The Old Coach House Fillongley Mount
Green End Road, Green End, Fillongley, Near Coventry CV7 8DS
Design, Access & Listed Building Consent Statement for Change of Use of Former Coach House ‘B’ from Offices to Live/Work Unit
Mark Singlehurst For Alder Mill Design & Planning Consultants Sheepy Road, Atherstone, Warwickshire July 2010 Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background Page 3
2.0 Historical Context Page 5
3.0 Details of Change of Use; Amount and Layout Page 7
4.0 Design Approach and Alterations to Building Page 7
5.0 Listed Building Considerations Page 9
6.0 Landscaping, Access and Parking Page 11
7.0 The Rationale for ‘Live/Work’ Units Page 12
8.0 Applicable National and Local Planning Policies Page 14
9.0 Access for the Disabled Page 17
10.0 Conclusions Page 17
11.0 Appendix – Historical Notes on Fillongley Mount Page 19
2 1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Fillongley Mount is a late 17th-century house on the site of an earlier house, also variously known over the years as ‘Hill-House’, ‘Mount House’ and ‘The Mount’. It is a grade II listed building and there are a number of associated outbuildings, some recent in date, but others well over a century old and listed by curtilage. The latter group includes the building that is the subject of this application, which could have been either the coach house or one of two sets of stables containing two stalls listed in the 1874 auction catalogue for the property, with associated loose box and lofts for corn and hay. Both buildings were described as coach houses by the time of the 1962 sale. This one was later described as a ‘workshop’ (labelled ‘Building B’ on the application) and obtained planning permission for conversion into offices on 25th June 1997 (PFILXX/0360/97/FAP) with an amendment approved on 8th May 1998.
1.2 The buildings are located on the south side of Green End Lane, not far from the Meriden Road junction, in that part of Fillongley parish known as Green End, lying to the west of Fillongley village. Both the old and new outbuildings are constructed of red brick and covered with plain clay tiles, grouped informally around a courtyard with the main house (stuccoed) to the south. There is a small pond (now of an ornamental character) lying to the immediate north- west of the building under consideration, which is close to the entrance from Green End Lane. In 1996 the front elevation consisted of single-storey brick walls surmounted by a tall, pitched roof with ridge finials and a small central cupola, a central gable with large, barn-like doors and smaller doors set within, a broad opening to the left and a small-paned window and single door to the right (see drawing below). A lean-to wing was attached to the south-east end wall.
1.3 Internally, the ground floor plan as drawn in 1996 did include a stable with two stalls in the rear portion of the right-hand bay, but the independent central bay could have been used for the storage of horse-drawn carts, gigs or carriages.
1.4 The conversion to office use in 1997 (which retained all but one of the existing internal structural walls) did not prove to be a commercial success; at the time of my visual inspection of the building in May 2010, only part of the ground floor central bay was equipped for office use and all other rooms were either empty or used for casual storage. It is considered that adaptation to a live/work unit could create a more viable future use for the building, which will involve minimal alteration internally and externally and could help to recreate a daytime economy in this rural location and remove the necessity to travel to work for the new occupant(s).
3
Ground floor survey plan of the former coach house/stable, as drawn up by Alder Mill in 1996
Current conversion proposal for comparison: the two staircases and the WC in Unit 1 are existing and were added as part of the 1997 approval for conversion to offices. No further alteration to internal structural walls is involved (the door between the proposed kitchen lobby and dining area is existing, though reserved for a “possible future opening” on the 1997 plans).
4 2.0 Historical Context
2.1 A detailed history of Fillongley Mount and its associated land is attached as Appendix 1, so is only briefly summarized here. The original house, variously known as ‘The Mount’ or ‘Hill-house’, was in existence as a farm in 1640, when it was held copyhold from the Lord of the Manor, with 63 acres of attached farmland. It was sold at that time to the tenant farmers and others. A new house was already under construction in 1698, when Edward Priest (or Preest) left ‘The Mount’ to his elder son Edward, with the requirement that he should finish building it. His descendants sold the rebuilt property in 1805 to Abraham Baker and from the Bakers it passed to the Dickinsons, Bentleys and (from 1880) Blackhams. The estate was sold again in 1933 after James Blackham’s death and then in 1962 after the death of H. James Kendrick. Mrs. B. J. Filby was the new owner, who sold the property to the current owner in mid-2004. Planning permission had been granted in February 1962 for the demolition and replacement of the house, but the purchaser chose to keep the existing house and outbuildings, which were subsequently listed as being of special architectural or historic interest, at Grade II, in March 1988.
2.2 The 1874 auction catalogue described the ‘Out-Offices’ as comprising “a Two-stall Stable and Loose Box, Coach House, Harness Room, a second Stable with Two Stalls, Hay and Corn Lofts, Pigsties and Cow Shedding”. The 1962 auction catalogue stated that the outbuildings “include two coach houses, harness room and laundry room”. It is debatable which building was the coach house in 1874, but the building that is the subject of the current application is the larger of the two. The smaller building was designated as the coach house at the time of the 1996-97 planning application and that building was converted for use as holiday accommodation in 2005 (planning permission PFILXX/1281/2004/FAP, granted 10th November 2004). Whilst the office conversion inevitably led to the removal of stall divisions and other fittings associated with stabling and carts or carriages, the basic internal layout and structural divisions that existed prior to the 1997 conversion still remain. The current proposals involve very few further changes internally and the only external changes proposed are the insertion of two conservation rooflights on the front gable roof slopes and two on the rear roof slope adjacent to The Mount’s garden.
Coverage of ‘The Mount’ on the 1880s Ordnance Survey map, showing the large coach house
5
1933 plan of The Mount with its ‘Home Farm’ and associated fields and cottages This does not differ substantially from the estate plan attached to the 1874 auction catalogue, except that field number 766 on the above plan (Cock Croft) was excluded from the 1874 sale; it was also absent from the 1962 auction catalogue’s plan. The main house, the two coach houses and the buildings rebuilt in 2004 and 2008 as garages can all be identified on this plan.
6 3.0 Details of Change of Use; Amount and Layout
3.1 The idea of the proposed conversion is to provide a single live/work unit, combining home and office or workspace within the same building, whilst providing a degree of physical separation between the two elements. All proposed accommodation would be contained within the existing parameters of the building. Several possible arrangements were considered, but the current proposal is believed to provide the best balance in terms of the ratio of work to living space, the convenience of movement around the two sections of the building and the avoidance of any need for significant re-arrangement or alteration of the existing (and historic) internal layout and room divisions.
