Early Fabric in Historic Towns Ely, Cambridgeshire

Transcription

1 Early Fabric in Historic Towns Ely, Cambridgeshire Rebecca Lane and Allan Adams Discovery, Innovation and Science in the Historic Environment Research Report Series no Volume Two

2 Research Report Series EARLY FABRIC IN HISTORIC TOWNS ELY CAMBRIDGESHIRE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN THROUGH ITS HISTORIC BUILDINGS VOLUME TWO Rebecca Lane with a contribution from Allan Adams NGR: TL Historic England ISSN (Online) The Research Report Series incorporates reports by the expert teams within the Research Group of Historic England, alongside contributions from other parts of the organisation. It replaces the former Centre for Archaeology Reports Series, the Archaeological Investigation Report Series, the Architectural Investigation Report Series, and the Research Department Report Series. Many of the Research Reports are of an interim nature and serve to make available the results of specialist investigations in advance of full publication. They are not usually subject to external refereeing, and their conclusions may sometimes have to be modified in the light of information not available at the time of the investigation. Where no final project report is available, readers must consult the author before citing these reports in any publication. Opinions expressed in Research Reports are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Historic England. For more information contact Res.reports@HistoricEngland.org.uk or in writing to: Historic England, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD HISTORIC ENGLAND

3

4 SUMMARY This report presents the results of a programme of survey and research undertaken in the city of Ely in Cambridgeshire. Fifteen buildings have been examined in detail, with reports on the individual buildings included as an appendix to this volume. The main report presents these results in context, also examining a number of other buildings in the town and reflecting on what these buildings tell us about the evolution of the settlement as a whole, and early urban building types. CONTRIBUTORS This report has been prepared by Rebecca Lane, on the basis of surveys undertaken with Allan Adams. Additional fieldwork was undertaken by Elaine Jamieson, Katie Carmichael, and placements students Zoe Edwards, Sarah Hendriks and Amy Smith. Illustrations in this report have been prepared by Allan Adams, with photography by Pat Payne and James O. Davies, unless otherwise stated in the report. Christine Went assisted with the medieval documentary sources. Matt Bristow read the individual building reports and Jayne Rimmer the final report. Other support and guidance on the project in general has been provided by Barry Jones, Kathryn Morrison, Pete Herring, Mark Bowden and members of the former Towns and Suburbs activity team including John Cattell and Roger Thomas. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The principal acknowledgement in the completion of this project has to be to the owners and tenants of the buildings of Ely who allowed access to so many buildings, and particularly those who allowed access for full or partial measured surveys to be carried out. The support of those undertaking research on buildings and archaeology must also be acknowledged, particularly that of Anne Holton Krayenbuhl, who sadly passed away in Beth Davis, John Madison, Francis Young of the King s School, Steve Cole and members of the Ely Archaeological Society have also offered support. Unless otherwise stated in the report, copyright for material lies with Historic England. All attempts have been made to trace copyright holders for external material. ARCHIVE LOCATION The archive of original survey drawings is held in the Historic England Archive, (former National Monuments Record), The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon. For more information visit DATE OF SURVEY The initial walkover survey of Ely took place in February 2014, with individual buildings examined and surveyed between July 2014 and April CONTACT DETAILS The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon, SN2 2EH Rebecca Lane Rebecca.Lane@HistoricEngland.org.uk HISTORIC ENGLAND

5

6 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 2 WATERSIDE, ELY 2 Discussion 3 Phase One 16 th century 3 Phase Two late 16th century or early 17th century 4 Phase Three 18th century 5 Phase Four 19th and early 20th centuries 7 Phase Five Late 20th century restoration 7 Bibliography 8 5 MARKET PLACE, ELY; THE FISH HOUSE 12 Phase One late 16th century 13 Phase Two late 16th or early 17th century 15 Phase Three late 17th or early 18th century 19 Phase Four 18th century 20 Phase Five late 18th century 21 Phase Six early 19th century 22 Phase Seven 20th century 23 Bibliography 24 3A HIGH STREET PASSAGE, ELY; POSITIVELY 30 Phase One late 15th or early 16th century 31 Phase Two late 16th or early 17th century 33 Phase Three 17th or early 18th century 34 Phase Four mid-19th century 35 Phase Five 20th century 35 Bibliography BROAD STREET, ELY 39 Discussion 40 Bibliography 48 WATERLOO HOUSE, 3 WEST FEN ROAD, ELY 51 Discussion 52 HISTORIC ENGLAND

7 Conclusion 62 Bibliography 62 1 HIGH STREET, ELY; ANGLIA WINES 67 Phase One 15th century 68 Phase Two 17th century 69 Phase Three 20th century 69 Bibliography 69 STEEPLEGATE, 16 AND 18 HIGH STREET, ELY 71 Discussion 72 Conclusion 77 Bibliography AND 24 HIGH STREET, ELY 80 Discussion 82 Conclusion 86 Bibliography HIGH STREET, ELY; OXFAM 89 Phase One pre-16th century 90 Phase Two 16th or early 17th century 90 Phase Three late 16th or 17th century 91 Phase Four 18th century and later 92 Bibliography HIGH STREET, ELY; NEW LOOK 96 Phase One late medieval 97 Phase Two 16th century 98 Phase Three Uncertain (17th century?) 100 Phase Four 18th century 101 Phase Five 19th and 20th centuries 101 Bibliography A ST MARY S STREET; THE ANGELA MELLOR GALLERY 106 Discussion 107 Bibliography 111

8 48 ST MARY S STREET; THE OLD GUILDHALL 114 Discussion 115 Bibliography ST MARY S STREET 120 Discussion 121 Bibliography LYNN ROAD; THE OLD KING WILLIAM PUB 129 Discussion 130 Bibliography PALACE GREEN, ELY 135 Description 136 Conclusion 137

9

10 INTRODUCTION This volume represents the individual building survey reports on the 15 buildings which were examined in detail as part of the recent Historic England project. The findings of the reports have been summarised as part of the wider study in Volume One, but these reports provide more information on the evidence identified during the surveys. The reports include the full series of survey drawings for each building. Five buildings were given total surveys, including plans and sections. 2 Waterside 5 Market Place 3a High Street Passage 23 Broad Street Waterloo House, West Fen Road Nine further buildings were partly surveyed. 1a High Street High Street High Street 31 High Street 33 High Street 38a St Mary's Street 48 St Mary's Street 82 St Mary's Street 29 Lynn Road One report was written on the basis of an investigation only with no measured survey. 3 Palace Green HISTORIC ENGLAND 1

11 2 WATERSIDE, ELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 2 Waterside was visited and surveyed on the 13 and 14 October 2014 by Rebecca Lane and Katie Carmichael, Investigators from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 2 Waterside forms part of a unit with 58 Forehill and the properties are grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes the building as 18th century brick houses, re-roofed in the 19th century. Despite the differentiation in street address, it is clear that No 2 Waterside and No 58 Forehill have a shared structural history, and form part of a mixed terrace of buildings running from the junction of Broad Street and Forehill down towards the river. This part of the town is low-lying to the river and was drained and reclaimed from the 12th century onwards, following the diversion of the river to the foot of the Ely scarp (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 9). In the medieval period therefore the area was crossed by streams and ditches which provided natural boundaries and guided development, although much of this topography has been radically altered. In the northern part of the area, now occupied by Waterside, the broadhithe on the river is mentioned from the 13th century onwards, and the development of the extant route of Waterside probably developed from this period, linking the broadhithe with the market place to the west (ibid). The 1417 survey of Ely identifies the tenants living on the street from Brodlanesende to Brodhithe on the south side (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 101). Reconstructed evidence from the survey suggests that the area of 58 Forehill was part of Alice Symme s tenement, part of the above three cottages under one roof and that 2 Waterside roughly corresponds to John Chesteyn s tenement (ibid). HISTORIC ENGLAND 2

12 Notwithstanding the documentary evidence for a coherent late medieval settlement pattern in the area, it is clear from the surviving buildings of Waterside that the street underwent substantial investment in reconstruction in the late 16th and 17th centuries. This appears to have been broadly based on the plot layout which survived from the medieval period, with little indication of wholesale reorganisation of landholding. This may have been due to an increased prosperity, or alternatively it may have been an attempt by owners to invest in property to revive the area during an economic downturn. By the 18th century the area was in decline, and many of the houses were subdivided into smaller cottage units. Some of these survive today, while others have been re-amalgamated in the 20th century. Discussion Phase One 16 th century The earliest extant phase in the surviving house appears to be the construction of a two-bay building running parallel to the street (see plan). On the basis of the form and detail of the building it has been dated to the late 16th century. In this phase the building appears to have comprised a timber-framed house of two equal bays, jettied towards the street and probably always heated from a stack at the east end of the building. Although the external walling and west bay in particular have been subject to later alteration, substantial portions of the timber frame of this phase survive. The central principal truss (A-A1) survives in situ with the wall plate and mid rail of the south (rear) wall, the central spine beams and joists of the east bay. Portions of the western truss also survive, although this appears to have been relocated and partly replaced. The central spine beams and some of the ground floor joists also survive in the west bay. The better surviving of the two trusses, the central truss (A-A1), has the upper part of a jowled post extant within the rear (south wall). This is chamfered on both inner edges, and has scrolled stops where it meets the tie beam at first-floor level. The scrolled stop is a consistent feature throughout the timbers of the building, and is the best evidence for the survival of timbers from the first phase. At ground-floor level the lower portion of the truss has been truncated for the insertion of brick walling, but a short section of the lower portion of the post survives immediately below the cross rail. The tie-beam of the truss is chamfered on both sides, and stopped in the centre where it joins the first-floor spine beams of the east and west bays. Similarly, the cross rail is chamfered on both sides, and stopped where it meets the groundfloor east and west spine beams, and the remaining section of the rear (south) post. The main evidence for the original presence of a jetty can be seen in the northern section of the central cross rail, close to the later brick north wall (see Sketch details of Truss A-A1). Although partly obscured by a later partition below, a square notch is visible on the underside of the cross rail. As visible from the east room the notch has been infilled with timber, but from the other side a residual peg hole is visible. This appears to represent a cutout for a jetty plate, which would have sat on alignment with the original ground floor external wall, with the joists projecting out beyond to form the jetty. A further notch is visible in one of the joists of the western HISTORIC ENGLAND 3

13 bay, immediately adjacent to the original western end of the building. This joist may have been relocated within the bay but provides further evidence for the presence of a continuous jetty across both bays at the front of the building. The western truss (B-B1) has been modified and partly reconstructed with reused timber in the late 20th century. The principal surviving original element is the tie beam, which is chamfered on its eastern face, but apparently not to the west, although this edge has been damaged. This would however correspond with the idea that originally this represented the end truss of the building, with the western face originally forming the outer side of the west elevation. Below the tie beam the upward braces and associated struts to the north and south have been replaced, although the original mortices in the underside of the tie beam indicate that they correspond to the original form of the truss which must always have been closed. Towards the centre of the beam are two studs which may in fact be in situ as their scantling fits better with the mortices into which they are slotted, and they show few signs of reuse. These suggest that the truss was always closed below the tie beam. To the south elements of the original rear wall are in situ, most notably the wall plate in the eastern bay (that in the western bay is a late 20th century replacement). The surviving original section is chamfered, and stopped where it meets the central truss. It also has a large edge-halved and bridled scarf joint visible towards the western end of the bay (see detail drawing). Chiselled I marks either side of the scarf may be carpenters marks. Immediately west of the scarf joint a pair of residual peg holes indicate the former position of a stud in the rear wall, which presumably helped to provide some support at the junction of the two timbers. Centrally placed at the eastern end of the building is a large chimney stack. At ground-floor level the sides and bressumer of the fireplace have been replaced in the late 20th century, and the sides of the first-floor level also appear to have been reconstructed, but an early bressumer survives which appears contemporary with the construction of the building. Immediately west of the chimney breast is the tie-beam of the eastern truss. All other elements of this truss appear to have been removed, and the tie beam appears to have been moved westwards to its current position, possibly to accommodate a larger fireplace opening. The evidence for this is principally that the central spine beam in the eastern room has been truncated at its eastern end with the chamfer stops removed. Redundant mortices on the underside of the tie beam indicate the former presence of upward curving braces, which suggests that the truss originally must have been of the same form as the central truss. Phase Two late 16th century or early 17th century To the west of the original two-bay house, a further, single bay is now incorporated into the building. This is more altered than either of the original bays, giving little in the way of diagnostic features, but the original bressumer survives to the groundfloor fireplace and has a scrolled stop similar in form to that used in the original two-bay house, but distinct in being slightly raised from the chamfer, with faceted edges (see detail drawing). This feature suggests a late 16th century or early 17th HISTORIC ENGLAND 4

14 century date. Given that there a similarities between this stop and those in the original building it would be reasonable to suggest that this reflects a slightly higherstatus room within an original, three-bay, building. However other features of the bay, including the irregular shape of the bressumer, suggest that it was not intended as a high-status room. There is also evidence of a distinct change in angle in the building, just west of the western truss of the original house, together with other evidence of differences in the construction of this element of the house. It is therefore suggested that this room in fact forms part of a distinct phase, and represents part of a further two-bay house which has been appropriated by its neighbour at a later date. Evidence from a brief examination of No 58 Fore Hill, the adjancent property, supports this interpretation as this has similar features including the same distinctive chamfer stop to the ground-floor bressumer.. At ground-floor level there are few original features associated with this phase, as the central spine beam appears to be a later insertion (or replacement) and the joists are concealed. It is notable however that the ceiling height is higher than that of the earlier building. The principal original feature of the bay is the substantial fireplace, with brick jambs chamfered on their inner edges. The brick is in a variety of red and yellow hues, although with a stronger red used consistently for the chamfered inner edges perhaps as a decorative feature. The bressumer is irregularly shaped, although finished with a chamfer on its lower edge, and the distinctive stops described above, with a raised scroll faceted towards the chamfer. The bressumer also has a series of burn marks along its fine face, at a level too low to have been associated with a sconce or mantle-shelf. These may therefore be ritual marks, associated with protection against spirits. These are typically thought to have been created soon after construction. At first-floor level the ceiling joists are exposed, and run the full width of the room axially, with no central spine beam. In the rear wall part of the wall plate is exposed where it runs into what is now the west gable wall of the property. Unlike those of the earlier phase the wall plate is undecorated, with no chamfer on its lower edge. At the end of the wall plate a notch and peg indicate the former position of the principal post. This suggests that originally the bay was timber-framed, although all evidence for the form of the front of the building has been lost. Depending on whether this phase represents a single-bay extension or part of a further two-bay house this post may represent either part of a timber-framed gable wall, or part of an intermediate truss. Phase Three 18th century The 18th century saw a significant remodelling to the exterior and interior of the earlier building. Externally the building was refaced in brick, including the sides and rear of the property. Internally much of the remodelling appears to relate to the subdivision of the building into three cottages. No 58 Forehill immediately west of the western part of No 2 appears also to have undergone the same process which strengthens the argument for the western bay of No 2 originally forming part of a single property with No 58. HISTORIC ENGLAND 5

15 The remodelling of the exterior of the building in brick necessitated the removal of the original jetty, with the structural timbers at first-floor level truncated in order to allow the creation of a level façade. This could also be achieved by building out the ground-floor of the building, leaving the jetty intact, and not reducing the size of the building, but in this case the importance of the route from Broadhithe, up Forehill and to the Market Place may have prevented the property holder from encroaching further on the street in this way. All three bays of No 2 and the adjacent No 58 Forehill have all been refaced in a yellow stock brick which is almost certainly locally-produced. The most distinctive feature of the street frontage is the platband projecting slightly from the building demarcating the ground- and first-floor level. There is a slight change in the height of the platband between the eastern two bays of No 2 and the western bay, the band of which sits slightly higher (corresponding with the higher ceiling level in the ground-floor of this bay). At the same point as the change in the height of the platband there is also some indicating of a disruption in the brickwork. This may be related to the change in angle at this point, which may have necessitated some adjustments in the process of re-fronting the building, but it may also indicate that the two sections were in fact refronted at slightly different times. Disruptions to the brickwork of the front elevation indicate the former position of two doorways, each corresponding with one of the single-bay cottages, with the central doorway retained as the current entrance. The eastern elevation of the building, with its prominent gable, appears to have been built at the same time, with the brickwork of the front elevation coursing into that of the east elevation. Visible within what is now a continuous street frontage with No 4 to the east, is a corbelling out of the east elevation at first-floor level. The construction of the gable wall, and particularly the corbel, suggest that there was no building immediately east of No 2 at that time it was remodelled. The rear elevations of the building were largely replaced in brick, probably at the same time, although subsequent alterations have probably removed much of this early brickwork, and it is now rendered and painted. At the base of the elevation however courses of yellow stock brick are visible, suggesting a contemporary date. To the west the presence of No 58 Forehill has obviously not allowed for any reconstruction between the two buildings. It is notable also that No 58 does not have a prominent gable where it meets No 56. This building is 19th century, but this may indicate that there were further earlier buildings surviving to the west of No 58 in the 18th century. Internally much of the evidence for the three cottages phase has been removed by alterations in the 20th century to unite the three units. The best surviving evidence is in the western bay, where a brick winder stair, in the same stock brick as the exterior of the building, has been built up against the southern jamb of the earlier fireplace. Underneath the stair and accessed through the earlier fireplace, a bread-oven has also been inserted, the yellow stock brick contrasting with the more variegated tones of the earlier brick, which has been cut back to accommodate the oven opening. The timber stair which leads from the first to the second floor is probably contemporary as they share a paired doorway in the first-floor room of this bay with matching two-panelled doors. In the eastern bay a series of later HISTORIC ENGLAND 6

16 joists to the south of the fireplace testify to the likely position of a corresponding stair, and this is confirmed by a photograph taken during the late 20th century restoration which appears to show a brick winder stair. Arrangements in the central bay are unclear, as much evidence has been lost. It also lacked any original heating arrangement, and may have had a stack inserted on its rear elevation in this phase, although if so all such evidence has been removed. Phase Four 19th and early 20th centuries Mapping evidence indicates that the cottages were extended to the south on a piecemeal basis with each cottage including either a single or double storey rear extension. These have now been removed, and the principal building fabric evidence for their presence is the lack of surviving original timbers in the rear elevation, as successive alterations have necessitated the removal of much of the original framing. Photographs taken of the rear of the building during the late 20th century restoration (see below) indicate that these extensions took place throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a variety of brickwork styles and forms, but mostly in machine made later red brick. The other, probably 19th century, alteration is the re-roofing of the building, with the surviving roof sitting at a noticeably shallower pitch than its predecessor. This is most obvious to the east, where the 18th century brick gable projects well above the current roof line. Differences in the brickwork of the eastern chimney stack also indicate that the lower portion of the stack as currently visible externally probably originally sat within the earlier roof. It is notable that No 58 Forehill shares the same roof pitch as No 2, although both have now been re-roofed at separate dates. This again suggests that they have some shared history. To the south the western bay of No 2 and No 58 have a matching 19th century saw-tooth eaves cornice, which differs from that of the rest of No 2. This again suggests that these two bays were originally a single building. Phase Five Late 20th century restoration The three cottages that now form No 2 were united in the late 1980s in a single phase. This clearly necessitated considerable reconstruction, due to the poor condition of the building. The rear extensions were largely demolished, although the extension behind the central bay was reconstructed to form a first-floor bathroom sitting on timber supports. Given the evidence that No 58 and the western bay of No 2 were probably originally a single building it seems most likely that the current three bay arrangement was only created in this phase. This is probably based on expediency, with the builder responsible for the restoration able to purchase the three properties at this time. Internally the most significant alteration was the reintroduction of some historic timbers to recreate some of the lost framing of the original building. This is particularly the case in the western truss of the original building (now between the central and western bays) where the original southern post of the truss has been replaced with a reused, timber post, possibly from a barn or another open HISTORIC ENGLAND 7

17 structure as there is no evidence of any cross-rail. This has been given a jowl which matches the profile of the original south post surviving to the east, but the stops are consistently of a straight rather than scrolled form. It is likely that both of the curving braces of this truss were also replaced as they are of narrow scantling and sit poorly within the original mortices. That to the north, furthermore, would have to have been removed when the jetty was cut back in the 18th century, making these timbers certainly a later introduction. Further timbers in the south wall of the central bay share these characteristics, either through showing clear signs of reuse (with redundant peg holes and mortices) or by being finished with chamfers and straight stops. This includes the wall plate which runs between the two trusses, and the cross rail and ground-floor door lintel to the southern extension. Further proof that these timbers relate to this phase is provided by the posts supporting the bathroom extension which have identical straight stops at their bases. Adjacent to the south wall, the insertion of the current staircase also required some alteration to the original joists in the southern part of the central bay. Several of these have been relocated, and now sit out of alignment with those to the north of the central spine beam. The fireplace in the ground-floor eastern bay was also heavily reconstructed at that time, although photographic evidence indicates that the replacement corresponds to the original, in the use of the brick jambs and the chamfered bressumer. The bressumer is a new timber, rather than the reused timbers employed elsewhere. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 8

18 First-floor plan Site of 19thcentury stair? Site of window? A Rear wing, c1990 B A1 B1 Ground-floor plan Site of 19thcentury stair? A Rear wing, c1990 B Joists reset Bread oven Former line of wall Blocked door A1 B1 Blocked door m ft 2 Waterside Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 9

19 Cross sections A-A1 and B-B1 Purlins measured on far side of truss Modern post & brace Modern brace A A1 B B m ft Joist Cross rail A-A1 Post Post A visible in ground-floor room Sketch details, truss A-A1 Joist Cross rail A-A1 Former cutout for jetty plate Joist Cross rail A-A1 Reconstructed jetty plate Former wall Cross rail A-A1 Cutout for jetty plate visible on other side of wall Post A1 reconstructed in ground-floor room 2 Waterside Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 10

20 Scarf joint in rear wall plate North west end of rear wall plate View of assembled joint Exploded view Post at A Probable mortice, concealed by brick wall Tie beam in end wall, possibly inserted m 5 0 3ft Central ceiling beam, centre bay of ground floor Fireplace bressumer, north west room on ground floor Beam Joist Bressumer Joists to rear of bay reset for modern stair Timber pad 2 Waterside Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 11

21 5 MARKET PLACE, ELY; THE FISH HOUSE As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 5 Market Place, Ely was visited and surveyed on the 17th and 18th November 2014 by Rebecca Lane Investigator from the Historic England Assessment team, Amy Smith Historic Environment Placement and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. The property is grade II listed (UID ), identified as an 18th century building possibly with an earlier structural core. 5 Market Place is part of a continuous terrace of buildings situated to the north of Ely s market square. As originally laid out the square was considerably larger, extending from the current open area to the west ends of what are now Market Street and High Street. The process of infilling much of this area appears to have begun in the medieval period, and by the time of the 1417 survey much of the area was already built-up. This process must have left the properties around the surviving open section of the square particularly prominent in the late medieval and post- HISTORIC ENGLAND 12

22 medieval periods. This is reflected in the size and scale of some of the properties, particularly on the north side of the market square, which rise to three and four stories and have clearly received considerable investment over a long period. Properties may well have been laid out along the sides of the market place as part of the suggested 12th century planning of the city (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 8). At the time of the 1417 survey the site of 5 Market Place was part of a tenement owned by the Prior and in the hands of Nicholas Wace lying between the said tenement of J. Swan that is of the lord bishop s fee on the east and a tenement of John Cut the butcher on the west, it contains in front towards the said common market 2 perches less ½ iron yard (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 113). It is clear that, unsurprisingly, the prominent market place plots were being used for trade, although there is no indication of whether the tenant of the plot on the site of 5 Market Place was trading. The building currently comprises two principal ranges, a front range which runs parallel to the market place to the south and a rear ranges which sits at right-angles to it; to the northwest. The angle between the two ranges has been infilled with a further block forming a northeast wing. There is an open yard to the rear (north) with, on its northern side a further two-storey detached range, possibly of late 18th or early 19th century date. Along the east side of the yard are a series of late 19th century single-storey sheds. The courtyard buildings have not been assessed in detail, although where relevant they have been included in the description of the phasing of the site. Phase One late 16th century The earliest fabric identifiable within the building forms elements of a two-bay storied range running parallel to the street frontage (see plan). This is heavily altered, particularly at ground-floor level, and much of its plan form and function is unclear. Surviving elements indicate that the structure had a timber-framed rear wall, and was probably timber framed throughout. The building fabric evidence also suggests that the range did not originally run the full width of the plot, but provided space for a cut through or alleyway to the western side of the property. The presence of such a right of way is attested by several features in later phases (see below). This appears to have been a well-established and relatively long-lived access route from the market place to the open ground to the north. The continuing presence of such a feature provides some confirmation of the building evidence for the position of the west gable wall. The principal evidence for this phase is the north post and tie beam of what was the western end of the building with an associated spine beam and joists. Only a small part of the northern side of the post is visible within a later first-floor cupboard. Any detailing on the post is not visible. Its width however suggests that it forms part of a substantial frame element and it sits in alignment with the tie beam suggesting it forms part of a principal truss. The tie beam is again only partly visible, this time in the floor of the attic. It is cambered, and the higher central section has been left exposed in the flooring of the attic. The visible central section has three residual mortices on its upper face. These could be interpreted as receiving struts to support HISTORIC ENGLAND 13

23 the principal rafters, but they are square cut rather than angled which suggests that in fact they provided the seating for vertical studs. This provides one indication that this truss originally formed the end wall of the building, as the studding would be typical of a gable end. It is notable that this end truss in fact sits approximately 1m in from the western side of the plot. This may well have allowed for the cut-through or alleyway to the west of the building which is evident from later phases (see below). Within the floor of the attic, projecting eastwards from the western tie beam is a substantial square-cut spine beam. This is partly visible under loose floorboards, and is tenoned into the tie beam at its western end. A series of marks or scratches on its southern face may be Baltic shipping marks; these were added to timbers imported from the countries around the Baltic Sea to indicate their ownership and point of origin. Such imported timber was used extensively, particularly on the eastern side of England and in areas where indigenous wood was hard to acquire. Tenoned into the spine beam are a series of joists. The spine beam and joists all appear contemporary with the tie beam and thus it is suggested that these elements form part of a single phase of a building which was constructed with a closed ceiling typical of a 16th century or later date. Further elements of the structure are largely concealed, however the north and south ends of a further cambered tie beam are visible at first-floor level in the partition between the two first-floor rooms. These are plastered over, but the cambered form suggests that this tie beam is contemporary with the beam further west and formed part of a further roof truss. There is a suggestion of a chamfer on the underside of the beam where it is visible in the eastern room. The southern section of a further cambered tie beam is visible against the eastern wall of the building. This represents the full width of the plot as it survives, and almost certainly therefore represents the eastern extent of the original building indicating a two-bay front range running parallel to the street. As there is evidence that the range was always ceiled it is likely that there was a chimney provided with this initial phase of building. It is suggested that the southern part of the extremely large stack that sits to the north of the front range may well date from this phase, although there are no diagnostic features visible to confirm this. This would have formed a projecting lateral chimney stack on the rear of the building, a typical location. It is difficult to establish whether there was any further heating within the building at the time. A stack was certainly provided later to heat the eastern room, but this is positioned differently and whether this corresponds with an original chimney position is not known. Given the limited size of the putative two-bay range it is probably more likely that there was only a single source of heat. There appear to be no internal fittings or features relating to this phase surviving in the front range, which has clearly been subject to a whole series of subsequent alterations. It is therefore very difficult to establish any likely early internal form to the building. It seems likely that it did provide some form of commercial space on the ground floor with living accommodation above. The provision of a ceiled first floor could also have allowed for further accommodation in the attic space, as was clearly the case in subsequent phases. HISTORIC ENGLAND 14

24 Phase Two late 16th or early 17th century The next phase of activity relates to the provision of a substantial projecting rear range sitting at right-angles to the earlier front range. Stylistic features within the range suggest an early 17th century date although this would be a very late use of the jettied form, which would be more typical of the 16th century. Given the lack of datable features surviving in the front range it is possible to suggest that the two ranges are contemporary, as their two suggested date ranges do overlap. The differences in the structural framing elements however, and the poorer quality of the rear range, suggests that they are more likely to form part of separate phases. Both ranges may have been constructed within a short period of time however. As constructed the northwest range appears to have been fully timber-framed and to have provided additional accommodation on three levels. It is of two full bays, with a chimney stack at its southern end. It is suggested that this has been added onto an earlier stack which projected from the rear of the front range (see above). This arrangement has created a very substantial chimney block which effectively fills the southern bay of the rear range and is framed as such where visible at groundfloor level. There is no post and truss arrangement identifiable in the southern bay or between the southern and central bay, possibly because of heavy alteration to the framing on both sides in this area. The posts of the truss between the central and north bay do survive and elements of the northern truss are also extant. The building was jettied along its western side, the jetty surviving visible in a residual section of the alleyway on the western side of the building plot. At ground-floor level much of the evidence for the form of the range has been lost, and the principal evidence for its form is in the survival of the jetty, albeit with some later alteration. The jetty now projects out from a later brick wall by approximately 0.2m, although the original wall line probably sat further inwards. A depth of approximately 0.4 m would be more typical, and it is notable that an original wall line on this level would line up with the west wall of the front range. The jetty plate does not survive, but the later brick wall supports the projecting joists of the jetty. These have simple rounded ends, with no indication of any pegging for a fascia. The joists support the jetty bressumer which is again plain. This has pegging for the studs in the upper level of the building, although externally the studding is no longer visible. The position of the western post of the truss between the northern and central bays can be distinguished where it meets the jetty bressumer, as it is double pegged at its base. One further residual detail still visible externally in the later brick wall is the large squared end of a timber approximately 1.5m above ground level. This is the end of the timber which formed the fireplace bressumer, although internally this feature is now concealed and may have been truncated. The detail of the first floor exterior is now largely concealed by render. Internally the upper parts of the pair of posts between the north and central bay are visible; these are unjowled and have chamfered inner edges. They are double pegged into the wall plates at the top. The posts support wall plates which now sit at an intermediate height within the attic storey of the building, some 0.35m above the floor level. The posts therefore do not have associated tie beams, nor are there any residual HISTORIC ENGLAND 15

