New old pic of our house

[Pford75]

There was recent event at the village hall called 'Down memory lane' where lots of old photos, parish records etc were on display as well as various artefacts. I was rather disappointed that there wasn't a photo of the rear of our house. However, I got to speak with a few ex-residents of the village and one of them mentioned that they had a photo of our house. Here it is below.....

We are informed that the photo was taken in 1911 and as you can see, there used to be an orangery/conservatory on the rear (although it looks in a state of disrepair in this photo). It would have been south facing, which must have been fairly uncomfortable in warm weather. The scan doesn't show it too well, but there are a range of boards along the gutter line above the sun room...I would assume these were to stop snow fall onto the glass roof?

Here is a more recent picture from a similar angle

The middle window on the first floor is now bisected by an internal wall (which is l&p) and the annexe to the left of the photo was constructed sometime between the wars.

Not that it is currently a consideration for us (or financially feasible), but what are the thoughts of the forum on reinstating the sun room? Personally, I feel the elevation looks better without it.

 

[worms]

It would be great for passive solar gain to the house - even in winter it might contribute to heating the house.

 

[Pford75]

Am I right in thinking that (leaving aside LBC), building regs would be unlikely to allow a construction with that much glass due to heat loss?

Wouldn't it lose more heat in winter than passive solar gain produced?

 

[worms]

Sorry, I can't answer on the building regs, but I think there is something about conservatories that have access to the house needing to be double glazed - or is that only if they have heating?

Clearly, you would only lose the heat in winter if you left the doors or windows from house to conservatory open when the temperature in the conservatory was below that of the house! On sunny winter days you might still find it warmed the wall of the house and even in bad weather, the heat loss through that portion of wall/windows would be less than it would be if it was being battered by wind and rain. I would look on it as one-up from exterior secondary glazing!

Would cost a bit and the house is spectacular without it!

 

[MattW]

I'd agree - think the house looks fantastic, and since the extension was added, the conservatory would crowd the main facade of the house. Interest bit of history though to see it with one and without the other.

 

[Feltwell]

What a fantastic find - I bet you were pleased when you found out that photo was in existence. A local historian recently gave me an aerial picture of my house from the early 1950's which I was very pleased with - it really showed how the local area had changed - but finding one of your actual house elevation from nigh-on 100 years ago is a great find.

Also, lucky for you that whoever built that annexe obviously took trouble to match it well with the house.

Personally, I don't think that orangery / conservatory would add very much - I think it would look a little cluttered there, as well as being very expensive to build and run. But I must confess to not being much of a fan of conservatories, usually finding them freezing cold in winter but much worse boiling hot in summer (I don't do hot!)

 

[yamin]

I have to admit to being a sucker for a beautiful orangery/conservatory. Looking at your photos (and as plenty have said, what a wonderful find!), I am inclined to agree that the rear elevation looks lovely without an orangery. However, I think part of why it doesn't need it is because you have made it into such a pretty bit of garden, and thats not quite the same as the orangery spoiling the elevation, do you see what I mean? I'm sure you could make it look wonderful. Your house is gorgeous though!

Anyway, enough of my musings. I was also struck by the similarity of your house to my parents house - they still live there, and I was there from age 3 - a beautiful old vicarage (and B and B!) in north Warwickshire, but clearly of similar age and style to yours. Note the rather sad addition of victorian bays to the ground floor. Although lovely from inside, with a super walk in bay spaces, they don't look right, especially compared with your photo. My parents have a photo of the house when it was sashes downstairs too, and it looks so much more elegant.

 

[Pford75]

Yamin - Mrs F takes the credit for the garden....it's much more extensive than what can be seen in the photo, so it really is a full time job. I agree on the similarity to your parent's house, although I think the victorian bays look quite nice.

Feltwell - completely agree on the comment re: the trouble taken to match in. The mouldings on the windows are identical and the bricks are a very close match. The pointing is very similar in colour and profile. I think it just goes to show that even some potentially 'major' changes (such as removing the orangery and bricking in a window and building an annexe) can....if done properly...add to the history and aesthetics of a property. I try to remember this and hope that one day, there will be some similarly well considered edits of my own which future owners can look back on with gratitude.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I don't think the original sun room looks nice- it's much better now.

And I'd just like to join the Pford75 house fan club too: beautiful. Mrs F must never sit down!

 

[Feltwell]

Note the rather sad addition of victorian bays to the ground floor.

I'm with Pford - I think those bays look quite nice personally, whilst I wouldn't seek to add them to a house myself I certainly don't think they detract from the house.

 

[Feltwell]

Presumably the presence of the orangery is why the brickwork behind the large climber on the left is a different colour?

Was there ever another ground floor window or doorway as well, that would have accessed into the orangery, behind that climber?

Lovely place by the way, was it built by the Church or always a private home?

 

[Lime]

Yes a good find.

From looking at the two pictures the addition fit in very well.
However it would appear to take a lot of the light from the old glass roof so there would be not much point in rebuilding the orangery except to cover the brick that was (presumably?) plastered before.

As an aside, I was fortunate to find a photo of my road taken about 1910 on a stall in the local Rose Fair.
It was taken in the middle of the road looking down the street and my house is about halfway into the picture.
It shows the old front walls WITH RAILINGS and the field opposite our house before the "new" houses were thought of.

My choice to rebuild or not?
With lots of money, probably yes.
Alternatively I would go back in time, prevent the first world war, buy the property and replace the glass.

 

[Pford75]

Re: New old pic of our house
by Feltwell on Wed 17th Jun, 2009 8:54

Presumably the presence of the orangery is why the brickwork behind the large climber on the left is a different colour?