3.2 The workspace unit occupies the ground and first floor levels of the left-hand or north- western bay of the building, already linked by the staircase installed as part of the 1997 office conversion. The ground floor room extends the full depth of the building from front to rear and is lit by existing windows in the front and back walls. The void above the front part of the ground floor room means that the first floor accommodation has an open balustrade on two sides, thereby providing a degree of separation between the two levels but also allowing easy communication and the access of daylight to the upper level without the need for the insertion of rooflights. Artificial lighting will be used to supplement the daylight on dull days. There will be no internal communication between the workrooms and the living accommodation at either level, the work unit using the existing external front door for access. There is also an existing internal WC beneath the stairs and a disabled person’s WC will be provided in the lean-to wing at the other end of the building (also physically separated from the living accommodation).
3.3 The work unit will occupy approximately 32.6% of the total internal floorspace, close to the 30:70 ratio cited by many authorities as the ideal balance between working and living areas.
3.4 The living accommodation will occupy the central and right-hand bays of the building at both levels, comprising a combined lounge and dining area in the central bay of the ground floor, a kitchen and lobby or utility area in the adjacent right-hand bay, with a utility room also provided in the rear portion of the lean-to wing. An existing window in the rear wall will light the lounge. An internal door (existing) accesses the front lobby area, which has a wide opening into the kitchen beyond, thereby allowing daylight to illuminate the room from the existing windows in the front and back walls.
3.5 A bedroom (lit by the two gable rooflights and an existing small window in the gable’s front wall) and en-suite (lit by two additional conservation roof lights) will be provided upstairs, in the central attic room. The en-suite will be at the back of the room and divided from the bedroom by a partition wall. The partly open first-floor room in the right-hand bay is accessed by a separate staircase and has been designated as a ‘landing’, but could be used for domestic storage or as an additional living space. As with the left-hand bay, the existing void will be retained above the ground floor lobby area. The kitchen, utility room, lounge/dining room and first floor rooms will all be accessed via the existing door in the front wall of the right-hand bay.
4.0 Design Approach and Alterations to Building
4.1 The internal arrangements have been designed so as to minimize the degree of alteration to the existing fabric required by the conversion. In the central ground floor room intended for use as the combined lounge and dining room, it is proposed to fit a glazed screen within a timber frame behind the existing double doors in the front wall, so that in the daytime the doors may be opened out in all weathers to let in the daylight and be closed again at night for security.
7
The front doors to the central bay on the ground floor: location for proposed glazed screen
4.2 The walls dividing the workspace unit’s lower and upper floors from the living accommodation are to be lined with Celotex PL4000 high performance thermal insulation board (PIR insulation bonded to tapered-edge plasterboard) on the workspace side to provide insulation against noise. This will include sealing over the existing door on the ground floor that leads into the central bay, but the door will be left exposed on the opposite (dining area) side. The wall in question is currently an exposed red brick wall; at first floor level, one of the timber roof trusses sits just in front of this wall, so the insulation material will either be cut to fit between the tie beam and struts, or fitted behind the truss if there is found to be sufficient space to achieve this.
The truss upstairs in the proposed work unit, showing the wall behind to be lined to provide noise insulation
8 4.3 In the proposed kitchen, the cooker, sink and units will be fitted against the two long side walls and the necessary plumbing and wiring connected. The existing WC in the lean-to wing will be converted to a utility room and fitted with a sink unit (modifying the existing plumbing). The lobby and disabled persons’ WC will remain, as existing.
4.4 Upstairs, in the living quarters, there will be no changes to the landing area. In the central room, the en-suite will be situated in the rear portion of the room, with its stud partition wall located just beyond the doorway leading from the landing, and will house a WC, washbasin, bath and shower unit, with the necessary plumbing installed as unobtrusively as possible and encased. The rooflights here and in the roof slopes of the front gable will be of the conservation type, designed to fit between existing rafters and to have minimal projection above the face of the roof slope. Otherwise, the remainder of the room will be left in its present form internally. The two timber upright posts between the bedroom and dressing area will be left in situ. Similarly, the exposed ceiling rafters at the back of the room will remain on view within the new en-suite.
Central first floor room, showing timber posts and ceiling beams, which will remain exposed
4.5 Externally, the only alterations will be the two rooflights on the roof slopes of the front central gable and the similar pair in the middle of the rear roof slope. All will be located towards the bottom of the roof slopes, just above the eaves line.
5.0 Listed Building Considerations
5.1 Although Fillongley Mount narrowly escaped demolition and replacement with a new house under the 1962 planning permission, by the 1980s the climate had changed and the house was now recognized as having historical interest and architectural merit, resulting in its being added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at Grade II on 23rd March 1988. The listing description reads as follows:
FILLONGLEY – GREEN END ROAD SP28NE (South side) 6/35 Fillongley Mount- II House. C16 origin, late C17, and mainly mid-C19. Brick, rendered. Hipped and gabled plain- tiled roofs with ridge stacks of red brick. Pierced bargeboarding to eaves and gable end. Plan of C16 house of 3 units with lobby-entry. 2 storeys. C19 fenestration on the north-west front. First floor small-pane hung sashes. 2 canted bays at ground floor with full length hung sashes. North- east gable end has iron casements with C19 lozenge lights. The mid C19 wing added to the south- east front is of 2 storeys. Symmetrical facade. At first floor 2 larger casements with lozenge
9 shaped lights on either side of similar smaller casements. Central porch with gabled plain-tiled roof with apex finial and pendant and similar pierced bargeboarding. Open sided timber walls on brick plinth with turned balusters and quatrefoils to spandrels in pointed arches. Gable ends of the porch have the initials W.D. Interior: Mid C19 except for C16 chamfer and moulding to quartered ceiling beams in centre room. Mid C19 staircase with turned balusters.
5.2 Although the outbuildings are not listed separately or mentioned specifically in the listing description, this was common practice until the 1990s and the outbuildings ancillary to the main house and within its ‘curtilage’ are regarded as being ‘listed by curtilage’. The concept of curtilage listing derives from The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 1(5) which, having defined a listed building, goes on to say that, for the purposes of the Act, “any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948, shall be treated as part of the building”. A curtilage building is also to be treated as part of the main listed building for the purposes of listed building control, as explained in PPG15, paragraph 3.2. (The new PPS5, which has recently replaced PPG15, does not mention curtilage listing, but it is covered in the associated Practice Guide, paragraph 95.)
5.3 It therefore follows that any buildings or structures which formed part of the land associated with, or belonging to, the principal listed building at the time of listing are considered to be within the 'curtilage' of the listed building and are therefore considered part of it. Buildings or structures that date from after 1st July 1948, and which are unattached to the listed building, are not considered to be curtilage listed. There is good reason to believe that the larger coach house or ‘Building B’ dates back before 1874 and therefore falls within the remit of this legislation. Although it is an outbuilding of some visual and historic interest, it is of a type still seen widely around the country and does not possess any outstanding or unique architectural characteristics or special historical associations. In my opinion it is doubtful whether it would have been listed in its own right had it not been associated with the house, Fillongley Mount.
