory.Removal of opc render revealed ‘attachments’ of thecolumn, as well as early bricks, laid in earth mortar.Bricks in foreground, mid-Victorian, associated withthe introduction of a cooking range into the alreadyreduced inglenook. Note oak packer between columnand bressummer. Unfortunately, the drums of thecolumn had been sand-blasted in the past, removinga fine and measured tooled finish. The stone returnswere more roughly hewn, not intended to be seen.

The fireplace downstairs was opened up as far as a closing down carried out in the18th Century, and a hopefully appropriate new stone surround introduced beneaththe bressummer. This facilitated the renewed use of the full width of the earlieropening and wide chimney, which remained earth-parged. Two halves of a medieval,Hildenley limestone door-head had been used within the fireplace to screen fromflames the oak lintols that carried the return sections of the chimney breast from thebressummer to the end wall. This doorway may have been part of the original, largerhouse; it may have been reclaimed from demolished ancillary buildings of the Priory.It was consolidated and left in place.

Necessary excavations in the floor of the fire-place revealed in-situ remnants ofthree different brick hearths and, ultimately, of an original rammed earth floor, some13” down.

Excavation through floor of the hearth,evidence of fire damage to even currentlysubterranean stonework; remains ofprevious hearths, early brick fire-back(facing fire-damaged stone), and rammedearth floor: a ‘polished’, consolidatedlayer 13” down.

Even before the construction of a partially surviving brick fire-back (of early, possiblylate medieval bricks), the flames of the fire had induced the disintegration of theinner leaf of stone to its full depth. It seemed likely by now that even the inglenookfireplace and chimney breast were later introductions into an existing building, andthat before their introduction, the part of the building now number 36 was probablyan open hall/ smoke room, the sleeping quarters being accessed by an lost outsidestair to the rear, the doorway at the top of which survived, though it had beenreduced to but a window in the past. Neither were first floor timbers contemporarywith the fireplace.

Removal of a modern cupboard in the attic exposed not only a much-altered studand panel wall, with lath of various ages, some wide oak lath, some sawn, and avariety of plasters (earth, two-coat lime), but also a magnificent oak roof-truss. Fewearly roof timbers survive in Malton, medieval buildings having been typically re-faced with brick and raised during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Further discoveries, of blocked, and frequently wide openings to the west, beneathrobust timber beams, and which prompted study of early Terrier maps, suggest that# 36 is, in fact, the remaining central section of a house three times its size on plan,the lost third having been consumed by a Victorian building next door, theconstruction of which necessitated the blocking of not only passage- and doorways,but also an attic window. An older cellar survives beneath the newer building nextdoor.Even this third, number 36, had had three, maybe four, different entrances atdifferent times, all but the latest one relating to a time when the house was, ofcourse, much bigger.

West wall of attic before work;the heavy, gloss paint hasseriously compromisedbreathability. The windownow blocked by adjoiningbuilding.

Same view after repair andconservation. Outer lintolpreviously recycled from atimber frame. Earth plasterto right of chimney lime-washed. Stone pointed withsoft lime mortar.

Throughout the project, we used only traditional materials such as earth, clay andlime mortars and local stone. All decorative surfaces were lime-washed. Onlydemonstrably modern interventions were undone and what remains is very much theappearance of the interior as it must have been in the early 17th Century. Whilst thismay seem arbitrary to some, and whilst some compromise was necessary (the clientwished to leave some stone walls exposed after the removal of opc render, forexample, rather than replaster them, although even this would seem to have hadhistoric precedent in this case), the original objectives of the project were achievedoverall. The house is now breathing by diffusion alone. It is dry and comfortable andrich in historical detail and character, which must ultimately be the guarantee of itslonger-term survival.

First floor fireplace. This had been concealedbehind sand and cement render, with LondonBrick above stonework, in sand and cementmortar. Note stone keystone in flat arch offire opening and original early brick fire-back. All original mortar was of mud. Rusticoak mantle was introduced, the stonechimney stepping back at this point. New,recycled brick over-mantle laid in soft limemortar. Part of an earlier brick returnsurvived at this level, suggesting that thisarrangement has historical precedent. Clientwanted stone exposed. This was pointed withsoft lime mortar. Earth plaster to thefireplace sides was consolidated and left inplace.

It is important to note in conclusion that, given the apparent insignificance of thisbuilding and the inadequacy of its listing, it would have been unlikely to haveattracted the protection afforded by the English Heritage guidelines without theinvolvement of a contractor versed in the structural needs of a traditional building.Even this might not be sufficient without the active commitment of an owner to suchan approach. The errors of the past would have been compounded by therequirements of sections L and F of the building regulations and much of the historicfabric have been lost either to crassness or decay.

The protracted and complicated battle that might have been necessary to winexemption may not have been one the client was able, or ultimately willing, to affordand the probable age or importance of this building would have been neitherdiscovered, recorded, nor preserved.

36 Old Maltongate is but one of many such buildings in Malton, let alone across thecountry as a whole.

Early brick flue andinner wall face, attic.Bricks laid in struckmud mortar. Thiswas sound and wasnot repointed. It wasleft exposed.

--------------------------------------------------------------