Heritage Advice – 192 Mount Vale, York

Origins and Historical Development No.192 Mount Vale and its neighbours in the terrace (Nos.188-194) were built in c.1860. The house (and terrace) is not shown on the 1852 Ordnance Survey map, but is recorded on the 1891 Ordnance Survey map (see below). According to City of York Council the terrace was designed by Thomas Prosser, Architect to the North Eastern Railway Company who designed York’s second railway station (1877) that was completed by his successors Benjamin Burleigh (died 1876) and Willian Peachey after Prosser retired due to ill health. (requires confirmation of source).

Ordnance Survey town map extract, 1891 (scale 1:500)

Heritage Constraints/Significance The terrace at Nos.188-194 (even) Mount Vale was listed Grade II in March 1997 under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest. The site also falls within the Tadcaster Road Conservation Area, designated in 1975.

The original main house is significant on the basis of: . Historic interest: mid-Victorian origins by a known historical architect who designed other buildings in York, notably the railway station but also the Royal York Hotel (with William Peachey). Other Prosser designed stations include Durham, , Royal

Station Hotel & No.1 Neville Street and portico linked to the Newcastle Central Station, Stepney goods station, Goathland station, Knaresborough Station, extensions to Railway Station, former immigrant station and railway platform at Hull. Most of these buildings are now listed. The house at No.192 is also of historic interest as it demonstrates the Victorian growth of York outside the city walls and the growth of its professional middle classes. . Architectural interest: good level of surviving Victorian character and architecture, both internally and externally.

A single storey rear offshoot is part of the original form of the house and would have provided service functions – mainly smelly, noisy or dirty functions preferred to be kept separate from the main house such as a coal store and scullery. This occupied a single bay rather than the full width of the house. Similar rear offshoots are shown on the neighbouring houses in the terrace and are part of its original character.

That said the significance of the rear offshoot is not uniform. The current kitchen, larder and store are original and best preserve historic character (externally). The end store is an extension (albeit early as it appears on the 1891 map above) and has been much altered with a post-1950 window, old door but in resited door surround, UPVC guttering, concrete floor surface, roof cover rebedded on concrete. Given this the end store has less significance than the other parts of this range as it has less original fabric and a more altered character and appearance.

The conservatory (approved on 12 March 1983; planning reference 7/00/4724/PA) has no significance given its recent date and lack of quality materials or design interest.

Heritage Recommendations In thinking about any future Heritage Statement to support an application for a new rear extension, and ways of maximising the chances of a successful application (or a successful appeal if we cannot persuade City of York Council (CYC) officers) the following are relevant (and I appreciate the designs have been revised to accommodate some of these already)-

Heritage Impacts (concerns expressed by CYC Recommendations Officers Demolition of the rear service range and WC As per latest drawings, retain the kitchen, larder and coal store parts of the range, demolishing only the later extension (which is less wide and forms the rearmost part of this range). Retain WC

Proposed extension extended beyond the rear This has also been revised and now extends less width of the building plot far than the existing end of the range and current conservatory and is in keeping with the

neighbouring properties rear range (to No.194) in length.

Proposed extension occupying full width of plot Retain existing wall to the yard that forms the boundary with No.194 and build off this and also retain most of the existing rear offshoot. This preserves old fabric and legibility of original arrangement. There is however no practical means of fully addressing this concern. For this repaosn it is useful to retain an area of open courtyard (by the rear WC)

Design and materials of proposed extension is Flat fiberglass roof to be changed to a more utilitarian and incongruous traditional pitched roof with slate cover. The overall roof form will be a little incongruous due to the need to retain the historic range and therefore join to this but it does represent a design enhancement compared to the existing conservatory arrangement, which is an aesthetic gain (that did not appear to have been sufficiently taken into account by the Council Officers)

Height Keep height of extension to no more than neighbouring No.194. Also important not to overshadow the existing service range in height

Access Change door opening to existing coal store so that it opens inwards (as discussed on site)

Next Steps I am happy to discuss the tweaks to drawings to annotate the minor alterations proposed and would recommend that the materials for roof cover, windows etc are shown on the drawings and that it is also clear that the existing yard wall is to be retained. If there are heritage gains these can beneficially be shown on the drawings e.g. refurbishment of the old doors to the store and kitchen, any repairs to defective fabric such as repointing, roof repairs etc, replacement of UPVC rainwater goods with traditional cast iron or better quality black powder coated aluminium. This will highlight to Council Officer’s (at a glance) that we are making improvements to the building and preserving older fabric.

The changes recommended here are relatively minor as there is no easy path to consent in this case. I therefore recommend these as a means of maximising the chance of success at application (or appeal) but unfortunately the size and full width of the proposed extension means that Council Officers may refuse consent on this basis. I don’t recall any full width

extensions to neighbouring properties and the one I was involved with at 126 The Mount (which I will use to support this case since it was granted on appeal) is on a different terrace in a different conservation area and so carries limited weight despite its geographical proximity.

If a decision is made to proceed with a fresh application to cover the rear extension/rear works then there is sufficient merit in this for me to prepare a Heritage Statement to accompany (and justify) it. So please do let me know if you would like to appoint me to proceed with this.

Listing Description ‘Terrace of four houses; No.188 is now a nursing home. c1860 with later alterations. Brown brick in Flemish bond with timber eaves guttering and shallow pitched slate roof with brick stacks. EXTERIOR: 3-storey 9-window front. No.188 is double fronted with moulded panelled double doors and overlight in projecting doorcase with panelled pilaster jambs and entablature with modillioned cornice. On either side are 2-storey canted bay windows with modillioned cornices at the heads and 4-pane sashes on both floors. Over the door is 12-pane sash window; on second floor three unequal 9-pane sashes. Nos 190 and 192 have doorcases with plain jambs and dentilled flat cornice hoods on heavy grooved brackets: doors are of 4 sunk panels recessed in panelled pilaster reveals beneath margin glazed segment-headed overlights. Entrance to No.194 is in left return. Ground floor windows to Nos 190, 192 and 194 are 1-storey canted bays detailed as for No.188. First and second floor windows are 4-pane sashes, those on first floor over painted stone sill band. Second floor windows are squatter and have painted stone sills. All windows except bays have flat brick arches. Left return: No.194 has glazed and panelled door in sunk panel pilaster doorcase with entablature with modillioned cornice. Staircase window above is margin glazed; second floor window a 4-pane sash. Gable bargeboards on shaped brackets. INTERIOR: not inspected.’

Sources Consulted Biddle, G. (2011). Britain’s Historic Railway Buildings: A Gazetteer of Structures and Sites. Explore York Images - https://images.exploreyork.org.uk/default.aspx RCHME (1972). City of York: Volume III South-West of the Ouse (No mention of 192 Mount Vale) Pevsner, N. & Neave, D. (2005). The Buildings of England Yorkshire: York and the East Riding (No mention of 192 Mount Vale)

Liz Humble (MA Cantab. MA Dist. IHBC MCIfA) Director Humble Heritage Ltd

1 December 2020