25 indications that such a feature has been removed. Running between the posts below their heads however is a cross beam supporting the attic floor. This is boxed in at first-floor level but the boxing is deep and wide suggesting it surrounds a substantial timber. Without examining the beam it is not possible to establish whether this is original or secondary, but given the absence of any evidence for an original tie beam location it seems more likely that it is primary. It may be that this feature was considered sufficient to tie the truss together in the absence of a tie beam at a more conventional height. The tie beam could have been omitted in order to provide a more usable space at attic level; the lower floor level providing significant additional headroom. The roof structure is concealed by plaster so it is not possible to identify any indications of the original truss form. There are no extant collars surviving in the range, although these could subsequently have been removed to make the use of the space easier. In the absence of the tie beam to support any struts or posts some form of collar rafter roof seems the most likely original form. The northern wall of the range is largely plastered although there is the outline of the post in the northeast corner. Although largely concealed it appears that this post may be jowled, although this is difficult to confirm without the removal of the plaster. The remainder of this truss appears to have been reconstructed, so its original form is unclear. In its original form the range appears to have had a regular pattern of vertical studs to both the east and west elevations. Some studwork is visible at attic level and the position of further studs is identifiable in the visible pegging in the wall plates and the jetty bressumer. The studs visible at attic level are relatively irregular in form and size perhaps suggesting the use of poorer quality timbers. Regular gaps in the pegging pattern at wall plate height could suggest the position of windows, and it is notable that there is a gap in each bay on both the east and west sides, with those in the intermediate bay opposing each other towards the north of the bay, and those in the northern bay situated on different alignments. It is difficult to reconcile such window positions with the suggestion that the current floor level is original however. It is possible that these formed part of two-stage windows lighting both the first and second floors, although this would be an elaborate window form for which is otherwise a relatively poor-quality extension. Alternatively the lack of pegging may not be indicative of window positions but simply indicate that not all of the studs were pegged to the wall plates, with the inconsistency possibly explained by the irregularity in the size of the studs. Where the original jetty bressumer is in situ the stud pattern is regular suggesting that all the upper studs were pegged at their base. The range has again been subject to considerable later alteration which makes its original form and function very difficult to establish, but it seems likely that it originally provided a single large room on each of three levels. At ground-floor level a single cross beam survives with an ovolo-moulded form and scrolled stop. It sits at right angles to the first-floor cross beam, running from north to south through the northern two bays of the range. The orientation of the beam makes provision for the joists of the jetty on the western side of the range. These must run from the western side of the beam although internally they are concealed by the plaster ceiling. The style of the moulding on the spine beam suggests an early 17th century date. HISTORIC ENGLAND 16

26 Stylistically this surviving beam in the north-west range corresponds to one of the spine beams visible in the ceiling of the first-floor east room of the front range, which has the same ovolo moulded form and scroll stops. The evidence for the earlier ceiling form in the west room was for a joisted ceiling, and assuming this originally continued into the eastern room then this beam must be secondary as the sides of the beam are visible and there are no indications of joist positions, either extant or residual. The visible beam may therefore relate to the under-ceiling of the room, perhaps with plaster concealing the earlier joisted ceiling which may have been left in situ above. This beam therefore suggests that the front range was remodelled at the same time as the rear range was constructed, with fixtures and fittings updated to a corresponding style. Another notable survival of the building is a number of 17th century features, at least two of which are almost certainly ex situ. At attic level two doors survive which may be in situ (see dooor drawings). The first of these is the door between the east and west rooms in the front range. This has an elaborately moulded plank and batten door. The door has three planks with an additional narrow fillet at the hinge end. These are decorated with a series of raised and sunk strips, giving the effect of thin rails and panels. The sunk sections have a simple V-shaped profile, but the raised rails have a small ogee moulding to either side. Hall (2007, 37) dates the V-shaped profile to the early 17th century in general, with a decorated example similar to this from Suffolk dated to The door fittings also appear original, with tapering spear-head strap hinges and a stirrup-shaped drop handle with a decorative back plate (see door fitting drawings). This operates a sprung latch, again with a decorative back plate. The latch itself is decorated with an intricate series of small dimples on its outer edge forming a pyramid shape. On the outer (west) side of the door there is also a sliding blot, with squared ends both decorated with a saltire cross. This is attached to the door by two square iron hasps. All this is again suggestive of a 17th century date and must be contemporary with the door. A further 17th century door survives at attic level giving access between the hallway and the northwest room. This is considerably plainer than that between the two front-range rooms. It is formed of three planks, with two wider outside planks lapped over a slightly recessed, narrower, inner plank. It has tapering strap hinges with spearhead endings typical of the 17th century and similar in style to those on the more decorative front-range door, although these are considerably larger. This door also has the remains of a handle which may have been of the same form as the other door. It appears to have had a drop handle, although this is now missing, but the surviving backplate is of the same form. Assuming that these doors are in situ, which the survival of all the fittings does suggest, then the doors also appear to indicate a contrast in the status of the front and rear ranges at this date. It also suggests that by this period, if not before, the attic storey of the front range had been subdivided into two separate rooms. These spaces furthermore must have been relatively high status, given the decorative nature of the door. Within the same upper storey a further feature may also relate to the same phase, HISTORIC ENGLAND 17

27 although this is probably ex situ. Situated in the front-range west room, east of the projecting chimney breast and against the north wall a small plank cupboard has two sections of borrowed lights forming the upper part of the two outer sides. These two sections are formed of a series of splat balusters of the same form but different proportions. The eastern face is formed of vase balusters of considerably taller proportions and these are also deeper in profile. They have residual pegging towards the top. It is suggested that these may in fact form part of a 17th century feature, and have been reused within the later cupboard. Whether they were definitely part of a borrowed light is difficult to establish, but it is the most likely feature for them to have been removed from, particularly given the pegging to their faces. A further door at first-floor level could also date from the late 16th or early 17th century. This now gives access to the northeast-range room, which is almost certainly later, and is therefore likely to have been relocated. This door is very different from the in situ example surviving in the attic. It is panelled with 8 raised panels of equal size with pegged rails and stiles. On the outer face the edges of the rails and stiles are decorated with a narrow ogee moulding, on the inner face they have a central square-cut hollow. It has H-hinges with decorative ends, although given the likely relocation of the door these may not be original. A door of this form would typically sit with a panelled room, forming a seamless part of the lining of the room. Although ex situ, its presence here suggests again that the building received considerable investment in the late 16th and early 17th century. The door may relate to a prominent ground- or first-floor room which was at least partly panelled. This would be a high-status feature in the property. A further significant ex situ feature is a small section of 17th century stair balustrade surviving towards the top of the flight of stairs from the first floor to the attic (see stair detail drawing). This comprises one faceted newel post with an associated section of a closed string stair with two pierced splat balusters and a further newel post. All of this appears to have been relocated, and nailed together, with the bottom part of the closed string cut in order to sit against the later stair treads. The faceted newel has the trimmed back remains of a heart-shaped pendant suggesting that originally it sat at the corner of an open-well staircase. It has a tapered octagonal post with two projecting lips on its lower half. It has a faceted ball finial. On the outer side is residual pegging for the rail and string positions. The splat balusters are clearly related to this newel as they have, in profile, the same form with a tapering profile and projecting rounds in the same positions as the mouldings on the principal newel post. The balusters are pierced with a central tear-drop opening following the profile of the outer edge of the baluster. The lower newel is also of splat form, with the same profile as the balusters. However it is considerably deeper than the balusters and has a full base and top, rather than being attached to the string and rail. It is topped with a pyramid finial. This may have formed some sort of intermediate post in the original stair, as it is obviously of less elaborate form than the upper newel. This fragment of what must have been a much larger stair must have been relocated to this position following the replacement of the open well staircase with which it was associated. Being ex situ it is always possible that it was brought into the building from elsewhere, but given its reuse in a relatively hidden part of the range it seems more likely that it was recycled from elsewhere HISTORIC ENGLAND 18

28 within the same building. It is again indicative of significant investment in the 17th century. Similar balusters in a stair in Northamptonshire have been dated to 1668 (Hall 2007, 116) and a mid-17th century date seems likely. This fits well with other stylistic details identified throughout the building, suggestive of a significant phase of investment within the 17th century. Whether all of these were contemporary, or whether elements were updated or renewed on a more piecemeal basis is now impossible to establish and given the similar date range these features have all been phased together. Phase Three late 17th or early 18th century A significant phase of work to the front range was undertaken, most likely at some stage after the construction of the rear range. The work ascribed to this phase is the extension of the upper floors of the earlier front range to the west to appropriate the area over the alleyway or passageway which ran down the western side of the plot. There is very little evidence to date this phase, and it is extremely difficult to know whether it was undertaken at the same time as any other work on the building. It remains possible that the extension was in fact undertaken at the same time as the construction of the rear range for example. It is notable that the northwest range s western wall probably sat in alignment with the earlier wall line of the front range (see phase two above), but given that there is evidence that the passageway to the western side remained open after this phase then that does not provide definitive evidence of a later date. Given this uncertainty this alteration has been given its own phase, but it may in fact have formed part of phase two or phase four. Although the evidence at ground-floor level is heavily altered it is suggested that the western portion of the plot remained open at this level at this stage as there is considerable evidence from the layout of the yard to the north of the building that the alleyway remained a public thoroughfare into the 19th century (see below). The heavy alteration to the ground floor however makes this impossible to definitely establish from the extant building evidence. Notwithstanding the uncertainty over the specific form of the ground floor it must have remained primarily a passageway and the alterations therefore can only have provided a small amount of additional space at first- and second-floor level. However subsequent alterations and extensions suggest that space on the plot was always under pressure, so the small gain in space must have seemed sufficient to justify the level of work required. The principal evidence for this extension is in the relationship of the original western tie beam with the framing elements further to its west. The evidence for the tie beam having originally been the western extent of the building has already been described (see phase one). Where this tie beam is visible in the floor of the attic the spine beam extending west of this is lapped onto the top of the beam. This contrasts with the original spine beam extending east of the tie beam which is properly tenoned into it. The scantling of the two beams is also different, with the western spine beam considerably narrower. The lapped west spine beam also has joists projecting from it, but these are again smaller than those to the east of the tie beam. This evidence suggests that the western spine beam and its associated joists are later, and have been added to the earlier structure. HISTORIC ENGLAND 19

29 Phase Four 18th century As in previous centuries there appears to have been a process of modernising the interior of the building in the 18th century. For most of these alterations it is difficult to establish a potential sequence as they may have taken place as part of one large phase or on a more piecemeal basis. The one substantial extension to the building in this period can certainly be placed later than one of the significant internal alterations, and this has accordingly been allocated within a separate phase (see phase five). Other internal alterations could have taken place in either phase, but have been placed together in this phase for ease of reference. Internally one significant survival from this phase is the panelling in the north-west ground-floor room. The panelling survives with some alteration on three walls of the room up to a dado rail approximately 1.5m above the floor level. It is formed of large fielded panels graduated in size with larger panels at the bottom and smaller panels above, surmounted by a projecting timber dado rail. On the south wall the rail rises to accommodate a fireplace opening with a mantle shelf. This has been heavily altered but the positioning appears original and it is possible that the associated fireplace surround survives behind the later boarding. In the centre of the east wall the panelling rises to a lower level, this probably originally accommodated a window opening, although this has subsequently been blocked (see phase five). The former window opening has an extant timber sill which matches the profile of the dado rail. Apparently associated with the panelling is a deep plaster cornice running around the room. This has a double ogee moulding. Further evidence of upgrading in the northwest range is provided in the form of a single central newel post which survives incorporated into the later stair to the east of the chimney stack. This has been heavily modified, but part of the pendant of the newel is still visible and has an ovolo moulding terminating in a small rounded point. This is different from the surviving partial pendant from the 17th century stair fragment, and must form part of a later phase. Similar examples have been dated to the early 18th century (Hall 2007, 121). Whether this related to the upgrading of the earlier stair or a new stair in a separate location is unclear. The former seems more likely, but given the retention of a fragment of the earlier stair into subsequent phases this may have been only a partial refitting, perhaps retaining elements of the earlier stair in less public areas of the building. Although more heavily altered the front range also shows sign of having been updated in the same phase. The principal evidence for this is in a plaster cornice surviving against the western wall in the eastern first-floor room. This is less deep than that in the ground-floor north-west room, but has a similar ogee profile and appears to be of the same date. Another indication of a general upgrading in this phase is a series of surviving 18thcentury doors. These survive at first-floor level accessing the northwest range, the upper stair and both of the front range rooms. All of these appear to be ex situ, either because they are located within later partitions, as in the front range and the stair, or because they show signs of having been rehung, as with that to the northwest HISTORIC ENGLAND 20

30 range. The only examples which may be in situ are those accessing the cupboards to the west of the chimney stack in the front range west room and the northwest range room. These two cupboards sit back to back and may have been created as part of this phase. Even this is uncertain however, as the front-range cupboard contains mainly 19th century features and sits within a heavily altered area of the building. The doors are formed of two fielded square panels with an applied roll moulding to the outer edges of the front faces. In most cases the two panels are of graduated size, with a larger, rectangular upper panel. Two of the doors however, that to the stair and that to the front-range west room, have two equal sized panels. This difference may relate to their use for different features or in a different part of the building, as the rest of the door features are consistent enough to suggest they are of the same or similar date. The rear faces have plain recessed panels with no moulding. Some of the doors retain small sprung latches with undecorated square backplates, L-shaped hasps and undecorated latches. These appear typical of the early 18th century (Hall 2007, 59). As with the stair, the retention of some 17th century doors at secondfloor level suggests that the refit indicated by this set of 18th century doors was only partial, perhaps including only the more prominent or public rooms. Phase Five late 18th century The principal extension of the 18th century was the provision of a further wing north of the building, sitting against the eastern side of the northwest range. This certainly took place later than the panelling of the ground-floor northwest range room, as this made allowance for a large window in its eastern elevation which has been blocked by the addition of this wing (see phase four). The extension appears to have provided a single additional room at ground- and first-floor level, with potentially some limited use of the roof space. In contrast to the earlier phases, this wing is of brick. Although now painted externally, the brickwork is consistent in shape and size with an 18th century date, and the form of the north gable is also typical of the 18th century. Internally the ground floor of the wing has been heavily altered, but the first-floor room represents a better survival. The principal evidence from this phase, and one which seems to confirm the 18th century date of the alteration, is the large fireplace provided in the northeast corner of the room. This is of a distinctive form with the fireplace set offcentre and a set of small cupboards provided to one side. The fireplace is boarded, but a visible corner indicates that it had an eared fireplace surround with an ogee moulding. An elaborate mantle shelf was provided, with a series of ogee mouldings. Above the mantle is a set of plain recessed panels, a larger central panel flanked by two narrower side panels. These sit under a large timber cornice. To the righthand side of the fireplace are a series of four small cupboards placed as a column running up the side of the hearth. These have recessed panels with corresponding mouldings to the mantel shelf and larger panels. They also have H-shaped hinges with decorative trefoil ends. Three of the cupboards have later handles, but one has a surviving drop handle which may be original. The stylistic detail of the fireplace places it in the first half of the 18th century. It is a high-status feature for the room, and the possibility that it has been relocated from HISTORIC ENGLAND 21

31 elsewhere in the building has to be considered. There are a number of features which suggest that it may be in its original position however. Principal amongst these is the fact that the wing appears to have been built with a corner stack in this position, so the room must always have been intended to house a corner fireplace. The window opening in the north elevation is also off-centre to allow for the position of the fireplace. There is moreover no indication of any earlier window position, suggesting it is original. The roof structure of the wing has been heavily altered, but given that the ceiling level of the first-floor is relatively high it can only have provided limited space. There is some suggestion however that this may have been used, as externally there are traces of a brick blocking in the gable end which may indicate a window position. This may have provided light to enable the use of the space for storage, but the space was too limited for domestic occupation. Phase Six early 19th century Externally the principal alteration to the earlier ranges was the provision of a brick façade to the front range. This utilised the extended building which ran the full width of the plot and provided a symmetrical façade. Although the ground floor is altered historic photographs indicate that it had a central entrance with a pedimented doorcase with a pair of windows either side, the eastern pair of which still survive (Holmes and Rouse 2007, 28). It is notable that this façade, as it survived into the early 20th century, made no provision for a doorway or other feature to allow access to the alleyway or passageway down the western side of the building. This suggests that by this date the passageway had gone out of use as a public thoroughfare, although some provision appears to have been made to allow access from the rear, perhaps in relation to the buildings on the plot (see below). The proportions of these ground-floor window openings is typical of the early 19th century. At first-floor level two further pairs of windows were provided with a blank central area probably sitting directly over the front door. These openings are slightly smaller than those at ground-floor level, and sit slightly inwards from them, although still creating a symmetrical and regular façade. At second-floor level the attic was lit by a pair of dormers. Whether these replaced earlier window openings in the same positions is not known. It is notable that this arrangement did not make any specific provision for commercial or trade premises; there is no suggestion of a shop front. This may indicate that by this date the property was used for different purposes, and it may be that the updating of the façade reflected a change of use. It may have still had some commercial function, perhaps as a business premises, but was apparently not in use for general trading. Alterations to other external elevations of the building are likely to have taken place at the same time, or soon after. Most of these have been effaced by later alteration, but on the western side of the building the replacement of the earlier timber-framed ground-floor wall of the northwest wing with brick appears to have taken place during this phase. This is on the basis of the form of the brickwork which is typical of the early 19th century and matches that used on the façade of the building. Internally the first-floor front range window openings retain their 19th century HISTORIC ENGLAND 22

32 timber surrounds. The openings are splayed with moulded timber architraves and low sills. Within the upper sections of the window splays timber panelling survives with recessed panels and moulded surrounds. The windows are six-over-six sashes with relatively heavy glazing bars. A corresponding window lights the first-floor room in the northeast wing and this may have been replaced at the same time as the construction of the principal façade. Other upgrading internally is likely to have taken place at the same time, although there is now little trace of this. One notable feature is the fitted chest within the cupboard on the western side of the fireplace in the first-floor west room. This has been partially removed, but the lower portion remains and seems likely to be of a 19 th century date. Also belonging to this phase appears to be the detached two-storey block sitting on the northern edge of the plot. This is heavily altered but has a cogged eaves course suggestive of an early 19th century date. It is notable that the building includes a doorway at the end of the western passageway or alleyway. As noted above, the southern entrance to this passageway appears to have been blocked in this phase. The doorway in the northern detached building may have been intended to allow continued access to the passageway, but perhaps only a means of access between detached buildings on the plot rather than for any public use. Internally the ground floor of the detached range contains a large 19th century fireplace possibly for cooking suggesting that this building was intended to provide service accommodation for the main building to the south. Phase Seven 20th century The building has seen substantial alteration during the 20th century, principally affecting the ground floor. Little of this work has been structural however, with the building retaining much the same footprint as it had achieved by the mid-19th century. The most prominent alteration to the exterior is the insertion of a plate glass window and associated doorway on the south elevation. This is mid- to late-20th century in date and replaced an earlier two window arrangement seen on early 20th century photographs. To the rear alterations to the rear of the front range and side of the rear range appear to have been undertaken to allow for modern plant including extractor fans. A further external alteration is the reconstruction of the north gable end of the northwest wing, although retaining some elements of the earlier structure. This is difficult to date as most of its features have been further upgraded (see below) and it is heavily rendered. On balance it seems most likely to have happened within this period however. This work may have been for structural reasons, as the wing appears to have been of relatively poor quality as constructed. The exterior is heavily rendered so little of its form is visible. The ground floor appears to have been reconstructed in brick, with a recessed first-floor possibly retaining earlier elements of the timber frame. Internally at gable level a 20th century timber tie beam is visible although this may rest on a residual early post to the northeast corner (see phase two). The ground floor has an off-centre doorway with a timber surround HISTORIC ENGLAND 23

33 with a timber lintel which now slopes significantly. This may indicate that elements of the earlier framing were retained and had to be worked around, or simply that the structure has moved slightly since the reconstruction took place. Internally the cornice of the north-west room has been replicated on the exterior wall, and vertical timber tongue-and-groove panelling provided to provide some continuity with the earlier arrangement of panelling in this room. At attic level the insertion of a dormer window on the eastern side may have taken place at the same time. This is largely formed of reused timber work from the roof. It may have been inserted in order to compensate for a window in the north elevation which could have been lost as part of the reconstruction of this wall. Internally the mid-20th century appears to have marked the last phase in which the upper rooms were upgraded for domestic use, with a series of 1950s features. In the front range the east room was partitioned to allow the insertion of a small WC in a narrow northern room. This alteration is dated by the corner fireplace which has been placed against the inserted partition in the east room. This has a tiled surround typical of the 1950s. This replaced an earlier fireplace which sat centrally in the rear wall of the building, its flue still extant at attic level, with the 20th century flue visible beyond it. The fireplace in the western room was replaced at the same time with a similar tiled surround, although this sits against the original chimney breast. At attic level some of the décor in the west room may date from a similar date, although the other two rooms may have been unused by this time as they show little signs of 20th century use beyond storage. At some stage domestic use of this area was abandoned altogether. The northwest first-floor room appears to have been altered for use as a public dining room at some point in the late 20th century, most notably in the provision of a doorway and fire escape in the northern elevation. It may have been at this point that the stair was altered, with a modern straight flight created, presumably to ease public access. This has a timber corner post and splat balusters of the same form as the original 17th century stair fragment surviving above. However the balusters of this section appear to be imitation, perhaps intended to indicate some of the history of the building. Much of the interior of the ground floor front range and northeastern room have been upgraded for modern cooking facilities. Bibliography Hall, L 2007 Period House Fixtures & Fittings Newbury: Countryside Books Holmes, R and Rouse, M 2007 Ely Cathedral City and Market Town A Pictorial Record Ely: The Ely Society Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 24

34 First-floor plan Posts and studs deduced from pegs in wall plate Line of ground-floor wall m ft The Fish House, 5 Market Place, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 25

35 First-floor door to attic stair First-floor door eastern rear wing Front face (to landing) Rear face Front face (to landing) Rear face Detail of mouldings Detail of mouldings Door to east room of attic (accessed from west room) Scale for door elevations m 1 0 2ft Scale for details of mouldings m ins Front face (west room) Rear face (east room) Detail of mouldings The Fish House, 5 Market Place, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England

36 Details of door furniture (not to scale) Sprung latch and wooden lock case, attic, south east room from south Sliding bolt and sprung latch handle, attic, south east room from north west Sprung latch, door to attic stair and door tp north west attic room The Fish House, 5 Market Place, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 27

37 Stair from attic landing to front rooms of attic Ceiling beam, northern rear wing (first floor ceiling beams, front range similar) Scale for details of mouldings m ins The Fish House, 5 Market Place, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 28

38 First-floor, rear east wing overmantel m 1 0 2ft The Fish House, 5 Market Place, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 29

39 3A HIGH STREET PASSAGE, ELY; POSITIVELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 3a High Street Passage, Ely was visited and surveyed on the 16th October 2014 by Rebecca Lane and Katie Carmichael Investigators from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 3a High Street Passage forms part of a unit with No 4 High Street Passage. The property is grade II listed (UID ) identified as a 15th century building with 16th century alterations. 3a High Street is part of an irregular terrace of buildings which sits behind the main frontage of Market Street to the north. The passageway to the rear of Market Street is referred to as Butchers Row. No 3a sits at the eastern end of this terrace and fronts onto High Street Passage, a narrow pedestrian access from Market Street to the north to High Street to the south. To the south it also faces onto what is now called High Street Back, the passage which runs to the rear of the High Street properties. It seems likely that the whole area between Market Street and High HISTORIC ENGLAND 30

40 Street represents an infill to what was once a larger market place, stretching the full length of what is now the High Street. The residual name of Butchers Row indicates that this area was likely to have originally been used as commercial space linked to butchery perhaps with some areas for the preparation of meat. The process of market infill appears to have begun within the medieval period, and by the time of the 1417 survey of the town much of High Street (then Steeple Row) to the south had been developed. The area near Butchers Row is identified as the Butchery (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 117), although individual tenements within that area do not appear to have been enumerated. The date of the extant building however, suggests that the area was becoming built-up with permanent units in the century after the survey, if not before. The adjacent building, No 4, is more heavily altered and the interior largely concealed, but the similar proportions of the building suggest that it may form a contemporary or near-contemporary building of similar original form. Phase One late 15th or early 16th century The earliest phase surviving in the extant building represents a two-bay, timberframed, double-jettied shop unit with an open hall to the rear (north; see plan). Internally there is good evidence for the original form of the building at both ground- and first-floor level although the roof structure has been heavily altered in a subsequent phase. There is very tentative evidence that originally the building may have continued further north, although nothing of the form and purpose of this section of the building is identifiable. The jettied south elevation to the building survives intact. Externally the groundfloor timber-framing is largely concealed, although a jetty bracket is visible rising from the central post to a joist with the corresponding part of the jetty bressumer also exposed. Where visible the bressumer is moulded with a series of horizontal bands. The upper part of the corner post between the south and east elevations is also visible. This is partially truncated by the reconstruction of the east elevation (see below), but the curving profile of the upper section is visible as it projects to support the dragon beam which remains in situ. Such posts are often decorated, but unfortunately here any such detail is lost or concealed. Internally the corner post is fully exposed, and has residual mortices towards the top of its north and west faces (see framing details drawing). To the west this corresponds with a matching mortice in the adjacent stud. Between these two features a series of smaller residual mortices are visible on the jetty plate which suggest the position of a four-light window. The mortices would have allowed for some form of arched head, although this may have been limited to the outer lights of the window, as the mullions clearly ran down from the jetty plate. Although the jetty plate and studs have been removed from the east elevation it is suggested that the matching residual mortice on the north side of the post was part of a corresponding feature. These features are strongly indicative of a typical shop window arrangement, utilising the most prominent corner of the building for the display of wares. Such an arrangement is seen relatively frequently in surviving medieval shops (Stenning 1985, 37; Clark 2000, 70). HISTORIC ENGLAND 31

41 West of the former window opening on the south elevation a series of surviving studs, or residual mortices in the jetty plate, indicate that the elevation was close studded. The western end of the elevation is largely concealed and appears to be more heavily altered (see below). A blocked doorway is visible, with its framing exposed externally, to the western end of the elevation. This is probably a later framework (see below), but it is possible that this represents an original entrance position. The south elevation also survives well at first-floor level. At this level jowled posts support the surviving tie beam, below which the pattern of close studding is continued, with tension braces rising from the jetty bressumer to the corner posts (see framing details drawing). Part of the eastern brace survives and is visible internally. Where visible the associated studding is halved over the brace internally. Originally there was almost certainly a further brace to the west, although evidence for this is now lost or concealed. Centrally placed between the braces is an original window position. A modern window frame conceals any detail in the tie-beam so the principal evidence for the original form of the window is a large rebate on the lower edge of the tie-beam internally. This extends out either side of the window opening and would have allowed for a pair of shutters which could have been folded back flush with the wall. The west elevation was also close studded, as the jetty plate and some of the studs are still visible internally at ground floor level, and further peg holes in the wall plate and a single residual stud are visible at first-floor level. Evidence of peg holes on the in situ wall plate of the east elevation at first-floor level indicates that the east elevation was also close studded. The original form of the north elevation is uncertain, as it is largely concealed or altered. The jowled western corner post is visible with a cambered tie beam above, although there is some possibility that it has been reset (see below). The tie beam has no pegging for close studding, as in the other elevations, but there is a surviving centrally-placed stud which is double pegged to the tie beam. West of this is a further pair of pegs, although any corresponding timber is lost or concealed. The studding in other elevations is not typically double pegged, which suggests that this may relate to a more substantial feature. It could relate to a brace rising from the adjacent corner post, however there is no indication of corresponding joint on the post. An alternative is that this relates to the provision of a doorway opening for a gallery. This is an extremely tentative interpretation which is discussed further below in relation to the central truss. Any indication of further studs or other features in this tie beam are concealed by a build-up of plasterwork, particularly against the eastern end of the beam. A large cross beam running centrally through the building at ground-floor level indicates the original division between the storied shop area and the open hall to the north. A series of redundant mortices on the underside of the beam indicate that this formed the line of the partition, and the beam is unchamfered accordingly. Adjacent to the western elevation a section of the beam has been replaced. Given the lack of other indications of an opening between the hall and shop the position of the replacement section of beam may indicate the position of a doorway between the shop and the hall. This would be in line with the later doorway in the south HISTORIC ENGLAND 32