5.4 The character of what I am calling coach house ‘B’ is partly described in paragraphs 1.1- 3 above. Although it has probably been altered more than once since it was originally built, it seems likely that the standing building dates from at least the mid-19th century and possibly earlier. It is constructed from red brick, mainly laid in a stretcher bond with occasional, randomly placed headers. There is evidence of rebuilding in several places and some of the bricks – for example, in the gable of the south-east end wall, are noticeably narrower and could be pre-1830s, handmade bricks, although they could have been re-used from another building. Some of the wall corners have rounded bricks. The building has small-paned metal windows with shallow arched brick heads, roofs covered with small plain clay tiles, simple decorative brickwork to the roof verges, decorative finials and ridge tiles, vertically boarded timber doors and a low chimney stack on the south-east end wall. There is a small, decorative cupola at the centre of the main roof ridge. The subservient wing on that side is a later addition.
5.5 The only evidence I have seen of the former internal arrangements is the Alder Mill preliminary survey drawing from 1996 (see section 1 above). From this it would seem that the building may previously have incorporated stabling for two horses, loose boxes, possibly a harness room and space for storing a cart or carriage in the central bay, with hay and corn lofts on the upper floors. The floor over the left-hand bay did not extend to the full depth of the building, leaving a void area at the front where access was provided via a set of ladder steps. The central and right-hand bays of the loft were formerly at a higher level and accessed from the left- hand loft by a further flight of ladder steps.
5.6 As explained in detail in paragraph 2.2 and sections 3 and 4 above, some of the original features of the building were lost at the time of the 1997 conversion to offices: stall divisions,
10 feeding troughs and similar fittings were removed from the stables, most walls were plastered, the floor over the central and right-hand bays was lowered and new staircases and internal doors were added, but the basic layout and internal wall divisions largely remained. The proposed alterations involved in the proposed change of use introduce very few changes. The four rooflights described at paragraphs 3.5 and 4.5 above will be of a conservation grade and nowadays come in a wider variety of sizes and shapes to enable them to fit between existing rafters. The lining of the exposed brick walls dividing the work unit from the living quarters is an unfortunate necessity to meet noise insulation requirements, but is a secondary structure that will not damage the historic masonry and could be readily removed at a later date if desired. The only other significant change is the fixing of a glazed screen behind the double doors of the central front entrance. The glazing will be fixed within a simple wooden frame constructed to resemble the older timber posts and beams that are exposed to view elsewhere in the building; the choice of timber and exact construction details can be agreed later with the Conservation Officer, but fixings to the adjoining masonry will be kept to the minimum necessary to ensure safety.
5.7 In terms of meeting the further requirements of Planning Policy Statement 5 with regard to assessing the importance and intrinsic interest of the historic building and the other listed buildings to which it relates, please see paragraph 8.5 and section 9 (Appendix) below.
6.0 Landscaping, Access and Parking
6.1 The infrastructure is already in place, as designed for the conversion to offices in 1997. The main house, Fillongley Mount, has its own separate access drive and gates from further east along Green End Road, along with a hard standing area adjacent to the house and access through to the courtyard where there is a range comprising garaging and a workshop on the west side (in a traditionally built modern building, known as ‘Building A’, that replaced an earlier farm building range in 2004; ref. BFILXX/1317/2004/BFP). The planning permission and listed building consent for the erection of this building were actually granted in February 1997 (PFILXX/1252/96/FAP and PFILXX/1275/96/LBC), for the previous owner, but implemented seven years later by the current owner. This serves the main dwelling, but there is also another, smaller garage (known as ‘Building C’) which was rebuilt in 2008 using the original clay bricks and tiles (retrospective planning permission sought because of its proximity to the listed house and granted in February 2009, ref. PAP/2008/0628). This is currently used for storage, but could probably be made available for holiday guests occupying the converted smaller coach house if required. The holiday accommodation there is designed to be occupied by a single family, as one of the two bedrooms has to be traversed to access the bathroom, making the rooms unsuitable for letting individually.
6.2 The outbuildings grouped around the courtyard are served by a separate access from Green End Road, as designed by Alder Mill in connection with the 1997 conversion of the second coach house (‘Building B’) to offices. The yard is partly gravelled but is paved with blue brick paviors around the buildings. There is an ornamental pond, enclosed within a low wall and backed with trees and shrubs, adjacent to the larger coach house. (This was formerly a natural pond, which can be seen on the 1874 auction plan.) At the rear of the larger coach house lies one of the lawns surrounding the house. The house itself lies just beyond, to the east. It is not considered that there is either need or scope to add additional landscaping for the proposed conversion scheme.
11
View of the two coach houses, showing the gravel and blue brick paviors surfacing in the courtyard
6.3 There are seven parking spaces already allocated in the courtyard (which are not currently marked out formally on the ground), which will be shared between the holiday flat and the live/work unit. There would only normally be one car for the family using the holiday accommodation and I would anticipate only one or two cars associated with the live/work unit, as it is expected that only a single person or a couple would occupy the unit (which has been designed accordingly, with only one bedroom). The existing parking provision should therefore be ample for the needs of these users. One of the spaces could be marked out for a disabled user if required.
6.4 For consideration of the access needs of potential users with physical disabilities, and the balance between the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and Part M of the Building Regulations and those of the listed building legislation, please see Section 9 below.
7.0 The Rationale for ‘Live/Work’ Units
7.1 The ‘Live/Work’ concept is characterized by the provision of segregated living and working quarters within a single, self-contained unit. As they are usually either purpose-built, or involve existing buildings deliberately adapted for this purpose, they differ significantly from the traditional concept of home working. Paragraph 78 of Circular 03/2005 (Change of Use of Buildings and Land) states that “Live/work units are often purpose-built premises…They are clearly a mix of residential and business uses which cannot be classified under a single use class within the Use Classes Order and would therefore be sui generis.”
7.2 Continuing advances in technology and telecommunications, along with Government initiatives encouraging mixed-use developments as a way to tackle traffic congestion by
12 reducing the need to travel, support this new concept. Many people already work at or from home and, increasingly, there is a shift in social attitudes away from traditional working patterns towards a demand for more flexible lifestyles throughout the country.
