PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT

FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR ALTERATIONS

At

STOKE HALL Grindleford

On behalf of Mr and Mrs S. Drury

August 2010

DAVID LEWIS ASSOCIATES

Chartered Architects Conservation and Historic Building Specialists

Delf View House Church Street Eyam Derbyshire S32 5QH

Tel: 01433 630030 Fax: 01433 631972 CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION 2. BACKGROUND 3. THE HISTORY OF STOKE HALL 4. THE EXISTING HOUSE Description Consideration and Evaluation of the Existing House with Observation and Analyses of how Stoke Hall has Changed over Time. 5. CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES AT STOKE HALL 6. CONSIDERATION OF THE LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPLICATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE LISTED BUILDING. 7. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Site Location Plan Appendix 2 List Description Appendix 3 Photographs which are undated but clothes and furniture suggest the very early C20 Appendix 4 1880 OS Plan Appendix 5 Plans of Stoke Hall as an Hotel 1978 Appendix 6 Plans of Stoke Hall prior to its conversion as a single dwelling dated 2003. Appendix 7 Plans of Stoke Hall extracted from the Sales brochure of 2008.

Photographs Nos. 1 - 75

2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Personal Details 1.1.1. My name is David Wyn Lewis. I have an Honours Degree from Sheffield University (1969) and became a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1971. I have an M.A. in Architectural Building Conservation. I have been the Senior Partner of David Lewis Associates since the Practice was established in 1978. The Practice specialises in the Conservation of Historic Buildings.

1.1.2. My career has been substantially involved with the conservation and restoration of listed and historic buildings, their alteration and careful extension to accommodate new uses and modern needs, besides the design of new buildings to fit comfortably into historic locations.

1.1.3. I provide an expert consultancy service related to Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings and the design of new buildings in historic contexts. I advise and guide both architects and developers on the design of buildings associated with Listed Buildings and Conservation Area, evaluate and comment on proposals as they develop and when I am content with the final design prepare a Justification Statement to accompany Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent Applications. I assist in positive liaison with Planning and Conservation Officers. I also have considerable experience as an Expert Witness evaluating issues associated with proposals related to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and the preparation and presentation of Proofs of Evidence for Planning Appeals and Public Inquiries.

1.1.4. I am personally appointed by Her Majesty the Queen to the Panel of Architects serving and advising the Royal Household. Clients have included Sir Richard FitzHerbert at Tissington Hall, South Derbyshire (Jacobean Grade II*), the Leghs at Adlington Hall, Cheshire (building 1475-1720 Grade I), Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Richards at Gawsworth Hall, Cheshire (1530 Grade I), Lord and Lady Grey of Codnor at High Legh House, The National Trust, The Devonshire Maintenance Fund

3 (Chatsworth), Great Portland Estates (London) and the Diocese of Derby. I have recently completed twelve years as a founder Trustee and Architectural adviser to the Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust whose buildings include the Mappin Art Gallery (1820) and Bishops House (1474), The Graves Art Gallery (1930) and the Millennium Galleries (2000)

1.1.5. Expert Consultancy and Expert Witness Clients have included George Wimpey UK Ltd, John Laing Ltd, Taylor Wimpey UK , St Modwen, Asda, CDC 2020 PLC, Peel Holdings, Modus, Choice Hotels, Melton Mowbray Borough Council, and Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council, amongst many others.

4 2.0.0 BACKGROUND

2.1.0 Introduction 2.1.1 Stoke Hall is Located in Grindleford, Derbyshire. (Appendix 1: Site Location Plan) It comprises a substantial country house and is Listed Grade II*. (Appendix 2: Statutory Listing Text) The principal block of the existing house dates from the mid eighteenth century. However, visual evidence reveals that the east range and the north service wing, which were extended in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries, incorporate parts of the earlier Stoke Hall which according to unsupported local history notes, was damaged by fire. There are a number of further nineteenth century additions but the house very much retains its distinctive Georgian character.

2.1.2 By 1973 the house had deteriorated and was in poor condition. It was then bought and converted into a hotel and restaurant, and a degree of conservation work was undertaken, although the roofs continued to leak. By the early 1980s, the hotel was evidently struggling and its condition deteriorating. It was purchased in 1983 by Richard Jowitt and substantial alterations and conservation work occurred during the 1980s and 1990s, including the replacement of most windows and re-roofing of the main block. Sadly Mr Jowitt died in 2007 leaving a substantial challenge to complete the restoration work especially to the interiors of several rooms in the main block, and to the east and northern wings.

2.1.3 When purchased by the present owners, Mr and Mrs Drury, in 2009 substantial areas of roof were missing from the north and east wings, where the structure and interiors had been protected for some twenty years only by tarpaulins. Water penetration had clearly been an ongoing problem and extensive dry rot was found. An extensive programme of essential and desirable conservation work was commenced throughout the hall and a considerable amount has already been completed whilst the remainder is progressing well.

5

2.2.0 The Current Listed Building Consent Applications

2.2.1 The first Listed building Consent Application is retrospective and relates to the provision and installation of appropriately scaled and proportioned „St Aubin” limestone paving slabs in what was the breakfast room prior to the purchase of Stoke Hall by Mr. and Mrs. Drury in 2009, a room which is now intended to be the family sitting room. Poor quality and inappropriate concrete paving slabs had been removed and the limestone paving installed in November 2009 order to give the new owner‟s, and their young family, one comfortably habitable room in which to enjoy Christmas. This was observed on 15th February 2010 by John Sewell and David O‟Connor of the Peak District National Park Authority. Mr O‟Connor subsequently wrote on 11th March 2010 to advise that it will be necessary to submit a Listed Building Consent Application bearing in mind that the property is Listed Grade II* whilst expressing an informal view that the modern, precise, light coloured finish of the tile appears at odds with the character and status of this section of the house. An application was required within a month of the date of the letter but a three month period was subsequently accepted.

2.2.2 The second Listed Building Consent Application is also retrospective and also relates to the former breakfast room where plaster has not been reinstated around the fireplace on the north wall. Mr. O‟Connor in the same letter advised that should the intention be to leave the bare stonework in situ, it will be necessary to submit a formal Listed Building Application. The current Application is because my client does wish to leave the bare stonework exposed as presently existing.

