Historic Survey Max House Farm Max Mills Lane Winscombe North Somerset BS25 1DS

Kirsten Elliott Historic Home Research 58 Minster Way Bath BA2 6RL October 2019 Contents

1. Introduction 2 2. Description of Building 3 3. Timeline and Probable History 6 Copyright 4. Conclusions 10

The documentation within this report may not be reproduced, Appendix 1: Maps 11 photo-copied, translated or transmitted in any way or for any reason, Appendix 2: Bibliography 15 except for the purposes of the relevant planning application, without the prior written permission of

KIRSTEN ELLIOTT Historic Home Research [email protected] Tel: 01225 310364

1. Introduction

This building has proved challenging to research for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is not a great deal of documentary evidence from the time when a house was first built on the site (circa 1813) until the 1880s, when the Ordnance Survey (OS) Map gives us a clear view of its layout at that time. Secondly, due to its increas- ingly dilapidated state, it was dangerous to go inside and take a close look, so it has been necessary to work from photographs and impressions gained from walking round the outside. Finally, the family which owned the building for the first 100 years of its existence had the surname Smith which threw up a myriad of pos- sibilities. Furthermore, like many families at that time, they used the same Christian names over and over again, so that I have found three William Smiths, and two, possibly three, Thomas Smiths, two of whom had a wife called Eliza. Finally, the evidence offered by the building is challenging, not least because it has been altered drastically in the twentieth century, and finally virtually gutted. The historical conclusions I have reached are, therefore, Above: view from the south based on circumstantial evidence, but they are the only ones Below: The collapsed staircase which seem to fit the facts. As previously mentioned, the building has undergone a great number of changes, some alterations clearly being unwise, since some walls are showing signs of falling outwards. The main staircase has collapsed and the cellar, one of two, according to an account from circa 1900, is open to the skies. At some stage, the roofing slates were removed and replaced with tile, and this seems to have hastened the ingress of damp. As will be seen, the eastern end has been altered, perhaps in the 1920s, and now has a very curious appearance, while old windows have been removed and Crittal windows substituted at the western end. The owners would like to demolish the building, rescuing as much material as possible, and rebuild sympathetically on the site. As will be demonstrated, this is almost certainly the best outcome, as it seems impossible to guess what form a restoration would take.

2. Description of the Building

Max House Farm stands in a low-lying area to the west of Wins- combe. To the north is the Lox Yeo River while nearer, just north of its grounds, is a leat which fed into the mill pond at Maxmills. To the south is the Winscombe Brook. This runs through what was part of the land of Max House, and is now included in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) called Max Bog. The brook runs at a slighter higher level than the land immediately to the south of the house. So it is unusually well-watered for the Mendip area and was probably prone to flooding. The house itself stands on what one of the clients has described as a level pad at the highest point of the ground. From a distance, the first impression is that this house would not look out of place in an Italian landscape, with the shallow pitch of the roof, the soft cream colour of the render and its small windows. However, all of these features suggest that the building ABOVE: The first view is Victorian rather than Georgian, although there are a few of the house. apparently Georgian features. At one time, the approach was via a carriageway which followed the line of the present southern LEFT: The brick inserts boundary before curving up to the eastern side of the house and in the coach house what must have been the main entrance. Today, the drive heads north wall. straight up towards the yard at the west side of the building. To the west of the yard is the walled garden. The wall, which BELOW: The build- has fallen down in places, is built of the rubble stone seen fre- ing in Banwell whose quently at Banwell,a type of sedimentary rock of varying colour. construction may This same stone is also used for the walls of what appears to have explain these inserts. been built as a coach house, though there are some strange features about this building. The back (north) wall has long brick infills, and what appears to be an added floor. However, a building just outside of Banwell, near the Banwell Caves, shows how this may have looked originally. (Banwell Caves and Tower are part of an early- to mid-19th-century folly garden created by Dr Law, Bishop of Bath and Wells on a Druidical theme.) This building too may have been a coach house, as it faces on to a courtyard, and appears to have a large doorway leading into it on the other side.

