How old is this property??

[Jill]

Interesting tiling arrangement. Good luck.

We were fortunate in receiving all of the old deeds when the mortgage company had a clear out, together with some wills and other documents not relating to the house, they are fascinating to look at, understanding the old english is not easy. I've just been having a look through them and a search was made of the Register of Local Land Charges in 1949 which refers to the Land Charges Act of 1925. Is this possibly when the Land Registery started?

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . . the Land Charges Act of 1925. Is this possibly when the Land Registery started?

It seems not. According to their 'Framework Document', Her Majesty's Land Registry (to use it's formal title) was established in 1862.
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/info/noticeboard/item/?article_id=17673

 

[Feltwell]

I think the problem you've got Matt is that you know the building has been altered - quite possibly more than once, involving a change of use as well - and some time ago. So are you looking at something that is modern, "original" to the build or added 100 years ago? Hard to tell.

The dropped kerb is odd, as it extends not just across your "coach house" entrance but also the door to the left, next to the double height bay window (which looks to have been added). Your entrance looks like a modern alteration to me - the door may be old, but it's quite possible someone used a secondhand door.

This theory is supported by the hallway tiling, which is very odd - the geometric pattern to the right is very Victorian (take a trip to the tile museum at Jackfields, near Ironbridge, for loads of info on these) and would have been relatively expensive at the time, although quite common. The plainer black and red chequered pattern to the left could also well be Victorian, but a lot cheaper - it's not unlike my 1899 hallway. But no one would put those 2 alongside each other like that - which makes me think that your entrance possibly had 2 doors when it was first converted from a stables / coach house in Victorian times, and the floor was laid then as 2 seperate hallways. I see stairs going up - a ground floor flat and an upstairs flat perhaps??? Converted back to 1 dwelling in more recent times and the dividing partition in the hallway removed.

The fireplace looks early Victorian to me, but I'm no fireplace expert at all.

 

[somersethouse]

Thanks for your insight Feltwell - it makes a lot of sense. We will definatley take a trip to the tile museum when we are next up there (we are currently living in Kingston Upon Thames while we wait for the sale to go through). We need to work out what best to do with the tiles in the hall - we don't really want to disturb anything that dates from Victorian times but the tile arrangement just doesn't look right and ideally we would like it to 'flow' more (any opinions wlecome!)

Here are a couple more photos - one shows the other side of the entrance hall (and the odd tile arrangement). Another shows a detail that is set in the wall upstairs and the third shows a view out the back of the house over the 'extension' - we guess that the raised structure at the back was previously an outbuilding or stable block and it has now been encorporated into the portion of the original house that we are buying.

 

[Moo]

I thought that the theory about the house being divided into flats was very convincing, until you posted that second picture of your hall.
Seen from the different angle, the decorative tiling looks a bit like a faux rug. Could it be that the then owners wanted to jazz things up a bit but couldn't afford to replace all the chequered tiling?
If I were buying the house I'd be inclined to leave decisions about that floor to the very last. As it is, it's an interesting quirk that may well grow on you, especially after you've done all the necessary jobs (like that top-floor window!) and done some beautiful decorating.

 

[worms]

There is something very odd about the whole arrengement. To my (untrained, inexpert) eye, the stair is much newer and given that the original access to the upper floors must have been through the rest of the house, I wonder if the floor tiling reflects something that was going on solely on the ground floor, possibly including the stables block at the back. I wonder if the red and black tiles continue under the stairs and are in the cupboard there?

 

[somersethouse]

Seen from the different angle, the decorative tiling looks a bit like a faux rug.

I like the faux rug theory Moo! That is exactly what it looks like - rest assured, we won't rush into doing anything with the tiles as I absolutely love the geometric ones.

I wonder if the red and black tiles continue under the stairs and are in the cupboard there?

Good question - I'll need to check this when we are at the property again.

 

[Lime]

Now I have seen a different aspect of the house I'm more convinced than ever that the front door section is 1970s or thereabouts.
All that wood running around the lower part of the wall and the side of the stairs, together with the wooden lower partition next to the front door is typical of the 70s, no doubt covering up a multiplicity of sins.

The dropped kerb is a puzzle as has been said by Feltwell .
I thought when I first saw the building that the coach entrance was quite small and having seen the other pictures I don't think the arch is the original size either.
All horse/coach entrances I have seen are much wider and taller.
In the picture showing the inside of the front door the ceiling is much higher than the top of the arch.
No coach entrance I have ever seen has the arch smaller than the tunnel it fronts.
the arched entrance is far more likely to have spanned across where both front doors are now as the dropped kerb shows.
Then the original house (as a whole) would have only one front door as I'd expect.