42 elevation, which could tentatively suggest a corridor arrangement whereby the hall and shop were accessed via a corridor along the western side of the building. Although original, the eastern side of the western post of this truss appears to have been cut back preventing the identification of any associated fittings although there is a residual mortice approximately a third of the way down the post. The post does have a surviving ogee moulding on its southern face however. This is notable as the extant cross beam further east is without any moulding. This feature may have formed part of a door surround therefore, although the insertion of substantial brickwork into the framework of this elevation has concealed any indication of the moulding returning to form the surround. Alternatively the post may have been relocated or turned in the substantial reconstruction of the wall in a subsequent phase (see below). Within the original shop unit there is a lateral spine beam, chamfered with scroll stops, dividing the shop area into two equal bays. The dragon beam which projects to the south-east corner has similar detailing. The joists are concealed by a later ceiling but their positions are indicated by the pegs in the dragon beam and main beam. At first-floor level the bay division is indicated by the intermediate truss. This has an irregularly-shaped tie beam with an undulating lower edge. Again there is some slight suggestion that the tie beam may be reset, as it has later fittings, and it sits uncomfortably within the joint at the top of the western post (see further discussion of this below). On balance however it seems more likely to be in situ with the poor fit perhaps associated with the irregular shape of the timbers. As with that of the northern truss the tie beam has a set of peg holes close the western end. Visible on this truss is a corresponding set of peg holes towards the eastern end. These peg holes may be associated with braces, although if so they would be limited in size as the peg holes are relatively close to the outer edges of the beams. There is also no indication of any corresponding mortice position in the western post. The eastern post is concealed. The alternative is that the western pair may relate to the jamb of a doorway, with a corresponding jamb on the northern truss. This could be interpreted, extremely tentatively, as relating to the provision of a gallery over the open hall, providing access between the storied shop bay and a further storied bay to the north. There is also some suggestion of a redundant, infilled, mortice at the top of the inner edge of the western post, which could then be interpreted as part of a door head. The pegging on the eastern end might then correspond to a brace. Given the suggested form of the building one would anticipate partitions on the line of both of these trusses, with or without a gallery opening. The north elevation does appear to have been closed, as evidenced by the central double-pegged stud. There is no evidence of this on the central tie-beam however. If there were partitions, they appear to have not have required substantial pegging into the tie beams. Phase Two late 16th or early 17th century The next phase identifiable in the extant building is the ceiling in of the former open hall and the associated insertion of a fireplace, together with the creation of a door opening in the western elevation. HISTORIC ENGLAND 33

43 The main evidence for this phase and its likely date, is the large spine beam which runs from the north to the central truss at ground-floor level. This obviously indicates a phase in which the original open hall was ceiled over, a typical alteration of the late 16th or early 17th century. The spine beam is out of alignment with the earlier spine beam in the shop unit to the south and sits slightly lower, as it is lapped onto the underside of the earlier cross beam, as well as being fixed into it. It has a double-ogee moulding with a scroll stop. This is also distinct from the mouldings on the beams of the earlier phase. It is suggested that the fireplace also forms part of this phase, as it is most likely to be associated with the ceiling in of the hall. This has been inserted against the west elevation of the building, in the northern corner of the former open hall. It is largely of brick with a timber bressumer. The bressumer is extremely worn and no moulding is identifiable. Immediately south of the fireplace in the west elevation is a timberframed door opening. This is formed of two vertical timbers, the southern of which abutts the intermediate post on this elevation; a relationship that suggests that it is a later insertion. The northern jamb sits against the chimney. These are pegged into a wall plate which runs from the intermediate post to the chimney, at a lower level than the original wall plate south of the post. Beneath the wall plate and between the two jambs a horizontal timber runs. This is pegged into the jambs at either side. Below this both jambs have residual mortices which may be related to the provision of an arched door head. The northern jamb has at least one metal pintle or hook surviving, although this may not be original. The southern jamb has a series of peg holes down its inner face, which may relate to some form of partition or screening for the doorway from the shop to the south. This feature clearly provided an entrance into the former hall area, almost certainly from the exterior of the building. Whether it replaced an earlier doorway in this elevation is not known but it certainly seems to relate to the provision of separate access to the former hall area in this phase, which must have allowed greater flexibility in terms of rental and the use of this space and the shop to the south. Phase Three 17th or early 18th century It is suggested that the substantial remodelling of the eastern elevation of the building in brick took place at some point in the 17th or early 18th century. A precise date is difficult as the form of the brickwork is partly concealed. At the south end of the east elevation however, the brickwork is more visible as it is stepped out to form a bracket to support the retained southeast corner post at first-floor level. The bricks appear to be relatively small and handmade suggesting a date before the mid-18 th century. It seems unlikely that this work was undertaken at a date contemporary with the ceiling in of the hall (phase two), as that phase appears still to have been using principally timber elements. The remodelling necessitated the removal of most of the ground-floor east elevation, in order to extend the ground floor out to create a level elevation. Elements of the first floor were left intact however, including the wall plate and the principal posts. It may have been at this time that the tie beams were strapped, as they have extant strapping to both east and west. This may relate to adjustments to the walls as part of the reconstruction of the east elevation. HISTORIC ENGLAND 34

44 It is notable that this refacing was not extended to the south of the building, where the jetty and its related elements were left largely intact. This may indicate that by this date the frontage on High Street Passage was more important than that along what is now High Street Back, whereas when constructed both facades appear to have been important. This may relate to changes to the High Street properties, many of which appear to have started as smaller units and slowly appropriated land and buildings until they formed longer, burgage-like, plots. This process may have been largely complete by the time 3a was refronted, meaning there was little economic advantage in altering the south elevation. Phase Four mid-19th century Substantial alterations to the building appear to have been carried out in the mid- 19th century, almost certainly at the same time as the construction of the adjacent Baptist Chapel (c 1855). Whether this replaced earlier units which had been built up against, and perhaps blocked, the access route on this side of the building (see phase two), is unknown, but the insertion of much of the brickwork into this elevation, particularly at ground-floor level, appears to relate to this phase. The most substantial alteration however was the reconstruction of the roof structure. The roof is now mono-pitch, running down from the side elevation of the chapel. Visible along this wall line internally are a number of reused timber elements used to support the apex of the roof. These may not necessarily have come from this building, as the construction of the chapel may have necessitated the removal of other timberframed buildings which would have left considerable timber on hand for reuse. The timbers have been used as two posts to north and south supporting a substantial longitudinal timber. This has a series of residual mortices and may be a reused wall plate. The posts and braces also have residual features, but their original purpose is hard to interpret. The ridge piece is 19th century (or later), and the common rafters and joists are concealed by boarding. Any alterations below roof level are more difficult to identify. It was noted in the description of the tie beams in phase one (see above) that they may have been reset. If so, it seems most likely that this was at the time of the substantial alterations to the roof. The evidence for this is slight, but is suggested by the fact that they do not sit well in the tops of the posts. It is clear from the in situ southern tie-beam however that they sit at roughly the right level. It remains possible that the timbers have been re-sited at some stage, but on balance it seems more likely that they are in situ, with any awkwardness in the arrangement due to the irregularity of the timbers. At some stage in the 19th century, although not necessarily at the same time as the alterations described above, the large plate glass windows in the corner of the south and east elevations were also inserted. Phase Five 20th century The building has been subject to further considerable change in the late 20th century. Much of the current configuration of the building appears to relate to this phase, with subdivisions at ground- and first-floor level relating to a late 20th century refitting of HISTORIC ENGLAND 35

45 the building. Additional window openings have also been inserted, particularly in the south elevation, although much of this has been done whilst retaining the earlier timbers. The staircase, which now sits against the north elevation of the building, also dates from the late 20th century. Related to this is the provision of the current entrance which has paired doorways. Although now open to the shop it is clear that these were intended to provide for separate access to the first-floor via the inserted stair. Much of this work has respected the original features of the building, however which have been carefully preserved and incorporated to provide the necessary features. This has the advantage of leaving the building relatively legible internally, which is unusual in Ely. Bibliography Clark, D 2000 The Shop Within?: an Analysis of the Architectural Evidence for Medieval Shops in Architectural History Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 Stenning, D 1985 Timber framed shops in Vernacular Architecture HISTORIC ENGLAND 36

46 Ground-floor plan Site of door? Blocked door Inserted stack? Inserted beam Posts visible and measured on upper floor Site of window Site of window? Former line of wall m ft Sketch detail of original post and blocked door in rear wall Sketch detail of original post corner post beneath dragon beam Head of corner post Dragon beam Main post Blocked door Brickwork 3A High Street Passage, (Positiv Ely), Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 37

47 Detail sketch of first-floor framing, south wall Infill removed to create window Rebate for shutters Infill removed to create window Original window opening Frame concealed or replaced by brickwork Detail sketch of ground-floor framing, south wall Jetty plate Dragon beam Jetty plate Studs remain under window Site of window Site of window? 3A High Street Passage, (Positiv Ely), Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 38

48 23 BROAD STREET, ELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 23 Broad Street was visited and surveyed on the 19th November 2014 by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 23 Broad Street is grade II* listed (UID ). The list description describes the building as 15th century, possibly combining commercial and domestic functions. Broad Street appears to have been defined in the medieval period, running alongside the eastern boundary of the monastic precinct. It is mentioned consistently in documentation from the late 13th century as the broad lane, or defined by its role linking Fore Hill and Back Hill, the two principal routes from the river into the town and precinct (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 11). Halfway along Broad Street a large ditch bisected the street running down from the precinct to the river. This is referred to in documentation typically as the common gutter or sedgewick (Holton Krayenbuhl HISTORIC ENGLAND 39

49 2011, 10). This boundary appears to have subdivided Broad Street, with the area north of the ditch being more heavily settled (ibid). Land to the east of Broad Street was initially extremely waterlogged due its proximity to the river, but was slowly reclaimed by dumping material, with leases making specific mention of tenants rights to acquire land in this way. The 1417 survey information for the east side of Broad Street suggests that the plot now known as 23 Broad Street corresponds to a tenement referred to as segwicks, apparently because of its proximity to the common gutter or ditch which sat immediately north. Within the tenement one head abuts on the highway and the other head upon the public bank (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 99). By the late medieval period Broad Street appears to have been well established with a pattern of long plots along the eastern side of the street, with buildings principally focused at the western end adjacent to the thoroughfare. This pattern is one frequently observed in medieval towns with important river or harbour areas. Typically such plots developed multiple uses, with the provision of storage areas, domestic accommodation and sometimes also shops fronting onto the street. The Three Blackbirds at 41 Broad Street, a medieval survival surveyed in the 1980s, had significant 13th and 14th century phases and provided an open hall for domestic use, an eastern section apparently used for storage or warehousing, and potentially a shop range close to the street, although the latter had been heavily rebuilt (Holton Krayenbuhl 2009). In the post-medieval period the area between Broad Street and the river developed into an industrial quarter. By the 19th century this saw the development of largescale industrial complexes, mostly associated with brewing. In the 20th century these former industrial complexes saw widespread redevelopment into residential areas. This pattern of change has largely obliterated the medieval plot pattern in this area, with only a few plots surviving to evoke the medieval character of the street. No 23 is one of these, and thus forms an extremely important component of the streetscape. Discussion Phase One 14th century The earliest surviving fabric within 23 Broad Street appears to represent part of a two-bay, jettied solar, probably of the 14th century (see plan). The presence of a jetty means that the building is likely to have always had two storeys. The principal visible surviving evidence for this phase is the northern wall of this building and surviving parts of the central truss. Although concealed externally by an adjacent building, the upper part of the northern wall is visible internally with the timber framing exposed (see long section L-L1). This comprises three posts which define the two bays of the building. It is notable that the western post sits inward of the current west elevation of the building, the possible reasons for this will be discussed below. Although any surviving evidence is not visible at ground-floor level there seems no reason to doubt the fact HISTORIC ENGLAND 40

50 that originally the posts ran directly up from a sill beam or sill wall. The posts support a continuous wall plate which runs across both bays and over-sails the posts at both ends of the bays. Below the wall plate, pairs of curved tension braces rise from a girding beam, which is only partly visible, to the posts in each bay. The braces are pegged to the posts, and it is the lack of any residual peg holes for further braces to the east or west of the outer posts which provides the strongest evidence that the building was only 2 bays in length, despite the over-sailing wall plate. There are two intermediate studs equally spaced within each bay which lap over the front of the braces, as viewed from the interior. In the western bay there is a short rail running between the two studs, approximately 0.7m below the wall plate. This has two small square mortice joints on its upper edge. There are two corresponding redundant mortices on the underside of the wall plate, suggesting that there was a three-light window centrally placed within the bay. Above the wall plate the raising of the ceiling in a subsequent phase necessitated significant alteration to the roof structure, however the sawn-off end of the central tie beam remains where it meets the northern wall plate. Below this the central post has a redundant mortice for a brace which would have risen to support the tie beam. The tie beam was trenched into the top of the wall plate directly above the central post. There are no cut-off tie beams associated with the two outer posts, no residual trenching to indicate they were formerly positioned over the posts and no mortices for rising braces. This strongly suggests that neither of the outer posts was associated with a truss. The outer trusses therefore must have rested on further posts east and west of the extant east and west posts. Such an outer post to the west may have sat in line the later walling of the west elevation which sits approximately 1m west of the extant western post. Any such post and tie beam to the east have been removed by subsequent alterations to the building, although it is notable that the over-sailing wall plate continues approximately 1m beyond the eastern post. The end of this wall plate is now supported by a smaller later timber with the area around this packed with mortar. It is possible that this conceals the presence of a larger mortice associated with the original eastern post. The upper section of the wall plate, where one might anticipate trenching associated with the tie beam, is concealed by a later timber. The surviving extents of the wall plate, the lack of pegs for braces on the extant outer posts and, to the west, the lack of space where the building sits hard against Broad Street further support the idea that any additional posts did not provide full extra bays. This arrangement of posts in close proximity to each other, approximately 1m apart, and with only the outer posts carrying trusses, is typical of a jettied cross wing, perhaps working in conjunction with a right-angled hall range. The existence of the hall range in this building however is uncertain (see below). Irrespective of this uncertainty, the evidence strongly suggests that this range formed a jettied range. In this form of framing, the extant inner posts would represent the former groundfloor limit of the range. Above this a jetty spur, or first-floor post, would have projected out, carrying the end wall plate. The consistency in the surviving evidence from the two sides of the framing suggests that the same arrangement was present to both the west and to the east, with both HISTORIC ENGLAND 41

51 ends jettied. To the east however, with the range running down the length of the plot, considerably more space was available and it is possible that the eastern post here abutted another structure (see discussion of the hall below). If this was the case however it is not clear what purpose the narrow eastern bay would have served, nor how it would have worked in conjunction with such a structure. Above the first-floor ceiling the original roof structure to the structure is heavily altered, with the principal surviving feature the crown post of the open truss which sat in the centre of the solar (A-A1; see cross section drawing). The base of the post has been truncated to insert the later ceiling, and any associated moulding to the base has been lost. Apart from this the crown post survives in reasonable condition. It has an octagonal shaft and a moulded octagonal cap formed of a flat upper lip with a roll below (see detail drawing of crown post). The four faces of the cap square to the post have small notches cut into both lips in the centre of the faces. It is the form and size of the post which suggest the 14th century date for the range. There are two surviving curved braces running laterally from the post, rising upwards to support a short surviving section of the collar purlin. The original collar has been removed. The most unusual feature of the crown post is the lack of any indication of original wooden pegging, or any residual peg holes indicating their former positions. The post is currently nailed together with handmade nails. These are very difficult to date, although it is certainly possible that they are relatively early. There are two alternative possibilities relating to this feature. One is that its relatively small scale of the post and the thin scantling of the wood used enabled it to be nailed rather than pegged together when originally constructed in the 14th century. This would be extremely unusual, but is not unprecedented. Parker s study of the early houses in King s Lynn found an example of a nailed 14th century crown post (Parker 1971, 73). In this case the post was formed of softwood, which allowed nails rather than pegs to be used. The post at 23 Broad Street is of oak, but the scale of the piece may have allowed nails to be used even on a hard wood. The alternative, and perhaps more likely, interpretation is that the nails are a result of a reconfiguring of the crown post in the early 17th century when the roof was raised and other alterations were made (see phase two below). It is possible that the reconfiguring of the post somehow allowed the residual pegs or peg holes from original form of the post to be concealed in some way. Most of the common rafters, although apparently original, have been reset. Just to the east of the crown post however, a series of common rafters on the northern side of the roof are in their original positions, all with redundant lap joints for the positions of their collars. The original common rafters, including some of those in the in situ set, are a mixture of oak and pine, the latter therefore a notable early use of softwood. Pine timbers were also identified in the common rafters of the early roof structure at The Three Blackbirds (Holton Krayenbuhl 2009, 15). In that case they were interpreted as reused scaffolding poles (ibid), but the presence of more pine rafters at 23 Broad Street suggests that softwood was in wider use. The lack of smoke blackening in the roof suggests that the solar always had a fireplace arrangement, this again would be consistent with the block having always HISTORIC ENGLAND 42

52 been of more than one storey. This may have been in the position of the later fireplace stack, on the south wall of the building, although the later fireplace appears to have removed all trace of it. Any evidence for the original form of the ground-floor area of the building is now concealed or removed and as such any suggestion of the likely form and use of this area must be inferred from other evidence. Subsequent alterations to the building (see phase two below) indicate that at some stage the original intermediate floor defining the ground- and first-floor sections has been replaced. The reason for this is unclear, but given the clear evidence for the raising of the first-floor tie beam height, presumably to improve height clearance, it is possible that the original intermediate floor level was lower. Such an arrangement would have provided a well-proportioned first-floor space with the high-status open roof above, but would have provided a ground-floor space of restricted height. This provision has been observed in other early buildings and such areas may have been used for storage. The solar and the existence of a hall The long, thin plots on the eastern side of Broad Street would seem to lend themselves to linear building ranges, and the other notable early survival on the street, known as the Three Blackbirds, represents a surviving example of this type of range (Holton Krayenbuhl 2009). Its principal medieval phases are of the 13th and 14th centuries, and represent a shop, hall and solar over storage area, all in line or formed of one single range which runs west to east from the street front towards the centre of the plot. The similar positioning of No 23, gable onto the street, might suggest that it followed a similar layout, with the solar forming the front section to a range extending further east. The surviving evidence from the north wall of the building however, although not definitive, is suggestive of a building of only two bays. The form of the eastern end of the structure appears to be the same as that surviving to the west. It seems therefore to have had a form which matches that suggested at the western end, with a jettied first-floor. Alternatively the surviving eastern post may have marked the structural end of the solar range, but have been built up against a further range, which could have been an open hall. This arrangement, where units are built in line, but are structurally separate, can be seen at other sites. It is particularly associated with the type of alternate rebuilding, where elements of a house unit (hall, solar, services) are replaced at different times, leading to structurally separate but contiguous units. Such an interpretation of the evidence is perhaps supported therefore by the construction (or reconstruction) of a continuation to the solar range in a subsequent phase (see below) which could potentially be on the site of the earlier hall. However, the structural evidence could also be interpreted to suggest that the solar had a hall sitting at right angles to it. Given the presence of a window in the north elevation, and the fact that this sits against the original side of the plot, then any hall would have sat to the south. This interpretation is supported by further evidence from the building itself. As noted above, the form of the west end, with a continuous post rising through two storeys with a jetty spur beyond is a distinctive form of framing. It is typically associated with the junction between a hall and a HISTORIC ENGLAND 43

53 right-angled cross wing, with the post forming an important constituent element within the framing of the hall. Here therefore the evidence could be used to adduce a hall range running north along the street front at right-angles to the extant timberframed wall. The area to the south of the building, which now forms a small courtyard garden for the house, appears always to have been part of the plot, and up until at least the 1970s there was a small block attached to the south side of the extant range at its western end. Whilst the demolition of this block makes it impossible to ascertain its date, it is possible that it was medieval, or a later block built on a medieval footprint. This evidence, whilst tentative, suggests that if the solar was associated with a rightangle hall range it is more likely to have sat to the south of the building. The pattern of posts surviving in the north wall could then represent a repetition of the pattern required to the south where the range met the hall. Phase Two 16th or early 17th century This phase saw substantial alteration of the original two-bay solar and its extension to the east to create a larger three bay range, with ground and first-floor levels fully utilised for habitation. This necessitated significant alteration, and it is possible that only the north elevation and parts of the roof structure of the earlier building were retained, although the rendering of the south and west walls make it difficult to confirm this. A new floor was inserted between ground and first floor level, the tie beams of the earlier roof were cut with a new ceiling inserted at a higher level, and an additional bay was added to the east, subdivided at ground-floor level from the earlier two-bay area by a finely moulded timber screen. One of the principal elements of this phase is the creation of a new intermediate floor between ground- and first-floor level. This included the insertion of a new cross beam with scroll stops (see detail drawing of chamfer form). To the south this runs into the chimney stack, which probably also relate to this phase although internally the ground-floor fireplace has been altered subsequently (see below). To the north it runs into a projecting plaster section which may conceal a supporting timber post. Running laterally (east and west) from the cross beam are a series of joists. These are of very thin scantling. To the west they run into the external wall of the building. To the east they are supported on a thin beam which sits over the timber screen. The exact relationship between this ceiling and the earlier timbers in the north wall cannot be observed, but the form of the chamfer stop, and the scale of the timbers, make it more likely that this represents a later insertion into the building. It is possible to interpret this as the ceiling in of what was originally a single-storey range, open to the roof. However the likely presence at one and possibly both ends of the range of a jetty would suggest that it was always of two-storeys. It seems more likely therefore that this represents the reconstruction of an earlier floor level. It is not possible to ascertain whether this reconstruction maintained the earlier floor level, or raised it, as there is no visible evidence for its earlier level. It is notable however that at first-floor level there is clear evidence of the removal of the earlier tie beam and the addition of new cross beams above the wall plate. The later, inserted floor, HISTORIC ENGLAND 44

54 therefore, could have been raised from an earlier, lower level in order to create a more usable ground-floor room, with the raising of the first-floor tie beams to ensure the upper level too still provided a practical space. This interpretation must remain extremely speculative however, as there is no direct evidence for the original floor level of the building. If the floor level was raised from an earlier level then this must have coincided with the removal of the jetty at the west (and possibly the east) end of the building. The structure of the jetty or jetties would almost certainly have been integral to the earlier intermediate floor structure and would therefore not allowed for adjustments in floor level. It is likely that the extant south chimney stack was also inserted as part of this phase, as it works with the suggested reconfiguration of the intermediate floor level. Externally, where visible, the form of the brickwork, with a tumbled weather where it narrows for the stack, the brickwork appears consistent with a relatively early date, possibly 17th century. At ground-floor level internally it has been heavily rebuilt in a later phase, although the timber bressumer may be original but reset within later brickwork. This has a simple chamfered profile. At first-floor level there is a small fireplace with a simple timber bressumer. As noted above, at first floor level alterations in this phase chiefly comprised the cutting off of the earlier tie beams, the insertion of new beams and the associated ceiling which must have concealed the earlier, open roof structure. At first-floor level the principal feature of this is the three chamfered, but unstopped beams, which run across the first floor of the space. To the north these rest on squared blocks of wood which in turn rest on the wall plate. To the south they are seated on projecting timber corbels, although the remainder of any framing in this wall is not visible. The outer beams are not directly located over the earlier posts in the north wall, but the central beam is situated in a similar position to its predecessor. The base of the crown post was also cut off in this phase, and the lower edge of the post nailed to the newly inserted central beam. This is visible at first-floor level. The nailed together form of the crown post was discussed as part of the previous phase. If the post was reconfigured in this phase, it must have been done in such a way as to work with an existing roof structure, as the removal of the base of the post can only have been necessary if the overall height and form of the roof was not being altered. This suggests that reconfiguration to the post was minimal, and may simply have comprised the re-fixing of the extant braces. The earlier means of fixing the post remains uncertain. The remodelling of the solar is associated with the construction of an additional bay to the east of the original two-bay block. This would be consistent with the removal of an eastern jetty as part of this phase (see discussion of floor levels above). If instead the eastern end of the earlier block butted up against a structurally separate in-line hall then this must have been removed prior to this phase, but this seems the less likely of the two interpretations of the evidence for the position of the hall. Externally the north and east elevations of the additional bay are concealed, but to the south the bay is open to the small courtyard and has timber framing visible at first-floor level. The ground floor area of this bay is heavily rendered. The framing of the first-floor has been heavily altered, and also appears to include some reused HISTORIC ENGLAND 45

55 timber. At the western end of the visible section, a post rises, which has pegs just visible for the girding rail which runs to its east. This post in fact marks the position of the end of the original two bay building, but appears to relate to part of this phase of alteration, as the girding rail appears to work with a higher floor level. Indeed it is possible, given the suggested insertion of the largely chimney stack to the west as part of this phase, that the entire south elevation was rebuilt, although the complete rendering of the remainder of the south elevation makes confirmation of this very difficult. The girding rail sits at the level of the intermediate floor. At its eastern end the lower side of the rail curves upwards, with some associated pegging visible, possibly associated with the head of a door. This is very close to the end of the building and would only have allowed space for a small opening. It is possible therefore that this is an indication that the timber has been moved. The eastern post has been removed during a subsequent phase of alteration. Internally at ground-floor level the northern part of this bay has been heavily altered by the insertion of a modern stair. South of this however the joists of the bay run on an east to west alignment, and are of the same scantling as those of the rebuilt floor within the bay. This strongly suggests that the reconstruction of the floor within the earlier building and the addition of the bay represent part of the same phase. Towards the north of the surviving section two beams run at right-angles to the main joists. These have been truncated by the modern stair but appear to represent the later infill of an original stair trap. Between this bay and those of the earlier building further west is a fine timber screen (see detail drawing of screen). This has a large doorway, set slightly to the south of centre. The screen is formed of moulded posts with a low level rail. The section of timberwork south of the doorway is largely concealed by plaster, but residual holes in the bressumer and in the south side of the doorway indicate that it is of the same form as the visible section north of the doorway. The doorway has a depressed arched head with sunk spandrels. The detail of the screen is very finely carved, and somewhat at odds with the relatively poor quality of the timberwork used elsewhere in the bay extension. This might suggest that the screen is in fact not original to the building, but there are several points which suggest that it is in its original position. One is that there is no substantial chamfered beam running across the building at this point. Had the bay originally been designed to be open one would anticipate a beam of the same form as that inserted further west. Instead the bay division is marked by a much thinner timber, which appears to make provision for the screen. The second is that the offcentre position of the screen doorway appears to respect the position and extent of the original stair trap. This terminates in the joist which runs immediately north of the doorway, suggesting that the positions of the door and stair trap were designed to work together. At first-floor level the principal evidence of this extension is in the timber framing of the eastern wall. This comprises a tie beam with a brace rising at the southern end and a series of studs rising. All of this appears to be nailed together. Subsequent alteration has seen the introduction of secondary timbers which sit against the earlier truss, these are discussed below. Above the tie beam, visible in the attic, are the two principal rafters of the truss with a collar running between them. There are also a series of studs rising from the tie beam to the apex of the roof, and lapped onto HISTORIC ENGLAND 46

56 the eastern side of the collar. Between the tie beam, collar and studs are residual wattle and daub panels. Some have been subsequently damaged or removed, but a considerable number survive, and together with the studding visible below the tie beam appear to confirm that this truss was completely closed and must have represented the eastern extent of the building. The roof structure between the earlier roof and the later eastern truss is confused, with several phases of timbers visible. Apparently part of the extension are a series of common rafters of very thin scantling, some with collars nailed into place, which support clasped purlins. Phase Three later alterations It is clear that this three bay range was subject to further alteration, although the precise sequence of alterations is difficult to establish. The roof structure, particularly over the eastern bay, has clearly been subject to substantial further intervention. These appear to have been designed to prop up the earlier roof, with additional timbers introduced, or reused, to provide further support for the purlins which on the northern side in particular have clearly moved substantially from the horizontal. These interventions are unlikely to form part of a single coherent phase but may have happened piecemeal over a number of years, or even centuries. The visible elements of timber framing in the south elevation have also clearly been subject to substantial alteration, which appears to have involved the removal and reinstatement of all of the framing above the girding rail, excluding the western post. This includes a new, or reset, wall plate. The wall plate has a series of mortices in its outer face suggesting that originally this face sat within a stud wall although whether this was in its present position or elsewhere, is not clear. At the eastern corner of the elevation a stud rises from the girding rail. This must have replaced the original post and internally it is clear that the stud supports the reused wall plate, and is associated with a secondary tie beam that runs across the earlier eastern truss at a slightly lower level. Between the earlier girding rail and the wall plate a series of full height studs are visible externally. Three of these remain, with a further original stud which appears to have been truncated for alterations to a window opening. The window opening, which now sits towards the east of the bay, may broadly reflect the position of an earlier window opening, as there is no peg hole in the wall plate for the stud immediately below this, suggesting this was always a short stud below a window sill. At some intermediate stage the window appears to have been enlarged, with a longer rail inserted and an original full-height stud truncated, before subsequently being reduced in size again. Phase Four late 20th century The small southern range shown on early maps appears to have been demolished some time after Modification of the chimney stack on the southern side of the earlier building probably took place at the same time, including the reconstruction of much of the chimney breast. HISTORIC ENGLAND 47