The front (south) wall does not appear to tie into the main building, although the side wall to the east does. One solution is that the main house and coach house were in some way previously detached, but if the coach house - or part of it - existed before the house, as seems possible, this might account for the odd way in which the walls butt up against each other. On the north side of the coach house is a small lean-to, again clearly added, which again appears to have had to undergo some rebuilding. The pointed ‘Gothic’ style arches at various places in these walls are not dissimilar to those in various buildings at Banwell Caves. The Banwell coach-house mentioned above adjoins a cottage which was part of the follies. As will be seen in Section 3, Thomas Smith the younger was living in Banwell in 1841, and there are also links to another building in Banwell very close to where Smith was living which may have influenced the present building here at Max House. The western end of the main house is largely built of a very different kind of stone. This is a soft sedimentary stone, resembling an inferior form of lias. Probably, when covered with render, it is perfectly adequate as a building stone, but once the render comes off, as it has done here, it soon starts to erode. At the lower level, the windows have brick surrounds, which seems to be standard in this part of the world – they can be seen frequently in Ban- well – but above, Crittal windows have been inserted, with brick infill below them. Apart from those in the brick porch, which is very clearly twentieth century, the bricks appear to be handmade but probably date from after 1840 as they appear to be standard size. There is a decorative rainwater hopper – the only one left – which appears to be a Victorian cast-iron one of a fairly standard design. The oddest feature of this wall is that, at the top, there appears to be a pigeon loft. One of the clients who has ventured up into the roof space tells me that,as far as he can see, there is no access to the loft. A substantial amount of the render at this end has come off, particularly at first floor level, and there seem to be places where it

has been patched and repaired in a variety of renders. Some may even be concrete, probably dating from about the 1950s. On the south side, there are two patches where the render has come off, and these patches reveal that the stone changes about halfway along from the friable lias-type stone to the darker, redder stone, traditionally used as building material in Banwell and Winscombe, and here in the coach-house and walled garden. Even with the naked eye, it is possible to see that this wall is leaning outwards. Photographs of the interior show the width of the gap. The east end of the building is curious. On the south side, there is a rectangular bay jutting forward, while at the north there is a segmental bay, while the entire wall containing the entrance is recessed between them. However, at the ceiling height of the first floor, the wall above the rectangular bay is carried across the whole front, jutting out above the entrance wall, but with the segmental bay projecting forward. The roof then projects forward again from all of this, supported by brackets at each end. Along each of the north and south sides the rafters are visible as a feature, and are closely set. The roof is in a poor state and the rafters do not appear strong enough to support the weight of the tiles. This looks suspiciously like an alteration circa 1930, with the original design now lost. Looking in from the former entrance, it is possible to see that there is an archway before the staircase. This appears to have been pushed through an earlier wall. There is a similar archway on the first floor. The house contains some features that appear late Geor- gian, such as the surrounds to the fireplace niches on the ground floor, and one fireplace, but, with their bullseye decoration, they date from 1820 or later rather than circa 1810 when the first house was built. There is a remaining hobgrate in a Victorian style. Judg- ing by the photographs of the floorboards, these too appear to be Victorian in width rather than late Georgian. From the layout, it appears that the eastern end was the ‘polite’ end of the house, with the servants’ quarters at the other end.