7.3 On the ‘livework.net website there is a document entitled Live/work and Sustainable Communities in which a number of arguments are set forth as to why suitably designed live/work developments can achieve various sustainable development benefits, The following text is extracted from that document:
“1. Reduction in individual car borne movements Combining your living and working environment removes the necessity to travel to work. This reduces traffic congestion on the road and fuel emissions. The travel to work journey is the most frequent trip undertaken by the car during the peak hours and accounts for 70% of all journeys. Additional live/work development would assist in the national objective in reducing traffic congestion and travel by car. Live/work developments also appeal to those who are less mobile such as the disabled or those who would prefer not to spend time travelling to work. Those who face a commute time of 45 minutes each way to work are spending one working day a week in the car - a waste of their time and a threat to work-life balance as well as a waste of precious natural resources…
4. Rural regeneration Live/work developments in rural areas can provide additional benefits to those listed above. In many villages second homes and commuting are common, and traditional employment in sectors such as agriculture is on the wane. Live/work schemes provide an opportunity to recreate a 'daytime economy' in places needing a critical mass of local business activity to sustain schools, post offices and other services. In market towns, live/work developments provide an opportunity to create a 'hub' serving previously invisible home-based businesses. The Countryside Agency estimates that a third of the self employed in rural districts work from home. Live/work provides an opportunity to make this sector visible and connect home-based businesses, encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing.
5. Business incubation Live/work's cost saving appeals to those whose work or business is at a stage where separate premises are not possible. By combining these costs, it is easier for them to start-up and expand their business with lower initial overheads…
7. Mixed-use Live/work is 'mixed use' in its purest sense - mixed use of one property. Where live/work occurs, there is an opportunity to create a shared community approach to the environment in a way that work only or residential only places cannot always achieve. There will be daytime occupancy and activity, helping to improve security and reduce fear of crime. And there will be evening/night occupancy - reducing risk of business premises crime…
8. Affordability Live/work makes housing more affordable by removing the need for the self employed to find and pay for separate workspace premises. Once housed, a live/worker no longer needs to find a residential property. In this sense live/work offers a double benefit - reducing the demand for housing and for work premises.”
13 8.0 Applicable National and Local Planning Policies
8.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Sustainable Development) includes policies about mitigating the effects of climate change and encourages development which improves the built environment in and around urban areas and rural settlements and which preserves and enhances the built and archaeological heritage. It is mostly geared towards advice for Local Planning Authorities in preparing development plans. Under ‘General approach’, section (viii) says “Planning should seek actively to bring vacant and underused previously developed…buildings back into beneficial use”. Section 6 (Design) says LPAs should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes on applicants, nor should they stifle innovation, originality or initiative. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or Supplementary Planning Documents on design. It is suggested that the current proposal fully supports this policy by retaining and bringing back into active use an existing historic building, without significant alteration or loss of character, whilst at the same time reducing carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption by eliminating the need for the occupant to travel to and from work.
8.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts), in Section 3.7, gives general support to the re-use of existing buildings and Section 3.8 lists the exceptions to this. Annex D concerns the ‘Re-use of Buildings’ and includes section D3, which quotes advice from PPG 7 (in paragraph D4 there). Conversion schemes should avoid any adverse effects on the local rural economy (by changing the use of buildings likely to make a positive contribution to such in their present use class). The guidance discourages residential conversions “where such buildings are unsuitable for conversion without extensive alteration, rebuilding and/or extension. Residential conversions can often have detrimental effects on the fabric and character of historic farm buildings.” It is important to ensure that the new use is sympathetic to the rural character. Designers should avoid the “creation of a residential curtilage around a newly converted building”. The Note promotes residential conversions for holiday use (section D6). Paragraph D4 points out that listed buildings may need Listed Building Consent as well as planning permission for conversion.
8.3 After its conversion to offices, a greetings card company actively used the building involved in the current scheme for around five years. Thereafter, other companies used it for brief periods and the last occupant used only half of the building for about four months. In the current economic downturn, the building has remained unoccupied for about two years, so is no longer contributing anything to the local economy. The proposal will provide a more viable and attractive opportunity for the building’s re-use, which will again allow the old coach house to play a part in boosting local business activity, without making any significant changes to the building itself or its rural setting.
8.4 The recent Planning Policy Statement 4 (December 2009), in Policy EC2 k., says that local planning authorities should ensure that their development plans facilitate new working practices such as live/work.
8.5 In Planning Policy Statement 5 (Historic Environment), which has recently replaced PPGs 15 & 16, Policy HE 1 concerns mitigation of the effects of climate change during development. Policy HE 6 covers applications affecting heritage assets. Applicants should provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. “As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary…” Policy HE 12.1 points out that providing a documentary record of the past is not as valuable as actually preserving the heritage asset being described, so should not be used as a justification for destroying or damaging the character of
14 such. HE 12.2 says that the historic background/heritage asset information gathered should be used to add to the evidence base for future planning and further our understanding of the past. LPAs should make this information publicly available, including through the relevant Historic Environment Record. Appendix 1 provides a detailed and previously unpublished history of Fillongley Mount, which can be retained by the Council and added to its Historic Environment Record for future reference in planning and cultural contexts. (The existing Historic Environment Record or ‘Timetrail’ does not include any data on Fillongley Mount.) At the same time, the historic building is being retained and provided with a viable future with minimum alteration and no adverse effects upon its current setting.
8.6 Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), in sections 17 and 18, covers the re-use of existing buildings in the countryside. “Re-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations and for some types of building”. Section 18 says that LPAs should be particularly supportive of the re-use of existing buildings that are adjacent or closely related to country towns and villages, for economic or community uses, or to provide housing in accordance with the policies in PPG 3. Paragraphs 34 to 40 promote conversions for tourism and leisure uses. This proposal provides both economic development and residential elements, supplementing an existing tourist and leisure facility in the adjacent, smaller coach house that provides holiday accommodation. The site is only a short distance away from the country village of Fillongley.
8.7 In the local context, the North Warwickshire Local Plan (2006)’s Policy ENV 12.1 requires that all the elements of the proposal be well related to each other. For this scheme, the existing landscape context remains unaltered and the internal layout has been designed to have minimal impact on the existing building fabric both internally and externally, while providing a harmonious relationship between the living and working areas of the building.
8.8 Policy ENV 14 says that the local road network must be able to accommodate any (extra) traffic to and from the site that is generated by the development, including avoiding any adverse impact on the local environment. The layout and design of the development must provide safe and easy access for all potential users (it is implied that this will include access for the disabled). The live/work unit will not generate any more traffic than the existing office use; indeed, it is likely to generate less than when the building was in full use (the greeting card company had six employees and two visiting representatives).
