MOAT HOUSE

LICHFIELD ROAD

SUTTON COLDFIELD

WEST MIDLANDS

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

1 1. Introduction

This conservation management plan has been prepared in order to better inform and support the building owner, College of Further Education, in decision-making concerning the continued use, potential alteration and repair of Moat House and to offer suggestions for further building and archaeological evaluation and investigation of the building and its surroundings.

2.1 Description of the project

The plan is being undertaken in order to identify areas for the future improved understanding and use of Moat House, a building which already has an active commercial use. At this early stage, it is felt that potential areas where the plan will be of benefit might be:

• Improvement of maintenance planning.

• Establishment of dedicated management of Moat House as a heritage asset.

• Further building recording.

• Archaeological investigation of the building and grounds.

• Improved interpretation of the building.

• Avoidance of abuse of the building by over intensive or inappropriate use.

2.2 Moat House- history and context

Moat House, Sutton Coldfield is a former gentleman’s house, built originally to Palladian ideals by Sir

William Wilson for his own occupation in or about 1680-90.

2 The building occupies a site fronting Lichfield Road, Sutton Coldfield, now the A5127, leaving the north of the town towards Lichfield. Much of the remaining development to the frontages of Lichfield

Road and its continuation High Street is 18th and 19th century in origin although it is possible that some of these elevations conceal older building forms. The adjacent Bishop Vesey School is contemporary with Moat House in terms of its establishment although many of the original buildings have been replaced. The building now lies within Sutton Coldfield College of Further Education. The front elevation faces west.

Figure 1 - Current Ordnance Survey information showing Moat House and outbuildings in red with the

College campus outlined in blue.

3

The appointment of Wilson by Jane Pudsey appears originally to have been as a sculptor to design a memorial to her recently deceased (1677) husband Henry Pudsey. The Pudsey family had been the holder of the manor of Sutton Coldfield since before 1558 (A History of the County of Warwick:

Volume 4: Hemlingford Hundred (1947). Henry Pudsey was the last sole holder of the title, which gave the holder wide-ranging rights. As therefore one of the wealthiest families in Sutton Coldfield, the

Pudsey family apparently did not approve of the resultant romance and marriage between Wilson and

Jane Pudsey. However, following their marriage, construction of Moat House commenced, allowing

Jane to leave one moated hall (Langley Hall, the Pudsey seat, also in Sutton Coldfield) for another.

During this time, Jane also managed through her connections to get her new husband both a knighthood and appointed as a mason.

The resulting building is of brick construction with elevations primarily of red brick with sandstone dressings forming stone pilasters, and a balustraded stone parapet with a central raised order and niche.

The original windows would also have been of similar red sandstone to the decorative dressings. The interior features painted pine wall panelling, a limestone flagged floor to the hall and several interesting fireplaces. The house is arranged with a semi basement, a ground floor raised slightly above prevailing topography (the piano nobile), first floor and second floor attic accommodation. The roof is a double pile arrangement, with a tiled covering. Whilst the original stone windows are still present to the rear, timber sliding sash windows have been installed as replacements to the front elevation at some point, probably in the early 18th century.

4

Figure 2 – Front oblique view of main house

Given the name of the property, the presence of a moat requires further evaluation. The drawings by J

Snape dated 1763and 1765 suggest that, if the moat was still present at this time, it can only have been a relatively minor feature, given the inset entrance and shallow frontage depth. The name Moat House may not even have been used until much later, possibly within the 19th century, which would appear to coincide with the moat having been in- filled during the latter part of the 19th century, a date of 1860 being referred to in earlier research by Norman G Evans. Moat House is named as such on the earliest ordnance survey plans of the late 19th century.

5

Figure 3 – Survey by J Snape 1765 showing entrance and garden, but little evidence of a “moat”

The plan form of the house has been the subject of conjectural appraisal at various times. The process undertaken by Nick Joyce, the conservation architect involved with the repair scheme in 2001/2. The major obvious changes from the original plan are the two-storey extension to the north elevation and construction of a semi-circular bay extension to the east. Both of these alterations appear to have been undertaken in the late 18th century, the most obvious outcome being the loss of the symmetry that was the original ideal and, one assumes, Wilson’s goal in expressing the classical ideas recovered and translated by Inigo Jones only 60 years earlier.