2.2.3 The third Listed Building Consent Application relates to the Victorian service staircase alongside the north wall of the kitchen. The stone built stairway

6 enclosure and the service stairway was clearly built opening directly off the service corridors at ground and first floor levels built during the nineteenth century as an addition to the earlier nineteenth century service extensions to the north wing at Stoke Hall. As will be described in section 6.3, it is evident that the original service stair included a top riser that formed a short dogleg onto the first floor landing followed be winders leading to what must have been a straight flight down to the ground floor. The stair itself had clearly subsequently been reconfigured to remove the single step dogleg on the top landing, leaving two closely spaced newel posts one of which is partly buried within the raised floor level on the first floor landing where the top step has been infilled. During the currently ongoing conservation work at Stoke Hall, most of the staircase comprising a straight flight with winders top and bottom has been removed owing to extensive dry rot which was the result of water penetration through the tarpaulin roof which had been present for approximately twenty years. The east wing and the north wing have now been properly and appropriately roofed as part of the ongoing conservation programme, and dry rot has been treated necessitating the removal of plaster which has exposed the main fabric and the stages of construction. As described in more detail in section 6.3, the work has revealed that the thin spine wall built alongside the lower flight of the now removed staircase is built from brick in an otherwise sturdily constructed stone building. The apertures from the corridor to the stairway at both ground and first floor levels, which were the full width of the staircase enclosure, are also infilled with brick but including a fire door. The still existing handrail to the first floor landing clearly dates from the 1960s or 70s and comprises a wholly inappropriate “balustrade” with square, soft wood vertical posts at wide intervals spanned mid height by a single horizontal rectangular rail and a crudely detailed handrail. This totally contravenes any safety requirements and especially where the landing is accessible to young children. These alterations almost certainly occurred when Stoke Hall was converted to an hotel in order to achieve the necessary fire separation, and when this part of the ground floor service corridor adjacent to the open service stairway became an office.

7 2.2.4 Listed Building Consent is now requested to remove the introduced half brick thick wall alongside the now removed lower flight of the staircase, along with the twentieth century brick walls which separate the stairway from the corridors at ground and first floor levels, to also to remove the existing handrails and banisters at first floor landing level, and to install a new staircase with handrail, newel posts and banisters based on the design of the C19 fragments that still remain, in accordance with the submitted drawing. Removal of the introduced brick wall alongside the main flight will allow light to penetrate from the staircase windows and lighten the somewhat dark and forbidding approach from the ground floor level corridor.

2.3.0 My Brief 2.3.1 I was appointed as an expert in the Conservation of Historic Buildings to visit Stoke Hall and inspect the floor and the exposed stone wall in the former breakfast room and to provide my personal expert opinion on their acceptability bearing in mind the historical and architectural context of Stoke Hall. . Following my detailed inspection and evaluation of the house and the expression of my opinion, I was asked to prepare a justification statement to accompany the retrospective Applications for Listed Building Consent.

2.3.2 During the course of my considerations I was also asked to advise on the reinstatement of the service staircase and subsequently to design its necessary replacement in a manner which respects its location and the architectural status of the house. I was also asked to prepare a justification statement covering the architectural, contextual, and historic aspects of the proposal to accompany the necessary Listed Building Consent Application for the removal of the brick wall and the replacement of the staircase, handrails and banisters.

8

2.4.0 Methodology 2.4.1 Prior to considering the issues associated with all three Listed Building Consent Applications, I visited Stoke Hall and examined it internally and externally. I also examined its garden and the area in which the house is located. I am familiar with relevant local and national documentation including relevant parts of the Local Plan and PPS 5 including related documentation. I have also reviewed available reference material specific to the house from a number of sources. 2.4.2 In order to avoid repetition, especially of historical and background information, my single justification statement will relate to all three individual Listed Building Consent Applications

2.4.3 My evidence will include the following:

. Consideration of the history of Stoke Hall . Description, consideration and evaluation of the existing house with observation and analyses of the manner in which Stoke Hall has changed and developed over time. . Consideration of the historical changes that have made country houses sustainable and so secured their survival. . Consideration of the proposals and the effect they would have on the building taking into account its listed status

3.0.0 THE HISTORY OF STOKE HALL 3.1.0 Stoke Hall has a long and interesting history which will be briefly referred to below.

3.2.0 The Hall itself has been subjected to a number of alterations, substantial rebuilding, and extensions and these have resulted in its existing character and appearance. Although some historical information is available in secondary sources, these are not well documented in any detail, and there

9 appears to be very little archival information on the architectural development of the house as existing, partly because for much of its history the house has not been the continuous or principle seat of a major landed family and has been tenanted for much of its time. It has also changed ownership on a number of occasions. There is no information in the Derbyshire County Records Office. However, the combination of available information and visible stylistic evidence does provide valuable clues to the likely development order of the house.

3.3.0 At the time of the Domesday Survey the place was an outlier of Hope and belonged to the King but was bestowed by William the Conqueror to William Peverel. It passed out of the family along with the remainder of their vast estates when the third William Peverel was banished in 1155 for the murder of the Earl of Chester. In 1200 it appears to have formed part of the possessions of Gilbert de Stoke and was referred to in one of the earliest Rufford Charters which states “Gilbertius de Stoca gave half of Abbeneia to the Abbey of Rufford”

3.4.0 In 1317 the Manor of Abney passed to Robert Archer, a member of a family who were lords of at least three other manors, Hucklow, Stoke and Highlow. (See the Manor of Abney : its Bounderies and Court Rolls) This also refers to “Gerebertus de Stoca. (The Manor of Abney: its Boundaries and Court Rolls by CEB Bowles, MA published in the Derbyshire Archaeological Journal Vol. 29, 1907)

3.5.0 At some stage Stoke Hall passed to the ownership of Lord Grey of Codnor who had a castle at Codnor. It is unknown whether they acquired it from Edward IV as one of his many gifts to the family when he became enamoured of Lady Elizabeth Grey. Henry, Lord Grey of Codnor sold the Manor of Stoke in 1473 in order to fund his experiments to convert copper into gold and later died without heir.

3.6.0 Stoke was purchased by Robert Barlow of Barlow Hall and either he or one of his immediate successors may have built a new house there as he was

10 the first lord of Stoke to have lived there, for a century or more. The first marriage of Elizabeth, later Countess of Shrewsbury, when she was fourteen was to his descendant Robert Barley (Barlow) who died in his teens in either 1533 or 1544 according to different sources. It was the son of Thomas Barlow fourth in descent from Robert who was “interred in his chapel in his own mansion house of Stoke in Hope parish.” After the death of Humphrey Barlow his heirs, then resident in Sheffield, are reported to have sold Stoke Hall sometime before 1630 to William Cavendish of Bolsover, grandson to Bess of Hardwick through her second son Sir Charles Cavendish. However, Robert Barlow left much of his estate to his wife Bess, and when Countess of Shrewsbury she granted in 1573 the Manor of Stoke to her second son Sir Charles Cavendish who was already engaged in the lead trade with his brother, William, and probably built the lead smelting works at Stoke.(ii) It seems likely therefore that the subsequent Barlows may have been only tenants at Stoke Hall until it was occupied by William Cavendish who later became 1st Earl, then Marquess and subsequently the Duke of Newcastle. Stoke was evidently his favourite seat when he was defeating the allied armies of Scotland and Parliament outside the walls of York. . This re establishment of so direct family connection with Stoke Hall does lead one to conjecture whether the rebuilding or extension of Stoke Hall may have been an early work of Bess of Hardwick with her first husband, Robert Barlow. The Duke of Newcastle was a staunch royalist and fought for the King in the Civil War. After the King‟s defeat he was forced into exile in Antwerp, and his lands were forfeited. His Manor at Stoke was sold by his trustees for £313 as recorded in a book written by his wife about her husband‟s support for the King. An original copy of the book is now in Sheffield University Library.(ii)