57 Possibly as part of the same phase a range to the rear (east) of the 17th century bay was added, probably on the site of an earlier structure of unknown date and purpose. This new range necessitated some alteration to the earlier structure including the knocking through of what must originally have been a closed wall at the end of the 17th century range. This may have been heavily modified prior to this phase however. A modern stair was also inserted in the northern half of the 17th century bay, probably in the location of the earlier stair. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2009 The Three Blackbirds A medieval house in Ely Ely: Ely Society Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 Parker, V 1971 The Making of King s Lynn Secular buildings from the 11th to the 17th century London: Phillimore HISTORIC ENGLAND 48

58 Plan of ground floor Elevation of south wall, C-C1 Later addition C1 B L1 B1 C Elevation of screen wall, B-B1 C1 C B B1 A A1 L Detail of mouldings on screen B-B m ft Scale for plan m ins Scale for detail of screen mouldings 23 Broad Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 49

59 Long section, L-L1 Rafters reset, original collars removed Cross section, A-A1 Rafters reset Tie beam reset End of original tie beam L Screen wall, B-B1 L1 A A m ft m Detail of crown post ins Scale for detail of crown post Detail of chamfer stop, ground-floor ceiling beam at chimney stack Detail of horizontal sliding sash window and window catch. South west window of front room, onto street. 23 Broad Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: November 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 50

60 WATERLOO HOUSE, 3 WEST FEN ROAD, ELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project Waterloo House was visited and surveyed on the 14th and 15th April 2015 by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. Waterloo House is grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes it as 16th century. It sits on a large open plot, with an associated 18th century barn to its south (UID ). The stone and brick boundary wall to the plot is also listed, where it runs along West Fen Road (UID ). Waterloo House is close to the junction of West Fen Road and Downham Road. Both of these were important thoroughfares in the medieval period, giving access to other settlements on the Isle of Ely and to the fenland which had been drained between the 10th and 13th century and which was largely farmed from the adjacent settlements (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 3). Archaeological evidence in fact suggests that Saxon settlement at Ely may have been focused in this area, with 8th century settlement activity found further to the west along West Fen Road (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 5). The full extent and nature of this settlement is as yet undefined, but it is possible that the road developed as part of the network of trackways during that period. By the late medieval period the land around West Fen Road and Downham Road was in the ownership of the Bishop of Ely, and in the 1417 survey there were tenements on both sides of both roads. Settlement here was less intense than that in the centre and east of the city however, with larger plots and several areas of open land suggesting a HISTORIC ENGLAND 51

61 more rural type of settlement (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 133). Nonetheless the roads were still within a short walk of the important commercial thoroughfare along St Mary s Street, illustrating the mixture of settlement types that occurred within close proximity in the medieval city. Discussion The current building comprises two principal elements the historic front wing which lies parallel to Downham Road, and, projecting from this at an acute angle a 1960s wing. The modern rear wing sits on the site of an earlier, probably 17th century, range (see below) which is depicted on 19th and early 20th century mapping. It is notable that this 17th century wing was out of alignment with the earlier front range, orientated much closer to a north-south alignment than to the front range s northeast to southwest angle. This strange alignment of the two ranges may indicate that the 17th century wing was itself a rebuilding of something older possibly a medieval hall range. This is an arrangement seen at the Oliver Cromwell s House Museum on St Mary s Street, where the alignment of the extant medieval range to the rear and the later street-front block is also irregular. Phase One c 1500 The earliest phase identifiable in the extant building is a substantial four bay timber-framed block, lying parallel to the street frontage and jettied towards it (see plan). On the basis of its stylistic features this appears date from around As constructed it provided two rooms on each floor. There is a notable difference in the status of the different ends of the building, with the east end at ground- and first-floor level having a considerably more elaborate set of mouldings and other timber detailing. The precise layout of the range, particularly at ground-floor level, is difficult to establish as there has been significant alteration to the centre of the building in subsequent phases. One partition is certainly identifiable under the central truss but whether this formed part of a screens passage arrangement is unclear. It is possible that this relatively compact but high-status range was designed to work with a pre-existing building, perhaps including a hall (see discussion above). If this was the case then the range may not have contained a screens passage, but provided two equal sized rooms on each floor (albeit of differing status), accessed from the hall range into the lower status end of the building. The four-bay building is defined by five trusses arranged in a regular bay rhythm. The ground-floor jetty posts on the northern side are missing, as they were removed when the jetty was built out, but each cross beam has a redundant notch for the jetty plate visible internally (see drawing of notch at D1 and suggested reconstruction of the joint). The upper posts survive in situ and have jowled heads. The southern posts rise through the full height of the building indicating that the range was only jettied at the front. The central three trusses are numbered on the cross-beams at ground-floor level with the second cross beam from the east numbered II (B-B1 on the plan), the central cross-beam III (C-C1) and the second cross beam from the west IIII (D-D1). One of the tie beams is also marked. This appears to be part of a sequence running in the opposite direction to those on the cross beams however as HISTORIC ENGLAND 52

62 the second truss from the east (B-B1), numbered II at ground-floor level, is labelled IIII in the tie beam at first-floor level. The reason for these opposing sequences is not clear; it cannot be an interchanging of elements during construction as both the cross beams and tie beams are differentiated according to the relative status of the rooms they sit within. It does however indicate that this was always a fourbay building, as the labelling of elements of a single truss II and IIII can only have worked in a building with five trusses in total. The outer trusses were presumably I and V, but no markings could be identified on these. Both the north and south wall plates survive. The northern wall plate has an edge halved and bridled scarf joint in the second bay from the west (see detailed drawing). Unusually this does not sit over a post position but towards the centre of the bay. Other examples of this in local buildings have been observed however, including the front range of Cromwell s House, St Mary s Street. The girding rail surviving in the south wall of the building indicates that this elevation was close studded at ground-floor level, and it is likely that the other three elevations were similarly framed. At first-floor level good evidence for the original form of the exterior of the building survives on all four sides. Much of the close studding survives in situ and, where missing, redundant peg holes in the original wall plates indicate the continuation of the pattern. This liberal use of close studding is indicative of a considerable investment in the building, as often rear elevations, or those less on show, were box framed in order to save on timber (Barnwell and Adams 1994, 82). On the front (north) elevation, the plain bays are marked by pairs of tension braces rising from the jetty bressumer to the posts. This was matched by a corresponding pair of tension braces at the upper level on the east elevation. The external form of the south and west elevations is less clear, but where visible the original studding of the south elevation appears not to have included tension braces. This may be because the elevation was not on display in the same way as those to the north and east. Alternatively it may be another indication that there was a preexisting building to the south, as this might have negated the need for tension braces in this elevation. Internally at ground-floor level the subdivision of the east and west rooms is indicated by a series of redundant mortices on the underside of the central cross beam (C-C1, III). This is partially truncated by the later fireplace, but enough survives to indicate that there was a closed partition on this alignment. The cross beam is correspondingly unmoulded. The associated southern post has a redundant mortice, just below the level of the cross beam. This cannot be for a door head, as residual mortices (with cut-off tenons still in situ) adjacent in the cross beam suggest there was no opening here. It may be for a tension brace running through the partition. It seems likely that there was some form of interconnection between the rooms, but this may have sat more centrally within the partition, in the area now occupied by the fireplace. Whether this formed part of a screens passage running through the centre of the building depends in part on interpretations of evidence for an existing range to the rear (see above). There is no surviving fabric evidence for such a feature however, although much of this area is concealed by the inserted stack. HISTORIC ENGLAND 53

63 The indications from the extant evidence therefore is that the partition created two rooms of equal size, differentiated by the contrast in the finish of the timbers within them. In the eastern room the central cross beam (B-B1; II) and the spine beam room have a relatively elaborate moulding formed of a single ogee, with a hollow chamfer below (see detail drawing of moulding). These two beams quarter the ceiling into four equal sections. The stops of the spine beams are concealed at their outer ends, and where they meet the cross beam they are not stopped but run through to form an intersecting cross. The stops on the cross beam are visible. They take an unusual form with the lower hollow chamfer moulding terminating in a step and run-out stop and the upper ogee moulding running down and into a stepped stop beyond this (see detail drawing of moulding at B). A redundant mortice in the surviving south post and pairs of pegs in the cross beam to both north and south indicate that originally there were braces rising from the posts to the cross beam. The joists are visible running outwards from the spine beam; these are unmoulded. To the south the joists rest on the girding beam rather than being bonded into it. Where they run over the girding beam they correspond with peg holes on the upper edge of the girding beam which indicate the positions of the upper studs. Although the junction is not visible the joists must run into the studs, an unusual arrangement which puts some structural pressure on the studs. The arrangement at the front of the building has obviously been altered with the building out of the jetty. It can be assumed that the joists oversailed the jetty plate, and it may be that the arrangement of the southern wall replicated elements of the arrangement of the joists and jetty plate to the north. Much of the evidence for the front and east walls of this room is missing or concealed, but in the rear (south) wall an original window location is identifiable by two small redundant mortices on the underside of the girding rail. This would have allowed for a three-light window, centrally placed within the eastern bay. The western bay of the south wall in this room has three in situ studs - the only studs in situ at ground-floor level in the building. These flank a large gap towards the centre of the bay, with a lack of residual pegging on the girding rail indicating that there were no further studs originally. The underside of the girding rail is concealed, so it is possible that this relates to a further window opening, but the gap is considerably wider than the proportions of the window further east. It is suggested that this may be the position of an original chimney stack, which could have projected from the south elevation in this position. This would have heated the higher- status ground floor room. The evidence for this is relatively slight however, and the alternative option for the original heating arrangement is that there was a small stack in the position of the later chimney. This is discussed in detail in relation to phase two (see below). The western room has a similar arrangement to that to the east, with the central cross beam and two spine beams creating a quartered ceiling; both are stopped at the intersection. Both have a plainer set of mouldings however, with a simple chamfer on the cross beam with a stepped and run out stop (see detail drawings of the moulding form). The spine beam has a similar chamfer moulding. Its stops survive where they meet the cross beam but are of a quite unusual form; straight cut, but angled with the upper edge towards the chamfer. Similar, although not identical, HISTORIC ENGLAND 54

64 straight-cut stops have been identified as late 15th century; although it should also be noted that straight cut stops in general date from the late medieval or 16th century (Hall 2010, 159). The joists are again unmoulded. In the southwest quadrant of the ceiling a short trimmer beam projecting out from the south girding rail probably indicates the position of an original stair. The original walling of the room is lost or concealed, so no indication of the original external arrangements of the room can be identified. It seems likely however that the original entrance into the range would have been into this room, as the lower status of the two ground-floor rooms. This is also suggested by the provision of the stair in this room, as this is likely to sit in the same room as the principal entrance point. At first-floor level the tie beam of the central truss has been removed, so any evidence for an internal partition on this alignment does not survive. It seems highly likely that the space was also divided into two equal rooms however. The principal evidence for this is in the survival of the two other internal tie beams (at B-B1 and D to D1; II and IIII). Both of these are moulded suggesting they formed part of display trusses. However as at ground-floor level the mouldings differ, with a more elaborate form to the east and a plainer to the west. The decorative elements of these trusses corresponds to the beam mouldings at ground-floor level, with the eastern one formed of an ogee and hollow chamfer, and the western one of a simple straight chamfer. Both also have residual evidence for braces rising from the posts to the tie beams. Again those to the eastern truss appear to have been more substantial, with a continuous arch formed by the braces. This form is indicated by the residual pegging for the braces, and by the survival of the central fillet on the underside of the tie beam. This is confirmed by the evidence at roof level. The majority of the roof has been removed but one crown post survives over the display truss in the eastern room (B-B1) although this has been removed and reset (see below). This is of a form typical of the late 15th century, with a squared post and four braces rising to support the collar and collar purlin, although neither of these elements are extant (see detail drawing). The crown post over the display truss in the western room does not survive, but the residual mortice for its setting in the tie-beam indicates that it was considerably smaller this is confirmed by verbal evidence from the house owner who saw the post prior to its removal in the 1960s (Tony Hull pers. comm.). Together with the ground-floor evidence the tie beams and crown posts strongly suggest two separate rooms subdivided by an internal partition. Each would have had a central truss on display, with the crown-posts rising above the open tie beams. The eastern room was lit by two windows, one in the north and one in the south elevation. That to the north appears to have occupied the same position as the extant window in the second bay from the east, as indicated by the lack of tension braces in this bay externally. Its precise form is difficult to establish, but the survival of two original studs towards the west of the bay indicates that it occupied no more than the width of the current window, and was positioned off-centre towards the central truss of the room. The position of the window in the south elevation is the eastern bay, although again off-centre and towards the central truss. Its form is more evident from remaining evidence in the wall plate. Two residual mortices survive suggesting a two-mullion, three-light window. Above the window and running towards the post a groove in the underside of the wall plate indicates the position of a sliding HISTORIC ENGLAND 55

65 shutter for the window. It appears that the other bays within this room comprised plain close studding. This includes the western bay of the south elevation, which at ground-floor level may have made provision for a fireplace opening. At first-floor level this bay appears to have had regular close studding with no indication of any gap for a fireplace. Although only three studs survive, there is residual pegging in the wall plate for studs where there are presently gaps. This is surprising, given that typically in this arrangement the first-floor chamber would be higher status than that at the ground-floor level and therefore more likely to be heated. It is possible that some of the studs that have since been removed were only partial height and made provision for a small fireplace opening at this level, but this seems unlikely. The other possibility is that there was some form of small chimney stack in the position of the later stack. This feature is discussed in detail in the next phase (see below). The western room follows a similar pattern to that to the east, with evidence for window openings on the north and south elevations. That to the north is again indicated by the lack of tension braces in the western bay. The survival of three original studs to the west of the bay indicates that again the window sat off centre towards the display truss. The survival of three rather than two original studs may mean that this window was slightly smaller than that on the north side of the east room but this may be the result of differing survival of the original stud work. A second window was provided on the south side of the building. This is similar in form and proportion to that lighting the south side of the east room with two residual mortices for a three-light window and a groove to accommodate a sliding shutter. Immediately west of the former window opening two original studs have single residual peg holes approximately 1m from the ground. It is possible that these are for some form of applied rail in relation to the base of the window or its shutter. Primary access to this room was presumably via the stair, residual evidence for which was identified in the room below. At this level it would have risen in the western bay, adjacent to the south wall although there is no clear indication of this on the original studs. The only notable feature in this bay is two further residual peg holes in the two original studs immediately west of the display truss. These both run the full depth of the timber, but are at different heights. Both are also angled through their studs, at different orientations. There are no such residual features identifiable on any other timbers, but it is not clear what these may relate to. Their proximity suggests that they may be part of a single feature, possibly related to the adjacent stair position in some way. It is also possible that they are secondary and were cut into the earlier timbers at a later stage although again any purpose is uncertain. A number of burn marks are visible internally on original timbers. These have been traditionally interpreted as evidence of rush lights, but more recently academic discussion has focused on the idea of ritual marking (Dean and Hill 2014). Two areas of burn marks were identified; a set on a single stud in the north elevation, in the second bay from the east and a further grouping on another stud this time in the south elevation in the second bay in from the west. The extremely localised nature of these groupings may support the idea of a ritual purpose to these marks. HISTORIC ENGLAND 56

66 Phase Two late 16th century The principal alteration of this phase is the insertion of the chimney stack. A number of other alterations to the building have also been placed in this phase, on the basis of stylistic similarities or typical plan changes of the time. There is however, no evidence that all of this work was undertaken in a single building event, and it may have been that alteration was undertaken on a piecemeal basis, albeit within a relatively short timeframe. As noted above, the heating arrangements of the original range are not easy to establish. It has been tentatively suggested that originally a stack was situated against the south wall of the building in the second bay from the east, although if so this probably heated only the higher-status ground-floor room. Alternatively it is possible that there was an original stack in the location of the late 16th century stack. However, if this was the case then the subsequent alteration has removed all trace of it. As such it is most likely to have been timber framed, potentially framed with the central tie beam which might be another reason for its removal in this stage. Timber framed stacks were unusual by 1500 however, so this remains a less likely option. The inserted stack is of brick and appears to have provided four hearths, one for each of the principal rooms within the range. Three of these have subsequently been replaced, and those at ground-floor level particularly heavily altered but it seems likely that this reflects the original distribution of hearths as part of this phase. The only fireplace which may date from this phase is that for the upper east room. This is stone has a four-centred arched head with a roll moulding (see detail drawing of fireplace moudling). Spandrels above the arch have an undulating leaf pattern typical of the late 16th century. Whether this fireplace is original to the house however cannot be definitely established. The insertion of what appears to be a reused stone fireplace in the western room (see below) in a much later phase means that it is possible that the upper eastern fireplace, although early, was also brought in at a later date. It does however show less sign of damage and alteration than that in the western room, so has been tentatively placed in this phase. At first-floor level the alterations to incorporate the stack included the complete removal of the tie beam of the central truss (C-C1; III). It is this removal which provides speculative evidence that there was no original stack in this position as any earlier stack would have been designed to work with the tie beam and thus alterations as part of phase two would be less likely to require its removal. The inserted stack sits parallel with the surviving posts of truss III (C-C1) however, and thus makes minimal intrusion into the higher-status east room. The full depth of the double stack is therefore incorporated within the west room. The western side of the stack was incorporated within a new partition wall which divided the now smaller west room from its eastern counterpart. This partition is formed of timber studding, with several elements apparently reused as they show redundant mortices and other residual features. These studs support an inserted cross-beam, which does not bond into, or even rest upon, either wall plate but in fact sits above them supported only by the secondary studs. This has a simple chamfer decoration on its outer edge, with straight stops. The current position of the doorway, to the south of the fireplace HISTORIC ENGLAND 57

67 opening, is the only position that a doorway can have had in this phase, although the current door fittings are later. The only other possibility is that the room was accessed separately from the ground-floor level via the earlier stair, but this seems unlikely as it is in fact suggested that the careful removal of the stair took place as part of this phase (see below). This arrangement must have superseded any earlier provision of heating and if there was an external stack on the south elevation it would have been removed at this stage. It is suggested that this alteration may have taken place at the time of the construction (or the reconstruction) of the rear wing, which survived until the 1960s. Other alterations which may have been necessitated by the construction of the rear wing include the removal of the south window in the west room, presumably because this feature was blocked by with the new wing, as indeed it is by its later replacement. Timber studding was carefully inserted into the area of the former window. This may be further evidence that these alterations were undertaken at the same time as the insertion of the chimney stack as this alteration also made careful use of timber studding. Alterations to the other south window may have taken place at the same time. The upper shutter groove was carefully infilled with a fillet of timber, which was pegged to the wall plate. Although an early window does not survive it is possible that the removal of the shutter coincided with the replacement of the original window opening, possibly associated with the provision of glazing. The construction (or reconstruction) of the rear wing may have allowed for a new access arrangement to the front range. The provision of a more commodious staircase would be typical of additions of this phase, and this could have been incorporated into the new rear range. It is therefore suggested that the original stair in the western room was removed as part of this phase. The lap joints in the original trimmer beam were carefully infilled, and a single timber joist used to span the gap. The care with which this work was undertaken suggests it probably took place as part of a relatively early phase when the ceiling joists and other features were still on show. It has already been noted that the first-floor west room was probably accessed via a doorway in the newly inserted stud wall to the west of the chimney stack. Both east and west rooms may then have been accessed via a lobby area on the south side of the stack. This would have required a doorway in roughly the position of the current access from the 1960s wing. There is no extant evidence for this, but the survival of the original studding continuously further west of this suggests that this is the most likely location for communication between the two ranges. Also suggested as part of this phase is the ceiling in of the first-floor rooms to hide the earlier crown post roof. The evidence for this process is particularly evident in the west room where a series of lap joints are visible on the upper edges of the tie beams of the western and central trusses. This would have provided a ceiling level slightly lower than the current one. It is likely that the east room was ceiled at the same time. HISTORIC ENGLAND 58

68 Phase Three 17th century The most substantial alteration to the exterior of the building was the building out of the jetty along the front (north) elevation of the building. This necessitated the removal of the original jetty posts and the associated front wall. At the same time the external sections of the other three elevations were also built up in brick, although this appears to have been simply applied to the exterior of the original stud walling, leaving the earlier timbers in place. The brickwork comprises small, handmade bricks of a pinkish hue possibly made locally, as Ely had a thriving brick industry by the 17th century. These are laid in Flemish bond. Towards the eastern end of the south elevation a patterned chevron motif is visible in the brickwork, created by using darker, redder bricks for the headers. This may have originally been replicated along the elevation, although subsequent alteration and infill, although carefully done, has removed any clear further patterning. This feature is stylistically suggestive of a 17th century date. There is only very slight evidence of the windows that would have been incorporated as part of this phase. On the west elevation however a row of queen closers, again in darker red brick, are visible towards the north of the elevation immediately adjacent to the boundary wall of the property. This suggests a window or door opening in this location. It is possible that this work was undertaken at the same time as the phase two work above, as the stylistic features used to date the two phases could potentially overlap. However the careful use of timber stud work in elements of the late 16 th century work suggests that those alterations took place at a time when the building was still predominantly timber framed. On balance therefore this work has been phased separately. Phase Four 18th century It is likely that the building underwent alteration in the 18th and 19th centuries, however much of this evidence has been removed as part of the substantial renovation in the early 20th century (see phase five below). The only surviving evidence of the alterations undertaken in these centuries therefore are two 18th century panelled room doors, and the 18th century cupboard to the north of the fireplace in the east room (see detail drawing of the door). Neither of the two rooms doors are in situ but originally these may have served the two upper rooms in the front range. Both have fielded panels with the upper panels slightly larger than the lower panels. This detailing is matched in the in situ cupboard door which sits north of the inserted chimney stack. This has a ventilation grille over the top of the door with wavy splat balusters which typically date to the 18th century (Roberts 2003, 120). Although this evidence is slight it does suggest a refurbishing of the front range in the early 18th century. This potentially could have included other, more substantial updating particularly to the exterior of the building. It is clear that there was significant investment in other buildings which formed part of this complex in the HISTORIC ENGLAND 59

69 18th century, most notably in the construction of the cart shed or barn sitting to the east of the earlier range. This uses a yellow stock brick, and corresponding brickwork can be seen in the lower part of the front range elevations, for example in the blocking of the phase three doorway or window opening in the west elevation. There is no suggestion that these events were directly contemporary, but it suggests further alteration to the exterior of the building in the 18th century. Typical of the period would be the insertion of sash windows into the elevations, although if this was undertaken all traces of these have been subsequently removed. Phase Five early 20th century Much of the building s current appearance appears to date from an extensive programme of refurbishment and reinstatement in the early 20th century. Stylistically this owes much to the Arts and Crafts period, and may have taken place in the 1920s, or perhaps slightly earlier. As part of this phase some early historic features were introduced to the house, as well as a significant number of welldesigned features of the period. All of the ground- and first-floor windows appear to relate to this phase. Those at ground-floor level are typically square-headed mullion and transom windows of two, three or five lights. At first-floor level the west, north and east elevations have oriel windows which project outwards supported on curved brackets. They are also mullion and transom windows. The single window in the south elevation, at the eastern end, is flush with the elevation. The extent to which the windows at both levels mirror an earlier arrangement is difficult to ascertain. At ground-floor level it has already been suggested that the windows were replaced in the 18th century, so it is unlikely that the extant windows are based on any definite evidence of what preceded them. At first-floor level however it is possible that more evidence survived of the windows original form. It is notable that the window in the south elevation appears to follow the size and form as suggested by the evidence from the original phase. It is possible that other windows might also have been based on surviving early evidence, either in the form of extant windows or in residual features within the frame. Other elements of the first-floor frame appear to have been renewed at the same time the tension braces on the north elevation for example may well be replacement timbers. It seems possible that framework elements in poor condition were renewed based on original evidence. This may also have extended to the windows. As originally constructed however it is unlikely there were windows in the east and west first-floor elevations so these were inserted in this period. At ground-floor level the fireplaces in both rooms of the front range were altered. This appears to have included extensions outwards into both rooms, as both now project significantly from the chimney breasts. The precise reasons for this are not clear, but may have been in order to minimise alteration to the earlier fabric behind. Both fireplaces have timber surrounds. That in the western room has a four -centred arched surround with a roll moulded base and foliate decoration in the spandrels. Stylistically it appears to owe much to the first-floor eastern fireplace, which may have been an early feature still in situ in the building. The fireplace in the eastern room is plainer with a simple squared surround with plain chamfered edges. It HISTORIC ENGLAND 60

70 includes a notable whimsical feature in a detached knot in the timber of the jamb which can be removed to reveal a small recess in the timber. The more elaborate decoration of the western room fireplace may have been designed to accompany the panelling and associated fittings which were also inserted into the room at the time. These are 19th century and were apparently brought-in from a much larger building. The door is of six panels with a foliate decorative motif to the edge of the panels. A matching door accesses the ground-floor eastern room from the rear range. The panelling is not full height but runs to a frieze with decoration corresponding to that on the doorways. At first-floor level the fireplace in the western room appears to have been inserted as part of this phase. It is an original early 16th century fireplace with a four-centred arched head. It has sunk spandrels with blank shields and distinctive decorative spandrels apparently comprising a bulrush and another unidentified plant. This has a timber surround with chamfered edges of the early 20th century. Although ostensibly similar to the potentially original fireplace in the east room some of the more subtle detailing, particularly in the hollow chamfer decoration to the edge of the arch, appears slightly earlier. There is moreover significant damage, which appears to include some weathering to one of the jambs. These features suggest that on balance this feature more likely to have been inserted. The other feature of the west room which apparently dates to this phase is the door and door fittings. The door is formed of three planks with moulded fillets and applied panelling to form a four-centred head. It has strap hinges with decorative flourishes in a 17th century style. It is notable that this is the only door surviving of this period in the house, and that the 18th century doors to the east rooms were not replaced at the same time. It may be that this feature has been moved to serve this room at some date, and that originally it formed an external door, or a more prominent internal doorway. Phase Six 1960s The current owner bought the house in the 1960s, at which time there was a council proposal to demolish the site to create a car park. The rear range, which was in poor condition was completely demolished and replaced with the current wing which sits on the same footprint as the earlier building. Restoration of the front range as part of this phase included the almost complete replacement of the roof structure, although one of the crown posts was retained, initially in the garden before being returned to the house in the last five years. Externally much of the brickwork to the southeast corner of the building appears to have been renewed as part of this phase. The firstfloor in the same area was also altered, apparently by applying timbers to the exterior of the original studs. These timbers were probably original rafters as several still show open notches apparently for former collars from the crown post roof re-used common rafters from the roof. Internally there have been fewer alterations, although the first-floor east room was subdivided to form two smaller rooms, with a corridor access along the southern side. HISTORIC ENGLAND 61

71 Conclusion Waterloo House represents a good survival of a late 15th, probably c 1500, high-status range which was probably one part of a larger structure. Although uncertainties over this, and its original form, mean some elements of the original plan remain unresolved it is clearly a high-status building and could be seen as indicative of the relative wealth of Ely in the late medieval period. Bibliography Barnwell, P and Adams, A 1994 The House Within: Interpreting Medieval Houses in Kent London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (HMSO) Dean, J and Hill, N 2014 Burn marks on buildings: accidental or deliberate? in Vernacular Architecture Hall, L 2007 Period House Fixtures & Fittings Newbury: Countryside Books Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 Roberts, E 2003 Hampshire Houses : Their Dating and Development Southampton: Hampshire County Council HISTORIC ENGLAND 62

72 First-floor plan Studs formed from re-used rafters Site of A window B Groove in plate C Scarf joint Later addition Site of window D Groove in plate Site of stair E Scarf joint A1 B1 Site of window C1 D1 Site of E1 window Original timber in situ Timber deduced from peg evidence Inserted timber Cross section B-B1 Braces replaced Former line of wall m ft Waterloo House, 3 West Fen Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: April 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 63

73 Sketch details Jowl on corner post A1, first-floor SE room Jowl on corner post A, first-floor SE room Detail of axial beam and post B-B1, ground-floor SE room Joist Axial beam D-E Scarf joint in wall plate & head of post at C Foot of corner post A1, first-floor SE room Transverse beam D-D1 Chamfer stops on transverse & axial beams, ground-floor NW room Waterloo House, 3 West Fen Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: April 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 64

74 Details of mouldings joist Sketch of base Ground-floor axial beam SE room joist Ground-floor transverse beam SE room Ground-floor axial beams NW room Ground-floor transverse beam NW room Section Crown post and tie beam B-B1 (SE room) Fireplace jamb, SE room, first floor Fireplace jamb, NW room, first floor Details of timber framing joints m ins Scarf joint in SW wallplate at C Scarf joint in NE wallplate Evidence of former jetty plate in transverse beam at D1 Exploded view Reconstruction of jetty at D m 5 0 3ft Waterloo House, 3 West Fen Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: April 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England