6 The out-buildings appear, as one would anticipate, to have developed on a piecemeal basis as needs and tastes changed. These range from the 2 storey “game house” referred to in the Nick Joyce report

(which now appears to have been a stable) which appears contemporary with the main house, to the

Victorian “mess rooms” adjacent. The stable is the only outbuilding of note shown in J Snape’s survey of Lichfield Road in 1763. It has long been considered, and appears entirely reasonable, that some of the buildings on the present northern boundary of the site, but now beyond the demised property, may also originally have been associated with Moat House. Certainly, the gated coach entrance is still demised with the house.

Jane Pudsey died in 1697, the marriage having produced no children. Her death meant the loss to

Wilson of her considerable income (three hundred pounds per annum) and it appears that Wilson returned to his previous trade as a mason. Wilson himself died in 1710, leaving Moat House to his nephew John Barnes. The ownership of the house changed during later centuries, being at various times both bequeathed and sold, the last private owner of Moat House appearing to be a Mr Heaton, a seemingly popular and benevolent owner (see press cutting from Mail). This sequence of change is well illustrated in the deed research by Norman G Evans. In 1947, Arthur Heaton died and the house was purchased by Warwickshire County Council as headquarters for the Education

Committee.

This usage as a local authority office building continued until 1974, when local government reorganisation moved Sutton Coldfield out of Warwickshire and into Birmingham within the new West

Midlands County. Ownership of Moat House therefore passed to Birmingham City Council, the building continuing to be used as offices with an education bias until finally falling out of use in the early 1990’s, from which time it’s condition deteriorated rapidly. The house occupied a small corner of

7 the college site but had become neglected and clearly unwanted by its owners. The logical conclusion was for the College to acquire the building, which it did for a one pound consideration in 1998.

Figure 4 – Current frontage view (Authors photograph)

A course of repair and rehabilitation followed, enabling the college to use the building as its Business

Development Centre, opening in January 2002, after the expenditure of approximately £500,000 on the work. This still left the collection of remaining out-buildings to the northern boundary, which were in an even worse condition than the house had been. These buildings were subsequently repaired in 2003.

8

Figure 5 - J Snape - 1763 Frontage view

The completed rehabilitation of Moat House and the remains of the estate still leave it confined within the College campus, but at least within a single ownership and within a management regime clearly committed to its retention and maintenance, judging by the comments of the principal, among others, within questionnaire responses.

Since the mid nineteenth century, the major parallel change to that of ownership of the house has been the reduction of the area of its grounds, apparently commencing in the late 19th century with the construction of the London Midland and Scottish railway crossing the site to the east and forming the eastern boundary to the present college campus, although the land appears to have extended to the opposite side of the railway at earlier dates. This process of erosion culminated in the construction of

Sutton Coldfield College of Further Education in the remains of the grounds, the first college buildings opening in 1963. This major development to form the College campus left Moat House surrounded by modern buildings of much larger scale.

9

Figure 6 – Rear view of repaired building. (Authors photograph)

Figure 7 – Outbuildings following repair. (Authors photograph)

10 Sir William Wilson (1641-1710).

William Wilson was born in Leicester, sometime most probably in early 1641, based upon christening records. His career appears to have commenced as a statutory mason and he is reputed to have carved the statue of King Charles II set on the west front of Lichfield Cathedral in Staffordshire, shortly before

1669. In 1670, he was employed as a carver at Sudbury Hall in Derbyshire.

The key event in his elevation from carver to architect was clearly his marriage to Jane Pudsey, at some point probably in the late 1670s. The construction of Moat House cannot accurately be dated but would appear to have been undertaken at some point in the 1680s although the opinion given in Colvin

(1995) suggests that the house was built most probably for his own occupation following his wife’s death in 1697.

Within a mile of Moat House, some time after 1696, Wilson is said to have designed Four Oaks Hall.

This house was constructed for Lord Ffolliot his brother- in- law, who had married Elizabeth Pudsey.

Two further buildings in Sutton Coldfield are attributed to Wilson, these being the stables at Langley

Hall (his former wife’s home) and Peddimore Hall (built 1660-1671 for the warden of Sutton

Coldfield, William Wood).

The association between Wilson and Sir Christopher Wren appears to have commenced within the project for the erection of the Free School at Appleby, Leicestershire. Wilson is known to have supervised these works between 1693 and 1697. Both Wren and Wilson were also involved in the rebuilding of St Mary’s Church at Warwick after a fire in 1694.