Was there ever another ground floor window or doorway as well, that would have accessed into the orangery, behind that climber?

Yes, there is a definite change in brick behind the wisteria. Although the room behind this is wallpapered currently, it is possible to see a slight indentation on the inside which would seem to indicate a previous doorway of some size. So I assume that there did use to be access from the main house.

Shropham House (formerly known as Shropham Villa) was built by Sarah Leathes (nee Hetherset) who was a cousin of the Garnier family. It was was passed down the family and in 1932 Canon Edward and Lady Caroline Garnier moved into the house, eventually passing it on to Major Edmund Garnier in 1947. Having been owned by the same family from 1780-2004...we eventually moved in to once again have the property as a family house.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Wonderful House. Curious fenestration.

Assuming the greenhouse was a later addition (could it be original?), it would seem to have had six ground floor windows and five above, with the higher ones above the piers between the lower ones. Very unclassical, in spite of the symmetry and classical squareness of the whole thing, other than the chimney placing. What date are we looking at here - early Victorian perhaps, or even pushing 1850-60?

The rhythm, original or implied, is now interrupted as there appear to be two missing and one extra window.

If money, practicality and planning were no object, it might be tempting to restore what may have been the original fenestration scheme, even if this means putting in fake windows for the sake of the exterior apprearance (someting Robert Adam and John Nash often did in their London Terraces).

 

[Pford75]

What date are we looking at here - early Victorian perhaps, or even pushing 1850-60?

The main house was built in 1780, but there was a previous hall house on the site which was re-used. This picture shows the front elevation of the house and you can see the flintwork section to the left (which is the right of the house in the rear elevation picture). This section of the house is of different construction to the remainder and it feels to us that it has 'grown like topsy' over the years, with bits being added piecemeal....as you say, the fenestration is somewhat out of kilter.

However, the two windows on the ground floor right hand side show some signs of being later additions (different weights in the sashes, different sash chains etc.) and there is evidence of internal layout changes. It is possible that at some stage it was a 5 over 5 window layout, but as the usage of the house changed and walls were moved around, so were windows. It's a mixed blessing really, on the one hand the classical symmetry is missing...but on the other, the previous owners of the house always seemed to have money and were quite ready to change the layout as it suited them.

We certainly don't have the funds or desire for major changes and in fact, the rear elevation was what 'sold' me on the house....love at first sight....sad really

 

[Nigel Watts]

I have just found another picture of your house. Same angle but of intermediate date between your photos. Looks very much like the recent one except that the far right ground floor window is a french window rather than a sash and the climbers are taller. It is on page 186 of Burke's & Savills guide to country houses Vol 3: East Anglia published in 1981.

"2 storeys and 4 bays with projecting brick porch; late-Georgian with wing of of 1856. Built by Sarah Leathes (nee Hethersett) (d 1830). In 1917 Augustus N.C. Hemsworth (d 1931) moved there on selling the Hall. Acquired 1932 by Charles Garnier (d 1947), and sold 1967 by his nephew Edmund Garnier (ne Bird) to present owner, Major Edward Garnier."

 

[Pford75]

Nigel - thankyou for tracking this down. Any idea where I might get hold of a copy?

We too had heard the 1856 date for the wing (which is the addition to the left of the photo)...but this would seem to indicate something wrong with one of the dates (since we were told the old photo is early 1900's and this doesn't show the annexe). Either the photo is older than thought or the construction date for the annexe is wrong....i'm inclined to believe the construction date and doubt the memory of the villager with the photo. What do you think?

Augustus Hemsworth was the gradfather of Major Edward Garnier. The 'Hall' to which the piece refers is Shropham Hall just up the road from us. More details on Shropham Hall here http://www.countrylife.co.uk/article/78279/Shropham_Hall.html


Augustus Hemsworth died in 1931 and left Shropham House in his will to Major Edward Garnier (who was only 12 years old at the time). When Charles Garnier acquired it in 1932, he invited his parents (Canon Edward and Lady Caroline Garnier) of Quidenham to live with him (these were another set of grandparents to Major Edward Garnier).

Major Edward Garnier bought the house he inherited at the age of 12...36 years later!

 

[Nigel Watts]

My interpretation is that the entire garden front is the 1856 "wing" referred to and the annex is very probably, as you suggest, early to mid 20th C. This would square with the odd looking fenestration, which had earlier struck me as early to mid Victorian. This kind of late Regency looking style lingered well into the Victorian era, especially in the provinces. My original home town of Colchester was still building late Georgian/Regency looking townhouses well into the 1860s. My current house in London, of 1840, still looks very Regency.

I bought the book shortly after it was published. You could try http://www.bookfinder.com for a second hand copy. These types of books can get quite rare/expensive. I had to pay an arm and a leg recently (well over £100) for a similar volume covering the North West. Failing that, Norwich library should have a copy I guess.

 

[Feltwell]

...love at first sight....sad really

Not at all. After 6 months of very dull house hunting, one evening I went to look at a particular house - which was no good. So I went to the town centre of this very small rural town, happened to look in an estate agents window, and there happened to be someone working inside even though it was 8pm.

Turns out it was his agency, and in chatting he happened to mention that his friends 15 miles away had their house up for sale but not on the Internet, and it sounded like just what I was after. So I went over there straight away and knew instantly that this was the house to buy, despite all it's faults (like needing a new roof straight away).

So I brought Mrs F and Les Enfants Terribles over the following night and fortunately they agreed! Mrs F was instantly smitten with the place.

Finding a home, rather than a house to invest in, has to be about gut instinct as much as anything else, especially if it requires work.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Here's one. Not as pricey as I expected.

http://www.booksatpbfa.com/search/results.php?item_id=1021477579