75 Details of door, first-floor, SE room (door to centre room and centre room cupboard similar) Front face (into room) Rear face (landing corridor) Detail of mouldings Scale for door elevations m 1 0 2ft Scale for details of mouldings m ins Waterloo House, 3 West Fen Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: April 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 66

76 1 HIGH STREET, ELY; ANGLIA WINES As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 1 High Street, Ely was visited and surveyed on the 17th September 2014 by Rebecca Lane Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 1 High Street, forms part of a unit with No 1a to the east. The property is unlisted and has a distinctive art deco façade added in the early 20th century. 1 High Street forms part of a largely continuous terrace of buildings on the north side of the High Street running from Lynn Road to the west to the Market Place in the east. The street frontage is pierced at regular intervals by narrow passageways which give access to further commercial properties. This pattern reflects the nature of the original use of this area. It seems likely that the whole area between Market Street to the north and High Street to the south represents an infill to what was once a larger market place, stretching the full length of what is now the High Street. Thus, despite the fact that many of the properties on the north side of the High Street now have relatively long plots stretching northwards, these do not reflect an original burgage layout, but in fact probably represent amalgamations of smaller market-infill holdings in the 18th and 19th centuries. The process of market infill appears to have begun within the medieval period, and by the time of the 1417 survey of the town it is clear that there were continuous tenements running much the same length of the High Street (or Steeple Row as it was referred to in the survey) as survive today (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 141). The exact form of these tenements is difficult to recreate, as few measurements are given for the north side of Steeple Row, although it is tentatively possible to suggest that No 1 was part of a large tenement leased by a Nicholas Say. HISTORIC ENGLAND 67

77 It is clear from the exterior of the property that No 1 and 1a have shared the same ownership and constructional history for much of their lives. Unfortunately only No 1 was available for survey, the upper part of No 1a being out of use. It is assumed however that any phasing ascribed to No 1 would be shared by 1a. Indeed it is possible, given the late damage to the roof structure of No 1 (see phase 3 below) that No 1a may represent a better survival, although this is impossible to verify without access. Phase One 15th century The earliest phase of the building is extremely fragmentary but appears to represent part of a timber-framed range of at least two bays running parallel to the street (see plan). This was probably storied. Given the location of the building it seems very likely that this range originally provided commercial premises, although there is no visible evidence of the form of the ground floor of the building to support this. These may have been purely commercial premises sitting on very limited plots, or alternatively the range may have worked with an open hall to the rear. The principal evidence for the range is in the survival of the two wall plates, which are exposed at first-floor level. The front wall plate survives along the full extent of No 1. Little detail of the plate is visible, but the inner edge shows no chamfering suggesting a relatively early date. Where a window has been inserted immediately below the plate two residual rafter pegs are visible. These again are of a relatively early form. There may be further elements of the front wall also in situ, but the remainder of this wall is currently concealed. To the rear the wall plate survives for most of the extent of the unit, although it has been cut through for access towards its centre. Elements of this wall plate are more visible than that to the south, and it is again unchamfered, with three residual rafter pegs identifiable. The western portion of this wall plate is supported by three residual studs. These are not in situ, as they all have lap joints on the inner faces which sit at different levels. The timbers may originally have formed studs in a different building arrangement or they may originally have formed a joist or joists. It is possible that they are contemporary with the wall plates however, although they have obviously been removed and reused at some stage when significant alterations were undertaken in the building (see below). Elements of the original roof structure over this portion of the building also survive, although heavily altered in a subsequent phase (see below). Surviving features include a significant number of common rafters (see sketch drawing of the roof structure). Several can be identified with lap joints and residual pegging at approximately collar height, although in most cases these appear to have been relocated within the roof. Some, although not all, are smoke blackened but this is probably associated with the 20th century fire which damaged the roof rather than residual medieval blackening. This is supported by the fact that at least one of these timbers is charred, suggesting fire damage rather than ambient smoke blackening. The rafters are pegged into a low purlin of similar scantling which also appears to be an early feature. Given the relocation of the timbers this arrangement must reflect a 20th century reorganisation. HISTORIC ENGLAND 68

78 It is notable that there are no larger principal rafters in the roof, either in situ or reused, with all the surviving original rafters of uniform scantling. This, together with the number of rafters with residual lap joints for collars could suggest that the original roof was a crown post roof where each pair of common rafters has a collar resting on a collar purlin supported by the crown post. The other possibility is a collar rafter roof which has a similar provision of collars but no lateral support. These appear to have been less common than crown posts however (Barnwell and Adams 1994, 56), and the crown post roof is certainly the dominant form in better surviving Ely buildings from the period. Phase Two 17th century The next phase identifiable in the extant building is the construction of the rear range. This is relatively modest in scale and probably only contained a single room at ground- and first-floor level. Given the age of the front range, and the fact that it was probably storied, it is possible that this wing replaced an earlier open hall, perhaps because its scale made it difficult to provide an additional floor level as this became prevalent in the 16th and 17th centuries. Alternatively it may reflect an addition to a single range building. Evidence for this phase, and its date, is derived principally from the roof structure. This is altered, but a series of early rafters do survive. These appear to work with a concealed, rather than open, roof suggesting a date in the late 16th, or more likely, the 17th century. Phase Three 20th century It is likely that the building underwent alteration in the 18th and 19th centuries, but evidence for such changes has been swept away by a substantial 20th century remodelling. Most notable in this is the creation of a new façade to this unit and to No 1a, with distinctive art deco features. The paired shop fronts suggest that at this date, if not before, the building had been divided into two shop units. This is supported by the 20th century brickwork used to divide the two attic spaces. The internal fittings of the two shops range from the mid to late 20th century; the latter including the plate glass windows to the front. Subsequent to the division the upper storey of No 1 was damaged by fire. This was clearly relatively minor, as most of the roof timbers were available for reuse, but obviously necessitated the reconstruction of the roof. Bibliography Barnwell, P and Adams, A 1994 The House Within: Interpreting Medieval Houses in Kent London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (HMSO) Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 69

79 Sketch plan of first floor Blocked window Blocked window at half landing Reused rafter Break in ceiling Queen strut and collar nailed rp rp rp rp Break in ceiling Sketch of roof close to party wall with 1a, High Street showing construction with reused rafter rp: rafter pegs in wall plate 1 0 5m ft 1 High Street (Anglia Wines) Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: September 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 70

80 STEEPLEGATE, 16 AND 18 HIGH STREET, ELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project the basement of 16 High Street, currently the premises of Julia s Tea Rooms, was visited and surveyed on the 17th October 2014 by Rebecca Lane and Katie Carmichael, Investigators from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. This report also incorporates observations and survey information on 16 and 18 High Street made by RCHME Investigators who visited in January 1978 (Historic England Archive BF032088). 16 and 18 High Street form a pair of commercial properties, No 16 includes Steeplegate a three-storey gateway block which allows access between the High Street and Steeple Row and the cathedral grounds the south. The properties are grade II* listed (UID ). The list description describes the buildings as 16th century timber-framed structures with various later alterations. 16 and 18 High Street are part of an irregular terrace of buildings running almost continuously along the south side of Ely s High Street, from the Almonry which HISTORIC ENGLAND 71

81 faces the Market Place to the east, to the junction of High Street and Minster Place to the west. The eastern half of this streetscape is dominated by buildings which formed part of the northern range of the medieval monastic precinct. Further west there is a greater mix of units, with some 20th century reconstruction, but also a number of older properties. Interspersed at various points are three archways which lead through from High Street to what is now referred to as Steeple Row, a pathway which skirts the rear of the High Street properties and the edge of the open gardens around the cathedral. In the medieval period the eastern two arches gave access to the monastic precinct. Steeplegate, the westernmost archway, gave access into the lay cemetery, which was immediately north of the nave of the abbey church. Unlike the substantial ranges which marked the precinct boundary to the east, the lay cemetery was apparently demarcated with a boundary wall, which was set back from what is now the main line of the High Street, roughly aligned with what is now the rear of the High Street properties (VCH Cambridgeshire IV, 38). As well as the boundary wall there was also a Bone House (or Charnel) which had a chapel over. The gate itself appears to have been referred to as the steeple or campanile throughout the medieval period suggesting its early, or possibly original, form was that of a tower (VCH Cambridgeshire IV, 81). There is a record of the steeple being taken down in , at a relatively low cost, possibly indicating that the building was constructed of timber (ibid). It is suggested that this may have been removed following the construction of the new lay church north of the abbey church, which may have had its own bell tower (ibid). However some form of gateway was retained, along with the earlier name. By the 15th century a series of tenements had been built between the precinct wall and the highway to the north, referred to as Stepilrowe. The name of the street itself is indicative of the type of property that had developed along it, a row typically indicating the type of infill development often seen in association with urban market places. The tenements were all in the ownership of the Prior of the Abbey or the Bishop, and must have developed in order to exploit the commercial potential of the area which bordered the market square. The 1417 rental survey describes the property as owned by the prior. There were four tenements of John Roos[s] lying together on either side of Steeple Gate namely two tenements on the east side and they contain 1 perch and 4 yards less ¼ yard in front along the king s highway abutting together towards the south upon the churchyard of Holy Trinity Church (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 143). Discussion Phase One 14th century The earliest extant fabric within High Street is the cellar which sits under No 16, and extends westwards under Steeplegate. This is of three irregular bays, with two wider bays to the west and a narrower bay to the east, although the evidence indicates that it originally continued further east by at least one more bay. The walls of the cellar are built of a mixture of re-used stone of various types, including some elements which are clearly parts of column shafts and other features set on their HISTORIC ENGLAND 72

82 sides. In some cases the profiles of the column shafts suggest a 12th century date to the original working of the stone. These are incorporated with irregular rows and sections of brick, particularly in the upper areas (some rebuilt or altered). It has a ribbed lierne vault, with deeply chamfered freestone ribs springing from stone semi-octagonal vaulting shafts. There are blind wall arches of moulded brick, with a chamfer profile to the edges, and although some of these have been altered or reconstructed, enough survives in each bay to indicate that the use of brick in this way was a consistent design feature throughout the vault, wherever the arcading was not freestanding. Brick has also been used for the webbing between the vault ribs, with some surviving elements of render suggesting that originally this was concealed. The differentiated use of stone for freestanding elements and brick for engaged elements is the principal evidence for the suggestion that the cellar originally continued further east. The current easternmost transverse rib is of stone, which suggests that, despite the adjacent rubble walling this rib originally formed a freestanding part of the vault. Although partially concealed it also appears that the shaft is chamfered on its eastern face, a further indication that the vault continued eastwards. The eastern wall is formed largely of large pieces of rubble stone, which may have been reused from the putative bay further east. In the northern wall of the narrow east bay the vaulting shaft appears to include the side of an arched stone opening, possibly indicating the position of a doorway, which must have provided an external access point to the cellar. There is no indication of the other jamb to the opening or doorway in the eastern vaulting shaft or in the walling in between. The rest of the walling in this bay, which should include the infilling of this putative doorway, is of the same brick and rubble as used in the apparently original walling of the other bays. However this material may have been available from the destruction of the putative bay further east, which may have left fabric available to alter and infill the earlier opening. The transverse rib between the central and western bay is notable for the remains of paintwork visible in various places on the rib. The most distinctive elements are a series of red flowers, formed of five separately articulated petals. The flower motif is visible on the soffit and on the angle of the chamfer suggesting a repeating decorative scheme. Faint traces of a blue background with some form of scrolled or curving motif appear to be part of the same scheme, although this survives only in very poor condition. In places the paintwork has lifted and flaked revealing the stone underneath. It seems unlikely that such a scheme would have been limited to a single feature. There are no traces of paintwork on any of the other ribs, but in most cases the finished surface of the ribs has flaked off which has removed evidence of any further elements. Similarly the loss of the render on the web panels has removed any evidence for a scheme in these areas. The western bay of the surviving vault appears always to have represented the final bay in this direction, as the arcading against the west wall is of brick rather than stone. This wall however is constructed entirely of modern brick, suggesting that although the vault extended only this far, there may have been a further recess or HISTORIC ENGLAND 73

83 other feature in the western wall. This might have corresponded with the two extant original recesses that survive in the north and south walls of this bay. They are of different proportions, and indeed their constructional form is slightly different, however they both include elements which suggest dates contemporary with the main vault. The southern recess extends the full width of the bay, just under 3m, with the edges of the adjacent vaulting supports running back into the recess, a feature which suggests the recess is contemporary with the construction of the vault. In total the recess is just over a metre in depth. It appears to have always sat at the same level as the principal floor. The front section of the recess has an arched head formed of the same chamfered brick as the blind arcading of the vault above. The opening is slightly lower however, with a depressed-arch head. The rear part of the recess is lower again, with a stepped-down section of wall supported on three courses of deeply chamfered brick. The northern recess is narrower than that to the south with its outer sides stepped in from the adjacent vaulting supports. It is slightly off centre, sitting slightly to the east of the bay. The sides of the recess are made of large sections of worked squared stone, which appear to reflect carefully selected, reused stones of the type used throughout the cellar walls. The upper sections of the sides and the head are again formed of chamfered brick. The recess is also shallower than that to the south, with no lower back section. Above the depressed-arched head there is a small light well which remains open. This is almost certainly an original feature, as it sits centrally over the arch of the niche and corresponds with a centrally-placed stone voussoir in the arch head of the arcade above, and in the arch head of the recess below. Both are chamfered to match the surrounding brick. As with the principal vault, this use of stone appears to relate to the flying nature of these short section of the arches, where they are open to the light well in between, which strongly suggests that the arches and light well are all contemporary. Notwithstanding this original position, the sides of the light well, and probably the back too, have been replaced in modern brick. This must relate to alterations to the pavement above, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Comparison with other urban cellars surveyed, for example in Norwich (Smith and Carter 1983), suggests that recesses such as these were a relatively typical feature in cellars to provide additional storage areas. The differentiated form of the two in this cellar may suggest that they were used for storage of a different size or scale of items. Phase two 16th century The main buildings of High Street were examined by the RCHME in They found that the earliest extant fabric above cellar level was the gateway, which dates from the 16th century. There have been some alterations, particularly to the eastern side of the structure, but as constructed it formed a three-storey structure, with a single room at first- and second-floor level. This was originally supported by posts sitting in the corners of an open passageway at ground-floor level, although only the posts on the western side survive today. The extant north-west post has curved braces rising to support the western cross rail and the northern jetty plate. The south-west post may have had the same arrangement. The beams are chamfered and stopped. Immediately above the gateway the bressumers on the HISTORIC ENGLAND 74

84 north and south sides, supporting the first-floor walls, are heavily decorated on their outer sides with a foliate design incorporating renaissance motifs including grotesque faces. The bressumers are fitted onto the end of the common joists, but are cut to fit around the outer cross rails. Both the first and second stories were jettied to the north and south. The west side appears only to have been jettied at second-floor level and the eastern side not jettied at all. This arrangement must have been designed to accommodate the adjacent buildings suggesting that a three-storey building sat to the east of the gateway and a lower, two-storey building to the west. Although now rendered, evidence internally indicates that the walls are of close studded timber. To the south the building has a single surviving 16th century oriel window with moulded mullions and transom and a leaf-ornamented sill which is supported on brackets with a floral motif in the spandrels. The remainder of the windows have been replaced. Internally the RCHME noted a decorative scheme at first-floor level, comprising a series of lime-green stripes with black outline, interspersed with traces of a more ornamental decoration. They identified this as not later than the early 17th century and it may be original to the construction of the gatehouse (HEA BF032088). At the time of the 1978 survey the rooms in the gatehouse were accessible from the adjacent eastern building. Although this building is later, this may represent the original arrangement as the building is relatively small to have operated independently, and as there is evidence that the adjacent building in the 16th century was also three storey (see evidence from the jetty arrangement described above). Phase Three 18th and 19th century The adjacent property, No 18 High Street is identified by the RCHME as a complete rebuild of the 18th century in yellow brick, now mostly rendered. This encroached on the gateway at ground-floor level, with the removal of eastern two posts which originally must have supported the structure above, the bressumers instead running into the later west wall of No 18. This suggests that both units were in the same ownership at the time of the reconstruction. The roof of the gateway tower at No 16 is of 18th or 19th century hipped form, and it seems likely that this was reroofed at the same time. There is a suggestion from the modern street frontage, that at one time, and possibly originally, No 18 functioned with the western two bays of what is now No 20, as the first-floor window openings have a consistent form and matching fittings. This would suggest that in the 18th century, at the time of the reconstruction, Nos 16, 18 and the western half of No 20 were one large unit. At the time of the 1978 survey the fittings of No 18 were mostly 19th century, with shop fittings at ground-floor level. By this date it seems likely therefore that the unit had been split from the western portion of No 20, as the internal shop fittings clearly corresponded to the smaller unit. Much of this arrangement has now been lost, as the building has been significantly altered at ground-floor level since This has opened the building up to the ground-floor rear single storey block and removed most of the internal fittings, as well as altering the stair arrangement to the cellar below. HISTORIC ENGLAND 75

85 The most significant phase of alteration to the cellar, the removal of at least one bay of the vault, is difficult to precisely date. It is most likely to correspond to one of the phases of significant alteration to the upper structure, but substantial phases in the 16th, 18th and 19th centuries could all have provided the opportunity for such work. The reuse of original material in the insertion of the later eastern wall provides very little in the way of diagnostic information, as there appears to have been little need to introduce new material. It is tentatively suggested however that the alteration may date from the 19th century, and be contemporary with the subdivision of No 18 and No 20 High Street, which earlier appear to have been a single building. This is based on the fact that the truncation of the cellar to this point, means that it only runs under Nos 16 and 18, although the retention of the passageway (former stairway) is the exception to this. Assuming that up until the 19th century the unit further east had been part of the same building, both structurally and functionally, as suggested by the matching 18th century features on the surviving building, then it would have been relatively straightforward to maintain the larger cellar under the larger unit. It seems most likely that the need or desire to truncate the cellar would coincide with, or be later than, the subdivision, and the different requirements, either structural or functional, of the separated units. At present however there is very little evidence to support or contradict this hypothesis, and it remains plausible that the cellar was altered in the 16th or 18th centuries when the building was going through greater structural changes. The feature which can definitely be ascribed to the phase of truncation is the construction of the east wall and the creation of the narrow passageway which runs from the south of the eastern bay of the cellar. The wall is constructed of large rubble stone blocks, with some use (or reuse) of brick. The brick is relatively undiagnostic but seems most likely to be reused medieval brick, possibly from the vaulting further east. The southern part of the eastern wall is roughly angled eastwards to allow access to a narrow recess which projects south immediately east of the eastern transverse rib. The recess, which now presents as a tunnel is crudely formed with a rubble floor and irregular rubble and brick walling to the east and south which has had a rough render applied to it. To the west it is divided from the 20th century stair by a contemporary brick wall. The ceiling is formed of modern pre-cast concrete beams. Evidence from the RCHME survey of the ground-floor of the building (see below) suggests that originally this formed a stair providing access from the cellar to the interior of No 18. Notwithstanding the alteration since the RCHME survey it seems unlikely this reflected an original arrangement, although it is possible that originally there was internal access from the cellar to the structure above. One factor which may support a 19th century date for these alterations however is that the majority of other alterations to the cellar appear to relate to the 19th or 20th centuries, possibly suggesting that the cellar was little altered up until that date. The most notable alterations to the cellar include the insertion (or alteration) of the highlevel openings in the north wall of each bay. The upper part of the north walling in the east bay has been rebuilt in modern (20th century) brick, this appears to reflect the infilling of a former light well, which may have originally been added when the doorway was blocked. The eastern part of the southern wall of the central bay has largely been rebuilt as part of the insertion of the modern entrance, this includes HISTORIC ENGLAND 76

86 the brick arch above the doorway. Evidence from the RCHME survey in the 1970s indicates that this was an entirely modern insertion, with no early entrance in this position. Opposite this the northern wall has an inserted high-level opening, now blocked with a metal shutter. The surround to this opening is of gault brick, and appears early 20th century, suggesting a relatively late date for its current form although it may reflect the position of an earlier opening of similar form. The floor of the cellar is of 19th century gault and red brick with a central drainage channel. This sits above the level of the original floor, as indicated by the base of the vaulting supports. Running around the sides of the east and central bay is a low level plinth, of 20th century brick with a tile top. The insertion of this feature appears to relate to the use of the cellar structure for dining facilities, to act as seating. Conclusion As with other buildings examined in this row, High Street has a complex history with the phasing indicating an almost constant process of change and alteration, largely relating to commercial activity. The 14th century cellar seems most likely to relate to the shop units documented in the area in the early 15th century, and suggests significant investment on the part of the Prior in commercial premises on the edge of the market area. There is considerable debate over the potential uses of such cellars, whether they existed purely for storage or functioned as shops or public premises in their own right. There is evidence for a prominent external access point to the cellar, and finishes such as the render and the decorative paintwork suggest that it was intended to be seen and used by a wider audience than simply the tenant. However, it is suggested that features such as the recess in the west bay also indicate a role for storage, in conjunction with a more public role. The superstructure of Steeplegate indicates a substantial investment in the 16th century, most likely to be after the Dissolution and therefore probably reflecting a significant reorganisation of commercial premises after the sale of assets by the Crown. Steeplegate s prominent position obviously warranted a high-status building, and the close studded timber work, along with the fine detailing of the windows and bressumer indicate significant expenditure. Subsequent alteration, including the total reconstruction of No 18, was obviously designed to maintain the commercial viability of the site, and this continues today, with the process of alteration to suit modern commercial activity evident through into the early 21st century. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 Smith, R and Carter, A 1983 Function and site: Aspects of Norwich buildings before 1700 in Vernacular Architecture VCH Cambridgeshire IV The Victoria History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely Vol IV London: Oxford University Press HISTORIC ENGLAND 77

87 Plan and sections of undercroft Modern staircase Probable former stair A1 B1 A Stone work Manhole A1 Original floor level? C C1 B B1 Blocked doorway Manhole A B Manhole C1 C m ft High Street and Steeple Gate, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 78

88 Ground-floor sketch plan Extent of undercroft Probable former stair Manhole Manhole Steeple Gate m ft High Street and Steeple Gate, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Redrawn from RCHME Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 79

89 22 AND 24 HIGH STREET, ELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 22 and 24 High Street, currently the premises of Edis of Ely, were visited on the 16th September 2014 by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 22 and 24 High Street form a single grade II listed building, with 24A (UID ). 24A in fact forms the ground floor element of No 24, which is separately owned (or leased) with Edis having the flying freehold of the upper floors of this property, now accessed only through No 22, an arrangement that has been in place since the mid-20th century. The list description describes the property, with its neighbour, as a pair of shops with 19th century facades, but with part of a medieval stone building to the rear. 22 and 24 High Street are part of an irregular terrace of buildings running almost continuously along the south side of Ely s High Street, from the Almonry which fronts the Market Place to the east, to the junction of High Street and Minster Place to the west. The eastern half of this streetscape is dominated by buildings which formed part of the northern range of the medieval monastic precinct. Further west there is a greater mix of units, with some 20th century reconstruction, but also a number of more historic properties. Interspersed at various points are three archways which lead through from High Street to what is now referred to as Steeple Row, a pathway which skirts the rear of the High Street properties and the edge of the open gardens around the cathedral. In the medieval period the eastern two arches gave access to the monastic precinct. However, the westernmost archway, just 15m west of 22 and 24, gave access into the lay cemetery which was immediately north of the nave of the abbey church. HISTORIC ENGLAND 80

90 Unlike the substantial ranges which marked the precinct boundary to the east the lay cemetery was apparently demarcated with a boundary wall, which was set back from what is now the main line of the High Street, roughly aligned with what is now the rear of the High Street properties (VCH Cambridgeshire IV, 38). As well as the boundary wall there was also a Bone House (or Charnel) which was used to store any human remains disturbed in the digging of new graves. Documentary references indicate that this was a two-storey building with a chapel dedicated to St Peter in the upper storey. This may have been used by the lay congregation as a chapel of convenience, rather than enter the monastic precinct proper to visit the lay church which sat north of the church nave (VCH Cambridgeshire IV, 81). By the 15th century a series of tenements had been built between the precinct wall and the highway to the north, referred to as Stepilrowe. The name of the street itself is indicative of the type of property that had developed along it, a row typically indicating the type of infill development often seen in association with urban market places. The tenements were all in the ownership of the Prior of the Abbey or the Bishop, and must have developed in order to exploit the commercial potential of the area. The 1417 rental survey describes the property as owned by the prior with four tenements of John Roos[s] lying together on either side of Steeple Gate namely two tenements on the east side and they contain 1 perch and 4 yards less ¼ yard in front along the king s highway abutting together towards the south upon the churchyard of Holy Trinity church (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 143). This measurement for the eastern portion of John Roos holdings, assuming the current position of Steeple Gate, would incorporate the site of High Street. Numbers 22 and 24 both face northwards onto the High Street. Both have separate 20th century shop fronts at ground-floor level which have removed any evidence for their earlier ground-floor form. Despite their current connection at first-floor level, it is clear that for some time 22 and 24 were separate from each other and that 22 in fact formed part of a larger unit with part of No 20 (currently Shoe Zone). This is indicated by the treatment of the upper part of the main façade (fronting the High Street); particularly the use of render on the brickwork and the common treatment of the single window opening which now forms the upper part of 22 and the window in the easternmost bay of No 20. The remainder of No 20 is off-set from the eastern section and shares a façade with Nos 16 and 18, adjacent to Steeple Gate. This suggests that No 20 as a unit was originally created by subdividing the two units to either side, probably in the early 20th century. No 24, in contrast, has an exposed brick façade at first-floor level, with a distinctive large projecting bay window. There is a further large dormer window opening above this at roof level. Notwithstanding the different treatments at first-floor level, No 24 and 22 and the eastern part of No 20 as well, have a consistent wall-plate height and roof pitch, suggesting that at some stage these separate units have some shared constructional history. HISTORIC ENGLAND 81

91 Discussion Phase One - medieval Nos 22 and 24 High Street represent two sections of a row of properties which have been subject to a continual process of amalgamation and reorganisation since first constructed. The earliest phase identifiable in the current structure is of the 16th century, but retained medieval walling encased in the rear wall of No 22, along with the documentary evidence discussed above, indicates that the extant building reflects the use of the street frontage in this area since at least the 15th century (see plan). The medieval walling almost certainly relates to a building which in fact lay south of the surviving principal range, in the position of the later rear ranges of the row. This has been associated with the bone house with chapel over, identified in the 14th century documents as associated with the lay cemetery (see background above). The rear wall of the main range of No 22 is significantly taller than that of No 24, despite the fact that at the front (north) the two buildings share the same wall height. This is due to the re-use of a large section of stone wall at the back of No 22 and the eastern part of No 20, the boundary between the units neatly distinguished by the different paint colours applied to the stone. The stone wall includes a large blocked arched stone window opening, now sitting on the boundary of the two units. This window opening appears in situ and, on stylistic grounds, may date from the 14th century. It has straight-sided jambs with a simple chamfer moulding to the outer edge. The lack of a hood moulding or other external feature around the window may indicate that this was originally the internal face of the window. Internally there is large later chimney breast built up against the opening which prevents close inspection. East of the window opening, along the rear wall of No 22, there is a jagged section of stone work which may represent the beginning of a wall return, suggesting the walling belongs to a building which sat to the south of the present main range. This suggests that it is part of a two-storey building which must have been in the location of the current, later, rear ranges. Immediately east of this putative wall return is a section of stone and brick walling which appears to be built up against the earlier walling and represent a re-use of some stone elements. The buildings constructed on to the northern side of this must therefore have been considerably constrained, by the High Street to the north and the earlier building to the south. The form of the medieval premises can only have been one room deep and may have been in the form of typical early market infill with multi-storeyed buildings possibly over some form of undercroft (an example of the latter surviving at the western end of the row under High Street). Phase Two 16th century Complete reconstruction of these putative earlier buildings appears to have taken place in the 16th century, and it can be suggested that this involved a substantial reinvestment in the whole row, as 16th century fabric survives not only in No 24, but also in the surviving Steeplegate which represents a substantial survival of similar date. The buildings between these two elements have been more substantially HISTORIC ENGLAND 82