11 Wilson’s later works as a sculptor appeared to confirm his return to this trade upon the death of Lady

Wilson in 1697, statues to the porch of Hall in Warwickshire in 1697 and at Gresley

Church in Derbyshire in 1699 being recorded by Colvin.

Elsewhere in Greater Birmingham, Wilson designed Hall Green Church. The building is dated 1703 in a plaque above the west door, carved by Wilson. This building, the Church of the Ascension, was later modified by the addition of a tower, although clear elements of the features present at Moat House can be seen here in terms of the overall classical proportions, circular windows similarly detailed to those in Moat House stables, stone pilasters and balustraded parapet.

Wilson died on 3rd June 1710 at the age of 69 and is commemorated at Sutton Coldfield Church. He had apparently requested to be buried beside his wife but was refused. He is quoted as having stated ‘I will be buried on the outside of the Church, directly opposite the vault where my wife lies, and there will be only a single stone wall betwixt us: and as I am a stonemason, there will be no kind of labour or difficulty in cutting my road through the wall to my old bedfellow’.

2.3 Social History

The construction of Moat House represents a side-shoot of one the most important family dynasties in the establishment of Sutton Coldfield. In being the marital home of Jane Pudsey and the marriage itself being such an unpopular one, it represents almost the end of the reign of the Pudsey family. The

Victorian County History for Warwickshire, Volume 4, confirms the route by which the manor of

Langley and later the role of warden of Sutton Coldfield passed down the male Pudsey line, until

Jane’s father divided it between her two sisters, Anne and Elizabeth.

12 Moat House itself was built for a woman with a large income and appears to have been an estate of suitable scale and richness to display this wealth and certainly one of the larger buildings in the town.

Following the death of Wilson and the onward passage of ownership, the estate appears to have remained intact in terms of scale until the late nineteenth century arrival of the railway which cut through the grounds. This retention of both house and grounds is particularly unusual looking at the town today.

The last private owner, Mr Heaton, still used the grounds and permitted them to be used for public events (Appendix C - Birmingham Mail), before the house passed into public ownership. A key observation here is that this basically appears to coincide with the introduction of listing and the protection of the house. Otherwise, it seems possible that the house would not have survived at all. In any event the result was the relegation of the house to a corner of the college campus, sounding its effective end as the symbol of the social status and wealth that created it.

In its office use by Warwickshire County Council and later Birmingham City Council, the connection of Moat House with residential use was finally extinguished.

2.4 Management Information

The building has a very active and intensive current use by the college; both the principal house and the remaining outbuildings are used as offices, meeting rooms and conference facilities for the business development and overseas liaison functions of the college.

13 The building is listed Grade II*. As such, any proposal other than simple repair and redecoration would require listed building consent and consultation with the appropriate statutory bodies including English Heritage. Under PPG 15, any proposed works would also require the local planning authority to’ seek any particulars necessary to ensure that it has a full understanding of the impact of a proposal on the character of the building in question’. As such, the production of this plan can only be of assistance in supporting future applications.

The College is responsible for the maintenance of the building, under the control of the Estates

Manager. Overall responsibility for management of the building lies with the Principal. The college is supported by professionals engaged within the repair scheme previously undertaken, these being a conservation architect and a building surveyor. These individuals have no ongoing appointment but offer informal advice when needed and are appointed periodically to undertake specific tasks.

A planned maintenance plan has been prepared for the College estate including Moat House, although no building- specific plan exists.

Information relating to the building is quite extensive. Various individuals have researched the history of the building, a process extended by the research and recording undertaken by the conservation architect to support listed building consent applications for the refurbishment proposals. This information, supported by drawings and specifications prepared by the consultants, is presently rather disparate, but is all available to the Estates Manager. This plan should also help to provide a more comprehensive and cohesive set of documentation for ease of use.

14 2.6 Gaps and Further Work

The repair programme involved, as is usual practice, a process of recording and research, undertaken by Nick Joyce. However, by its very nature this work was limited. This document, combined with the experience gained from using the building, should offer ideas for further work

These include:-

• Archaeological survey work, possibly non-invasive initially, in an attempt to clarify the

existence of the moat and the formal gardens immediately adjacent to building (on the

assumption that the construction programmes of the past 40 years will have removed the

remainder of evidence).