8.9 This site is not included within a Conservation Area, so Policy ENV15, insofar as it applies to buildings in conservation areas, does not apply. Policy ENV 15.11 says development must make provision for the preservation or enhancement of features and artefacts present on the site, which, in terms of their architectural, cultural or historic interest, contribute to the Borough’s industrial heritage. The term ‘industrial’ appears to encompass ‘agricultural’ – see paragraph 3.84. Fillongley Mount was once a working farm, so the preservation of its outbuildings can be said to contribute towards the aims of that policy. Policy ENV 16.2 requires that development must not detract from the character, appearance or historic value of a listed building (including any building within its curtilage), in terms of its historic form and layout or its setting. It has already been demonstrated that the current proposals do not do this.
8.10 Policy ECON9 states that proposals for the adaptation and re-use of existing rural buildings will be permitted where there is “direct access to the rural distributor road network” and accessibility by a range of transport to the nearest town, and where “the building is of permanent and substantial construction and its form, scale, bulk and generals design is in keeping with the surroundings”. Fillongley Mount is close to the B4102 and B4098 and
15 Fillongley village, less than a mile away, has buses regularly running (about every 10-15 minutes) to Coventry, Nuneaton, Atherstone and Tamworth, whilst occasional buses also travel along the B4102 from Fillongley to Meriden. The policy also states that adaptation and re-use must be achieved without major or complete reconstruction, alteration or enlargement and such adaptation must be the only viable means of preventing the loss or deterioration of a listed building or a building “that makes an essential contribution to the group value of listed buildings or their setting”. No major alterations are involved in this conversion scheme and the prolonged vacancy of the building has demonstrated that its current permitted use as standalone offices is no longer viable in this location. If all the above criteria are met, the actual permitted use will be determined by the extent to which the building can meet the following order of land use objectives: farm diversification (policy ECON 8), “provision of local services and facilities for which there is an identified need and for which no planned provision has been made within the nearest settlement having a development boundary”, “facilitating public access to and enjoyment of the countryside” or providing managed workspace/starter units of no more than 500 square metres in total. The live/work unit would make an ideal workspace for a small or new business and would be well within the floorspace limit imposed.
8.11 Only if the building can be demonstrated not to be suitable for any of those uses will residential uses be considered according to the following order of priorities: local needs housing (policies HSG 2 or 3), increasing the supply of locally affordable housing, providing live/work units or contributing to the range and supply of market housing. Any scheme satisfying all of the above criteria will still have to “protect or enhance the local environment by satisfying each of the following criteria”: no traffic hazards or hold-ups on the rural road network; no pollution through inadequate foul or surface water drainage; respect for the inherent characteristics of the building’s layout, structure and design, preserving any special architectural or historic character; and not compromising the setting in the landscape by external parking or storage areas, garden structures, walls and fences, etc. (All of these requirements are met by the proposed conversion scheme, which will not generate greater volumes of traffic, will utilize adequate existing drainage and sewerage provision and does not damage the existing character of the historic building or its setting.) Conditions may also be imposed on any planning permission to withdraw certain permitted development rights to control future alterations or enlargement.
8.12 Policy ECON 8 applies to farm diversification schemes. Although Fillongley Mount was formerly a working farm (its fields mainly under pasture), the fields and ‘Home Farm’ on The Mount Estate were sold off after 1962 and the property now only includes about two acres of private garden, so the policy is not applicable to this conversion scheme for former farm buildings.
8.13 Policy HSG 2 applies to housing provision in towns, local service centres and other settlements with a development boundary. Fillongley Mount lies outside the built-up area of Fillongley in an isolated position on a rural lane, so the policy does not apply in this instance. Policy HSG 3 applies to housing provision outside of settlements with development boundaries, and here the criteria relate to the provision of entirely new houses (only permitted to allow agricultural or forestry workers to live near their place of work) or rebuilt houses (where enlargement by more than a maximum of 30% of the original building as it stood on 1 July 1948 is not permitted). As this proposal merely involves adaptation of the existing building, without rebuilding or extension, both of these policies appear to be irrelevant.
16 9.0 Access for the Disabled
9.1 The 1997 approved conversion to offices involved the provision of level access from the car park and flush thresholds to the various entrance doors along the front elevation of the converted coach house, as well as the provision of a disabled persons’ WC and lobby in the south-east wing, which complied with the applicable design standards insofar as was possible without introducing major alterations to the fabric and internal arrangements of the listed building. For example, the door into the toilet would normally open outwards, but that was not achievable in this case without relocating the existing doorway, so it opens inwards in the conventional way.
9.2 There is no access for wheelchair users to the upper floor, but this could not be achieved without significant alteration to internal walls and doorways and disruption to the fabric and existing layout of the listed building; the Disability Discrimination Act only requires that “reasonable adjustments” be made and there is no insistence that upper floors must be made accessible to disabled people, a fact which was recognized when the previous conversion to offices was granted planning permission.
9.3 To quote English Heritage’s document Easy Access to Historic Buildings, “Part M of the Building Regulations, which is a minimum standard, now applies to ‘an existing non-domestic building [which] has been extended, …undergone a material alteration, or a material change of use other than a dwelling or number of dwellings’. Part M requires reasonable provision to be made to ensure that buildings are accessible to, and usable by, all those who could be expected to use them, including the elderly and carers with young children. Compliance with Part M of the Building Regulations can be used to establish reasonable provision under the DDA. Non- compliance does not, however, automatically imply discrimination, as there may be other ways of providing reasonable access to the service. This provision harmonises Part M and the principles underpinning the protection of listed buildings, in that it seeks to avoid the potential removal of those features of a building which contribute to its significance, and thus to its listing.”
9.4 Part M of the Building Regulations states, at Paragraph O.18, “The need to conserve the special character of… historic buildings must be recognized. They are a finite resource with cultural importance. In such work the aim should be to improve accessibility where and to the extent that it is practically possible, always provided that the work does not prejudice the character of the historic building, or increase the risk of long-term deterioration to the building fabric or fittings.” It is considered that the converted coach house has been made as accessible as is reasonably possible without causing harm to its essential character. In the event that a person with disabilities wished to occupy the live/work unit (rather than just visit it), the possibility of further adjustments (such as the installation of chair lifts on staircases) could be discussed with the Borough Council’s Conservation and Access Officers.
10.0 Conclusions
10.1 The proposed conversion of the former coach house and stables from offices to a live- work unit will provide a viable new use for this long vacant historic building, with a minimum of alteration externally and internally, retaining the existing character of the building and ensuring its continuation as a part of the historic grouping of listed house and outbuildings. There will be no changes to the building’s setting, nor any significant impact on the surrounding roads or countryside. The live-work concept and the re-use of a rural building in this way is backed up by both Government advice and current social trends and it accords with national and local planning
17 guidance. It is likely to have economic, social and environmental benefits and the approach taken to the conversion does not conflict with applicable planning policies, as discussed in detail above. The conversion complies with the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations and of the Disability Discrimination Act insofar as this is reasonable, given the need to protect the existing character of the listed building.
