APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT TO REBUILD BOUNDARYWALLS BETWEEN YORK HOUSE AND THE FORMER TRAVIS PERKINS SITE

nigel copseyaugust 2005

Historical Context and Analysis

The walls in question represent the eastern boundary of the rear gardenof York House, Yorkersgate, Malton. They are the easternmost of a wholeseries of historically important walls that run north-south across formerlyStrickland family land between higher Yorkersgate and the River Derwent.

That they were built under Strickland ownership is suggested strongly bytheir being composed of Hildenley limestone, quarries which they owned.

Hildenley stone is “ a faulted mass of pure white limestone…with a fewreef fossils; this represents fine calcareous mud washed from somenearby reef no longer visible.” ( from the British Regional Geologyseries,Eastern England from the Tees to the Wash, pp73 & 75)

Hildenley limestone is found particularly in buildings in Malton associatedwith the Strickland family. It was also used in the early medieval period,most notably for the interior stonework of Kirkham Abbey and to someextent in Old Malton Priory. The quarries are likely to have been underecclesiastical ownership at this time. It would be surprising if they werenot first opened by the Romans, who had a remarkable nose for goodstone wherever they went.

The Stricklands lived in York House initially during the winter months(spending the remainder of the year around Hildenley), and wereprobably responsible for extensive remodelling of this building duringthe later 1600s. During the 18th Century, moulded stone windowsurrounds and a central neo-classical stone bay to the south of the housewere added and the rear of the west range re-faced with a fine, tooledlimestone ashlar. All of these improvement works were executed inHildenley limestone, but by the Wentworth Watson family, who hadpurchased the Strickland holdings in Malton in 1739.

A 1728 town plan map owned by the Fitzwilliam Estate, which showsbuildings of the time in sketched isometric elevations which may beassumed to be fair representations of reality, shows York House beforethe C18 improvement, with mullion and transome windows and a semi-circular arched doorway to the south wall, located centrally. It shows thatthe western boundary of the garden at this time was not the brick wall,but another stone wall (the footings of which remain) in line with the westwall of the house.

It also shows 43 Yorkersgate, and a building to the west of this whichmay be assumed to be the 1682 Strickland Hunting Lodge. (The listingprobably under-estimates the true age of this building). This has twogabled ranges running north south with a range between to the northside of a courtyard. Much of this building was absorbed into the buildingwhich is now the Talbot Hotel, the courtyard of the earlier building havingbeen filled in and a large bay window built to the south.

Notably, in 1728 neither the Vanbrugh Arch, nor the stable block existed.

Hildenley Limestone is also the stone of the later two-storey Stricklandhunting lodge (now the Talbot Hotel) and associated architecturalfeatures such as the ‘Vanbrugh’ Arch and the garden stair from the upperto the lower terraces and associated retaining walls.

Whilst the retaining wall to the north side of Yorkersgate below theVanbrugh Arch is also of Hildenley limestone (upon a calcareoussandstone plinth), this was built in the Nineteenth Century of stonesrecycled from the earlier Norton church demolished to make way for theexisting one in early C19. This demonstrates again the extensiveecclesiastical exploitation of the Hildenley quarries in the mediaevalperiod.

west face of lower wall, rebuilt in more recent past, brick faced to east

The boundary walls across the site were most likely built at the same timeas the earlier Hunting Lodge, in the 1680s. If not then, in the mid-C18.

Collectively, they are an important component of not only thearchitectural and garden history of Malton, but of one of the mostenchanting vistas in the town.

They are constructed of well-coursed, squared rubble and capped withmasoned once-weathered Hildenley limestone copings, without drips.

The coursing follows the lie of the land, running downhill. This is unusual(although common throughout Malton and technically flawed. It makesfor undue lateral pressure. They have survived well enough, however.

Part of lower section, brick-faced; central, buttressed, section

Hildenley was the only limestone available locally that could be won indimensional blocks and successfully carved with an expectation oflongevity. The coarser Malton Oolite, whilst suitable enough for masswalling did not make for durable or large dimensional carving. Where itwas used in Old Malton Priory, it was in stones of relatively small bed-height and scale. That decorative carving which was attempted in thelocal calcareous sandstone tended to be simple and robust (the Corniceon 43 Yorkersgate, for example) and has fared quite badly.

The copings of the walls at York House and the saddleback copings of thegarden stair below the Talbot Hotel have weathered relatively little in over200 years. The dramatic erosion to the Vanbrugh arch has to do withspecific environmental factors to do with its detailing and its location.The apparent decay of some of the window surrounds of York House arelikely due to the stone having been edge-bedded due to the scarcity atHildenley quarry (or in many quarries) of block of sufficient bed-height todeliver jambs of such height in a single stone,

The stone of which the boundary walls are built would have been drawnfrom the beds of the quarry closer to the surface. The course heights willreflect bedding planes at these levels (the labour cost to have carved suchslim stones would otherwise have been excessive), the stones likely being

guillotined and axe-dressed at the quarry before being transported tosite.

upper central section, earlier brick-facing repair; recent concrete block

The wall between the Talbot Hotel proper and the garden of the older,sandstone part of the hotel blew down along half its length during thewinter of 2003. ( This has been rebuilt with poor attention to its originalbedding pattern or historic character using ordinary Portland cementmortar, which will accelerate decay. This is to be regretted).

Condition Survey and Justification of Proposed Repair

The eastern walls are in a poor condition.

Whilst the west faces of the wall have lasted very well and have beenunmolested by repair, the east faces have suffered significant decay andhave been repaired in various ways over a number of years.