• Paint analysis internally both to plasterwork and timber panelling to better inform redecoration

schemes.

• Attempts to compile an oral or written record of the place from people who have lived or

worked within or near the building.

15 3.0 Significance

The Grade II* status of the Moat House presents a simple statement of its significance. In expanding this raw information, other aspects of the likely significance of Moat House that present themselves for examination include:-

• Its architectural significance as a relatively early example of Palladianism.

• The significance of the Wilson as an architect and builder in his own right and as a “pupil” of

Wren.

• The age of the building in relation to the remainder of the town centre.

• Its value as a building of townscape value.

• The role of the building’s owners and the Pudsey family in particular in local society, linked

with the establishment of Sutton Coldfield as a town.

• Its value as an information resource to historical, conservation and architectural students.

• Its role past and present to local and wider communities. Many people locally will have

worked in and visited the building, some possibly before the opening of the college in 1963.

• Its value as physical evidence of a lost social history.

It is equally true that much of the social and historical context of the building has now been eroded, simply because the grounds associated the social structures, particularly rank and wealth, that led to its creation have been almost entirely lost.

Sadly, the passage of the building into public ownership probably removed the last remnants of fittings and fixtures, the house now presenting nothing of how it is was originally furnished, being effectively a house now used as an office, with the modern furniture that this entails. This will inevitably remove to

16 some extent the social relevance seen in many such houses and limits the opportunity for the building to evoke empathy with those who have lived there in the past. This is however, part of the compromise that arises where there are demands for the commercial use of period buildings.

Change almost inevitably leads to a loss of some part or aspect of the original, but this is how buildings develop. The present appearance of Moat House is a result of attempts to take the building forward, whilst attempting to leave as much as possible un-changed. To the purist, one could say that the 18th century alterations and extensions did far more to detract from its architectural purity than any of the more modern interventions. All of these interventions were undertaken, as is almost always the case, with the best of intentions and with the best knowledge available at the time.

In terms of maintaining the elements that are most significant, whilst we can consider and enhance the perceptions of Moat House, physically we only have the house to work with, given the loss of the grounds. This makes the furthering of our understanding of the house all the more important, as outlined in the suggested scope for further work.

The author has attempted to expand knowledge in this area by asking a series of questions centred around, but not exclusively concerning, the issue of significance. These various questionnaires were completed by College staff involved in the use and running of Moat House and are appended hereto as

Appendix D. The author has also contacted the conservation officer for the area and Sutton Coldfield

Civic Society. Their responses are also included.

In analysing the responses from College staff, one is immediately struck by the difference in the breadth of “significance” when seen from the academic viewpoint and that of building users. The daily

17 irritation of uneven floors is an example of how, quite naturally, one can focus very narrowly on the issues that affect ones daily life, where effective information should consider a much wider group of parties and issues. A wider forum for management would also help in balancing these differing perspectives.

Given the various in-house and external responses however, Moat House is certainly a building felt to be important to staff, students and the local amenity bodies. The wider issues of significance and their expansion can only lead to the reinforcement of this position.

4.0 Vulnerability and Related Issues

In many senses, Moat House is in an unusually privileged position compared to many of its peers in that it has an owner with funds to allow budgetary provision for its future care. However, the very fact that the building is used actively and will continue to be so, itself poses the threat of damage, overloading and the potential to further intensify this use.

Whilst the building is not presently open to the public, more extensive opening and availability to the public could pose a further threat, both of physical damage and to security, given the confidential nature of some the functions undertaken within, as confirmed by responses from Staff. On this basis, the fact that public access is only presently by appointment is possibly a benefit to the physical structure. However the lack of public information both internally and externally could lead to a sense of the loss of its importance, now that the process of “rescue” has been completed.

18 During the repair and refurbishment of the building, the issue of accessibility for disabled visitors and users was considered in detail with Building Control, the fundamental conclusion being that, as there was little possibility of the interior of the building complying with the guidelines, that there was little benefit in unsightly alterations to the exterior. The College has accessible toilet facilities within a short distance in other buildings (indeed within the stables to Moat House now that they have been refurbished) and the aspect of access to the ground floor could have been addressed by a managed system, possibly with a demountable ramp. Instead, led by the planning department at Birmingham

City Council the provision of an access hoist for wheelchair users was insisted upon. An end result that none of the design team wanted, or indeed the Building Control Officer. The detraction from the overall appearance of the building caused by this structure, particularly given the presently very cramped setting of the building cannot be over-stated. This appears to be an area where planning procedure has scored an “own goal” by insisting on measures that detract from the overall result.