The tiled floor is odd too, particularly how the fancy tiles end abruptly halfway through the present hallway.
What is the yellow line that separates the two sets of tiles?
IMO it has to be a thin partition line that once split this "house" up into two.
Although Moo make a convincing argument too.

 

[Feltwell]

Curiouser and curiouser!

That second hallway picture blows my flats theory out of the water I reckon - I agree with Moo. My guess (why base opinion on education and reasoning? I'll leave that to Gareth! ) is that the house is early Victorian or older, substantially altered in late Victorian times, and messed about with again in the 1970's.

Why? The external style is a bit Georgian, but some details look later and this is rural Shropshire we're talking about here - always a little off the beaten track, apart from perhaps the A5 Holyhead road, fashions around here in buildings would have lagged behind more cosmopolitan areas. Or maybe it's older still and had a makeover. Matt, you haven't said where it is - I'm guessing Ludlow?

That fireplace is early Victorian or older - it's definitely not late Victorian. Who can identify the crown detail set in the wall, which monarch does it refer to and why was it there? A lovely detail to have. Maybe points to the building being used for something official? Tax office? Pure conjecture and guesswork!!

The hallway tiling looks more late Victorian to me, especially the geometric section - so I'm guessing that was when the alterations were made.

And finally the horrid orange pine panelling looks very 1970's. Look at the first picture of the hallway - the geometric tiling has an edging detail that disappears under the 1970's panelling next to the door, that entrance has definitely been modified in recent times. I agree with Lime, the arch looks too small to be intended for horses. Maybe it was just access to a backyard & workshop, the building shown in the later pictures?

The staircase looks modern - maybe an old one that's been updated with new bannisters and T&G panelling, but look at the string against the wall - unlikely that anyone would mess with that, too much trouble - I think the whole thing maybe modern, with a Victorian door used for the understairs cupboard. Look at the bottom of it compared to the floor tiling - it's completely out of alignment. But then why is the T&G panelling a totally different colour to the rest of the wood? That would suggest it's been added later. It would be interesting to see if the tiling goes under the timber or not, not just if it continues into the cupboard.

And why the strange tiling detail? I can see the Faux rug idea, but I'm not convinced. Look at the edge of the geometric section - why go to all the trouble of laying that expensive floor and edging it so neatly, then have a inch or so of what looks like concrete between that section and the red and black areas? And why have the "posh" section not running to the front door? Personally I'd live with it for now, and if it disturbs you then maybe carpet over the red and black area (in such a way as not to damage it) leaving the geometric area exposed.

Radical idea based on absolutely the flimsiest of evidence no. 2 - the building was something official, hence why the crown marker set in the wall. The front archway was arranged with 2 doors - one leading into the geometric section of the hallway only, which had wooden panelling with an enquiry hatch seperating it from the rest of the hallway (hence the narrow unfinished band around that section of floor now) - this was the public enquiry counter for something like a tax or post office. There was a second door, where your front door is now, for staff to access the building - hence the more utilitarian floor, the public wouldn't see it.

The good news is, if my frankly not very soundly based theory is right and the building was used for something official, there is bound to be evidence in the archives. And if it was only messed about with in the 1970's then it's highly likely that a picture will be in existence somewhere.

I love puzzles like this - can you tell? :lol:

 

[Feltwell]

Argh - forum running very slow, i must not press submit more than once......

 

[Feltwell]

or twice.....

 

[somersethouse]

Thanks for the observations and ideas Lime and Feltwell - very interesting and I am glad I could give you a puzzle to work on

The property is in the small village of Prees (near Whitchurch, North Shropshire). The lady we are buying it from doesn't know a lot about the history but says that the house is mentioned in a book on the history of Prees (I haven't been able to get hold of a copy - yet!). She seems convinced it was part of a larger house (but I am not sure if this is based on fact or on something she read or heard or just speculation).

I found a photo of the property on the internet taken circa 1960 (it is taken from the other direction - see below). It isn't possible to see too much (particularly as the portion we are buying is in the distance) but it looks like the curb alteration hadn't taken place yet.

I have also uploaded a photo of the back of the property (more replacement windows I am afraid - I think the others fell victom to wet rot and they were replaced rather than repaired).