3.7.0 Stoke Hall was then purchased by Jacynth Sacheverell of Morley but according to “Stoke, Derbyshire-References in Early Records” collected by Rosemary Lockie in 2002 (iii) it was somehow recovered by the Duke after the Restoration and leased back to Thomas Sacheverell who continued to claim rent from Ashton and Froggatt who disputed this and said they were now paying rent to the Duke, as recorded in various records in the

11 Nottinghamshire Archives It seems the Duke sold Stoke in about 1672 a few years before his death in 1676, but there is some uncertainty to whom. Nevertheless, about this time Francis Fisher of Eckington purchased Stoke hall and was probably the first man to live permanently at Stoke since the Barlows, rather than use it as a shooting or hunting seat. He died in 1727 leaving a daughter as his heiress who married Revd John Simpson. The present hall was built by John Simpson and a rainwater gutter includes the date 1751. Anecdotal comments suggest it was rebuilt after a fire but there is no evidence of this. This John, described as “of Stoke” left a daughter as heiress who brought it to Sir Henry Bridgeman, 5th Baronet who was created Lord Bradford of Bradford in Shropshire in 1794. Their second son, also John, inherited Stoke on his mother‟s death in 1806 and took the surname and arms of Simpson in order to inherit. However he had let the house by 1816 to Robert Arkwright who was still there in 1827. John Simpson was succeeded in 1850 by his son Revd. W.B. Simpson rector of Babworth in Nottinghamshire. He sold it with an estate of over 1000 acres to Michael Hunter of Greystones in Sheffield. He died in 1898 and Stoke was subsequently owned by his son Michael Joseph Hunter but lived in by the latter‟s brother, James. MJ Hunter‟s son. Michael John MP lived there until the death of his wife‟s brother, when he inherited the Trafford family estate in Herefordshire and moved there. Stoke Hall was then occupied by Emile Viner, of the steel manufacturing family, but later became an hotel and restaurant until sold in 1982 as a going concern. It failed to prosper and was again sold by auction in 1983.

3.7.1 As already noted it was purchased in 1983 by Richard Jowitt and substantial alterations and conservation work occurred during the 1980s and 1990s, including the replacement of most windows and reroofing of the main block. Mr Jowitt died in 2007 and Stoke Hall was purchased by Mr and Mrs Stephen Drury who are currently fulfilling the very considerable challenge of completing the restoration work.

12 Note information within the above précis was extracted variously from: (i) “Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire by Joseph Tilley, Volume 1, The High Peak Hundred transcribed by Rosemary Lockey in 1999- 2010 (ii) Article by David Crossley and David Kierman on the Lead Smelting Mills of Derbyshire published in 1992 in the Derbyshire Archaeological journal. (iii) “Stoke, Derbyshire-References in Early Records” collected by Rosemary Lockie in 2002. (iv) “The Derbyshire Country House” by Maxwell Craven and Michael Stanley published by Breedon Books

4.0.0 THE EXISTING HOUSE Description Consideration and Evaluation of the Existing House with Observation and Analyses of how Stoke Hall has Changed over Time.

4.1.0 The appearance and character of the existing house results from the history of its development over time.

4.2.0 The Principal Volume of the House 4.2.1 The main house as currently existing was completed in about 1751 and this is evidenced by the date on a rainwater hopper at the rear of the house. It was built by the Rev John Simpson using Ashlar Gritstone from the quarry on the estate. The main building is essentially L shaped and two and a half stories tall, with a boldly projecting cornice above which is a plain parapet

13 acting as a tall blocking course which is slightly articulated to form plinths to a regular rhythm of ball and urn finials.

4.2.2 The west five bay entrance front elevation is built from ashlar gritstone with a subtle corduroy finish. (Photograph 1) It has a central Ionic distyle portico above which is a segmentally pedimented window with swept architraves supported on a blind balustraded apron. Ground floor windows have continuous plain sill bands and moulded architraves above which are bracketed moulded hoods. First floor windows are also linked by a continuous plain sill band which breaks forward to support the swept architrave of the central window. First floor windows have plain surrounds and floating moulded hoods. Ground and first floor windows have twelve pane sash windows. Second floor windows are totally plain, shorter and are now divided into nine smaller panes although early C20 photographs illustrate them with casement windows. (Appendix 3) The two storey entrance lobby infilling a small return at the north end of the elevation to is a later extension. (Photograph 2)

4.2.3 The five bay south elevation is similar but the ground floor windows are devoid of architraves, are longer and divided into fifteen panes divided by astragals, and extend down below the sill band. The central aediculed garden doorway has narrow swept architraves and is recessed within a blind arch.(Photograph 3)

4.2.4 Somewhat surprisingly, the coursing height and scale of the ashlar stonework appears greater at second floor level, above sill level, than on the remainder of the facade, on both the west and south elevations.

4.2.5 The east return elevation of the south range is a slightly simpler composition. (Photographs 4 and 5) It is built from random coursed rubble with a dressed face between ashlar quoins with a central stack of windows. The ground floor window is set on the sill band which continues from the west and south elevations, and the window is dressed with moulded architraves and a bracketed moulded hood as on the west elevation. The

14 first floor central window incorporates the continuous sill band but, in common with the second floor window above, has simple plain banded dressings to both sides and the head unlike the plain jambs on the west and south ashlar elevations. The cornice is devoid of modillions. The return north elevation is similar but devoid of windows.

4.2.6 By contrast the east elevation of the west entrance range is substantially different in design detail from elsewhere. (Photograph 5) The parapet continues but with only a single ball finial at its return to the north elevation, whilst the cornice continues without modillions. The first and second floor of the façade, above the sill band course which extends from the adjacent north elevation, is faced with ashlar gritstone with an almost indiscernibly fine corduroy texture and with the vertical edges to the perpends cross- banded with slightly bolder corduroy pattern. This detail is similar to that on the west and south elevations. This contrasts with the coursed rubble of the secondary elevations of the south range and the east wing, whilst the scale of stonework also appears slightly larger than that of the west and south elevation. The courses of the ashlar do not line with the courses of the coursed rubble on the north elevation of the south wing. Viewed from a first floor window it is evident that the exposed ground floor elevation, above the flat roof to the single storey adjunct is faced with coursed fine rubble identical to, and coursing through, with that on the adjacent north elevation. (Photograph 6) The fenestration is also totally different in character from that of the remaining elevations and incorporates a pair of imposing Diocletian windows at second floor level creating a surprising duality over an equally surprising widely spaced first floor rhythm composed of a pair of four-pane wide windows located directly below the Diocletian windows alternating with three narrow two-pane wide windows. The pattern of fenestration does include three blind but glazed windows. This is Palladianism with distinct monumental Roman Neoclassical overtones fashionably influenced by the eighteenth century archaeological discoveries in Rome. This surprising stylistic difference, and the change in stone style part way up the elevation does suggest that the building time for this ashlar

15 elevation may not have been contemporary with the other elevations of the main house.