92 altered, but residual consistencies in proportions and in the retention of medieval fabric could suggest that the whole row was initially reconstructed at this date. As built it is clear that the row formed a range which ran parallel to the street. The restricted size of the plot upon which the buildings sat clearly made this the only viable plan form, particularly if the medieval structure which previously sat to the rear of the ranges was extant, or partially extant, when the row was rebuilt. The 20th century shop fronts have removed any indication of the ground-floor form of these 16th century buildings but it may well have been jettied, as Steeplegate still is. Within No 24 the most substantial surviving 16th century fabric is at first-floor level. The first floor at No 24 is now divided into two rooms and a small lobby area, although the subdivisions appear to be 20th century stud partitions and originally it must have formed a single room. There are two cambered cross beams, marking the width of the current room, with a single lateral beam which sits to the south of the northern room, but which is roughly central to the original larger room. All three beams are chamfered with simple diagonal step stops typical of the 16th century. Where the cross beams meet the front (north) wall of the building they have residual mortices partly visible which indicate the former position of jowled posts. The cut back remains of the lap-dovetail joint that would have connected the beam to a wall plate are also visible (see sketch detail drawing). These features indicate that as constructed the beams functioned with a timber-framed north wall, which has subsequently been replaced in brick. The upper side of the cross beams are visible under the floorboards in the attic storey, and do not appear to have fomed part of trusses, as there are no residual mortices for principal rafters or other timbers. The current roof structure is of late date (see below), and in fact rests upon the floorboards of the attic storey. The most likely explanation for this seems to be that originally the building was of three storeys, as Steeplegate still is. There is a surviving chimney breast in the first-floor room, with a cupboard recess to its south. This is slightly off-centre to the space without subdivision, but this is probably in order to accommodate a winder stair which rises to the south of the fireplace and must originally have provided the principal access route into the upper room. This was not examined in detail as it is currently boarded in, although has been seen by the present owner who believes that it is made of stone. The upper part of the stair is still accessible and gives access from the first floor into the attic space above No 24, and through this to the attic of No 22. This section is made of timber, and appears 19th century. The first-floor level of No 24 is now reached via a doorway in a stud wall partition between No 22 and 24. The stud wall includes a wider plinth level which rises to a height of around 0.8m. This is out of alignment with the stud wall above, but sits directly underneath the cross beam next to the partition. This may indicate that the plinth is part of an earlier dividing wall between the two units, truncated and then reinstated with the modern stud wall. HISTORIC ENGLAND 83

93 Phase Three 18th, 19th and 20th centuries Subsequent alterations indicate a process of subdivision and re-amalgamation of all of these properties over the period from the 16th century until today. Many of these are difficult to precisely date. One of the most significant changes was the refronting of the building in brick. This probably took place in the 18th century. Both 16th century cross beams have secondary timbers attached to the sides, presumably to provide some reinforcement, and were perhaps added when the associated timber walling was removed. The current wall plate level is higher than the original, 16th century, level indicated by the cross-beams. At some stage, most likely at the same time as the replacement of the earlier timber-framed front wall with brick; the wall level also appears to have been raised, allowing a more usable attic space to be created. Between the beams a later ceiling of boarding, linked by narrow timber fillets, has been fitted. No residual 16th century timber framing was identified within No 22. At firstfloor level the main range of No 22 is represented by a single room. This has a high ceiling which appears to be part of a refitting of the building, probably in the 18th century; a similar height ceiling was observed in the eastern portion of No 20, suggesting they were both part of a single unit at that date. The ceiling beams in No 22 are encased, but a visible beam in No 20 suggests the late date for the refit, with a roughly finished timber built out on a brick corbel. The front (north) wall of No 22 also shows signs of alteration, with two window spays visible, one either side of the current, late 19th century, window. This could represent a single earlier window opening or, more likely, two narrower window openings, probably of 18th century date. These have been retained as recesses either side of the later window and fitted with shelving. The rear (south) wall incorporates the chimney breast, with an outline of the former fireplace visible in the centre. To the west there is a small cupboard recess. The raising of the ceiling height at first-floor level has restricted the attic space above. This is now accessible only via the adjacent attic of No 24. The higher firstfloor ceiling height in No 22 means the space is much more restricted, but the roof structure is concealed by plaster, suggesting that the room has been adapted for domestic use at some stage, probably in conjunction with dormer windows in the north elevation which have subsequently been removed. The principal feature of the room is the large chimney breast from the first-floor chimney which projects into the space, but there is no indication it was used to heat the upper floor. No 22 also appears to have been extended to the rear (south) with a projecting range in the 18th century, the date suggested by the form of the brick. This runs to the boundary of the property with Steeple Row to the south. A lower rear range was constructed, although still two storey. 19th century alterations to the properties include the construction, or possibly reconstruction, of the rear range behind No 24. This is two storied, running right back to the rear boundary of the property. The rear wall is painted, but some stone walling is visible in the lower part of the ground-floor level, with brick above. At HISTORIC ENGLAND 84

94 first-floor level there is a large projecting bay window similar to that on the first floor of the north façade. Internally it provides two inter-connecting rooms at first-floor level accessed via the lobby next to the blocked stair, but was probably originally directly accessible from the principal first-floor room. Externally this range has some stonework visible in the lower part of its rear (south) wall, but internally there are no indications of any early features. A surviving fireplace in one of the first-floor rooms appears to be of 19th century date, and it seems likely that this is the date of the range, incorporating elements of early walling to the rear which may have originally formed a boundary wall. 19th century brick additions to the south gable of the rear range of No 22 indicate that it was widened to the east in the same period. Internally it is clear that No 24 was subject to significant alteration in the 19th century, probably at the same time as the construction of the rear range. The projecting bay window in the first-floor room appears to have been added at the same time as that on the rear range. The reduction in the height of the building from three storeys to two storeys also appears to have taken place at this time. The loss of space occasioned by this was partially mitigated by the use of a roof form which allowed use of the attic space. At what is now attic level No 24 comprises a single room lit by the large 19th century dormer window in the north gable. There is boarding over what may be the position of a further dormer window in the south elevation. This appears to correspond to an area of patched-in tiling visible externally in the southern side of the pitched roof. Part of the roof structure in the room is exposed, although the common rafters are concealed by later boarding, and further boarding provides a ceiling at collar level. The only exposed truss is a 19th century sling-brace truss sitting roughly centrally within the room (see detail sketch drawing). The base support of this in fact sits on top of the exposed timber floorboards, and is fixed with nails to an earlier ceiling joist which runs underneath them. TThe truss comprises an interupted tie beam which runs out from the wall plate and is tenonned into the sling brace. The brace rises into the plaster ceiling and its relationship to any possible collar cannot be seen. These alterations were clearly designed to enhance the domestic accommodation in the upper floors of the building. The splitting of No 22 from half of No 20, the uniting of No 22 and 24, and subsequent subdivision at ground floor level to create No 24A as a separate unit, all appear to have taken place in the early to mid-20th century. A blocked wide slightlyarched opening visible in the east wall of No 22 indicates where the main ranges of the two units were opened up to each other, and subsequently infilled. Above this reorganisation saw the creation of access between No 22 and No 24 at first-floor and attic level. To the south of the current doorway between the two blocks at first-floor level, an earlier blocked doorway is visible in the partition wall in the stairwell. This must represent an earlier access point, although it does not work with the current (modern) stair configuration as it sits above the current flight of steps. This suggests the principal stair has been altered again in the late 20th century, possibly at the same time as the first-floor room in No 24 was subdivided. On the west side of the attic room over No 24 a small flight of 20th century timber steps lead up into the roof space over No 22. HISTORIC ENGLAND 85

95 Conclusion Nos 22 and 24 High Street represent two separate properties with some shared phases of construction and alteration. The earliest phase identifiable in No 24 is of the 16th century, with significant alterations in the 19th and 20th centuries. No 22 may have shared similar origins to No 24 but was more heavily altered in the 18th century, and again in the 20th century. It also includes some residual medieval walling, possibly associated with the bone house of the lay cemetery which sat north of the abbey church in the medieval period. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 VCH Cambridgeshire IV The Victoria History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely Vol IV London: Oxford University Press HISTORIC ENGLAND 86

96 Plan of first floor Bulging wall Earlier wall, visible externally, over Approx line of sling-brace truss over Approx line of sling-brace truss over Cased beam Lap-dovetail joint visible on beam soffit Line of former wall plate m ft 22, 24 High Street (Edis the Butchers) Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: September 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 87

97 Sketch detail of beam soffit, south east corner of south east room Lap-dovetail joint Later reinforcement beam As seen Mortice for former post jowl tenon Reconstruction Sketch detail of sling-brace roof truss, south side from south east Sling brace Tie beam, tenoned into brace Earlier ceiling joist Base support, resting on attic fllor boards 22, 24 High Street (Edis the Butchers) Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: September 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 88

98 31 HIGH STREET, ELY; OXFAM As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 31 High Street, Ely was visited and surveyed on the 18th September 2014 by Rebecca Lane Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 31 High Street, forms part of a unit with a number of properties which run down High Street Passage to the north of the principal building. The property is unlisted and appears to be predominantly 18th and 19th century from the principal elevation to the south. 31 High Street forms part of a largely continuous terrace of buildings on the north side of the High Street running from Lynn Road to the west to the Market Place in the east. The street frontage is pierced at regular intervals by narrow passageways which give access to further commercial properties. This pattern reflects the nature of the original use of this area. It seems likely that the whole area between Market Street to the north and High Street to the south represents an infill to what was HISTORIC ENGLAND 89

99 once a larger market place, stretching the full length of what is now the High Street. Thus, despite the fact that many of the properties on the north side of the High Street now have relatively long plots stretching northwards, these do not reflect an original burgage layout, but in fact probably represent amalgamations of smaller market-infill holdings in the 18th and 19th centuries. The process of market infill appears to have begun within the medieval period, and by the time of the 1417 survey of the town it is clear that there were continuous tenements running much the same length of the High Street (or Steeple Row as it was referred to in the survey) as survive today (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 141). The exact form of these tenements is difficult to recreate, as few measurements are given for the north side of Steeple Row, although it is tentatively possible to suggest that No 31 corresponds to the tenement of one John Bereward. No 31 in fact occupies a corner plot, with the narrow High Street Passage running off the High Street immediately east of the property. This linked the High Street to Butcher s Row and Market Street to the north, and also seems to have had commercial properties from a relatively early date (see report on 3 High Street Passage). This position therefore would have given the building at No 31 an added prominence, as it fronted both the High Street and High Street Passage. Phase One pre-16th century Given the documentary sources available for late medieval tenements along the north side of what is now the High Street, it is highly likely that the plot that is now No 31 had some form of late medieval structure on it. No definite evidence for a structure of this phase has been found. However, the cellar of the building does include some stone walling, particularly in its north elevation. This is formed of rubble stone, with heavy acretions of render and limewash and has much later repair and alteration. As such it is very difficult to date with any certainty, and could in fact belong to a postmedieval phase. On the basis of the surviving stonework however, it is tentatively possible to suggest that there may have been a cellar to the medieval structure, as indeed survives at No 33 on the other side of High Street Passage. Notwithstanding the putative cellar evidence the documentary sources alone suggest that the extant structure is based on a plot form and layout that was almost certainly established in the late medieval period. There is tentative evidence at No 33 High Street, on the other side of High Street Passage, that this was in the form of a series of separate tenements. No 3a High Street Passage, north of No 31 also provides evidence of the type of small market-infill plan that is most likely to have characterised the area. It is likely that No 31 may originally have provided a similar arrangement, with a series of smaller holdings, potentially provided within a single structure. Phase Two 16th or early 17th century The principal in situ evidence for an early structure at No 31 relates to a series of timbers visible in the first-floor of the rear range, which form two full bays and two half bays of a structure running laterally down the plot, and apparently occupying HISTORIC ENGLAND 90

100 its full width (see plan and long section). It seems likely that this represents part of a rear range of at least four bays, probably with an associated range to the front of this which may have been roofed separately and parallel to the High Street. Alternatively it could have formed part of a single continuous range with a gable end fronting High Street to the south. There is little surviving building evidence for this gable-end form in Ely, although one example has been identified at 32 St Mary s Street. The principal surviving evidence is a series of tie beams surviving as ceiling beams in the rear range, with redundant mortices and other features providing further information on the earlier form of the building. Towards the south of the range a single in situ post, with an associated section of wall plate and a boxed in tie beam provide further evidence (see sketch drawing of post). Although heavily coated in modern paint some detail on the post is visible. It is jowled and chamfered on its outer edges, with the wall plate running to its rear. The position of a large infilled redundant mortice on its inner face indicates that a brace originally rose from the post to support the tie beam. The survival of the post indicates that the building was principally timber framed. It also supports the idea that the residual tie beams running north of this are largely in situ as their height and position corresponds to the example still supported by the post. The tie beam has been boxed in, so there is no further evidence of the form of this truss. A short section of wall plate to the south of the post is unpainted, and evidence for a chamfer is visible. The original wall plate only runs a short distance south before being pieced into a later timber (see below). A further short section of wall plate survives to the north of the north truss (A on the plan and long section) indicating that the building ran on beyond this truss, although its full extent northwards cannot be established from the surviving evidence. The eastern halves of the other two surviving tie beams are visible, although they have lost their associated posts. The northern tie beam (A) however has part of the mortice for the tenon of the post visible on its underside. Both have later metal straps to tie them into the wall, presumably inserted when the timber framing of the wall was removed. Both tie beams are chamfered and stopped where they meet the east wall of the building, with simple run-out stops. On the underside of both are redundant mortices which would originally have taken the top of curved braces rising from the posts. These mortices are of different size however, suggesting that the braces were not the same width. When the angle and position of the braces are calculated using the orientation of the mortice there is also a variation in the angle of the brace. Whilst the reproductions may not be exact this is interesting to note. It may be that the slightly different form indicates a different use for the space within the building, or it may simply reflect the exigencies of the timber available when the frame was being made. Phase Three late 16th or 17th century A very small fragment of surviving in situ fabric seems to be evidence of a phase of construction after the principal phase of the rear range above, but before the reconstruction of the front range in brick as set out below (see phase four). The evidence for this is very slight, comprising the cut-in section of wall plate to the HISTORIC ENGLAND 91

101 south of the earlier wall plate next to truss C. Associated with this cut in section is a single stud, running down from the wall plate. Although slight, these two pieces of evidence appear to suggest that there was a phase of timber-framed construction after the construction of the rear range. This could relate to a repair of the earlier framework or, more tentatively, a more substantial reconstruction of the front range of the building. As well as the in situ evidence there is some further information about a part of the building, potentially of this phase, in the cellar under the extant front range. The cellar is largely formed of relatively late brickwork, and has been dated to phase four (see below), but re-used as the joists of the current ground floor of the building are a series of timbers clearly relating to a substantial timber-framed structure. It is difficult to establish much about the possible form of this building, but a timber identifiable as a section of a wall plate or mid-rail suggest that it was at least partially timber-framed with redundant mortices providing evidence for studs and grooves for the associated infill panels also visible on the underside of the beam. Although the evidence is limited, the detailing of the timbers suggest that it may be of a different phase to that in situ in the rear range. Two large reused tie beams have a different chamfer-stop form to those in the rear range; although damaged they appear to have had scroll stops. Whilst these are stylistically different from those in the rear range they fall within a broad date range (late 16th or 17th century) which overlaps with that of the rear range (16th or early 17th century). The ex situ nature of the evidence makes it impossible to ascertain how the range represented by these timbers relates to those surviving in the rear range. It could tentatively be suggested, given their current position, that they relate to a timber-framed phase of the front range, which would have made them easily available for reuse during the construction of the current structure. It is possible that this timber-framed front range was constructed (or reconstructed, given the documentary evidence for a medieval building on the site) at a date near contemporary or contemporary with the rear range. A contemporary date is possible as the difference in the chamfer stops could relate to the relative status of the putative front range in relation to the rear range which could have been finished in a more basic manner. However, given the slight, but in situ, evidence for a later timber-framed structure south of the surviving rear range it is possible that the reused beams relate to a slightly later reconstruction of the front range. This could indicate the type of sequential rebuilding often seen in substantial early buildings, with separate ranges being reconstructed at different times, leading to a complex sequence of evidence. Phase Four 18th century and later The front range and the partial rebuilding of the rear range appear to date largely from the 18th century, with significant alteration in the 19th and 20th centuries. The principal building of this phase is a narrow front range providing a single room at both ground- and first-floor level, with a subdivided cellar space below. Although remodelled and rendered to the front (south), the east elevation of the building, where it fronts onto High Street Passage, appears to comprise 18th century HISTORIC ENGLAND 92

102 brickwork, now painted, with a plat band visible between the first-floor and the gable end. The relatively steep profile of the gable end is also characteristic of the 18th century. If the cellar does contain earlier elements (see above), then it was clearly heavily remodelled as part of this phase as much of the east and south elevations are of brick, with considerable accretions of limewash and render. A splayed window opening within the east elevation suggests that the cellar was lit with natural light to a limited extent in this phase, although the build up of the ground level subsequently has blocked the opening. Later remodelling has removed much evidence of how the cellar was used in this phase, although it almost certainly would have been for storage. On the western side of the cellar an arched brick doorway opening, blocked by a later stair, suggests that the cellar was originally subdivided into separate areas, with the southern area accessed via the doorway. The principal evidence of the 19th century alterations are visible at first-floor level, both internally and externally. Externally the large window openings and rendered façade probably date to this phase, with the upper parapet possibly added in this phase to conceal the earlier roof structure. Internally the first-floor room of the front range also contains evidence of this phase with a decorative cornice running around the outer edge of the room. This has been heavily over-painted but seems to have had a foliate design. In the cellar the stair which blocks the arched opening on the western side of the space probably also dates from this period. This indicates that in this phase at least the cellar communicated directly with the shop unit above, and was probably used for storage. The ground floor of the building has been heavily remodelled, with its current layout probably dating to the late 20th century. As part of this work access to the cellar has been curtailed, with the 19th century stair blocked. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 93

103 Sketch plan, central part of first floor A B C L L1 Front room of building Site of 18th-19th century stair m ft Sketch details of surviving beams at A and B and post at C Mortice for brace Post at B Mortice for brace Post at C Later stud Post at A Mortice for post jowl tenon 31 High Street (Oxfam) Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: September 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 94

104 Partial long section L-L1 Wall plate removed Ceiling Later stud L A B C L1 Partial cross sections at A, B cross section at C Brace angle based on tenon in tie beam Brace angle based on tenon in tie beam A B Brace angle based on height of mortice in post C C m ft 31 High Street (Oxfam) Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: September 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 95

105 33 HIGH STREET, ELY; NEW LOOK As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 33 High Street, Ely was visited and surveyed on the 16 October 2014 by Rebecca Lane and Katie Carmichael, Investigators from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 33 High Street, forms part of a unit with a number of properties which run down High Street Passage to the north of the principal building. It is grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes the building as containing a medieval undercroft, with medieval timbers reused as ground-floor joists but otherwise of the 18th and 19th century. 33 High Street forms part of a largely continuous terrace of buildings on the north side of the High Street running from Lynn Road to the west to the Market Place in the east. The street frontage is pierced at regular intervals by narrow passageways which give access to further commercial properties. This pattern reflects the nature of the original use of this area. It seems likely that the whole area between Market HISTORIC ENGLAND 96

106 Street to the north and High Street to the south represents an infill to what was once a larger market place, stretching the full length of what is now the High Street. Thus, despite the fact that many of the properties on the north side of the High Street now have relatively long plots stretching northwards, these do not reflect an original burgage layout, but in fact probably represent amalgamations of smaller market-infill holdings in the 18th and 19th centuries. The process of market infill appears to have begun within the medieval period, and by the time of the 1417 survey of the town it is clear that there were continuous tenements running much the same length of the High Street (or Steeple Row as it was referred to in the survey) as survive today (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 141). The exact form of these tenements is difficult to recreate, as few measurements are given for the north side of Steeple Row, although it is tentatively possible to suggest that No 33 corresponds to the tenement of one Thomas Salman. No 33 in fact occupies a corner plot, with the narrow High Street Passage adjoining the property to the west. This linked the High Street to Butcher s Row and Market Street to the north, and also seems to have had commercial properties from a relatively early date (see report on 3a High Street Passage). This position therefore would have given the building at No 33 an added prominence, as it fronted both the High Street and High Street Passage. Phase One late medieval It was not possible to examine the undercroft as part of the current survey project, as modern shop fittings prevent access which is now via a trapdoor in the shop floor. The list description however provides some information on the form of the cellar, and it is important to consider this information here, particularly in light of the other undercroft surviving on the High Street which has been surveyed as part of this project (see report on High Street). The list description notes that the cellar is principally constructed of ashlar masonry, with some early handmade brick, which was interpreted as evidence of repair. However given the original use of brick at High Street it is possible this represents part of the original construction. The cellar measured at least 16m in length from the front of the undercroft (assumed to be the front of the plot) and was divided into three bays, with the wall between the central and northern bay made of ashlar and including a long round-arch headed recess interpreted as a storage area. The west wall of this bay included two access cuts, one a stair. These are not specifically dated but the implication is that an access route may originally have been provided from this side. The front (south) bay has ashlar walling and included a square niche on the western elevation and a stair on the south-western corner providing access to the street. A 13th or 14th century date is suggested. The quality of the work led the list description author to suggest that the undercroft was related to the north range of Ely Cathedral on the opposite side of the street. This seems to be a typical attribution for high-status medieval fabric found in this area. However, as at High Street, it is possible to put forward an alternative hypothesis, although it is more difficult to be certain of this given the limited nature of the evidence examined for this report. It seems likely that the evidence represents a series of storage areas, under a series HISTORIC ENGLAND 97

107 of shop units above. This interpretation is suggested by the provision of at least one storage recess, potentially of similar form as those observed at High Street. The suggestion of two entry points perhaps makes the idea of a series of individual units more likely, as does the scale of the cellar. If it runs back 16m from the High Street frontage this would cover a considerable proportion of the east side of High Street passage, and almost certainly must relate to more than one unit, particularly as it is part of a market infill area. It would seem likely that initially the development of the area would take the form of small units, resembling the earlier market stalls. These may perhaps have been similar, above ground, to that surviving at 3 High Street Passage. The provision of points of entry directly from the street may also suggest that the cellar units could have been let separately from those at ground floor level. None of this can be confirmed without access to the cellar however. Phase Two 16th century The principal phase identified and surveyed as part of the current project relates to the survival of a section of 16th century fabric now forming a rear bay in the main ground floor of the unit (see plan). The surviving building fabric evidence suggests that it originally formed a middle bay of a building of at least four bays. The building appears to have had an open hall, and been at least partly jettied on its western side, where it fronts onto High Street Passage. This phase is now only identifiable in the ceiling joists of the single bay, with two axial beams indicating its extent. The surviving bay measures approximately 2.8m in depth, and when extrapolated this bay-rhythm would allow for two further bays of the same proportion to the south, in order to front onto what is now the High Street in roughly the same position as the current front wall of the building (although this is a later rebuild). Although a continuation of the same bay rhythm cannot be confirmed, the measurement does illustrate that there was ample space for further accommodation between the surviving bay and the street frontage. The rear (north) surviving axial beam is elaborately moulded on its south side, where it meets the surviving ceiling, with a series of alternating rolls and cavettos (see detail drawing of moulding form). However it has only a simple chamfer on its north side. On the underside of the beam, towards the northern edge, is a series of mortices for vertical studs, indicating that there was a partition wall on this alignment. A gap of just under 0.8m in the mortices at the western end of the beam probably indicates the position of a doorway. It is possible that this wall represents the northern extent of the building, as there is no evidence for a further ceiling running north from the surviving beam (although this is partially concealed by a modern ceiling which sits against the upper part of the beam). However typically the studs for an external wall would be positioned flush with the outer edge of the beam, creating a level elevation rather than the arrangement indicated here which would have created a slight overhang between the beam and the studs below. On balance therefore it would seem more likely that the slight inward set of the studs and the chamfered finish to the beam indicate that there was a further bay to the north of the surviving one, and that the stud wall formed an internal partition. The difference in the moulding from one side of the beam to the other, and the lack of any evidence HISTORIC ENGLAND 98

108 for a central spine beam, suggests a different form and very different status for the putative northern room possibly indicating that it formed some form of service area. Within the surviving bay there is a central spine beam running longitudinally between the two axial beams. This is again elaborately moulded its moulding a matching, although reduced, version of that of the northern beam. Where the spine beam meets the northern beam the moulding on the northern beam responds to the spine beam end, with chamfer stops to either side. These have bar stops, with incised decoration on both the stop itself and the bar (see detail drawing of moulding form). On the stop itself small inscribed semi-circles give a foliate effect, while the bar has a chevron motif which is probably designed to indicate a similar foliate pattern. The same detail is visible on the chamfer stops at both ends of the spine beam. A similar stop has been identified in a Suffolk building, here it was dated to c 1520 (Hall 2007, 159). Running out from the spine beam are a series of joists which are also moulded with a distinctive double roll profile and simple run out stops. Where these run out into a later bay window on the western side of the building they project beyond the line of the former wall indicating that they formed part of a jetty (see sketch drawing of the joists and suggested reconstruction of the jetty form). The position of the chamfer stops approximately 0.5m in from the end of the joists, indicates the original wall line of the building. They are then flat beyond this line, and run into a jetty bressumer which still survives within the bay window. The detail of the bressumer itself is concealed by a later timber applied to its outer edge. One joist has a notch cut into its underside, and a redundant mortice adjacent to the notch, with an associated peg hole in the side. This appears to relate to the position of a bracket, which must have worked with an intermediate post between the principal supports at the ends of the bay. This joist is not central to the bay as it is currently positioned but may have been moved from such a position (see below). Alternatively if it is in situ it could indicate the position of a doorway in the west wall of the building, as there is a gap of approximately 0.8m between this intermediate post and the presumed position of the post supporting the rear axial beam. The evidence of the joists indicates that this bay of the building at least was jettied, although the jetty may not have been continuous, depending on the interpretation of the evidence for the bay immediately south of the surviving bay (see below). The southern axial beam has a moulding which matches that on the southern side of the northern beam. It is notable however that the moulding on the northern side does not respond to the south end of the spine beam as happens to the north, with no chamfer stops to either side. This may be in order that the two sides of the beam matched, in what was a single open space (see below). South of the axial beam there are no further surviving early timbers on view. There is some evidence for the possible form of this bay however, in the southern edge of the surviving axial beam. It is notable that there is no mortice for a central spine beam of the same form as that seen to the north. Instead there is only a single mortice just to the west of centre on the beam, and above the level of the ceiling of HISTORIC ENGLAND 99

109 the northern bay. There is also no evidence for any partition between the surviving bay and that to the south, with no residual mortices or other features cut into its underside. There are a number of possible interpretations of this evidence, but it seems likely that at least part of the bay formed an open hall. Any details about the scale and form of the hall are difficult to establish. The single high-level mortice can be interpreted in a number of ways. It appears to relate to the primary phase of the building, with no evidence that it has been cut in later. It is possible that it relates to the supporting beam of a walkway, or gallery, which could have crossed the hall at high-level linking the storied bay to the north with a putative further storied bay at the southern end of the plot. If not for a gallery then it could relate to a different form of first-floor provision, probably in conjunction with further joists projecting from it. It is just possible that it relates to the provision of a jettied, storied block in the western portion of this bay. If that is the case however, then there must still have been a provision of an open hall space to the east, as there appears to be no other explanation for the lack of mortices or other features on the eastern portion of the beam. Whilst the details are unclear, the most likely interpretation is that this feature worked within an open hall. The provision of an open hall in this bay, with no form of partition from the groundfloor area of the storied block to the north would have created an irregular space, at least partially open to the roof to the south, but storied to the north. Such a form has been found in other urban buildings however, with an early 16th century example identified at 34 High Street in Sandwich (Clarke et al 2010, 172). In this far more complete example the authors saw the single-bay open section of the hall as essentially a smoke bay provided within an otherwise storied building with a gallery to one side. There is no evidence for how this putative open hall would have worked with any further bays to the south of it. Examples from other urban studies would suggest that the hall sat behind a provision of commercial premises, probably in a storied block with shops at ground-floor level (see conjectural reconstruction drawing). If the mortice evidence is interpreted as a gallery then this would support this hypothetical form, but either way commercial premises are likely to have been provided south of the hall. Phase Three Uncertain (17th century?) Given the small amount of surviving early evidence it is difficult to identify interim phases between the putative 16th century building outlined above, and the more substantial late 18th and 19th century changes in phase four below. Other alterations to the timber-framing are also visible, including significant lap joints cut into both the north and south axial beams towards their western ends. These again probably relate to a phase in which the building was still principally timber-framed, in that the changes were designed to work with the earlier framing. The removal of any associated inserted timbers make these alterations impossible to HISTORIC ENGLAND 100

110 precisely date, but it seems likely that they too pre-date the more substantial 18 th and 19th century phases outlined below, and subsequently they have also been placed in a separate phase. Phase Four 18th century As viewed from the street 33 High Street now presents as a largely 18th century building. The construction of this façade and the upper parts of the later building obviously necessitated the removal of the vast majority of the earlier building. Indeed it is remarkable that the surviving timber-framing was retained in such a comprehensive refit, although not unprecedented within Ely as the former White Hart Inn on the Market Place has a similar fragment surviving at ground-floor level. The reconstruction presumably provided additional space, or improved ceiling heights, within the building which now rises through three stories. Although painted, the form of the brickwork, including a surviving plat band between the first and second stories strongly suggests an 18th century date. Although retained alterations were made to the surviving 16th century bay. A number of the joists on the west side of the bay do not have the flat area at their western end, and instead are moulded along their entire length, in fact continuing as far as the jetty bressumer in three of the seven examples. This appears to correspond to three joists with flat eastern ends used in the eastern half of the bay, where the original form must have been for the moulding to continue along their full length, as in four of the seven surviving examples. The most likely explanation for this is that the joists have been removed at some stage, and that in refitting they have not been placed in their original positions. This must relate to a phase in which the ground-floor wall was built out to the level of the jetty above, which meant that the positioning of the former jetty joists was no longer important. It is most likely that this took place during the most significant phase of reconstruction of the building, but it is possible that it was not directly contemporary. The ceiling was almost certainly undersealed with plaster following this alteration, as the mismatching of the joists on either side of the spine beam suggests that there was little aesthetic consideration. Phase Five 19th and 20th centuries Most of the windows and other fittings including the bowed window and doorcases on the east elevation suggest that the building was extensively refurbished in the 19th century. This is confirmed internally where much of the cornices and other detailing appear to be of this phase. The whole of the ground floor has been significantly reconfigured in the 20th century, with most earlier features removed. This includes any earlier stair arrangement, with access to the upper storeys now via a 20th century stair to the rear of the building. HISTORIC ENGLAND 101