10.2 For all these reasons, it is respectfully suggested that the application for change of use be approved, with such conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with the proposed plans and used as intended.
Mark Singlehurst 15th & 20th April 2010
The south-east end of the larger coach house, showing wing to provide disabled WC and utility room
18 11.0 Appendix – Historical Notes on ‘Fillongley Mount’
The Mount as it is today, seen from the old coach house
19 The listing description for the house on this property (Appendix 1) says it is a late 17th century building with 16th century origins, but now mainly a mid-19th century building. The south-east wing is all of that date. The house appears on the 1834 Ordnance Survey map as ‘Mount House’.
Thanks to the present owner making available various historical notes left by the previous owner, Mrs. Belinda Filby (mainly based upon house deeds and two bundles of documents at CR809 in the Warwickshire County Record Office), it has recently become possible to extend this account to cover the period before 1841. It appears that in 1640 ‘The Mount’ was already in existence as a property in ‘Greene End’, Fillongley, with 63 acres of farmland attached. It was held copyhold from Lord Bergavenny’s Manor of Fillongley and sold to George Smith (or Smyth) of London, Mary Greene (widow of William Greene, who had lately rented the property), John and Mary Taylor and William and Katherine Priest. ‘The Mount’ was now to be held by George Smyth, but Mary Greene was to remain living there for her lifetime. It would seem that the Taylors and Priests (or Preests, as the name was sometimes spelled) were probably farming the associated land between them. John was described as a ‘yeoman’ of Fillongley in 1662.
In 1662, John and Mary Taylor left ‘The Mount’ to Josiah Packwood (of Hampton on the Hill) and sold half of the associated estate to Martin Whadcock and Richard Heath (alias Capper). (Whadcock was Edward Priest’s brother-in-law.) In July 1665, the Taylors, Whadcock and Heath conveyed ‘Mount Farm’ to Edward Priest. Priest, in turn, leased out his land to Clement Stone in 1667 and it seems that Edward and Catherine may later have left this land to Stone. Whadcock and Heath also sold off their share of the land in 1667. In 1698 Edward Priest left ‘The Mount’ (by then also known as ‘The Hill House’) to his elder son Edward, with a requirement that Edward Junior should finish building the new house where the said Hill House stood – so this was probably the origin of the present house.
In 1715 Thomas Beck Junior occupied (leased or rented) the house. By his will of 1742, Edward Priest left The Mount or Hill House Farm to his son Edward, or to his son William should Edward default on paying off his debts and funeral expenses or die childless. Edward Senior died in February 1749 and it seems that Edward Junior did default or die without issue, because by 1778 William held the property and left it in his will to his sister Ann Priest, then to his brother Richard’s second son, William.
In 1805, William Preest conveyed ‘The Mount’ to Abraham Baker and in 1843 Matthias Baker (farmer) sold it to a timber merchant, Thomas Johnson. Johnson left the property to his daughter Ann, the wife of William Dickinson (a timber valuer from Kenilworth). Anne and William were living there by 1845 and the property passed into William Dickinson’s ownership after his wife’s death on 23rd January 1865.
In the 1841 census for Fillongley the properties are unnamed, but from the above and other available evidence it is possible to ascertain that ‘Mount House’ was associated with the entry for William Dickinson, aged 30, a timber merchant born in Warwickshire. He had a two-year-old son of the same name and his wife, Ann, was 20. William and Elizabeth Johnson, both aged 40, lived with them, and a servant, Maria Painter, aged 20. The family next door – which would seem to be the property then known as ‘The Corner House’ and later called ‘Manor House Farm’, at the junction of Green End and Pump Lanes – were actually the owners of Mount House. Thomas Johnson, aged 65, was also a timber merchant, but his household consisted of two female servants plus Edward Dickinson, aged 9 months, presumably the son of William next door. Likewise, the Johnsons at Mount House appear to be Thomas Johnson’s children, or at any rate related to him in some way. The 1846 Fillongley tithe apportionment reveals that Thomas Johnson was the owner of ‘The Mount House’, with its outbuildings, yards and garden (3 roods, 34 perches), with William Dickinson as the tenant; but even the census entries make it clear that
20 the relationship between the two families was rather more than just landlord and tenant. Mrs Filby’s research now clarifies the association through Ann Johnson’s marriage to William Dickinson.
Francis White’s Warwickshire Directory for 1850 duly lists “Dickinson, William, timber merchant, The Mount” (page 819) but, curiously, there is no mention of Thomas Johnson as landowner in either the directory listing or the long listing of landowners on page 816. George Bentley is listed as a landowner, however, and it is him who is identified as the owner of ‘The Mount’ in White’s 1874 Directory (page 1285). Further confusion is added by the 1851 census, which places Richard Sladen Davis (born in Worcestershire) at ‘Mount House’, aged 51, with his wife Elizabeth, also 51, and two house servants, Elizabeth Hurley (37) and Henry Bentley (17). The handwriting is unfortunately faded and difficult to decipher, but Davis’s occupation appears to be “M.R.C.S. [illegible] not in Practice”. That would mean he was a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, but apparently not practising in Fillongley at that time. The only other reference to Richard Sladen Davis I have been able to find on the Internet is a document in Gloucestershire Archives, a conveyance of March 1862 (D4493/15), in which Davis, “formerly of Worcester, now of Lexden House, Hereford”, is mentioned in conjunction with Richard Sladen’s estate at Crow Ash Farm, Coleford. Google Books lists him in The Medical Register for 1864 and as an ‘Extra-Licentiate’ of the Royal College of Physicians of London in 1868. The Life and Times of Charles Hastings: Founder of the British Medical Association (1959) mentions him on page 455: “The new physician was Richard Sladen Davis, who appears to have been a choleric individual and a trouble maker”(!).
The neighbours in the 1851 census are identified as living at ‘The Corner House’; they are Elizabeth Baker, aged 61, a widow and farmer of 350 acres, with four adult children (including Noah Baker, then aged 27, and Abraham, aged 29, and a daughter Ann, aged 38) and four young agricultural servants. The Bakers also seemed to have close links with Fillongley Mount, as later evidence will show. In the 1841 census, two large families of Bakers are listed elsewhere in the parish, the first presided over by Ann Baker (aged 85), along with Edward Baker (55) and Sophie Baker (45), probably her son and his wife, and six children aged between 5 and 20; the second family lived in the next house on the list, with Elizabeth Baker, aged 50, as the head and five children aged between 15 and 25.