4.2.7 The roof to the L shaped principal volume is hipped and substantially hidden behind the parapet.

4.2.8 Internally rooms such as the salon (Photographs 13 and 14) and drawing room (Photograph 15) are robustly detailed with plasterwork, and in the salon room a marble fireplace attributed to Grindling Gibbons is in an English Palladian interpretation of the late Baroque style suggesting Roman splendour. The first and second floors of the staircase hall are also robustly decorated with plasterwork mouldings on the walls and ceiling in the late baroque manner (Photographs 21-23 the exuberance of which contrasts with the strict and more academic Neoclassical Palladianism of the external east facing elevation.(Photograph 5) By contrast, other rooms such as the grand entrance hall are simpler with flat plaster walls and ceilings decorated with dentilled cornices in a stricter restrained Palladian manner with elegant Georgian fireplaces and bay-leaf garland torus moulded friezes to the over- doors. (Photographs 11 and 12) Here in the restrained great entrance hall a modern twentieth century marble floor with darker diamond inserts at the corners differs from the oak boarded flooring in the baroque salon and drawing rooms. Surprisingly, the ground floor level of the main staircase hall is dark and without windows. (photographs 18 and 20) It illustrates none of the Baroque/Rococo decoration that is so flamboyant at first floor landing level and at second floor level which whilst not approached by this staircase includes a large open well surrounded by a balustrade which matches the staircase below. This, and the large Diocletian window allows the flamboyant baroque ceiling plasterwork and painting and wall plasterwork at second floor level to be visible from the first floor landing which is equally well lit and with equally flamboyant late baroque plasterwork. It is barely visible from the ground floor hall, however, owing to the constrained size of the staircase well.(Photographs 20 and 21) By surprising and total contrast, at ground floor level the floor to the main staircase hall is currently plain concrete and the walls plainly plastered above restrained dado panelling.

16 The somewhat heavy main dogleg staircase with its cantilevered upper flight, supported by a plain and massive oak corbel, almost fills the width of the hall and creates the impression a low ceiling. The portion of the hall north of the staircase may well originally have been a separate inner hall, as at first and second floor levels. (photograph 19) Without the staircase at ground floor level, it is lighter and more open in character. It has a full height ceiling which is further lightened by a well open to the first and second floors above, where a more lightly detailed painted staircase wraps around the well linking first and second floors. The two hallways are currently open one to another but differ so completely in style that they must surely have originally been separated. (photographs 18 and 19) Incongruously, a dark slate and marble fireplace in a Jacobean style straddles the two hallways, and extends under the ceiling to the half landing of the main staircase. The combined space of the two staircase halls was floored with concrete during my earlier inspections but has now been tiled with fine veined marble with contrasting diamond corner inserts to match the floor in the grand entrance hall, which was the billiard room when photographed at the beginning of the C20.

4.2.9 The external east facing open court enclosed by the two principle east-west wings and the east wall to the hallways is in-filled by a flat roofed single storey element containing two rooms. Much of the style and detailing of the eastern façade of this infill building is totally different from the robust and pared down Palladian Neoclassicism of the elevation behind it. It can not surely have been the work of the same architect or undertaken for the same owner. The single storey façade is divided by simple flat pilasters into four irregular bays all of which vary in width with small moulded capitals formed from projections of the simple cornice. (Photographs 5 and 8) The pilasters are composed of three stones of differing lengths so that joints do not line with each other. This surprising irregularity of the façade is emphasised by the presence of a half width pilaster at the north end of the façade and the complete absence of the expected matching half pilaster at the south end. The two northern bays each include an architraved twelve paned sash window which is not central to its bay, whilst the wider third bay includes a

17 central slightly wider architraved window, and the southernmost bay includes a centralised architraved doorway. The architraves are similar but simpler in design than that of the single ground floor window on the east elevation of the southern principal wing and whilst the sills are at a similar height, the heads are much lower reflecting lower ceiling heights and smaller scale windows. The bays are infilled with random rubble in irregular narrow courses with a character that is different from the disciplined coursed rubble of the facades flanking the single storey elevation. A flush plain band- course continues the line of the projecting sills to the three windows, but does not line with the banded sill course to the major two and a half storey elevations. The flush band-course is repeated on either side of the architraves to the doorway in the southern-most elevation, and to the window architraves in the remaining four bays, above which is a single narrow course of stone and a small moulded cornice which continues the form of the capital to the flat pilasters. The elevation is capped in a somewhat ungainly manner with a two courses of ashlar stone reflecting the character of the parapets to the main elevations above which is a stone balustrade. The scale and character of the parapet and balustrade is different from that of the gentle façade below it.

4.2.10 The combination of the Classical style of the façade and its surprisingly irregular rhythm and unresolved detailing, especially at the ends, suggest that it can not be the work of the same architect or master mason as the principal building with its regular and disciplined Palladian west and south facades, or indeed its gravely Roman Neoclassical Palladian east façade. It seems likely that the suite of two rooms east of the staircase hall were additions later in the eighteenth century when interpretation of the classical style became, on occasions somewhat less strict. This façade suggests the work of an enthusiastic local builder who could apply an interpretation of classical detailing, possibly derived from pattern books, without understanding the fundamental philosophy and discipline of the style. Internally the two rooms to the east of the two hallways differ in character from the three grand rooms in the main L shaped building. They are more domestic in scale with lower ceilings. The dining room ceiling is flat plaster

18 with a coved border divided by curved and scrolled brackets which spring from the panelled entablature above pilasters which divide wall panelling. The floor is of herringbone parquet flooring in contrasting and toning tones. The adjacent room known as the study is a simple Georgian room with panelled walls, window shutters at right angles to the windows and simple run covings to a flat ceiling.