3. Timeline and Probable Historyof the House must have been accurate, for Thomas Smith had a copy of the map hanging in his hall. For maps mentioned in the text, see Appendix 1. 1831. An advertisement in the Bristol Mirror in September an- 1792. A survey of Winscombe and Shipham was carried out for the nounced that Thomas Smith was quitting his residence and was Dean and Chapter of Wells by William White. At this stage, there is auctioning off the furniture. From the sale notice, we can tell the no building on the field where the house now stands, although it house had three reception rooms – drawing room, dining room also shows that the Smith family held a considerable acreage of and breakfast room, and a large hall. The contents suggest he land in the area. This map also shows the distinctive curve in the frequently entertained, but there was also a quantity of farm road which, as will be seen, shows that the first Max House or Max and dairy equipment. It appears he went to Weston-super-Mare, Cottage (both names occur) was further south and closer to the where Belvedere House was to be his future home. The reason road. for the move may have been the weather. There had been several wet summers, and the summer of 1830 had been particularly 1812. This is the first reference to Thos Smith at Max Cottage, when wet. It seems possible that the ground flooded, though this must he is listed in the Bristol Mirror as a member of the Banwell Society only be conjecture. However, to the north, Maxmills, with the mill for the prevention of depredations and prosecutions of felons. and farm, not only stood on higher ground, but at one time had a moated feature to the south, possibly to protect it from flood- 1814. The Somerset Record Office has various documents (not ing. A year later, in the poll book, Thomas Smith gives his place of seen) relating to Thomas Smith of Max Cottage and other proper- residence as Weston-super- Mare, and qualifies to vote because ties, including Maxmills. of his land-holdings at what is simply described as Max – not Max House. However, in 1837, when his daughter Eliza was married in 1817. The OS map shows buildings on the site, but, as mentioned Weston, he described himself as Thomas Smith of Max House. above, the curve in the road indicates that the then house and grounds were further south. 1840. The Tithe Map, which is extremely accurate, shows a single building on the site, one with two separate wings on each side of 1818. By this date, the Smith family are living there, for the first two what must be a yard, but it is not where the previous Max House children of Thomas and Elzia Smith, Thomas Junior and Charles, was shown. Moreover, when fitted on to a OS map of the 1880s, were christened at Winscombe, although both had been private- which shows the present arrangement in addition to some extra ly christened, in 1815 and 1817 respectively. buildings, it does not fit that either, although its north wall lines up with the north wall of the coach house. What is more, the east end 1822. The map by Christopher Greenwood of Somerset shows wall of the building on the tithe map seems to line up with the thick what he calls Max House. However, like the earlier OS map, all wall within the building which now has the archways on ground the indications are that it was further south and closer to the road. and second floors. The south wall of the western wing of the build- Although these two early maps are small scale, both carefully de- ing on the tithe map also lines up with what must have been a lineate the bend in the road, and place the building further down wall running parallel to the south wall of the walled garden. It is into the bend than the house is now. We can feel certain that it not clear what the purpose of this was, but looking at the aerial

photograph from Google maps, it can just be made out. This wing cottage at the top of Max Mill Lane – presumably that now known also covers the buildings, now largely ruinous, on the west side of as Cherry Max Cottage – and several other holdings of land. The the yard and which jut into the walled garden. solicitors overseeing the auction were two sons of Thomas Smith The only conclusion is that the old house has been pulled senior, Thomas junior and William. down – perhaps the tithe map shows the farm buildings – and What happened at that sale is not reported, but the 1861 the new house has not yet been built. There is further evidence to census shows that the second son of Thomas senior, Charles Ed- show that this may have been the case, for the 1841 census shows ward, now lived there, with his wife Jane, his daughter Elizabeth not only that are there no Smiths living at Max, but Max House is – born in Otago, New Zealand in 1857 – and his sister Lucy, de- not mentioned. However, at Max, there is a stone mason called scribed as land and householder. Charles is described as proprie- John Morse, and his family. It is not impossible that he was on site tor and occupier – it suggests that Lucy actually owned the prop- to pull down the old house, rescue the material and build a new erty. Charles was a keen sportsman, owning what was described house. Is it feasible that the cream coloured stone was quarried as ‘a crack pack’ of hounds, with which he went stag-hunting. on site? At this time, Thomas Smith junior, now an attorney and Charles must have been one of the earliest settlers in Otago and solicitor, was living at Banwell. By 1849, Max House was advertised was possibly sheep-farming, Why he returned is not known. If he as being to let on reasonable terms and described as ‘for for the had made money out there – and it is possible that he did, since reception of a large family, with requisite offices, walled garden, he was there at a time when the area was being developed – coach-house and stabling for six horses with 14 acres of land’. then perhaps he returned to restore the fortunes of Max House.