My feeling at this stage as that we will leave the tiles as they are (we could perhaps redo the entrance and move the door back to the order side so that one walked in through the front door onto the decorative tiles).

The stairs do seem new I'd like to change the newel posts and spindles so that they looks more authentic - any suggestions?

Any further ideas on the crown details would also be great - as Feltwell says, which monarch does it relate to and how would it have been finished (i.e. one solid colour or painted with more detail?)

 

[somersethouse]

Thanks for the observations and ideas Lime and Feltwell - very interesting and I am glad I could give you a puzzle to work on

The property is in the small village of Prees (near Whitchurch, North Shropshire). The lady we are buying it from doesn't know a lot about the history but says that the house is mentioned in a book on the history of Prees (I haven't been able to get hold of a copy - yet!). She seems convinced it was part of a larger house (but I am not sure if this is based on fact or on something she read or heard or just speculation). As the village is so small, I'd guess it is unlikely to have been a large, official office of any sort (??)

I found a photo of the property on the internet taken circa 1960 (it is taken from the other direction - see below). It isn't possible to see too much (particularly as the portion we are buying is in the distance) but it looks like the curb alteration hadn't taken place yet.

I have also uploaded a photo of the back of the property (more replacement windows I am afraid - I think the others fell victem to wet rot and they were replaced rather than repaired).

My feeling at this stage as that we will leave the tiles as they are (we could perhaps redo the entrance and move the door back to the order side so that one walked in through the front door onto the decorative tiles).

The stairs do seem new I'd like to change the newel posts and spindles so that they looks more authentic - any suggestions?

Any further ideas on the crown detail would also be great - as Feltwell says, which monarch does it relate to and how would it have been finished (i.e. one solid colour or painted with more detail?)

 

[philpjuk100]

Could there have been two front doors?one with access to the stairs and one to the downstairs rooms with a petition between them,flats or offices maybe?,Interesting to try and find out what has happened when older properties have been split up,do any of the rooms next door encroach into your property or yours into theirs?(flying freehold).Our house was once three dwellings in a block of four and it is not easy to know what is over what as the dividing line between properties is not straight! It looks an interesting project,good luck with it. phil.

 

[Lime]

Looking at the 60s photo makes me think the area of the hall could have been a shop of some sort.
What is difficult to resolve is the corner of the tile "rug" is too near the stairs.
Perhaps the stairs were not there when the "rug" met the counter (the posh floor on the public side) of the shop/bank/post office?

 

[somersethouse]

There is an element of flying freehold - the master bedroom on the top floor goes over the neighbours property (slightly).

I have done a little research into the crown detail - it resembles St Edwards Crown (used at the coronation of George III but not Victoria due to the weight of the crown she was coronated with the Imperial State Crown instead). George the IV also was not coronated with St Edwards Crown. Whether this points to the age of the original building and suggests that it was infact built during the reign of George III - I am not sure!?

good luck with it. phil.

Thanks!

 

[MattW]

I think the staircase has been moved from the area which is now the victorian tile infill to the current location. Evidence for this is as follows:

Length of the current stairs is 12.5 black tiles long by 4 wide. The infill tiles seem to be almost the same area as this as far as I can tell.
The current stairs are not square to the black & red tiles and are clearly modern - this staircase could be sitting on top of the old tiles.
The top of the stairs turns prior to reach the end of the wall (there is a small ledge). This is likely to contain a joist that couldn't be cut.

Not conclusive, but suggestive perhaps? So I wonder whether in fact there were two front doors at some point - one that led directly on to the stairs to an upstairs flat, and another next to it that went out into the black and red hall way from the current door.

 

[worms]

Sounds plausible except that it means someone inserted the new tiling at the time when the stair was moved. Who would put in that "rug" of tiles when the existing would surely have been easier to match? Especially if the stair is as modern as it looks?

 

[MattW]

Who would put in that "rug" of tiles when the existing would surely have been easier to match?

I don't think anyone really tried to match any thing... looks to me like someone had some spare tiles and used them up, hence why there is cement filler in the gaps.

 

[worms]

I don't think anyone really tried to match any thing... looks to me like someone had some spare tiles and used them up, hence why there is cement filler in the gaps.

Well... You've seen it where we haven't but the "rug" looks too good a job to have just been someone using up old tiles! It's the fancier job, so I would side with the "public space" suggestions above.