4.3.0 The East Wing 4.3.1 The elevations of the two storey projecting wing to the east suggests several different periods of construction and/or alteration. The southern elevation is divided into two distinct sections by a rusticated rectangular pilaster. Part of the elevation is masked by the single storey extension referred to above. The coursed rubble stonework on the west side of the pilaster is smaller in scale and less regular than that to the east of the pilaster. At first floor level there are four twelve paned sash windows with simple gritstone rectangular dressings, with a further two similar windows east of the pilaster. An early photograph, (Appendix 3.2) part of a series dating from the early C20 illustrates the façade as it then existed. One window is shown overlooking the flat roof with eighteen smaller panes which looks similar to the three late seventeenth century windows on the west elevation of the north wing which does suggest the possibility that it also formed part of the earlier dwelling. The same set of photograph Appendix 3.2) illustrates two four- over-four paned sash windows serving each of the two rooms at first floor level in the east wing. Such windows whilst unusual would most likely date from the Regency or early Victorian when larger panes of glass were available, rather than the Georgian period. These windows have clearly all been replaced by the six over six sashes now existing. The joints in the stone dressings to the windows east of the pilaster do not line with similar joints in the dressing west of the pilaster suggesting that they are not contemporary with each other. West of the pilaster, a single doorway at ground floor level has similarly dressed jambs and a semicircular arched fanlight over whilst to the east a semicircular headed sash window located between the first floor windows is similarly

19 detailed with projecting springing blocks and keystone. These were both illustrated as semicircular headed sash windows with larger panes on the early C20 photographs. The external garden with planted borders, lawns, footpaths and urns illustrated on the early photographs (Appendix 3.1), has changed to a paved terrace. The façade is capped by a continuous small cornice and a three course ashlar parapet reflecting in a simpler manner the cornice and parapet of the principal ranges, and decorated with a single ball finial over the rusticated pilaster which returns onto the east elevation. The evidence suggests that the room enclosed by the eastern- most two end bays has been added to an earlier building at some stage, and the pilaster matching that at the eastern return end provided to conceal the junction. It seems probable therefore that the pilasters, along with the small cornice and the ashlar parapet were added contemporaneously when the wing was extended. The canted bay window on the eastern end elevation appears to have been added at a later date judging by the mitred joint in the small cornice, the poorly conceived joint between the rusticated corner pilaster and the window jambs, and the fact that the ashlar stones forming the jambs to the canted bay window do not course through with the rusticated courses of the flanking pilasters. Various extensions mask the northern elevation of what is now the east wing.

4.3.2 The proportions and south facing orientation of the rooms on both ground and first floors within this wing suggest that they were built for use by the owners and not by servants. However, internally there have been many alterations which make it difficult to analyse its history. The ground floor interiors however are simple and vernacular in character with an exposed beam in what is now the kitchen and a total lack of architectural dressing in both rooms. As observed externally, and as noted following later analyses, it seem likely that the southern element of the north wing, or possibly just the western part prior to its apparent eastern extension formed part of the manor house that was the precursor to the 1757 Hall and that it was extended and updated externally to its current Georgian classical style. The interiors of the two well proportioned ground floor rooms are devoid of Georgian interior architectural detailing, as is the southern room of the north

20 wing with the late Tudor period fireplace. However the provision of a fashionable arched sash window overlooking the river and the view, and fine windows on the south elevation overlooking the pleasure grounds rather than windows on the north elevation overlooking the service court suggest that none of these the rooms were intended for servants. During recent years the ground floor rooms have comprised the family kitchen with a family sitting room flanking it to the east with the bay window overlooking the river and with a family breakfast room to the west providing the link to the 1757 main house. At first floor level, the still extant if damaged detailing of the eastern-most room, with deep cornices, a ceiling decorated with plaster mouldings in the rococo style with a substantial coved perimeter and a good eared Georgian fireplace and the views from windows including the segmental bay overlooking the river reveal its intended status as a family room of some quality. The approach room, designated as a dressing room over recent years, has been stripped of all finishes at some stage but bearing in mind it is enfilade with the rooms on either side it must have achieved an appropriately sympathetic quality. Bearing in mind these considerations it seems certain that the eastern wing was intended for family rather than service accommodation. Access from the main 1757 house to the wing, however, is not direct but is through the southernmost room on each floor of the north wing. It is evident therefore that these connecting rooms were always enfilade with those in the east wing, and intended for family use. Cellars under this wing with external access at the eastern end may typically have included the kitchen during late Georgian times.

4.4.0 The NORTH WING

4.4.1 To the north of the principal L shaped range is an attached two storey range, and careful observation and assessment reveals that this has developed in several stages over time and was intended to include both owner and service accommodation. The East wing connects at a slight angle with the southern end of the north wing forming an L shaped

21 formation attached to the north of the main three storey volume of the house

4.4.2 Externally, the west elevation of the north wing comprises nine bays in total but this is subdivided into three distinctive elements. These are discernable internally as three distinct phases of construction, although all three elements have been subjected to alterations over time.

4.4.3 The southernmost element of the North Wing

4.4.4 This element comprises one large room at the southern end, and one smaller room, on both ground and first floor levels

4.4.5 The west elevation of the southern-most element of the north wing abutting the main range is irregular in design with the ground floor elevation differing from the first floor elevation. The façade is faced with ashlar gritstone but with clear evidence of stonework constructed in different periods with irregular joints where courses do not line through and bond, to the right of the arched window. This suggests the elevation could have been substantially re-clad, altered, or rebuilt at some stage. At first floor level, the elevation to this southern element comprises three bays of differing widths each with sash a window in a plain slightly projecting rectangular gritstone surround at first floor level. All of these sash windows have eighteen panes and have thick moulded astragals indicating that they date from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century. (Sashes were first introduced in the late 1660s and became fashionable in England from about 1670 and were commonplace in fashionable houses by 1700). They could therefore have been introduced at Stoke Hall at any stage between 1670 and about 1715-20 by which time astragals became more slender, and glass panes larger. Internally at first floor level, however, the design of the shutters with the moulded detailing of the raised and fielded panelling to the shutters, the combination of panelled and flush internal faces with exaggerated H shaped hinges with tripartite mechanism and the detailing of the drop handles are

22 all typical of the last three decades of the seventeenth century. The fashionable adoption of sash windows with the evidence indicating a possibly early date soon after the introduction of sash windows does lead one to conjecture whether they may have been introduced or incorporated into building works by William Cavendish as Duke of Newcastle during his last period of ownership of Stoke Hall , his favourite if secondary seat, up to 1675 when the Duke sold Stoke to Francis Fisher of Eckington who was probably the first man to live permanently at Stoke since the Barlows, rather than use it as a shooting or hunting seat, and he could also have undertaken the work during his early period of ownership. He died in 1727 leaving a daughter as his heiress who married Revd John Simpson who built the present hall. The fact that the sash boxes are currently set back behind the stonework indicates a relationship date between window and stonework after the 1709 London Building Act which required a four inch setback and although applying only to London was soon adopted more generally. However, as noted, the ashlar stone cladding could have been added to the elevation at a date subsequent to 1709 and evidence of alteration to the stone cladding has already been noted. Panelling has been temporarily removed internally for conservation purposes revealing random rubble walling brought to approximate courses with large keyed stones at the jambs to all three first floor windows without any indication of alteration indicating that the stonework and windows were contemporary. Internally the panelling is also typical of the late seventeenth century. The massive stones of the chimneybreast on the north side of the principle room and the extant remains of anearly stone fireplace and the attractive small Georgian chimneypiece with panelled jambs carved from veined grey marble is indicative of the status of the room‟s intended occupiers. Although the first sashes are of an earlier date than those currently existing at first floor of the south elevation of the east wing, the early C20 photographs illustrate a similar sash window on the south elevation of the east wing, whilst the traditional typically Derbyshire detail of the stone surrounds on both is similar, whilst the stone surround to the arched windows on the eastern wing is a simplified version of those on the west facade of the north wing

23 which, of course was alongside the entrance frontage to the later principal volume of the Hall.