1851. It appears the chance to lease the house was not taken up, 1871. By 1871, the house was let to Albert Fry, managing director for the 1851 census shows Thomas Smith junior living there with his of the Bristol Wagon Company, and a member of the Bristol Quak- wife Eliza, three daughters, Helen, Georgiana, and Marian, one er family of Fry, better known for their connections with chocolate. son, Francis , and a servant Mary. It is still described as Max Cottage Given his wealth, it is possible that Charles Smith had spent money in the census. on the property to induce a rich family to live there. While the Smiths do not appear to have been Quakers, they may have had 1855 - 1861. In 1855, Thomas Smith senior died and the estate at links with Quaker families. I have not established a direct connec- Max went up for auction in 1856. It comprised ‘all that substan- tion between Thomas Goldney’s banking partner Morgan Smith, tially-built freehold mansion, called Max House, with pleasure but there was at least one Thomas Smith in Morgan Smith’s close grounds, productive walled garden, coach-house, stabling and family. Albert Fry was exactly the sort of wealthy, influential busi- out-buildings, now in the occupation of Thomas Smith esq, also nessman, the Smiths must have been hoping for. However, a year the valuable water-mill called Max Mill ... now in the occupation later, Fry’s wife died at Max House, aged only 36 and he moved of Mr George Wilkins’ along with 84 acres of land. The house was elsewhere with his family. described as being ‘a most eligible abode for any gentleman fond of sporting, as there is good shooting in the neighbourhood, 1881. The census shows that Charles Smith, by then a widower, excellent trout fishing and harriers are kept a a short distance.’ lived there with his daughter and two servants. At this point the The estate also included Maxmills farm, in the occupation of the house seems to have been split, with the best part of the house Bradford family, another farm in Winscombe, an orchard, and a with the hall, dining and drawing rooms advertised to be let dur-

ABOVE: Sale notice from the Bath Chronicle, 1856

ing the summer months or even longer. ried again, his first wife having died by 1881. His second wife was Caroline Helen Follett, the sister of the vicar. Twentieth Century onwards. In 1908, Charles died, aged 90, and Even if the house were not falling into dereliction, it is clear the building was put up for sale. At the auction, the house was very little has been spent on it since about 1950. What work was described as a cottage residence, and part of the grounds were done has been carried out cheaply, and the house has suffered. advertised as building plots. However, once again the house did not sell. His heir was his daughter, Eliza Jane Pearce, and she de- cided to let the building instead. In 1911, the Lawrence family live there, Mr Lawrence being described as a farmer. The next we hear of Max House is in the 1920s, as a summer boarding house, run by the Pearce family, who claimed it was ‘ideal for children’. In 1925 it was offered for sale, and again in 1947. In 1950, the house, now known as Max House Farm, came up for sale again, with vacant possession. By 1967, an electrical repair company, Electrepair, was operating from there. I have not been able to trace the most recent history, but a photograph taken in 2016 shows that it was by then already der- elict. To conclude: as the 1840 tithe map is very accurate, we can deduce that the building as it now stands cannot be there in 1840, when the tithe survey was made, although something was there, and the house is there by 1849 when it is advertised as avail- able to let. It is possible that Thomas Smith junior, inspired perhaps by Towerhead House, had the new Max House built to cater for the wealthy Bristol families who were then moving out of the city into pleasanter surroundings. If so, it was a plan that failed. Reading between the lines, it would appear that the Smith family had pre- tensions to gentility but not the cash to go with it. Although not poor, they do not seem to have been particularly wealthy either. This suggests that the size of the house was intended as a state- ment but that the quality of building did not match the preten- sions of the house. In the 1881 census, the enumerator describes Dereliction Charles Edward Smith as farmer rather than gentleman – a fine Clockwise from top left: The crack where distinction, and 1891 he is just described as a yeoman, although the wall leans outward; the wrecked he continued to describe himself as gentleman. In 1886, he mar- drawing room; a glimpse of the kitchen