111 Bibliography Clarke, H Pearson, S Mate, M and Parfitt, K Sandwich The completest medieval town in England A study of the town and port from its origins to 1600 Oxford: Oxbow Books Hall, L 2007 Period House Fixtures & Fittings Newbury: Countryside Books Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 102

112 Ground-floor plan A Site of doorway? A1 Sketch details at C Former line of wall B B1 Mortice for joist or gallery beam? m ft Sketch detail of joists showing evidence for original wall at C Sketch reconstruction of original wall at C Notch for jetty plate Joist Joist Mortice for bracket Joist Joist Jetty bressumer (face obscured by later timber) Mark left by jetty plate Jetty bressumer Bracket Post Jetty plate Conjectured stud 33 High Street (New Look), Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 103

113 Conjectural reconstructed long section Form of roof not known Form of roof not known Chamber Gallery Chamber or chambers Shop? Hall Conjectural reconstruction of ground-floor plan Service room? H I G H S T R E E T P A S S A G E H I G H S T R E E T Passage? Shop? Hall Area of hall open to roof Service room? m ft Approximate scale for reconstruction drawings 33 High Street (New Look), Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 104

114 Details of moulded beams and joists Joist Joist Spine beam Beam A-A1 Beam B-B1 Stud Joist Joist Spine beam m ins 33 High Street (New Look), Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: October 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 105

115 38A ST MARY S STREET; THE ANGELA MELLOR GALLERY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 38a St Mary s Street, also known as 1 Downham Road, was visited and surveyed by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team on 25th February a St Mary s Street is grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes it as a mainly 17th century building with 18th and 19th century alterations. No 38a sits in a prominent position on the corner of St Mary s Street and Downham Road. It forms the end of a continuous terrace of buildings, of various dates, which run along the northern side of the road. St Mary s Street is the principal approach route to the city from Cambridge and the south and west, and in the medieval period formed one of the principal approaches by land to the city, negotiating the fens via the causeway at Aldreth. Just south of No 38a the street broadens out into a small green, known as St Mary s Green, which marks the western tip of the open area to the west of the Cathedral known as Palace Green. Originally this area was larger, extending to St Mary s Street to the north, where properties have now been built fronting onto the street. To the south of St Mary s Green is St Mary s Church, the parish church in Ely, and one of two in use in the medieval period. Despite some commercial activity on St Mary s Street the area was removed from the main market square, and from the trading area by the river. Its focus appears instead to have been on the religious and institutional side of the city s life. By the late medieval period the Bishop s Palace HISTORIC ENGLAND 106

116 sat immediately south of Palace Green and as well as St Mary s Church and its associated vicarage (now Oliver Cromwell s House) there was also a large tithe barn, and, further west, the Hospital of St Mary Magdalene and St John s. In addition there appear to have been a number of early guilds in the area, with at least two known to have had halls within close proximity to the parish church. By the late medieval period the land on St Mary s Street was principally in the ownership of the Bishop or the Prior. In the 1417 survey of Ely the corner of St Mary s Street and Downham Street was known as Mepsale s and the adjoining tenement known as Mepsale s tenement or the tenement lately John Mepsale s, the latter suggesting that Mepsale may have recently given it up or have died (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 133). John Mepsale or John of Meppershall was a notable figure in Ely in this period, as the architect at the abbey. He was allegedly responsible for the construction of the smaller, western octagon at the abbey in the late 14th century and was certainly the mason for the Porta or south gate built c1400 (Maddison 1998, 92). This suggests that the tenements along this street were relatively high status, and that there were strong links to the abbey amongst the tenants living there. Discussion Phase One 16th century Notwithstanding the documentary evidence for a late medieval building on the site, the earliest identifiable phase appears to relate to the 16th century. The remains of this phase are very fragmentary, but suggest that the range fronting onto St Mary s Street may have been built in this period (see plan). This runs parallel to the St Mary s Street frontage and may originally have formed a three-bay structure. This building appears to have been principally timber framed, although much of the framing has been lost in later alterations. The level of alteration means there is little evidence to help precisely date the range. The 16th date for this phase is put forward on the basis of the overall scale of the building, which suggests that it was always storied, and therefore more likely to be post-medieval. Externally the principal evidence for this phase is in the gable end of the building, where it fronts onto Downham Road. This is now largely rendered but an off-set in the gable approximately half way up the first-floor level appears to indicate that the gable end was constructed in two materials. This change in material is also visible within the building, where the offset is again visible within the gable wall. Towards the north of the building the lower section is painted rather than plastered, and the form and texture suggests that it is of rubble stone rather than brick. It is possible that this stone gable wall relates to the earlier, medieval building known to have been constructed on the site. This might explain the irregular height of the stonework, which does not appear to correspond to the 16th century stories, but which might correspond to a lower medieval building. There is no definite evidence for this however, and in the absence of any diagnostic information then it has been phased with the later building. Above the stone wall the remainder of the east elevation appears to have been timber HISTORIC ENGLAND 107

117 framed. The principal evidence for this is in the northern edge of the elevation. Visible projecting within the render are what appear to be the remains of a short post with an associated principal rafter visible above. Internally this post and rafter correspond to a tie beam visible within the east gable wall. The remainder of this truss is concealed internally, as are most of the intermediate trusses of the range. At the western extent of the building however, part of the western tie beam is visible within the northwest first-floor room. Aside from these two tie beam elements the roof of the building is largely concealed by later plasterwork. At attic level however a series of collars are visible, with one in each of the gable walls and four intermediate collars. These are relatively narrow-spaced, and slightly irregular in spacing suggesting they may have been relocated, but it appears that they may represent part of the original roof structure. Notches in the upper sides of the collars appear to have been for clasped purlins. The current purlins are later replacements, but this may represent the original collar and purlin arrangement. They are similar in form to those at 82 St Mary s Street which also lack any form of support from posts to tie beam. The only other visible elements of original framing within the roof structure is part of the north wall plate which is exposed where the roof structure has been cut through to form an attic stair. The wall plate is of relatively small scantling, and has a series of bird-mouth notches in its upper face. It might be anticipated that these relate to the arrangement of rafters within the front range, the notches are irregularly spaced however, and of differing sizes. It is unclear what these may relate to, although it is possible it simply reflects the poor quality of timber available to work with at the time. Internally at ground- and first-floor level the building has been extensively modified and there is little evidence of the original form and arrangement of the rooms. Phase Two 17th century The most coherent phase visible within the building is the addition of the northeast wing, which extended the building along the Downham Road street frontage. This provided an additional room at ground- and first-floor level, with large fireplaces on both levels (see plan). A number of stylistic details indicate that the phase dates from the 17th century, including the external plat band on the east elevation and the form of the chamfer stops on the beams in the interior (see detail drawing of moulding). The uncertainty over the precise form of the earlier range means that it is difficult to establish how the later wing may have worked in conjunction with it. From the extant evidence, particularly in the provision of heating in both rooms, it is suggested it represents additional domestic accommodation, presumably expanding upon the provision within the front range. Externally the elevations of this block are of brick, although largely rendered. On the eastern elevation a plat band is visible marking the division of ground- and first-floor levels. The brickwork of the north gable end is exposed, with the gable formed of tumbled brickwork characteristic of the 17th century. HISTORIC ENGLAND 108

118 Internally the ground-floor room formed a single space accessed via a doorway placed centrally in the south wall which divided the wing from the earlier front range. This doorway is now blocked by the later stair, but the timber framing of its jambs and head are visible within the plasterwork adjacent to the stair, and within the room itself. It is possible that this doorway is in fact earlier, perhaps providing external access to the rear of the property in the 16th century phase. The fact that the doorway sits centrally to the 17th century wing however, means that on balance it has been placed in the same phase. Within the ground floor room the central spine beam remains in situ and exposed. This has ovolo moulded edges and scrolled stops, a form again typical of the 17th century. In the north end wall is a projecting central chimney breast with a fireplace. This has a timber bressumer with a chamfered lower edge and simple square cut stops. The first-floor room is similarly arranged to that at ground-floor level. There is a central spine beam of the same moulding form. A projecting chimney breast sits slightly west of the central line. This again has a timber bressumer with a chamfered lower edge with straight stops. On the eastern side of the chimney breast a scar in the ceiling appears to mark the location of an original partition wall, which could have provided a large cupboard or closet within the recess created by the chimney breast. This appears to have been lit by a small window. This is now blocked externally but survives as a recess in the east wall internally, although without any associated framing. The room appears always to have been lit by a large central window opening in the east elevation, with the timber lintel of the window opening surviving in situ, although the framing of the window itself has been replaced. The roof of the wing is again largely plastered, although more of its form is visible than that of the front range. It is formed of two intermediate trusses, with the roof framing running into the brick gable wall at the north end. At the southern end the roof runs into the roof structure of the earlier range, although the junction of the two is largely concealed by later plaster. Of the two intermediate trusses the upper portions are exposed, with the tie beams hidden within the later floor of the attic storey. The principal rafters of both are visible, with cambered collars. Between the principal rafters run staggered butt purlins. This latter feature in particular is characteristic of the 17th century and suggests that the roof is contemporary with the rest of the range. Phase Three 18th century Evidence from throughout both ranges indicates that the building was subject to a substantial remodelling and updating at some stage in the 18th century. This appears to have included new sash window openings, which now survive at firstfloor level in the south elevation of the front range, and at ground-floor level in the rear wing. That the latter pair is later than the wing is indicated by the fact that they appear to cut the earlier brick plinth which runs along the elevation on the eastern side. Internally the evidence for this phase survives in a series of high-quality two-panel doors, although some of these appear to have been relocated (see detail drawings of doors). Nonetheless the survival of a series of doors of this period, in conjunction with the other evidence, is sufficient to suggest a phase of alteration. HISTORIC ENGLAND 109

119 Although all sharing a common two-panel pattern the three surviving doors of this phase all have different moulding patterns. That which now provides access to the first-floor bathroom (northwest room) has simple chamfer mouldings to the fielded panels. That which gives access into the first-floor room in the northeast wing has raised and fielded panels, and that which gives access to the first-floor southwest room has fielded panels with a more complex step moulding pattern to the edges. These three different door types may indicate a hierarchy of spaces within the house, with the plainer doors possibly indicating lower-status rooms, such as service rooms for example. The fact that at least some of the doors have been relocated unfortunately means that the hierarchy of space of this period cannot be recreated, but some differentiation of spaces within what is a relatively large building is to be expected. Phase Four 19th century The 19th century appears to have seen further expansion of the accommodation in the building and some refitting of earlier spaces. The expansion of space again came to the rear of the property, as it fronted onto St Mary s Street. A single-storey one-room extension in line with the 17th century wing, appears to date from this phase, probably providing some form of outbuilding or service area. Further service provision may have been made by the property that is now 1c Downham Road. This is now in separate ownership and was not examined in detail but appears to have been built as an outbuilding to No 38a St Mary s Street. The principal alteration to the earlier main building was the insertion of large shop windows, and a corner entrance, into the front range. There are three shop windows, two on the south elevation and one on the east elevation. The western window on the south elevation is associated with a single doorway. The other two windows flank the corner entrance, which has a fine two-leaf curved door. This suggests that at the point of the insertion of these features the ground-floor was subdivided to create two separate commercial premises, the eastern premises larger than that to the west. All of the windows have moulded timber mullions subdividing them into a series of lights. Each of the individual lights has an arched head giving them a gothic style. At first-floor level the building appears to have undergone some modification in this phase. Externally it is notable that the gable end chimney appears to be a 19th century reconstruction. This may have taken place at the same time as the reconstruction of the adjacent building, No This building has a datestone of 1840, at which time a pair of large three-storey town houses were constructed. It may be that the earlier stack was in some way structurally dependent on the building which preceeded this, necessitating its reconstruction with the adjacent property. The extant first-floor fireplace appears to date from this period, as it has an elaborate cast-iron fender which is typical of the early- to mid-19th century. The positioning of this fireplace centrally within what is now the southwest first-floor room suggests that by this date, if not before, the first-floor had been subdivided into roughly this arrangement with larger rooms at the front of the range, and an access landing and smaller room to the rear. HISTORIC ENGLAND 110

120 It is not clear whether the building had been used as commercial premises prior to the 19th century, although given its position on a prominent thoroughfare this is not unlikely. It is notable that at no stage does the eastern end of the main range appear to have been heated, with no indication of a fireplace, inserted or otherwise in either the rear or gable wall. This may indicate that it was intended to service a commercial purpose, and that it retained that use throughout the phases of change to the building. The provision of additional accommodation in this phase, as well as the upgrading of the shop front, may indicate that the insertion of commercial premises into what had previously been a domestic building necessitated the creation of additional domestic space. Alternatively it may have been the subdivision or extension of the commercial space which created the same pressure. Phase Five 20th century Much of the main range appears to have been reconfigured in the late 20th century. This included the removal of the majority of partitions on the ground-floor and the insertion of timber posts to support what may be an inserted spine beam which runs down the centre of the range. The beam is apparently made up of reused timber, but most of these appear too rough to have formed earlier beams, and they may have been brought in from elsewhere. A further single-storey extension was also added to the northwest, enclosing a further section of the northern courtyard. Other 20th century alterations to the building may also include the positioning of the stair, and the creation of the current access stair to the attic storey. Both of these must have replaced earlier features, which may have been in approximately the same area. It is notable however, that the creation of the main stair blocked the earlier access between the main range and the wing, with a new doorway inserted further west. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 Maddison, J 1998 Ely Cathedral Design and Meaning Cambridge: Ely Cathedral Publications HISTORIC ENGLAND 111

121 First-floor plan Later addition Location of details panel door, no mouldings 2-panel door, complex mouldings 2-panel door, simple mouldings chamfered beam Ceiling scar D O W N H A M R O A D 2 S T M A R Y S S T R E E T m ft 38A St Mary s Street, 1 Downham Road Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: February 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 112

122 1 2-panel door, no mouldings 2 2-panel door, complex mouldings Edge probably trimmed Front face (to landing) Rear face (to room) Front face (to landing) Rear face (to room) Detail of mouldings Detail of mouldings 3 2-panel door, simple mouldings Scale for door elevations m 1 0 2ft Scale for details of mouldings m ins 4 chamfered beam (detail of stop not to scale) Front face (to landing) Rear face (to room) 38A St Mary s Street, 1 Downham Road Ely, Cambridgeshire Detail of mouldings NGR: TL Surveyed: February 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England

123 48 ST MARY S STREET; THE OLD GUILDHALL As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 48 St Mary s Street was visited by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team on the 15th July 2014 and a section of the ground floor of the building surveyed by Rebecca Lane and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team on 18th September St Mary s Street is grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes it as an 18th century brick house. No 48 forms part of a continuous terrace of buildings on the northern side of St Mary s Street. This is the main road into the city from Cambridge and the south and west, and in the medieval period formed one of the principal approaches by land to the settlement, negotiating the fens via the causeway at Aldreth. Just south of No 48 the street broadens out into a small green, known as St Mary s Green, which marks the western tip of the open area to the west of the Cathedral known as Palace Green. Originally this area was larger, extending to St Mary s Street to the north, where properties have now been built fronting onto the street. To the south of St Mary s Green is St Mary s Church, the parish church in Ely, and one of two in use in the medieval period. Despite some commercial activity on St Mary s Street the area was removed from the main market square, and from the trading area by the river. Its focus appears instead to have been on the religious and HISTORIC ENGLAND 114

124 institutional functions within the city. The Bishop s Palace sat immediately south of Palace Green and as well as St Mary s Church and its associated vicarage (now Oliver Cromwell s House) there was also a large tithe barn, and, further west, the Hospital of St Mary Magdalene and St John s. In addition there appear to have been a number of early guilds in the area, with at least two thought to have had halls within close proximity to the parish church. By the late medieval period the land on St Mary s Street was principally in the ownership of the Bishop or the Prior. The corner of St Mary s Street and Downham Street was known as Mepsale s from the adjoining tenement recently tenanted by one John Mepsale. Adjacent to this running west the majority of properties were in the ownership of the bishop and are enumerated as tenements (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 133). This suggests that this side of the street was largely built up by the early 15th century, if not before. No 48 is referred to as The Old Guildhall and is traditionally ascribed as one of the two guildhalls known to have sat in proximity to the parish church of St Mary in the late medieval period. Discussion Phase One 15th century The earliest identifiable phase to the building is principally represented by the ceiling structure of the ground-floor western room of the building. It is likely that more of the structure is of the same date, although the definite evidence of this is concealed. The extant ceiling structure comprises a single spine beam running laterally westeast through the building with a series of joists projecting to the north and south. The joists are of a plain square profile joining into the main spine beam with spurred upper shoulder joints. The central spine beam is elaborately moulded with a hollow chamfer and two rolls (see drawing of beam). Above the moulding it is further embellished with a series of crenellations. This moulding form was found commonly on dais and low end beams in Kent (Barnwell and Adams 1994, 117) but here appears on both sides of the spine beam. It is a high-status feature and strongly suggests that this ground-floor room was an important part of the building it sat within. Stylistically this feature appears throughout the 15th and early 16th century in Kent. In Ely the Wealden house at 7-11 Silver Street has crenelated tops to the posts supporting the display truss in the centre of the open hall. This building has been dated to c 1400 on the basis of the form of surviving original wall paintings on one wall of the hall. Given the length of time that this feature appeared in buildings in other areas however, it is not possible to use this correlation to closely date No 48. A date in the late 15th century does however seem likely. Neither end of the moulded spine beam is stopped. This could suggest that the full width of the bay is not currently visible, particularly at the west end, where the beam and joists apparently continue into the later wall. The extent to which this ceiling relates to the rest of the structure is difficult to HISTORIC ENGLAND 115

125 establish, but given the high-status of the visible elements it is almost certain that this room formed part of a substantial two-storey building. The remainder of the main range was only superficially examined, and other visible evidence seems largely to relate to later alterations, however it is clear that these alterations work with a building of at least two bays which ran parallel to the street front. It is suggested therefore that the ceiling formed part of this structure. Phase Two uncertain The principal evidence for the early range running parallel to the street is now visible at first-floor level, where the principal posts of one truss are exposed within a later partition wall. Part of the northern post of a further truss is visible to the west of this. It seems likely that originally the range extended further east, although further evidence for this has been lost. These two trusses define the bays either side of the extant medieval ceiling structure visible at ground-floor level (see phase one), and therefore apparently relate to the same structure that the ceiling sits within. Their precise relationship, however, is uncertain. The form of the visible parts of the posts is distinctive with the posts cranked, or elbowed, turning inwards towards their upper ends. The eastern truss now comprises two posts and a remaining section of what appears to be the original collar. The northern post of this truss is largely concealed by later plasterwork, as is the top of the collar. The exposed section of the northern post is the inward turn where it rises to support a section of the collar. The collar laps into a later timber at its southern end but appears to extend over the top of the post at its northern end. The southern post is completely visible, as the wall it sits within has been extended further south. The outer edges of the southern post are exposed and there are no signs of any peg holes or redundant mortices associated with a wall plate or spur extending outwards. The inner edge is similarly plain, although where it rises to support the later pieced in timber there is evidence of a redundant joint which may originally have received the southern end of the collar. To the west the second truss is represented by a further post at the northern end which is part-exposed at the side of the attic stair. This appears to have a similar elbowed upper section which again supports a cross beam or collar. Here the joint between the upper section of the post and the collar is heavily altered, with a redundant angled lap joint on the eastern side of the collar, possibly to receive some form of rising brace. The precise form of the upper storey or roof structure that these timbers formed part of is uncertain. Elbowed timbers are found in some contexts, most typically as a means of supporting a half-hipped roof which provided additional head height at first-floor level. However, this form of roof typically worked by seating the wall plate in the outer edge of the point of the elbow, with the inward-turning section rising to support a raised tie beam or collar. Here there is no evidence of there having been a wall plate in this position, nor is there evidence of it having been seated anywhere else on the outer edge of the post. It is possible that the collar extended beyond the post to support a wall plate, but this would have negated the usefulness of having such elbowed posts, as such a wall plate could have been supported by a more conventional straight post. Alternatively they may be some form of cranked inner HISTORIC ENGLAND 116

126 principal, a terminology suggested by David Clark (2004) for cranked posts that sat immediately inside a main principal in order to clasp the purlins. Clark s examples however are generally later and associated with agricultural buildings. It certainly seems likely that such posts were used to provide more space at first-floor level but the precise form and arrangement of the truss they sat within remains uncertain. The relationship between this structure and the ground-floor ceiling is also unclear. The presence of such a truss at first-floor level suggests limited useful space at this height, and can only have worked as part of a relatively low building of one or one and a half stories. The ground-floor ceiling is of a status which seems difficult to reconcile with such a structure. It is possible that the ceiling represents an insertion into an earlier structure, a 14th century date perhaps being more likely for a one or one a half storey building. There is no evidence of moulding on any of the posts however, suggesting that they did not form part of any earlier, open hall arrangement. Another possibility is that the posts themselves represent part of the construction, or alteration, that saw the insertion of the floor, perhaps in order to create a useable, if limited, space at first-floor level. However, if created or adapted in such a way it is extremely unclear why the structure would not have provided a fullyheight first-floor, as indeed was undertaken in a subsequent phase (see below). Given the likely 15th century date of the ceiling a fully-framed upper storey would have been conventional particularly given the level of investment needed to insert a highstatus ceiling at ground-floor level. Without further investigation the date and form of this fabric remains unclear, and as such it has not been assigned a precise date. Phase Three 17th century Immediately east of the medieval bay the structure has been heavily altered but there is an exposed chamfered central spine beam with a scrolled and notched stop. This form is typical of the mid- to late-17th century and suggests that this element of the range was altered, or possibly substantially rebuilt in this phase. Given the position of the 15th century ceiling in the adjacent range it could be suggested that this area might have been a position for a medieval open hall. If that was the case then the 17th century beam could be associated with the substantial reconstruction of this area of the range. Potentially associated with this is the alteration to the earlier truss visible immediately west. This truss forms the western end of the room that the spine beam is visible in, the beam must bond into a section of the collar, although the precise relationship is hidden by a later cornice and plasterwork. At some stage this truss has been altered to form part of a fully framed first floor area. This is represented by a series of timber studs inserted south of the original south truss, supporting a beam which runs in line with the earlier collar. The studwork and beams of this alteration are undecorated, and were probably originally intended to be concealed within a plaster wall. As such they are difficult to date precisely. However, as the 17th century beam in the room to the west appears to work with this partition, it is tentatively suggested that it may represent the date of much of these first floor HISTORIC ENGLAND 117

127 alterations. The lower part of the roof structure is obscured by the inserted attic rooms but the upper section is visible and is of common rafter form, with the rafters meeting in a mortice and tenon joint pegged with a single central peg. As with the studwork in the first-floor partition it is difficult to date this type of roof precisely, but its form is consistent with a date that would mean it could relate to the same phase of alteration as the other first-floor details, indicating a substantial modification of the building in this phase. Phase Four 18th century The principal elevation of the building appears predominantly 18th century, and it is clear that the building was refronted, and the fenestration altered, in this phase. The brick is of a yellow stock brick type, typical of local Ely buildings. The first-floor windows have red brick dressings including around their segmentally-arched heads. Red brick has also been used at the outer edges of the elevation to east and west. It may have been at this stage that the attics were adapted to form additional rooms. Phase Five 19th century Extensive alterations appear to have been carried out to the building in the 19th century. This includes the doorcase and current windows on the front (south elevation) and other internal alterations. A substantial cross wing which extends back from the north-west end of the property contains what appears to be a 19th century pine stair, with a closed string stair with a curved motif to each riser in a form typical of the mid-19th century. Whether this represents the refitting of an earlier cross wing is unclear from the evidence inspected. In addition it seems likely that the gateway and adjoining property which now form a separate unit attached to the east end of No 48 may also have been constructed in the 19th century. Again this may have replaced earlier accommodation at this end of the range. Phase Six 20th century The 20th century saw the subdivision of the ground floor area of the building to form separate units. Whether this reflects any historic subdivision is unclear, but certainly by the 1940s the west room had been adapted to form commercial premises (see photograph in the Historic England Archive, 1941). Bibliography Barnwell, P and Adams, A 1994 The House Within: Interpreting Medieval Houses in Kent London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (HMSO) Clark, D 2004 Cranked Inner Principals in Vernacular Architecture Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 118

128 Isometric view of spine beam Joist shown out of postion to reveal mortice form Sectional view of spine beam m ins Spine beam in ceiling, ground-floor south bay 48 St Mary s Street, The Old Guildhall (Right Moves Estate Agents) Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: September 2014 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 119

129 82 ST MARY S STREET As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 82 St Mary s Street was visited and surveyed by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team on the 23rd February St Mary s Street is grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes it as a 17th century building. No 82 occupies a prominent position on the corner of St Mary s Street and West End. This originally represented the principal approach route to the city from Cambridge and the south and west, prior to the creation of the current Cambridge Road. In the medieval period it formed one of the principal approaches by land to the city, negotiating the fens via the causeway at Aldreth. Despite some commercial activity on St Mary s Street the area was removed from the main market square, and from the trading area by the river. Its focus appears instead to have been on the religious and institutional side of the city s life. Development however appears to have remained relatively intense, with tenements on both sides of the street by the late medieval period. By the time of the 1417 survey the land on St Mary s Street was principally in the ownership of the Bishop or the Prior. The survey describes a continuous run of tenements from the corner of St Mary s Street and Downham Road (known as Mepsale s Corner) to St John s Hospital (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 133; 135). This suggests that the street was largely built up by the early 15th century, if not before. HISTORIC ENGLAND 120

130 Discussion Phase One 16th century The earliest evidence visible in the standing building is for a 16th century continuous-jetty building running parallel to the street front (see plan). In its original form it is suggested that the building had a smoke bay at the western end, probably with an associated entrance and stair, and two rooms at ground- and first-floor level. All of the external evidence for this phase is currently obscured, but internally there is good evidence of the front (south) timber-framed walling, wall plates and tie beams at first-floor level and the ceiling structure at ground floor level. At ground floor level the principal surviving evidence is in the form of the ceiling, in which the two and half bays of the original building are defined by three extant cross rails (at B, C and D on the accompanying plan). The western cross rail (B) is largely obscured by the later stair inserted into the narrow western bay. The eastern two have more visible evidence. The central cross rail (C) is chamfered and stopped for the position of the spine beams in the bays to either side. Towards its northern end there is a redundant mortice for an original post, almost certainly indicating the position of an internal doorway between the two bays, and suggesting that the two bays were originally partitioned, although there is no evidence for the form of the partition (the current studding on this line is later, see below). The doorway appears to have sat against the north wall of the building, with the other jamb presumably originally formed by the principal post, although this has been removed. The third cross rail (D) is chamfered on its western side and stopped for the spine beam, but unchamfered on its eastern side. This lack of chamfer is one piece of evidence for the slightly later date of the current western bay (D-E) this is discussed fully in phase two (see below). On the underside of the beam is a large residual groove probably allowing for a plank partition. The groove terminates adjacent to a redundant mortice on the underside of the beam, and the chamfer on the western side stops adjacent to the same feature. This is in-line with the redundant mortice on the cross rail immediately to the west (C), and probably represents another original door position, although it is suggested that this door may have represented an external rather than internal feature. The two spine beams between the original cross rails (B-C and C-D) are both chamfered. All of the cross rails and spine beams have the same stepped chamfer stop (see detail drawing). The majority of the front wall has been replaced with later brickwork, although this has been inserted on the line of the original wall. In the second bay from the west (B-C) however, part of the mid-rail does survive. This has a groove or recess centrally placed within the bay, indicating the position of shutters for an original window opening. At first-floor level the bay rhythm is defined by the surviving jowled posts and the tie beams. At the western end of the building the west elevation (A) is concealed by later plasterwork. The posts and tie beam survive of the truss between the narrow western bay and the first full bay (B). The tie beam has residual peg positions for HISTORIC ENGLAND 121