4.4.6 At ground floor level an arched sash window serving the larger of the two ground floor rooms in this element of the wing is set in a simply moulded, slightly advanced architrave with a projecting keystone and springing blocks which resemble simplified capitals. It is located between the two southern- most first floor windows. Round headed windows were introduced at Windsor Castle in 1672 and there is no doubt that William Cavendish as Duke of Newcastle and supporter of Charles II would have been familiar with this, and may well have emulated it for his favourite small seat that was certainly owned by his grandmother, Bess of Hardwick. The existing arched sash window, however, has more delicate astragals and so must post date the 1710-1720 period. The window is also typical of the Later Georgian period after about 1765 when round headed window openings became popular.

4.4.7 There is also a virtually square sixteen pane sash window with similarly fine astragals serving the smaller of the two ground floor rooms in this element of the wing. The bottom rail of the top sash has horns indicating that it is Victorian in design. The sash window may have been replaced during refurbishment by the previous owner but being a Grade II* Listed building one would assume that the design for so an important an element alongside the principal entrance elevation will have exactly reproduced the original. Unlike the remaining windows of this element, it is set in naked flush stone surrounds with single stones as jambs. (photograph xxx) It is wider than the window above with only the reveal to southern jamb lining with that above leaving the north jamb located uncomfortably close to the quoined pilaster, and the lintel does not line with the brick coursing leaving an unexpectedly thin sliver of stonework above. The detailing and overall proportions are less overtly fashionable than the remaining windows, more vernacular, and more typical of lower status accommodation windows. Both of these ground floor windows match in detail those in the adjacent central element of the north wing (see photographs 55 - 47) although there the jambs of the rectangular windows comprise three, not single, stones.

24 4.4.8 The large and simply detailed stone fireplace, typical of about 1600, in the western larger ground floor room of this three bay element does indicate an owner of some status and reveals the earlier roots of this part of Stoke Hall. (Photograph 59) It is clear therefore that this southern segment of the north wing started as principal accommodation in a smaller earlier house and was clearly altered with highly fashionable early sash windows late in the seventeenth or early eighteenth century indicating its importance as the seat of someone educated, knowledgeable and fashionable.

4.4.9 There is evidence to suggest that the southern element of the north wing at an earlier stage extended eastwards into part of what is now the east wing forming an L shaped dwelling. This is suggested by the thickness of the wall between the first floor room (with two late C17 windows) and the corridor which appears slightly thin for an external wall, by the continuous floor level between the two areas, by the timber beams across the corridor supporting the roof, and by the splay to the south facing window aperture overlooking the flat roof to the study and dining room, which is illustrated in an early C20 photograph with an eighteen pane sash window similar to those on the west elevation.

4.4.10 The relationship of this element of the north wing to the remained of the house in terms of the overall plan will be considered later.

4.4.11 This three bay element is separated from the adjacent central three bay element of the north wing by an unusual slightly projecting double quoin acting as a pilaster. (Photograph 47) At first floor level, where internal stone walling has been revealed during conservation, in a similar location, there is clear evidence in the smaller of the two first floor rooms of quoins and an infill panel with nearly vertical joints in the stonework construction of the outer, western wall (see photograph 52), This suggests that the central three bayed element of the north wing has been added, with the zipper-like keyed pilaster disguising the joint.

25 4.4.12 The Central Three Bay Element of the North Wing

4.4.13 The central three bay element is built from similar ashlar gritstone and has a square sixteen pane sash window in a flush stone surround on either side of a central arched window at ground floor level. (Photograph 46) These match the windows at ground floor level in the three bay element to the south end of the wing, although the northern window has a projecting keystone and the vertical stone dressings to both the rectangular windows are formed in three parts instead of being single stones . First floor nine pane sash windows are smaller in both dimensions and also have slightly projecting flush stone surrounds which match the detail of those on the first floor elevation of the adjacent southern element. The central three bay element is enclosed at the north end by slightly projecting quoins, indicating the probable extremity of the wing. (photographs 45 and 46) Similar quoins are evident inside the building at first floor level illustrating what was at one stage the north east corner of the wing. (Photograph 67)

4.4.14 A substantial chimney is evident spanning the ridge on what was clearly at one stage the north gable of the wing.(Photograph 46)

4.4.15 Internally the ground floor comprises one large room with a modern first floor construction. Despite considerable alteration there is evidence of a fireplace on the northern end wall and it seems probable that this large room may well have been used as the kitchen during later Georgian and or Victorian times and the room may well have extended up through two storeys, and this was commonplace for kitchens to substantial country houses from Tudor times onwards. However, the space is currently subdivided into two floor levels, with the first floor forming one larger room with a smaller room subdivided by timber studs at the southern end. At first floor level the stonework to the walls has been exposed internally as part of ongoing conservation work, and there is no evidence of a fireplace ever having existed on the northern chimney breast which suggests that it did not form a first floor room. There is evidence that doorways have existed through the eastern wall to this element of the north wing giving access to and from the eastern corridor that runs alongside this three bay element of

26 the north wing. The roof clearly spans only the width of the principal rooms, and the corridor is clearly a flat roofed extension from which the stone corbelled eaves of the earlier wing are clearly evident and these are typically C19 vernacular in design. Although the 1983 Plan (appendix xxx) illustrate the first floor subdivided into hotel bedrooms, it could not have been subdivided into smaller rooms during the nineteenth century as they would have required chimneys and fireplaces for heat. The provision of the first floor is therefore considered to be a later addition, as was its subdivision into the bedrooms that were used when it was an hotel.

4.4.16The Northern-most Three Bays of the North Wing.

4.4.17 The quoins returning the west and east elevations of the adjacent central three bays to the original northern gable end illustrate that the northern three bays to the west elevation are an addition to the wing. This is supported by the entirely different design and the manner in which this end element wraps around to the east creating a greater width resulting in a higher ridgeline. Further indication is given by the west elevation being set back slightly from the remainder of the wing, by the coursing of the ashlar gritstone not lining with the stonework, including the quoins, to the central element and by the larger scale of the twelve pane sash windows which are recessed into the naked ashlar stonework without dressings or architraves, although flat sillbands link the sills on both floors. The character of this northern element is different from its neighbouring elements.

4.4.18 Internally this segment of the wing incorporates small service rooms with vaulted ceilings at ground floor level suggesting it was constructed during the Victorian period when numbers of servants substantially increased in country houses.

4.4.19 All three elements of the western elevation are linked by a continuous small cornice above which is a three course plain parapet wall partly masking the

27 stone slated roof. This is similar to, but not the same as the cornice and parapet on the south façade of the east wing.