The mysteries continue with the 1861 census, as by this time William Dickinson is back in residence at ‘Mount House’, as timber merchant and timber valuer, now allegedly aged 53, whilst his wife Ann’s age is given as 49. (If the 1841 census information was correct, they should have been 50 and 40 respectively!) They had six children between the ages of 8 and 20 and two young house servants. Next door, at ‘Corner House’, Abraham and Noah Baker, brothers aged 39 and 37, were joint tenant farmers of 350 acres, employing twelve farm labourers between them. Two sisters and a servant lived with them.
In 1866, Edward and Amelia Ann Dickinson (probably the children of William) mortgaged the property to James and Henry Oliver, with further mortgages to Thomas Sargent, a Coventry auctioneer called Thomas Clarke (1867) and a Coventry solicitor called Thomas Browett (1869). Further siblings (Laura Louisa and Alfred Dickinson) mortgaged off their shares in the estate in 1871-2. In the 1871 census, Henry Lancaster, a retired ironmaster, aged 45 and born in Astley, Warwickshire, was the occupant of ‘Mount House’, with his wife Hannah, also 45, daughter Miriam (12) and two teenaged servants (one a stable boy). Next door, at ‘Corner House’, Abraham Baker (aged 49) was still in occupation, with two sisters described as housekeepers, a maidservant, cow boy and waggoner’s boy. There is a tantalizing reference in the ‘Notes and Queries’ volume covering November 1972, for which there is unfortunately only a ‘snippet view’ available in Google Books. The writer of the article was Robert Evans [none other than the
21 father of Mary Ann Evans = George Eliot], who, in his journal entry for 21st September 1826, tells us (page 415) that he “drank tea at Mrs. Baker’s at the Mount (Fillongley), called upon Abraham Baker and had a glass of brandy and water with him and Mr. Evarard. A later entry names Mr. Abraham Baker first among the pallbearers at the funeral of Christiana Evans, 10 February 1836”. From the same source we learn that a stained glass window to the right of the south door of Fillongley Church commemorates Abraham Baker, who died in 1839, and his widow (unnamed) who died in February 1844. It seems reasonable to assume that the Abraham Baker who was ‘Head’ at the Corner House in 1871 was the 29-year-old son of widow Elizabeth Baker in 1851. Our source also tells us that there is a memorial to Elizabeth Baker, who died in 1857, in the church, erected 40 years later by their only surviving daughter, Ann Baker (baptized 13 October 1811). Elizabeth’s husband was presumably a son of Abraham Baker Senior, as the latter’s wife died in 1844, not 1857. The RootsWeb web site refers to a still earlier Abraham Baker who was buried at Fillongley on 28th November 1817, described as of ‘Green End’.
The interesting thing is that the Bakers are described as being of The Mount, Fillongley, and not of ‘The Corner House’, in 1826, which suggests either that they had transferred to the latter dwelling by 1851, or that the ‘Corner House’ was, in some way, linked with ‘The Mount’ estate. There is no evidence that ‘Corner House’ or its surrounding fields were ever part of the estate, however; by the time of the 1874 sale of ‘The Mount’, that farm appears to have belonged to Lord Leigh. Curiously, the Corner House and its neighbouring fields (560-567) are shown on page 5 of Old Fillongley Field Names (Fillongley Local History Group, no date), which is derived from the 1844 tithe map, yet fields 557 to 586 are omitted from Warwickshire County Council’s listing of the Fillongley Tithe Apportionment on its web site, suggesting that this property was, for some reason, exempt from paying tithes.
The plan attached to the 1874 auction catalogue describes “an Estate called The Mount in the Parish of Fillongley” as “Belonging to The Devisees of Thomas Johnson decd”. The house is described as ‘Mount House’ (3r 34p) and the entire estate as 38a 3r 27p. The written particulars nevertheless call the house “The Mount” and say that “the whole of the property is in Lease to HENRY LANCASTER, Esq., at £170 a year, which Lease expires at Lady Day next”. Further confusion is occasioned by the fact that White’s 1874 Warwickshire Directory (the same year as the auction, though it could have been compiled earlier) tells us that “The Mount is a large and neat residence, the property of G[eorge] Bentley, Esq., and residence of W[illiam] Spencer”. I had previously conjectured that perhaps Thomas Johnson, alive in 1846, was dead by 1850 and George Bentley was one of the ‘devisees’. Mrs. Filby’s research has clarified the situation: Thomas Johnson’s devisees were the people to whom he had devised the property in his will – the Dickinsons. Edward Dickinson sold the house and estate to George Bentley, the estate having been managed by Thomas Clarke since William Dickinson’s death in July 1866. The Henry Lancaster/William Spencer tenancy change is harder to explain, and I have been unable to trace any references to Spencer via Internet sources.
The Baker family were associated with Fillongley for many generations. At least one of the Abraham Bakers was described in a will as ‘Gentleman’ (The Martin-Pridmore Family Record (1972), page 189). In 1735, Mathias Baker was a Land Surveyor, living in Fillongley. ‘Notes and Queries’ tells us that Mathias “was responsible for some beautiful plans and surveys of Warwickshire estates in the late 18th century” (November 1972, page 413). This includes a plan of the Combe Abbey estate near Coventry in 1788 and a plan of estates owned by Lord Leigh (of Stoneleigh) in Allesley, Fillongley and other villages, made in 1767. The only Bakers listed at Fillongley in White’s 1850 Directory, however, were Edward Baker Junior (a butcher) and Edward Baker [Senior?], farmer at Dale House. John Baker tenanted an unnamed farm of 32 acres, which was part of the Ayliffe Green charity estate, and a Thomas Baker held another unnamed farm.
22 A book entitled Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons and Command, Volume 21, Part 2 (1835), page 940, tells us: “The property belonging to Green’s Charity is in the parish and near the village of Fillongley. It consists of a farmhouse, barn, outbuildings and garden, and several closes of land, containing in the whole 31a 3r 13p, let to Abraham Baker, as yearly tenant, at a fair price of 45 l. a year. The land-tax is redeemed. The premises are in tolerable repair. Between 50 l. and 60 l. was expended in rebuilding the stabling in the year 1831.” As the farm is nowhere named, it is not clear whether it was in any way associated with ‘The Mount’, but as the latter appears always to have been a privately owned estate, it seems unlikely. Further research would be needed to clarify the situation.
