Is that a medieval building? It looks 18th Century to me.

I grew up in a house which was full of contradictions; these contradictions fuelled my passion and interest for historic buildings which seems to have landed me here! The unpicking and analysis of the building during my youth, as I grew up, enabled me to understand the building more and more.

 

The front elevation of the cottage.

Our house was on the site of Archbishop Cranmer’s palace. Otherwise known as Ford Palace, Ford Palace was a residence of the Archbishops of Canterbury. The earliest structural evidence for the palace dates it to about 1300, and the earliest written references to it date to the 14th century. However, its site may have been in use for similar purposes since the Anglo-Saxon period, and it may have been the earliest such residence outside Canterbury. When one looks on the aerial photos provided by Google you can see the remains of a Neolithic hill fort and the scar of two roman villas, to top this there still remains the earthworks of a Norman moated castle near the site of the palace, the whole farm is a palimpsest of its evolution.

Archbishop John Morton (1486–1500) rebuilt the palace, adding a five-storey tower of brick, and Thomas Cranmer was visited there by King Henry VIII in 1544. In 1573 Archbishop Matthew Parker proposed to demolish it, but it survived to be surveyed in 1647 by commissioners acting on the instructions of the Long Parliament, which had acquired it from the Church of England. The survey found the palace to be in fair condition, but it was largely demolished and the materials sold by order of Parliament in 1658, while the seat of Canterbury was vacant. Its site was returned to the Church after the Restoration. In 1661, what remained of it was described as so ruined that its chapel was in use as a barn.

 

Site Plan of the Palace site, note the stables barn which was reduced to almost half its length.

I spent my youth working on the farm, on the site of the palace and within the barn which dated from the 1486-1500 rebuilding of the site. In its time this would have been a longer structure, it can be seen where the building has been reduced in length in the timber frame alterations which had been made some time ago. This was and I believe is still used as a grain shed and a dryer shed was added in the early 20^th century.

Our house was across the road and was near the spring, which fed part of the site. Our house, I believe, started its life during the 1486-1500 re-building, and this was clearly visible in the style of timber frame used. This would have been outside the deer park and the main gate house (now the farmhouse). What happened to the building after this is interesting;- at some point in the 1750’s the timber jettied frame was bricked up, resulting in a two brick thick wall on the ground floor and a half a brick thick wall on the first floor. It can be seen inside the rooms where the timber frame on the facade was removed, presumably once the masonry had been built.  The reasons for this could have been fashion of the time, or and perhaps more likely, the timber frame was in a poor state of repair and the decision was made to rather than repair the timber frame, to build the new brickwork in its place.

After this the building was extended with a hop kiln and barn in the 19^th Century, and this was built on the side. This was then demolished in the mid 20^th century with gable and end being bricked up with London stock bricks.

Internally there were modest but proportionally pleasing 18^th Century panelling and fire place surrounds along with building cupboard in the two main front rooms. At the rear of the house the internal walls had been spared by the 18^th Century and retained their wattle & daub. Externally at the rear of the house, the brickwork was considerably earlier with a less refined lime mortar. The building had no central heating, however the main chimney stack which pushed through the centre of the house was large in size, both the ground floor fire places still had their hooks for hanging the cooking pot to, the fireplaces at first floor then continued to add to the size of the chimney as it continued to the roof. The main source of heat was a Raeburn, and in the winter months this was alight 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This would heat the chimney and as a result seem to heat the whole house.

As can be seen by the sketch, the construction of the wall was unconventional- or so I thought at the time, but since then I have come across many examples of very similar situations, some more obvious than others. The 18^th century facade had large horizontal sliding Oak sash windows, on the ground floor these were generous in size being about 4 feet wide and 4 feet tall.

  

 

Sketch showing the general timber and masonry structure of the house.

A similar house seen recently, with the same façade detail which is exposed on the end.

 

It seems extraordinary that an external wall could be half a brick thick, but it worked, the lime mortar and the lime plaster worked and the moisture never presented itself inside the house, and the thick masonry walls on the ground floor retained the heat very well. There was no damp proof course; it didn’t need one as the lime was able to perform its role. The timber floor boards were laid on the dirt, a mole once proved this as he got a little lost and we found the floor boards being pushed up as the poor old thing tried to work out where he was! While we are on the subject of wildlife, we had newts in the garden and shrews who would come into the house. We once removed the panel to the bath to find a slow worm behind it, unsure what to do we just re-fitted the bath panel.

So next time you come across a brick built cottage, and it has a timber frame just stop and think about what came first, the timber frame? Or the brickwork?