Figure 8 – The access lift to the southern gable. (Authors photograph)

19 Pleasingly, the building does not appear to suffer from significant vandalism, despite having no secure boundary. The fact that the building occupies a site directly opposite Sutton Coldfield Police Station may well contribute to this situation.

It cannot be forgotten however, that the college is a busy modern organisation which may (and has) lead to some works being undertaken without due thought and advice, since the various tiers of the college hierarchy might have differing priorities. Accordingly, it would be sensible to have some form of steering group dedicated to all campus issues that might potentially affect the building.

It would appear therefore that at present, the greatest source of threats facing Moat House come directly as a result of its active use.

5.0 Conservation and Management Policies

One of the principal dilemmas in conserving many buildings and places is that of selecting an appropriate use. In the case of Moat House, we have a building that already has a use, be it appropriate or otherwise. On the basis that this use appears unlikely to change significantly, the emphasis of policy should be to manage this use in a way that minimises the threat to the building and its setting.

For the foreseeable future, the College will be the body responsible for the maintenance of the building. The structures by which it effects this management will be critical however. At present, the building is managed financially within the overall budget for the campus, although this may not be ideal, given the differing nature, cost and frequency of the maintenance applicable to Moat House.

20 Proposals for any works to Moat House, or indeed any works elsewhere on the campus that might affect the building or its operation, will require management. At present, there is no tangible dedicated management of Moat House as a heritage asset, the building being seen simply as part of the overall

College estate for the purposes of financial management. The establishment of a steering group dedicated to the building, an in-house equivalent of a preservation trust, with co-opted external advisors would appear to be a good basis for going forward.

There has been no formal Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken previously and one could argue that such an operation is not justified now. However, a body that could consider the impact of development proposals on the building, from whatever source, is an important requirement.

The prospect of further significant change, given the already major recent works undertaken to the building, appears limited. Furthermore the very limited remaining setting of the building limits potential. It is important however, not to allow the undue dilution of the progress already achieved to occur as a result of ineffective policy. At the very least, the establishment of a dedicated management group would create a forum to enable more detailed maintenance and repair planning to be effected.

Managing access seems at first sight to be a more problematic area. With the current use of the building and the commercial confidentiality of much of the work that is undertaken, security is clearly a concern, given responses from staff in the questionnaire process. It would appear therefore that public access requires management, another area where a specific management policy and forum would be of benefit.

21 The management of change is clearly critical. It is also hoped that, given the extent of works undertaken in 2001/2 and some of the attempts made during those works to incorporate flexibility, little major work should be required in the short term. For instance, the building services installation is of a very high standard and well integrated into the building. Lighting is modern in terms of both concept and fittings and the data network was installed as a wireless system in order to avoid damage to the fabric. It is important that management policy and practice continues to consider any proposed change in a similar light.

As a community asset, the views of the community should be taken into account as far as possible. The use of a forum including external professional and non- professional members will greatly help in this process, possibly linked with Sutton Coldfield Civic Society in the first instance.

22 Summary of proposals

Having been the subject of extensive works of repair by enlightened professionals in the recent past, there is a good level of understanding of the physical fabric of Moat House. This process has also left the legacy of good quality drawn records of the building that will be of benefit in the future.

Furthermore, much potentially damaging and disruptive work, for instance the installation of modern building services, has already been undertaken.

The process of considering this plan has led to the conclusion that the most important element that requires formal development is the establishment of a dedicated management group for the building.

This is important because, as identified by this process, the greatest threats to a building in such active use come from that very use itself and the potential for abuse or damage as a result. It will be all too easy for the importance and vulnerability of the building to be overlooked, particularly when the current college establishment are no longer in post.

Further works to enhance understanding of the building and its setting should also be considered, together with the development of a list of potential works that could further enhance the building.

These could include:

• Further archaeological work.

• Paint sample analysis.

• The potential for removing existing trees and street furniture to the frontage.

• The consideration of the removal of the existing external wheelchair lift.

• Development of a written and oral history archive.

23