4. Conclusions

Although the history has been based on circumstantial evidence, all the indications, both documentary and within the house, are that this house is no earlier than about 1845, possibly influenced by other buildings in the Winscombe and Banwell area which were being built at this time. Most notably, Towerhead House in Banwell is built in this distinctive Italianate style. Not only was this was built shortly after 1840 and has a walled garden, but Thomas Smith junior lived close by. Another Italianate building, Rose Cottage, is in Sidcot, and was built in 1842 by Sidcot School. Despite being described as substantial, it is plain that, under the render, it was rather shoddily built, and shows signs of patch- ing. It has certainly had several layers of render, some compar- atively recent. After Charles Smith died, it seems to have been rather unloved, with several attempts to sell it, although there is ABOVE: Towerhead House, Banwell, with its Italianate roof and evidence that the farm was a successful cattle farm. However, walled garden. what remains from the 1950s and 1960s shows that there was little appreciation of its history, and most period features were ripped out. It is now in such a state that restoration would be an almost impossible task. The south wall parting company with the rest of the house is the most serious problem but the roof also seems on the point of collapse. Moreover, it is hard to know how the building appeared when first built. The east end, with its curious arrangement at the gables, cannot be original, and it may be that the western end of the house, with its cream stone, is later than circa 1845 but earlier than 1880. This may be an explanation of why the walls of the coach house do not tie in well with the building. There have been so many changes within the house, and the house is now in such a dangerous state, that it is almost impossible to be more certain of what has gone on. The clients would like to rescue as much building stone as possible and use it to create a new Max House. As this appears to have been the fate of the first Max Cottage, this seems a sensible and probably the only practical plan.

10 Appendix 1. Maps and plans.

ABOVE: Survey of 1792. Maxmill and Maxmill Farm are clearly shown but all around are empty fields. Note the distinctive bulge west- ABOVE: OS Map of 1817 wards in the route of the road as it passes the future site of Max BELOW: Greenwood Map of 1822 House. This is crucial in identifying the site of the earlier version, dating from about 1812. BELOW: The aerial view from Google Maps, showing the bulge in the road, and the position of the house. However, in the two maps on the right, dating from 1817 and 1822, both show the buildings further down the site and closer to the road.

11 These two maps, from 1840 and 1885 respectively, appear to show that whatever is on the site is higher up, above the centre of the bend in the route and, in the case of the later map, definitely further to the east. However, they do not show the same layout. On the tithe map of 1840, there is no sign of the walled garden, though boundaries are shown elsewhere, even at Maxmills, and the building is in two parts. The 1880s OS map shows the wall running parallel with the south wall of the walled garden, and on Google Maps, this can just be made out as a distinct drier line in the field. When the tithe map is overlaid on the OS map (see overleaf) that it is possible to see the differences and the similarities between the buildings.

12 The two maps are not quite a perfect match, but close enough for us to see that the back (north) wall of the coach house appears there in 1840. the western range of the present yard, now largely ruinous, is on the site of the western building, and that the south walls are in the same align- ment as the mysterious extra wall of the walled garden. It is arguable that the eastern wall of the 1840 building is the wall in Max House which now has an archway at both floor levels. However, this does appear to show that the present building cannot be earlier than 1840. The Greenwood map suggests that the walled garden may mark the northern grounds of the original Max Cottage, the cottage itself being to the south of the garden.

13 This site plan shows possible interpretations of the various maps. !817 is shown in blue, although parts of the outline are hidden by the 1822 outline, shown in purple. The solid block in purple is the possible site of the first house, indicated by the Greenwood map. Finally, the tithe map is shown in green.

14 Appendix 2: Bibliography

Maps: William White, A survey of Winscombe and Shipham was carried out for the Dean and Chapter of Wells, 1792 Ordnance Survey maps, 1817 and 1886 Christopher Greenwood Map of Somerset, 1822 TIthe Map of Winscombe Parish, 1840 Google Maps

Newspapers Sourced from the British Newspaper Archive Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette Bristol Mirror Cheddar Valley Gazette Western Gazette Weston-Super- Mare Gazette and General Advertiser Weston Mercury

Censuses, wills, probate notices and pollbooks sourced from An- cestry.co.uk

A Building Stone Atlas of Avon; Historic England Traditional Buildings in the Parish of Winscombe and Sandford; Somerset Vernacular Buildings Research Group