Central section, east face

Lower levels of the wall to the east retain and are in constant contact withthe higher ground level within the garden of York House. They exhibitsignificant delamination and progressive disintegration of the stone andmortar due to water penetration and consequent salt damage duringwetting and drying cycles, as well as frost damage. The wall-facerepresents a permanent evaporation zone and is vulnerable to regularcrypto fluorescence within the pore structure of the stone and mortar.Loss of mortar to higher levels will be due to attrition by freeze-thawcycles during the winter when the wall will receive the morning sun. Theonce-weathered copings to the wall top direct water to the east and haveno drips, meaning that heavy rain will run down the wall face. Thispotential has been increased by deflection of stones beneath the copingreducing the over-hang of the coping stones. This additional wettingincreases the deleterious effect of freeze-thaw cycles.

surface erosion and deflection

The progressive erosion at lower levels has been variously dealt with overthe years.

The lowest section of wall has been wholly rebuilt, in the late C18 or lateron the evidence of the bricks used. The limestone of the original wall wascondensed into the west face, the east face being faced entirely withbrick.

The lower central section has five brick buttresses built against and tiedinto it at the tops. There is significant decay visible at lower levelsbetween the buttresses.The upper central section has a large brick-facing repair which is likelycontemporary with the rebuild of the lowest section. The bricks arebedded in lime mortar. At the base of this section of wall, several coursesof bricks are visible. These are likely to be the footing of the original wallrather than repair. The bricks are thin and early. There is a significantconcrete block repair at medium level.

upper central section, stone decay; original brick footing

The uppermost section has a large patch repair of London Brick in opcmortar, as well as two enormous concrete block buttresses.

There is accelerating deflection eastwards along the length of this wall.

The lowest section is of least concern.

The next, brick buttressed lower central section is leaning badly. Thebuttresses have certainly prevented a complete collapse. However, theyare tied in at the top and will have settled differentially to the wall andthis will have contributed to the deflection.

The upper central section leans also and whilst the upper section leansleast (held by the concrete block buttresses), it has considerable lowerlevel decay.

Proposed Repair Works

These works would be carried out as part of the improvement anddevelopment works to the old Travis Perkins site, 29-33 Yorkersgate.Public access to the site is not currently allowed by the Fitzwilliam Estate.

Some of the lowest section of wall will be demolished as part of plansapproved by Ryedale District Council for the provision of car parkingassociated with York House, located on the lower, riverside terrace of theYork House garden.

It is proposed, therefore, that stone be salvaged from this demolition andset aside for use in repair works to the remainder of the boundary wall.

The lower central section should be taken down to a sound footing, thebrick buttresses being entirely removed. If a new footing is deemednecessary, this will be formed of lime concrete made with NHL 5.0. Allgood stone shall be set aside for reuse, being arranged in order of bed-height and sequence insofar as practicable so that stones may be relaidin similar positions to those they currently occupy. This is essential forthe retention of character, as well as respecting the intentions of theoriginal builders.

The central section similarly. It may not be necessary to remove thesection that has been rebuilt in brick: this section was built with flexiblelime mortar and remains sound. It is a not unattractive part of the wall’sevolution through time. The concrete block section, however, is both uglyand damaging, being rigid and unyielding due to its construction withopc mortar. The facing repair of London Brick should be removed forsimilar reasons.

It will prove impossible to reuse heavily decayed stones. The inevitableshort-fall should be made up of stones recycled from the demolishedlower section of wall. The quarries at Hildenley are no longer worked andno reasonable alternative supply of similar stone exists. AlthoughPortland stone is similar in composition and character, rubble wallingstone is no longer available from the quarries on Portland.

The uppermost section should be repaired at lower levels between theconcrete block buttresses. At this time, there is no reason to removethese buttresses. To do so would invite the need to rebuild the entire

section of wall. The copings of this section should be carefully lifted offand set aside for reuse, allowing repairs to be undertaken to the uppercourses of stone wall. The roots of ivy that has been removed from thesewalls in the recent past have compromised the integrity of the stoneworkat these levels and have widened the walls. There has been a build-up ofcomposted organic matter. Ivy roots and organic material should beremoved before the rebedding of the stonework in lime mortar.

At lower levels of this section of wall, between the concrete buttresses,repairs will need to be carried out where the stonework has decayed. Theobjective of these repairs will be to provide adequate support to thesound stonework above. They should involve the minimum of disruptionto and heavy vibration of the wall above. Where a stone has sufferedsurface decay and disintegration to full depth, it is not always necessaryto remove the whole stone. To do so risks undermining and dislodgingsound stonework above. Even in a state of advanced disintegration,limestone retains adequate compressive strength, as long as its face isisolated from further scaling away. It is often possible to cut the face of astone back to a depth sufficient to allow of the introduction of a built tilerepair that will become the weathering surface. Where the surface decayof a stone is shallow, but will be progressive if exposure to the elementsis allowed to continue, the application of a lime render repair will besufficient to arrest this decay, presenting a sacrificial surface to theweather. A sympathetic lime mortar incorporating a high proportion oflimestone dust may be easily designed for this purpose. Both tile andmortar repair contribute to retaining the character of eroded walls andwould be in keeping with the tradition of pragmatic repair evident alreadyin the faces of these walls. Where it is possible to do so without riskingthe overall integrity of the masonry, similar stones to the sub-stratewould be introduced in combination with less invasive tile and mortarrepair. Such repairs have recently been carried out to the south-eastquoin of York House, which was in an advanced, localised state ofdisintegration, as well as to the adjoining lower section of the upper endof the boundary wall.

Stone and tile repair, upper wall, York House quoin

The concrete buttresses are currently visually overwhelming and ugly. Aspart of the repair works, it is proposed that these be rendered with acoarse lime mortar and the sharp horizontal steps softened by theaddition of masoned buttress copings.