Extract from 1874 auction catalogue estate plan, showing Mount House
The accommodation in 1874 was listed as entrance hall with porch; dining, drawing and breakfast rooms, five best bedrooms, two servants’ rooms, closet and WC; kitchen, dairy, larder, scullery with laundry above and brick-arched ale and wine cellars. The outbuildings comprised a two-stall stable and loose box, coach house, harness room, a second stable, hay and corn lofts, pigsties and cow shedding and two substantially and newly built cottages of an ornamental character (presumably those about to be demolished in 1962!). In 1962 the accommodation in Mount House was front entrance hall, study, lounge, dining room, living-kitchen, working kitchen, pantry, five bedrooms, dressing room, WC and two attic rooms (probably the old servants’ bedrooms). The outbuildings then consisted of two coach houses, harness room and laundry room, with “gardens and lawns on all sides”. The building that is currently converted to offices is one of the two coach houses, the other having previously been converted to residential accommodation.
23 In 1880, the property passed by succession to Martha Blackham, according to George Bentley’s will of January 1875. Martha was a descendant of George Bentley’s widow, Mary Barnet Bentley, who died on 20th July 1878. Martha, née Nult, was born on 5th March 1834. Martha had married James Blackham, so the two of them thereafter took up residence at The Mount. Accordingly, the 1881 census has James Blackham at ‘The Mount’ (‘Mount House’ drops out of use hereafter). He was aged 28 and was born in 1853 in Handsworth, Staffordshire (now part of Birmingham). He was a chartered accountant (FCA) and his wife, Martha, was said to be then aged 30 (allegedly born in Fillongley in 1851, rather than 1834!) The census entry also lists two servants. (The coachman, Thomas Dean Newton, aged 46, had previously been a grain provision dealer and agent to the Raditon Passenger Company in Wednesbury.) A Google Books search has revealed that he was mentioned in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society for 1884.
The 1891 Fillongley census entry is similar to that of 1881. Folio 7, page 3, entry 19 records James Blackham, retired accountant and employer, as the head, but calls him 35 instead of 38 years of age. Martha is said to be aged 58 instead of 40! They still had no children, but only two young female servants, a housemaid and cook. The 1901 census entry has James aged 46 and Martha aged 68, so it appears that the 1881 census was the incorrect source – James would have been 26 and Martha 48 (not 30!) in that year. They had a young cook (Ellen G. Phillips, 17) and housemaid (Minnie Phillips, 15), but no other relatives living in the house. The neighbouring property in the list was now the ‘Manor House’. The County Councils, Municipal Corporations and Local Authorities’ Companion for 1906 and Municipal Year Books for 1912, 1913, 1921 and 1925 all list James Blackham as in residence at ‘The Mount’ throughout that period.
Susan Moore, writing in I Remember Strawberries and Sewage (1989), describes her memories of J.P. Blackham as a universally respected man who was involved in ‘sorting out’ local charities and who made himself unpopular with certain ‘big wigs’ who were guilty of maladministration in relation to charity funds. He was around six feet tall, with long, curly hair, “white as snow”, and a gruff voice. He threw an annual party at ‘The Mount’ for brake-loads of Stockingford children, feeding them “as best he could”, and he had four black ponies and a little open carriage that he drove when he went (top-hatted) to church on Sundays. Susan Moore also confirms something I was told by the present owner: “He painted his house red, white and blue, with gargoyles on the end.” A surviving copy of a lease between the executors of the late James
24 Blackham and the Warwickshire Coal Company Ltd. concerning coal, ironstone, fireclay and the like lying beneath the Mount estate is dated 1937, giving a clue as to when Blackham’s association with ‘The Mount’ came to an end. There is also a surviving plan of the house dated March 1933, suggestive of another sale and perhaps indicating the year when James Blackham died.
A search of the Kelly’s Post Office Directories for Warwickshire might reveal later occupants of ‘The Mount’ after Blackham, but the next source available at the time of writing is the 1962 auction catalogue, which refers to the Administrators of the Estate of H. James Kendrick, deceased. “The Mount Estate, Fillongley” comprised a “freehold country residence known as Mount House”, which it described as “Ideal for Re-Development with a Modern Dwelling (outline planning permission obtained)”! The house with its gardens, lawns and outbuildings then amounted to 1a 1r op and the associated agricultural land to 37a 1r 16p. Two associated cottages, Mount Cottages, were about to be replaced with two new dwellings. The estate also included Wall Hill Hall and Wall Hill Hall Farm (described as in Corley, but actually in Allesley parish) and Poplars Farm at Berkswell. Messrs. Cartwright of Coventry conducted the auction on 27th September 1962. Mount House apparently sold for £4,000.
Extract from Deed Plan, 10th March 1933
In fact, Warwickshire County Council actually granted planning permission on 13th February 1962, for the “erection of a detached house or bungalow on site of existing house at The Mount”! Fortunately, the purchaser must have appreciated the value of the historic house, which has since (ironically) been listed as of special architectural or historic interest, grade II (listed on 23rd March 1988).
25 The documentary evidence from Mrs Filby’s research also provides details of the fields making up the Mount estate. In 1640 the 63 acres included The Cross Field, Hill Close, an adjoining meadow, The Croft or Parke Croft, some enclosed ground which was part of a close called The Wyde Field, 1 ½ acres in a field called ‘Didyley’, and Greene End Field. In 1662 there was the ‘Ould Orchard’, Lesser Cross Field (containing a marl pit) and Wide Field (staked out and divided).
By June 1778, fields previously called Little Croft, Little Meadow, The Hill Field, Great and Little Cross Fields, Wide Field, Park Croft, Naseby’s Croft and Old Orchard were now known as the Close next White’s, Little Croft, Little Meadow, Rickyard Close, Marlpit Close, Close next Baker’s, Long Meadow and the Hill Field, totalling around 28 acres. Another group of three closes totalling 12 acres were presumably those on the north side of Green End Lane – Ash Tree Close, Church Field and the curiously named Wide Field Lane Field.
The 1874 estate plan has field names that correspond with those appearing on the 1843/4 tithe map. Big Mount (also known as Mount Park) was 16 acres, 2 roods and 39 perches and included a plantation of 1 rood and 8 perches. There was also Horse Pit Field (7-2-10), together with Ash Tree Field (7-1-14) and Hill Field (5-3-7) to the north-east side of the lane.
The 1933 plan’s field 744 (Horse Pit Field) was 587 on the tithe map. 745 (The Mount and its associated outbuildings, gardens and yard) was 595, 746 was ‘Big Mount’ together with the tithe map’s ‘Mount Meadow’ (593, 588), 766 (Cock Croft) was 603, 767 (Home Farm) was 602, 768 (Ash Tree Field) incorporated part of the 1843 Ash Tree Meadow (601 and part of 599) and 769 (Hill Field) also incorporated part of the former Ash Tree Meadow (600 and part 599). The 1962 sale map excluded the north-east narrow field called Cock Croft, which was still included on the 1933 plan.
Mark Singlehurst 27th April 2010; expanded 9th July 2010
The coach house (as converted for office use) near the entrance from Green End Road
26