131 a closed partition below the tie beam indicating that the narrow bay (A-B) was subdivided from the rest of the building. At its northern end, where it is now open for the doorway for the stairwell, a residual mortice position is also visible. This may indicate the position of substantial stud, or possibly a rising brace of the same form as those on the truss to the east (C; see below). If this narrow bay did form a smoke bay then one might anticipate a stair in this position, but the positioning of this stud or brace is hard to reconcile with such a feature, as it would have cut the stair entrance. It may be that the stair was elsewhere in the building. Above the tie beam original studding appears to indicate that the bay was closed at this level as well. There is no surviving evidence for any fireplace position at upper level within this wall. Of the third truss from the west (C) only the jowled posts and tie beam survive. These are chamfered on both sides, indicating that it has always formed an intermediate truss. Curved braces rise from the posts to the tie beam. These are unchamfered, but their presence suggests that the truss was originally open, allowing for a large open, two-bay space at first-floor level. Above the tie beam the original timbers do not survive. A lack of peg holes however suggests that there was no partitioning on this alignment, nor any posts or struts rising to support the upper part of the roof structure. It should be noted that closer examination of the upper edge of the tie beam may reveal further evidence for the original form of this truss, and the roof in general, however the limited time available for the survey did not allow such inspection. The fourth truss (D) appears to have always formed a further closed truss originally acting as the eastern end of the building. The eastern side of the truss is concealed, by applied timbers, but to the west elements of the original tie beam and jowled posts is visible. The tie beam is slightly cambered and has a series of pegs on its lower edge indicating the position of studding for a closed partition. The extant studding closing this bay may represent this original partition, although given the extent of subsequent alterations to the building this cannot be identified with any certainty. One factor that may support the idea of it being original is that there is no residual doorway or other means of communication through this wall into the later, eastern room. This may indicate that it represents the original, closed, wall; but equally may reflect a later phase of alteration in which internal communication between the two areas was not required. Notwithstanding the uncertainty over the studding, the position of the peg holes confirms the original presence of a solid wall. Above the tie beam the roof structure again appears to have been altered. As at the western end of the building, one would anticipate studding to complete the elevation. There is no evidence for residual peg holes however, which makes the original form of this truss above the tie beam unclear. The other principal original survival visible at first-floor level is the front (south) wall plate. This is chamfered and stopped where it meets the trusses, with a simple straight stop. Towards the eastern end, close to the fourth truss (D) there is an edge halved and bridled scarf joint. The principal feature of the wall plate is that in both of the two full bays it has a recess cut into its lower edge, the same as that observed in the section of mid-rail surviving at ground-floor level. These originally provided for HISTORIC ENGLAND 122

132 window shutters, indicating that the first-floor was lit by a window in each bay. That in the western full bay (B-C) is positioned slightly west of the centre of its bay. That in the eastern bay is positioned slightly to the east of centre. The extant evidence therefore suggests the original building comprised a two-room plan, with a smoke bay at the western end. There are uncertainties surrounding this interpretation however, not least over whether the eastern bay of the building (D-E) is in fact also part of the original building. This will be discussed fully as part of the second phase description, in which the form of this bay is considered. The form of the roof structure also remains a matter for conjecture, although it is possible that a closer examination of the open truss (C) could reveal more evidence. It seems most likely that it was of side purlin form. Phase Two 16th century The main evidence for a putative second phase of 16th century development is the addition of the easternmost bay of the building. However, as mentioned in the phase one description it is also possible that this bay in fact forms part of the original building. The evidence of both interpretations is highlighted below, but on the balance of evidence the construction of this bay has been placed in a separate phase. The easternmost bay (D-E) is slightly wider than the full bays to the west at c 4.3m as opposed to the c 3m of the two other full bays. At ground floor level it has a large spine beam bonded into the cross rail of the truss to the west (D). This beam is more elaborately moulded than those further west, with an ogee and hollow roll moulding terminating at the western end in run out stops. The eastern end has been truncated by alterations to the eastern wall. At first-floor level the front (south) wall plate again survives. That to the rear has again been removed during the addition of a later rear wing. As with the wall plate further west there is a rebate cut into the lower edge of the wall plate indicating the position of shutters for a large window opening, centrally placed in the bay. The eastern truss (E) has two jowled posts rising in the corners. The jowls in fact only extend against the eastern half of the post, with the western section of the post rising straight up an arrangement presumably used as it forms the corner of the building. The tie beam is straight, with the stud work of the eastern elevation visible below, pegged into the tie beam at their upper edges. Above the tie beam three studs for a closed truss are visible at the centre of the truss, and are pegged to the tie beam. The remainder of the truss is concealed. There is no evidence for any heating arrangement as part of the construction of this bay. It is possible that it was unheated, but given the level of alteration at the east end and in the rear (north) wall it is perhaps more likely that the evidence for heating has been concealed or lost. The alterations at the east end, particularly at ground-floor level, could have seen the removal of such a feature in the end wall of the building. As mentioned above, there is some uncertainty over the phasing of the construction of this bay, and whether it forms part of the original building with the two and a half bays to its west. The evidence for this is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, as described in this phase, the bay is significantly wider than those to the HISTORIC ENGLAND 123

133 west, and the form of the only surviving moulded timber is distinctively different (see detail drawing of moulding form). Obviously differently moulded timbers can be contemporary, and indicate a hierarchy to the internal spaces in a building, but there is no common stylistic feature in the form of the chamfer stop for example, which one might anticipate in contemporary beams of differing status. The use of a hollow chamfer in this bay as opposed to the straight chamfer in the other bays also suggests a slightly different date to the timber. It is also the case that a two-cell, rather than three-cell plan is more logical given the positioning of the smoke bay at the end of the building. In a three-cell plan, it would be more likely to find a smoke bay positioned between two of the rooms, so as to provide heat for both, leaving only one space unheated. In a three-cell plan with an end smoke bay, two rooms are potentially unheated. It is possible of course, that some form of further end stack or lateral stack could have been provided at the western end, but this would be far less efficient than simply positioning the smoke bay differently to derive the same benefit. The main evidence for the bay being contemporary with the rest of the building is the position of the large scarf joint in the front (south) wall plate (see detail drawing of scarf joint). This sits just west of the presumed original east end wall of the building, if the eastern bay is later (just west of truss D). This is a strange position for a scarf joint, so close to the end of the building, if it did terminate in the adjacent truss. It seems unlikely that any alterations to the wall plate as part of the construction of the east bay would introduce such a feature, as it would have required changes to the earlier wall plate which would be difficult to achieve once it was in situ. Nor would it have been structurally necessary at this date, as any junction in the wall plate could presumably have been achieved and supported by changes to the earlier end truss of the building. The evidence for the two different interpretations is therefore somewhat contradictory. It is possible that further investigation of the building would reveal more evidence which might resolve this, particularly if any work was to see the exposure of more of the truss at the junction of the eastern and central bays (D). At present however, given the balance of evidence this bay has been placed in a separate phase. Phase Three 17th century One significant set of alterations to the building cannot be precisely dated, but have been loosely ascribed to the 17th century. This principally involved the alteration to the roof structure. This saw the removal of much of the original roof timbers, above tie beam level, and any earlier ceiling or other infill. These were replaced with a disparate set of timbers, most of them reused, which now provide raking struts to support the purlins in the intermediate open truss (C). Reused timbers, including a large section of what appears to be an original wall plate (possibly from the north wall), were also used to form spine beams in the bays at first-floor level. It is suggested therefore that this may have formed part of a ceiling in process, whereby the first-floor was closed at tie beam level. This process would be typical for the 17th HISTORIC ENGLAND 124

134 century, when many earlier roof structures were underbuilt. Phase Four 18th century Apparently of 18th century date is the replacement of the majority of the groundfloor front wall in brick. Often this was used as an opportunity to build out the lower wall flush with the earlier jetty, to create a more fashionable, straight façade. Here however this was not done, and the jettied profile remained, although almost certainly plastered over as it is now. This was obviously an easier process to achieve, as it involved fewer structural changes. Any associated internal changes have been lost in subsequent alterations. Phase Five 19th century Ascribed to this date is the creation of the cross wing which runs north of the building at its eastern end. The precise dating of this range is difficult as little of the structure remains, however given the lack of any beams in the ceiling structures at ground- or first-floor level it has been ascribed to a relatively late date. Although not a precise guide a cross wing does appear to be shown on the 1843 tithe map of Ely however, suggesting that it predates this period, although it has been substantially altered. The outshut that runs along the remainder of the northern side of the building may also be of this century, although probably later than the cross wing, as again it contains no early features. It may however replace an earlier outshut in the same position, as this was a typical way to extend accommodation in the 17th and 18th centuries. Phase Six - 20th century Most of the 20th century alterations relate to the reopening of spaces within the building. At ground-floor level the majority of partitions have been removed to create a large open space. This has necessitated some bracing of the early cross rails, for example with the insertion of a support post at the centre of the easternmost cross rail (D). The exception to this is to the central cross rail where a partition has been created, although this is partly open by virtue of providing no infill between the studs. The partition is formed of timber studs, possibly reused from elsewhere in the building. Although there originally appears to have been a screen wall here, as evidenced by redundant mortices on the underside of the cross rail, at some stage this has been removed and replaced. It is unclear whether this was an immediate process, perhaps because of damage to the earlier wall, or whether the wall was removed to provide a larger, single room for some time. At their upper edge the studs are lapped onto the eastern side of the earlier tie beam. At the northern end there is a doorway, formed of simple straight timber running between the northernmost stud and an inserted full-height jamb to the north of this. Most of the ground-floor rear wall has also been removed, to provide open spaces into the later cross wings. At first-floor level the roof structure above the tie beams is now visible, with only HISTORIC ENGLAND 125

135 the spine beams (themselves mostly reused timbers) left in situ. Access to firstfloor level is now provided by an external doorway in the western, narrow, bay. This may reflect the original entrance position, although if so this would have led into the ground floor room in a typical lobby-entry plan. Whether the 20 th century insertion of a stair in this position reflected an original stair on the northern side of a chimney is unclear (see discussion in phase one), but the process of utilising a larger proportion of the smoke bay to provide a straighter stair has been observed in other buildings. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 HISTORIC ENGLAND 126

136 First-floor sketch plan A B Later additions C D E Rebate in plate Rebate in plate Scarf joint Rebate in plate Rebate in plate A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 Ground-floor sketch plan Later additions A B C D E Joists reset A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 Former line of wall m ft Approximate scale for sketch plans 82 St Mary s Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: February 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 127

137 Sketch cross sections C-C1 and E-E1 Inserted beams & supports C Later partition C1 E Modern wall E m ft Details of moulded ground-floor ceiling beams, C-D and D-E Modern ceiling Modern ceiling Ground floor ceiling beam C-D Ground floor ceiling beam D-E m ins Scale for moulding details Approximate scale for detail of scarf joint in front wall plate m 5 0 3ft 82 St Mary s Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: February 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 128

138 29 LYNN ROAD; THE OLD KING WILLIAM PUB As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 29 Lynn Road, also known as 1a Egremont Street, was visited and surveyed by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team on 24th February Lynn Road is grade II listed (UID ). The list description describes it as an 18th century brick house. No 29 sits in a prominent position on the corner of Lynn Road and Egremont Street. It sits at the end of a continuous terrace of buildings, of various dates, which run along the western side of the road. As its name suggests Lynn Road is the main route from Ely to King s Lynn, this route only developed after the draining of the Fens in the 17th century however. In the medieval period it was known as the road that leads to Chettisham, and provided a link between the city and villages to its north on the Isle of Ely, an important local route. By the late medieval period land on both the west side of the road towards Chettisham and on Egremont Street (known as Acreman s Street) was built upon, although it appears not to have been very intensely developed. The 1417 survey provides some detail of the holdings in the area. The junction of Acreman Street, the road to Chettisham and Nutholt Lane (known as Shendforth Lane) was marked by a red cross (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 31). Development appears to have continued along the road to Chettisham beyond this point, but presumably the cross was an important marker on the approach to the town. On the south side of the corner of the road to Chettisham and Acreman s Street were the tenements of John Doraunt and John Smyth lying opposite the road leading towards Chettisham, and they HISTORIC ENGLAND 129

139 contain 6 perches and ½ iron yard in front along the same road (Holton Krayenbuhl 2011, 123). This suggests that some form of tenement had been built on the corner of the two roads by the early 15th century. Speed s 1607 survey shows the area as built up by then, although his generic depiction of houses provides no guide to the level of settlement that may have occurred. By 1638 however areas of Lynn Road had been dubbed Little London on account of their crowded nature suggesting that the area had been subject to intensive development (VCH Cambridgeshire IV 1953, 45). Discussion The earliest fabric identifiable within the current building appears to date from the 17th century, and this has accordingly been referred to as the first phase. There are several irregularities in the plan form and proportions of this building however. These might be explained by a specialist use of part of the premises (see discussion at the end of phase one below), but it is possible that they are indicative of the fact that this fabric was designed to work within an earlier, potentially even medieval, building. The replacement of the roof structure and rebuilding of much, if not all, of the external walling in later phases has removed any evidence for this and thus it cannot be said that the building originates within this period. This possibility however, has to be borne in mind when examining the evidence of the first phase, as it is one possible explanation for some of the irregular features of the building. Phase One 17th century The earliest fabric extant within the current building appears to relate to a three-bay building lying parallel with Lynn Road (see plan). The structure had a stone and brick gable end wall to the north. The form of the other elevations is uncertain, but it is possible that the east wall was originally timber framed. It is possible to speculate that the stonework of the north gable wall may relate to an earlier building on the same site, which then could have been reincorporated into the current building. It has no features readily identifiable as being of an early date however, and later alteration (see below) makes any certainty about its origins difficult. On balance therefore it has been phased with the upper section of this gable which is formed of brick and has a characteristically 17th century profile. The form of the other elevations in this early phase is difficult to reconstruct as all three have been subject to heavy alteration. The extant east elevation is the most visible. Notable is the position of a wider window opening in the centre of the elevation, and this, together with some tentative internal evidence, may suggest an original door position. This is extremely speculative however, as it is difficult to trace any joints in the painted brickwork, and it is therefore only the width of the opening, and its differences from those surviving to either side, which suggests it formed a doorway. Internally the principal surviving evidence for this phase is the ground-floor ceiling structure. This comprises a cross beam surviving between the southern and central bays and a series of three central spine beams, still exposed or part exposed. Between the northern and central bay the cross beam is largely concealed by a HISTORIC ENGLAND 130

140 partition wall, but is partly visible in the northern room and appears to be quite roughly finished with no chamfer detail visible. The surviving cross beam spans the building defining the south and central bays. This lacks any chamfer detail, but has a series of redundant lap joints on its southern side. These are irregularly spaced but appear to relate to a partition on this alignment. Given the lack of chamfers on the beam it is suggested that the partition was original to the building. In the northern bay the spine beam is largely boxed in. Its northern end appears to be supported on a post sitting against the north gable wall, although this is also concealed by later boxing. Towards the northern end of the spine beam however, part of the boxing has been cut away to reveal a chamfered beam with run out stops. On the side of the beam redundant mortices are also visible for the joists of the ceiling structure. These are approximately 0.1m below the extant ceiling, and correspond to the height of the joists surviving in the southern part of the building. In fact two of the joists of this bay s ceiling structure remain built into the later wall of the northern room, these appear quite roughly cut, again similar to those surviving further south. There is no clear indication of where this spine beam terminated. It seems unlikely it continued as far as the extant cross beam as this would have created one very large room. It appears to have continued through what is now the stairwell however, and may have terminated in a cross wall roughly in alignment with the extant northern wall of the southern room, although this is later insertion. If it did originally terminate in this position then that would have created two equal-sized outer bays with a narrow central bay, centred on what may be an original door position in the east elevation. This may have created a type of central entrance plan which typifies 17th century housing. The notable difference however is in the lack of a centrally placed chimney stack. The spine beam visible in the northern part of the southern room, north of the cross beam, has a rough chamfer on its outer edges, but is not stopped at its south end, where it meets the cross beam and post. The southern spine beam which runs from the cross beam to the front of the (later) chimney in the south wall, is similarly roughly chamfered with no stops at either end. It is possible that where these meet at the cross beam the insertion of the later post led to the removal of the original ends of the beam. Both of these spine beams have joists extending east and west of them. These are relatively irregularly spaced and sized, and roughly finished. In the central bay there is a further beam running parallel to the spine beam in the centre of the eastern side. This is roughly finished with no indications of a chamfer or any other finer detailing. Typically a beam in such a position would relate to the position of a stair trap, with one side of the trimmer beam open to receive a ladder or narrow timber stair. In this case however, there are joists to either side of the beam which appear contemporary with each other, and with the rest of the joists in the other bays. It is possible that these have been infilled later, using beams removed from elsewhere in the building. Alternatively it is possible that these are in their original purpose, and that the additional beam was not a stair trimmer, but for some other, unknown use. It certainly seems the case that a stair in this position could not have worked with a central entrance, as it would have blocked any associated lobby or HISTORIC ENGLAND 131

141 passageway. The heating arrangements for this original building also remain unclear. The position of two later stacks is known, one still extant at the south end of the building, and one recently removed from the north end. That to the south end may be a rebuilding of an original chimney position, which could have heated the south room of the original building. Although its removal prevents any examination, it seems likely that the stack at the north end was a later insertion, as the spine beam in this bay runs to the north gable end. If there had been an original stack one would anticipate the spine beam terminating in the front of the hearth (as the spine beam to the south does with the later fireplace). Thus the only putative chimney position is at the south end of the building, which would only have allowed the heating of one room. It is possible that there may have been a further fireplace in the rear (west) wall of the building, which was removed in order to allow for later extensions in this direction. There is no surviving evidence for such an arrangement however. Alternatively it is possible that the northern end of the building served a specialist use, such as commercial premises or a workshop area, which did not necessitate any heating. The southern room would then have been the only domestic space, provided with a fireplace in the south gable wall in the location of the extant later stack. Phase Two late 18th or early 19th century Substantial alterations in this period appear to have seen the building subdivided and turned into two cottages. Externally much of the walling of the east elevation appears to relate to this phase, with two doorway openings (both now converted into windows) with segmental-arch heads. The plinth may also have been added in this phase, it certainly post-dates the conversion of the putative central doorway into a window as no evidence for blocking is visible here as it is for the cottage doorways. To the outer sides of both former doorway openings are window openings. These have slightly flatter heads but appear to relate to the same phase. It appears that the interior was subdivided unequally, with one house larger than the other, encompassing the middle bay which had an additional, wider window opening. It seems more likely that this was part of the south cottage, as internally these spaces appear to have been subsequently treated in a similar way. Internally the principal evidence for the form and layout of the south cottage is the rebuilt chimney stack and fireplace at the southern end of the building. This has a large opening formed of brick with a timber bressumer. The bressumer has a series of large redundant mortices on its outer surface which suggests that it has been reused in its current position. Within the fireplace, on the rear wall, are two niches. These are irregular sizes, with that to the east a small angled opening. The niche to the west has a narrow entrance and then a wider rear section, and may have been for storage of small items. In the northern side of the fireplace opening is a bread oven. This is a round brick oven with a stone tile base accessed via an inset arched opening in the side of the fireplace. On the eastern side of the fireplace is a possible staircase location. Stairs were typically built into the niche formed by the hearth in smaller houses of this period. Here, a shallow scoop in the outer wall of the building HISTORIC ENGLAND 132

142 may indicate that this was originally the case here, although any other evidence for this has been removed. It is possible that the northern chimney stack was also inserted in this phase, although so little of this survives that no date can be definitely established. Remaining scars in the ceiling of the ground-floor north room indicate that the stack was inserted against the northern gable wall to the west of the earlier spine beam. A former cupboard area which sat to the east of the spine beam may also have been created in this period. Phase Three later alterations Subsequent alterations to the building include, most notably, the extensions to the west of the building which conceal much of the original west elevation. The building is known as the old King William IV pub, a use it appears to have had by the late 19th century, however, subsequent conversion back into a single domestic space has removed any fixtures or fittings associated with this phase. It seems that both of the western extensions were built during the 19th century, although probably at different times, and they are likely to relate to the provision of the type of service areas needed to support a public house. The building was altered to form a single dwelling in the late 20th century. Further alterations must have been undertaken to support the change of use of the building. Most notable was the reconstruction of part of the north gable wall, apparently due to structural issues, and the replacement of the roof structure. Other more minor changes may also relate to this use. The insertion of the current stair appears to date to this phase, and the boxing in of the northern beams. Both of the timber posts supporting the tie beams are likely to have been inserted as part of this phase, although it is possible that they relate to the opening up of the building while it was a public house. The southern post appears relatively modern however, so on balance they have been placed in this phase. The northern post appears to have been inserted when the stair was created, probably because the original support for the northern spine beam, possibly a partition wall, was removed as part of this phase. The post is now built into the partition between the north room and the stair. The southern side of the post is exposed and visible from the stair. It includes a large redundant mortice and a series of shallow notches which taper upwards or downwards. These suggest the post was reused. The notches may in fact represent partially completed mortices, and possibly indicate that for some reason the timber was not finished for its intended purpose and was subsequently used as a post instead. Bibliography Holton Krayenbuhl, A (ed) 2011 The Topography of Medieval Ely Cambridge: Cambridge Record Society Volume 20 VCH Cambridgeshire IV The Victoria History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely Vol IV London: Oxford University Press HISTORIC ENGLAND 133

143 Plan of ground floor L a t e r a d d i t i o n s Corbel for hearth over Not fully measured Ceiling scar, site of fireplace Former joist Ceiling scar, former cupboard Site of stair? Former doorway Former partition Former doorway? m ft 29 Lynn Road, (The Old King William Public House), Ely, Cambridgeshire NGR: TL Surveyed: February 2015 Drawn by A T Adams Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND 134

144 3 PALACE GREEN, ELY As part of the Early Fabric in Historic Towns: Ely project 3 Palace Green was visited on the 15th September 2014 by Rebecca Lane, Investigator from the Historic England Assessment Team and Allan Adams of the Imaging and Visualisation team. 3 Palace Green is a grade II* listed building (UID ). Externally the building appears to be a late 17th or early 18th century house, but the list description indicates that it may incorporate parts of an earlier, timber-framed, building. No 3 Palace Green is situated immediately north of the open ground at the west end of Ely Cathedral, facing the former Bishop s Palace (now part of King s School) which lies south of this open green. It is set back from the pathway running down the side of the green, within its own grounds. Immediately east of the house is the Cathedral education centre, a 1960s building which occupies the site of an earlier house, said to be roughly contemporary with No 3. West of the house is The Chantry, a house with a front range which also appears roughly contemporary with No 3, but which is believed to contain the remains of a medieval chantry and certainly has a rear range which appears earlier in date. The current owner of 3 Palace Green has occupied the house since the late 1970s and has a set of deeds which extend back to She also understands that the house was constructed on the site of an earlier tenement or set of tenements. Despite its proximity to the cathedral it appears never to have been owned by the Dean HISTORIC ENGLAND 135

145 and Chapter, although at various times officials from the cathedral have owned or leased the building. Parson s Charity appear to have been prominent in the early history of the building, with several of the early leases naming them as owners. The building has a small back garden, but the deeds indicate that it originally had a more extensive plot of land running north to St Mary s Street. Description 3 Palace Green is a five-bay, two and a half-storey building with a cellar under the rear range. The building has a double-pile plan with an M-shaped roofline with a central valley higher than the eaves. It is built largely of gault brick with red brick used for the dressings, including gauged brick for the window heads. The main south façade has a central doorway with wooden surround with an open pediment over the door. It has late 19th century timber sash windows throughout. There is a red brick plat band running just above the level of the ground-floor window heads. There is also a wooden modillioned eaves cornice to the south elevation. The front range has a chimney stack rising from the gable end to both the east and west, the rear range has a stack rising only at the western end, with a further stack built against the lateral wall towards the eastern end. To the rear there is a small singlestorey 19th-century extension which surrounds the lower part of this stack. The principal doorway in the main façade gives access to a central hallway, with an open-well staircase rising from it. The stair has a closed string with twisted balusters. These are relatively substantial, perhaps suggestive of a late 17th or c 1700 date. There is a small cupboard under the stair with a two-panel door and late 17th century H-shaped hinges. Flanking the central hallway is the drawing room and the study. The drawing room has full-height panelling comprising a dado rail with large bolection moulded panels above and below. The room has moulded door surrounds and two-panel doors. Where there is a blocked window, to the south end of the west elevation of the room, the panelling detail of the room appears to have reused panelling from elsewhere or possibly to have been carefully matched to the original. The main fireplace is in the west wall. This has a flat marble surround with a narrow moulding on its inner edge. The architrave is of timber and is elaborately decorated with a foliate design. The cornice supporting the mantel shelf is similarly elaborate with a scroll and foliate design. Over the fireplace is a recessed panel set within a raised surround similarly decorated. This has a modern canvas inserted into it. This is surrounded by a shouldered architrave, with small rosettes in each corner of the panel. The form of this fireplace and the panel above is indicative of a later date than the rest of the room, and may be a later, possibly 19 th century, alteration to the original scheme. On the opposite side of the drawing room the study has panelling to only dado height, with a large projecting rail at the top of the panelling. Behind the hall and flanking rooms is a corridor running along the central spine of the house. This appears to sit just beyond the wall forming the rear of the front range, creating narrower rooms to the rear. In the centre of the rear range is a service stair. This gives access to the cellar, via the kitchen and up to the first floor. There is evidence of reorganisation to the cellar steps, which originally rose into the HISTORIC ENGLAND 136

146 corridor. The original door frame for the cellar door is still visible in the north wall of the corridor, this appears to be of a piece with the kitchen door frame, suggesting that this reflects an original arrangement. This suggests that the service stair is later insertion, or at least has been heavily altered at some stage, as the altered cellar steps cut across the earlier doorway (see below). Either side of the inserted stair is the kitchen and dining room. The former room is to the east. This is the only room with an exposed timber ceiling beam, which is chamfered with scroll stops, indicative of a 17th century date. The kitchen has a large fireplace in its rear (north) wall with a corresponding projecting stack visible externally where it rises above a small single-storey extension. The inclusion of the fireplace on a lateral wall seems unusual in the context of a house of this date. It is unclear why it could not have been placed on the gable end wall, which would have maintained the symmetry in the arrangement of the chimney stacks. This could be indicative of an earlier stack. Currently the fireplace recess is infilled with late 20th century brick surrounding an oven. The current owner indicated that when the fireplace was opened up for the insertion she was hoping to find an inglenook fireplace, but instead found only 19th century brick. This is consistent with the form of the stack where it is visible externally and suggests that it is a later reconstruction. This must have been in the position of an earlier stack, although there is no indication of its size or form. From the kitchen the cellar is accessed via a straight stair which passes a small room, now accessed off the stair and ends in a larger room. This has a brick floor. The ceiling has timber cross beams of the same form as in the kitchen, reinforced with 20th century steel girders. Both appear to have originally formed storage areas. At first-floor level the house originally had four bedrooms, although one of the rear rooms has been partitioned to form two bathrooms. At attic level the rear range forms one continuous space, with the roof structure exposed and showing no signs of removed partitions. The front range is partitioned into a series of small rooms accessed from the rear range. These have exposed timber framing in the partition walls. Although almost certainly originally concealed, the timbers appear contemporary with the construction of the house. The timbers are of thin scantling and roughly hewn, there is no indication of any reused timbers. A surviving corner fireplace in the eastern room indicates that some of these rooms at least were heated. The timber-framed partition wall between the front and rear ranges supports a large wall plate which appears to provide support both the front and rear roof structures. Conclusion This investigation concluded that the house consists primarily of a single phase constructed c 1700, with some later alteration. Although there are a lot of timber elements visible in the attics these appear to form partitioning between the front and rear range and individual rooms with no signs of any early or reused elements. The only feature hinting at the presence of an early building is the unusual position of the kitchen chimney stack. However, given this was reconstructed, apparently in its entirety, in the late 19th or early 20th century, this provides no real evidence, and it HISTORIC ENGLAND 137

147 may have been positioned thus in the main building phase for practical reasons Although the documents indicate the presence of an earlier building on the site, there is no evidence that this had any influence on the form and layout of the current building. Given that the original plot associated with the house extended north to St Mary s Street it is possible that the earlier tenements in fact lay along this street front rather than Palace Green. HISTORIC ENGLAND 138

148 Historic England Research and the Historic Environment We are the public body that looks after England s historic environment. We champion historic places, helping people understand, value and care for them. A good understanding of the historic environment is fundamental to ensuring people appreciate and enjoy their heritage and provides the essential first step towards its effective protection. Historic England works to improve care, understanding and public enjoyment of the historic environment. We undertake and sponsor authoritative research. We develop new approaches to interpreting and protecting heritage and provide high quality expert advice and training. We make the results of our work available through the Historic England Research Report Series, and through journal publications and monographs. Our online magazine Historic England Research which appears twice a year, aims to keep our partners within and outside Historic England up-to-date with our projects and activities. A full list of Research Reports, with abstracts and information on how to obtain copies, may be found on Some of these reports are interim reports, making the results of specialist investigations available in advance of full publication. They are not usually subject to external refereeing, and their conclusions may sometimes have to be modified in the light of information not available at the time of the investigation. Where no final project report is available, you should consult the author before citing these reports in any publication. Opinions expressed in these reports are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Historic England. The Research Report Series incorporates reports by the expert teams within the Research Group of Historic England, alongside contributions from other parts of the organisation. It replaces the former Centre for Archaeology Reports Series, the Archaeological Investigation Report Series, the Architectural Investigation Report Series, and the Research Department Report Series ISSN (Print) ISSN (Online)