4.4.20 The interior of the north wing provides further clues with regard to the chronology of the present house. I have already referred to the tall eighteen pane sash windows with relatively small panes and thick heavy astragals which reveal their late seventeenth or early eighteenth century Queen Anne period credentials whilst the four inch recess of the sash boxes behind the outer stonework indicates a date after the 1709 London Building Act. By about 1715 – 1720 astragals had become much more slender and glass panes larger. Stone dressings around window apertures externally were also typical of the late seventeenth and Queen Anne period. The still extant panelling in the first floor southern-most room with large panels above a dado rail and small panels below the dado at first floor level is also typical of this period although similar panelling details continued throughout the eighteenth century. The date suggests that the work was undertaken either by William Cavendish when Duke of Newcastle in the early 1670s or by Francis Fisher of Eckington to whom it was sold and who was the father in law of the Rev. John Simpson who built the existing main house. It is evident therefore that the function and status of this part of Stoke Hall has varied over time from the principal room of a small manor house to the grander accommodation for a Duke, then clearly remaining as part of the secondary circulation space to the hall‟s family, subsequent to the construction of the main hall in 1757, giving access to the east wing at ground and first floor levels during the eighteenth and nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The central three bay segment of the north wing was either built as or became service accommodation probably including the kitchen later in the mid or late eighteenth century and was later extended by the provision of the northernmost three bays almost certainly during the Victorian period when numbers of servants increased in both the country and town houses of the aristocracy and the growing middle classes. Following the use of the building as an hotel and restaurant in the mid twentieth century the southern three bays of the north wing again became family accommodation and included the breakfast room giving access at

28 ground floor level to the family kitchen and sitting room in the east wing, and at first floor level to principal bedroom accommodation whilst the remainder of the first floor of the north wing remained as unused servants accommodation.

5.0.0 CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES AT STOKE HALL 5.0.1 Country houses in Britain, whether large or small have been the subject of constant changes throughout the centuries to enable them to satisfy changing aspirations, changing requirements for privacy and comfort, changing sources of heat, changing relationships with servants and staff, to account for changes in technology and the availability of materials, the necessity or repair and refurbishment and not least to satisfy the demands of fashion. Early Hall Houses were changed by the introduction of intermediate floors whilst both these and timber framed houses constructed in the early sixteenth century later benefited from the introduction of chimneys and fireplaces, Tudor houses such as Chatsworth originally built by Bess of Hardwick with rooms enfilade and opening one to the next were altered during the seventeenth century to accommodate corridors to provide convenience and privacy, and were re-dressed in a more fashionable classical or Baroque manner; innumerable timber framed houses, difficult and time consuming to keep weathertight were hung with tiles, clad in brick or stone, and refenestrated during the eighteenth century throughout Britain; castles such as Bolsover were provided with Renaissance windows, balconies and detailing by the likes of Bess of Hardwick whilst thatch, once common to virtually every village in Britain is now a rarity. Changes in the economy, the returns from farming, the status and wealth of the classes in Britain, the intensive use and later the absence of servants after the two World Wars and the introduction of water, gas, electricity, plumbing and central heating and even insulation has totally changed the manner in which most houses are occupied and used.

29 5.0.2 It is unlikely that service accommodation within the northern-most six bays of the north wing would have been provided during Georgian times when the main house was built times when even substantial middle class households had a relatively modest number of servants. More-over, the service quarters for all ranks of household, often including the kitchen, were generally in the basement. Class demarcation was not as rigid as during Victorian times and Georgian servants were more likely to have a more personal relationship with the family. This is reflected, for example in the manner of entertaining for dinner. During the Georgian period and right up until the mid nineteenth century food for each course would be put on the table at the same time. Everything was set out before the host and guests entered the dining room. At a dinner party for six in 1803 at Forthampton Court in Gloucestershire for example the table was laid out with fish, calf‟s head pudding, chicken, patties, soup, a sirloin of beef, mutton steaks, haricot beans, ham and “Dutch balls”. Guests were expected to help themselves from the nearest dish and then offer it to their neighbours. If they wanted something from the opposite end of the table they asked for it to be passed or for a servant to bring it around to them. Wine would be in a cooler at the centre of the table and guests helped themselves. Only after this was consumed was the table set out with all the contents of the second course; partridges, cheese cakes, spinach, trifle, duck, cherry tart, artichoke bottoms and “„mange with currant juice on it”. The process of self help was slow and dinner frequently lasted from four to five hours. Sauces were impossible because they congealed as they sat on the table.

5.0.3 At Stoke Hall the service quarters, including the kitchen would almost certainly have been accommodated in the basement during Georgian times. The subsequent changes to the layout of the house as noted would have accommodated the developing need for servants. The various changes were made, of course, in order to ensure that the hall accommodated the lifestyle of each of its periods of change.

5.0.4 By the beginning of the Victorian reign in 1837, times were already changing and service accommodation had been added to many country

30 houses and villas in the form of wings and offshoots. The Victorians used many more servants and they were supposed to be soundless and preferably invisible. By the 1880s, a successful middle class barrister, for example, might employ a butler, cook, nurse, two or three housemaids and a page. Stoke Hall was a relatively grand house and would have required a larger compliment of staff. By the middle of the nineteenth century one in three girls aged between fifteen and twenty was in domestic service. Service wings such as part of the north wing at Stoke Hall had been and continued to be built attached to houses to accommodate the increased numbers of servants and to separate the servants more effectively from the main house. The routine at dinner reflected the increased use of servants. Although in some old fashioned households the routine of serving food already described did not change until the end of the nineteenth century, in many houses dinner with „service a la Russe‟ with one dish following another in the still standard manner had become much more common by the mid nineteenth century with a much more sophisticated level of cuisine that and demanded a much higher level of service both in the kitchen and at table. It became accepted that dinner should not last more than an hour.

5.0.5 Partly as a result in the increased employment of servants, to the Victorians, privacy was valued and became an essential prerequisite of any household. While the Victorian squire embraced public duty, the privacy of his fireside was inviolable. The purposes of rooms became more rigidly defined and with an increased emphasis on family rather than social use, comfort and cosiness became virtues. By the mid Victorian period rooms for the comfort and enjoyment including breakfast rooms facing east for the morning sun and more informal family sitting rooms were a necessity in country houses. During this period bathrooms were becoming an expected facility, especially in new houses. A report in the „Builder‟ of 1849 recorded that most first rate new buildings had baths even if the “use of them amongst the middle class is not so general as might be”. Speculative houses in the suburbs were still without bathrooms by that date, however. By 1879 the „Builder‟ again reported that new houses of £100 a year rent generally had baths and that “some of the fresh suburban neighbourhoods”

31 baths were supplied in houses rented at £50 a year adding “in most dwellings there is some dressing room or small room in a wing where a hot and cold bath can be placed.” Change was part of the ongoing life of country houses during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The OS Plan of 1880 (Appendix 4) reveals that Stoke Hall had, as expected, had already achieved its present external form.

