stabilisation of the brickwork, which had suffered from cracking through the spread of the roof; and the tying together of the roof structure. The repair of the cracks could have been executed by introducing steel reinforcement rodswithin the brick courses and pointing up the cracks. However, we were keen to allowthe brick structure to continue to behave as designed and built. Introducing steel would have resulted in an element of rigidity in a very small structure and could potentially have created subsequent problems. Instead, the cracks were repaired using brick stitching, to fully re-bond the brickwork making use of a non-hydraulic lime mortar to ensure flexibility. Associated with this was the removal of roof coverings to enable discreet tying together of roof timbers, principally rafter to purlin connections. The nest boxes that housed first-floor joistswere bricked in to improve the tying in of the structure; and secondary cross beams were introduced to strengthen the existing decayed beams supporting the glover. The essential repairs associated with weathering
included ensuring a weather-tight roof covering, reinstatement ofmissing brickwork – particularly that associatedwith high-level gable work and decorative recessed panels; re-bedding coping stones to gables; replacement of damaged and eroded stone to the south door reveal and window cill; and re-pointing, including removal of hard cement pointing which was causing localised weathering and deterioration of the bricks. In addition to this work was the modification of the glover structure, to allow for traditional lead flashing and weathering details, with the junction of the roof in order to prevent water ingress. The was a defect in the existing detail which had led to the decay of the existing cross beams throughwet rot.
BOTHthe extent of the re-pointing and the type of lime mortarmix underwent a considered review
process.Afew areas of existing pointing survived and were acknowledged as significant. Initially, in accordance with SPAB principles ofminimum intervention, these were to be retained as archaeological evidence. However,most of thewalls had suffered excessive weathering of the joints,whilst other areas would need re-pointing associated with the re-bonding of brickwork; large areas had been affected by poor cement pointing, to be replaced. Once these had been addressed, therewas the risk that thewallswould appear very patchy if isolated areas of surviving pointingwere retained. This would detract fromthe reading of this small building as a coherent and unified piece of design. Therefore in this instance itwas agreed that the entire structurewas to be re-pointed. The existing mix had variable-sized hot lime fragments/deposits running through. Fortunately, a source of hot lime was found nearby, following a recent traditional firing of lime at the Much Wenlock kilns. The approvedmix was one part hot lime: one part sharp sand: two parts Condover building sand. Essential to health and safety was the pinning and repairing of a coping stone to the south-east corner
CONTINUE TO BEHAVE AS DESIGNED AND
‘WEWERE KEEN TO ALLOW THE BRICK
STRUCTURE TO
BUILT…INTRODUCING STEELWOULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN
ELEMENT OF RIGIDITY IN A VERY SMALL STRUCTURE AND
COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE CREATED PROBLEMS
’
and the re-boarding of the loft floor,which had decayed to the point of collapse in areas. The repairs classed as “necessary”were primarily
related to ensuring that the original design intention was retained and reinstated where threatenedwith loss. This was to safeguard the architectural significance of this richly decorated building as seen in the round and standing within a prominent setting. These included the replacement of the heavily eroded stone string course all round the building before the moulded detail and profile were completely lost; the reinstatement of the render to the decorative recessed panels again before evidence of this featurewas entirely lost; joinery repairs to the north door; and repairs associated with the 1950s remedial structural works,which consisted of removing the secondary purlins (primarily acting as firring pieces) and replacement with a more discrete detail. Desirable work was the re-opening of the north
door and introducing a new iron gate to the south door. The building stands conserved as a fine example of
an important, rare 17th-century rural building type. It is situated in the Hodnet Hall Garden and Park, and is open to the public. See
www.hodnethallgardens.org
Cornerstone, Vol 32, No 3 2011 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112