5.0.6 Changes, of course continued as houses, of necessity, adapted to satisfy the very different needs of the twentieth century. The First World War resulted in the inevitable neglect of many country houses and changed the social structure of Britain. Servants were no longer available and landed families had become relatively impoverished with the result numerous servants were rarely employed. The family kitchen became the every-day hub of most smaller and mid sized country houses, especially for the daytime accommodation of the householders and their children along with any daily domestic staff who were generally integrated into the workings of the household and treated more as valued family helps, friends and retainers in the Georgian rather than the Victorian manner. As a consequence the kitchen in both the London townhouse and all but the grandest country houses had expanded, often at the expense of what were previously staff offices, to become a large and comfortable family room.

5.0.7 Stoke Hall responded to the difficulties by becoming an Hotel and restaurant during the second half of the twentieth century and this resulted in numerous changes to the interior of the main house and the secondary wings. The hotel layout is illustrated on a plan dated May 1978 (Appendix 5) that formed part of the Hotel Fire Certificate of the same date. It reveals that some very significant and drastic internal alterations had occurred, including a bar servery located in the entrance lobby with an opening into the grand entrance hall which had become a lounge, the entrance lobby was converted to a lavatory, the old sitting room with the Tudor fireplace has also been converted to a lavatory with WC cubicles impinging on the secondary hallway to the north of the main stairway hall, the small room north of the “fireplace room” and the large room that had almost certainly

32 been the Victorian kitchen in the north wing have been opened up to become a disco with a large opening formed into the service corridor, whilst two of the vaulted service rooms towards the end of the north wing have been opened up to accommodate a bar, with the end vaulted space becoming WCs. The east wing has been converted into kitchens and in the single storey extension east of the hallways a corridor has been knocked through to provide direct access from the inner kitchen to the dining room, where a door has been knocked through to give access to the dining room in what was illustrated as a billiard room on the series of early C20 photographs. At first floor level a series of en suite bathrooms has been introduced into the north wing whist the east wing rooms are described as a “rest room” and “staff bedroom”.

5.0.8 Mr Jowitt purchased Stoke Hall by auction in 1982 and commenced a long but inconclusive period of conservation and conversion back to a private house. As already noted there was still considerable work to be undertaken, including roofing much of he north wing, which was protected only by tarpaulin, when he sadly died in 2008 . However, a sketch plan prepared by Mr Jowitt dated 11th March 2003 illustrating Stoke Hall as an hotel, prior to its conversion to a single household dwelling, illustrated that further but smaller changes had occurred since the 1978 Fire Certificate plan. (Appendix 6)

5.0.9 The sales brochure dated 2008 illustrates plans and photographs of Stoke Hall at the time of its sale to Mr and Mrs S Drury. (Appendix 7) The form of the interior is illustrated substantially returned to what was almost certainly close to its pre hotel stage, although rooms are now used for domestic purposes along the lines of most country houses that are not dependant on servants. En suite bathrooms are retained for the bedrooms. The east wing, taking advantage of views over the pleasure grounds and sunlight, now includes the family kitchen and sitting room, whilst the “fireplace room” has been opened up into the corridor to its east allowing a door to provide direct access into the family kitchen. The large room, probably the Victorian kitchen, in the north wing was shown as a games and family room. The end

33 segment of the north wing shows utility spaces in the restored vaulted service rooms. Three of these four utilitarian service rooms, along with the corridor accessing them, are paved in York Stone which was one of the favoured materials for flooring service rooms during the Victorian period. The fourth is tiled with glazed terra cotta.

5.0.10 All of these ongoing changes that have occurred ever since the house was constructed have been essential to ensure that it kept up to date and capable of fulfilling the needs of the time. It has clearly always been a prestigious small country house in attractive grounds that in the past included a small estate. This, the attractive appearance of the house, its ability to be altered and updated to satisfy changing requirements, its location, setting and its size has ensured its survival at a time, following two World Wars, when innumerable country houses of all sizes were demolished as undesirable, unsustainable and unaffordable.

5.0.11 Stoke Hall has clearly changed and been enlarged considerably over time in response to changing social aspirations, changing social needs and conditions, and indeed changing economic conditions and circumstances .In common with numerous other surviving country houses it is this ability to absorb change that has secured its survival. It now demonstrates how public, service and family spaces related, how each fulfilled its function, and how people moved through the building at different periods in history. It demonstrates that the prime importance of any house is not its original plan or any single moment in the past unless of course it is truly innovative, unique, an especially important single example or one of very few now remaining and possibly in public rather than private ownership The purpose of the majority of houses is to provide a home and if a historic house to relate present needs to its historic past. Changes made at the present time are an equally important part of the sustainable history of any building, especially when the nature of the property before and after the change can be recorded for posterity in very considerable detail. I have already illustrated that houses, even the most important houses have had to change throughout history in order to satisfy the aspirations of their owners,

34 changing technology, the changing requirements of heat, comfort, privacy, servants, the lack of servants, status of both owner and house and the finances. Stoke Hall is listed Grade II* (Appendix 2 for the Listing Text) and is clearly an important example of its type and therefore has statutory protection.

5.0.12 Country houses of this high quality, character, and overall scale are consistently enormously expensive to purchase and are also enormously costly to conserve, refurbish and maintain. When purchased by Mr and Mrs Drury, Stoke Hall was still in urgent need of conservation, maintenance and updating. When the house was built and throughout the Georgian and Victorian periods good quality materials, labour and the skills of craftsmen were cheap and easily available. However, this is no longer the case. Stoke Hall is certainly not a house that could be purchased and sustained by most local professionals, or the average businessman or academic on a salary. Its survival can not be in the hands of the faint hearted or the enthusiastic amateur, or the upwardly aspiring with a dream but limited money. Instead it demands the perseverance of someone prepared and able to dedicate considerable sums of money along with the expertise of skilled professionals and craftsmen along with time and interest over a sustained period of ownership to ensure its survival.

5.0.13 Fortunately the house has achieved such an owner prepared and able to undertake the project necessary to ensure the long term survival of Stoke Hall as a first rate house. It is now benefiting from very considerable expenditure in order to achieve the highest standards of restoration and conservation of the historic fabric whilst also satisfying the current standards of family life that will fulfil the expected aspirations of any owner able to provide the necessary very considerable finance necessary to secure its preservation and maintenance for the foreseeable future.

35 6.0.0 Consideration of the Requirements Associated with the current Listed Building Consent Applications, and the effect they would have on the building taking into account its listed status.

6.1.0 The First Listed Building Consent Application 6.1.1 The first Listed building Consent Application is retrospective and relates to the provision and installation of „St Aubin” limestone paving slabs in what was the gents lavatory at the time Stoke Hall had been an hotel, and later the breakfast room prior to its purchase by Mr. and Mrs. Drury in 2009. The room although large is domestic in scale and character and is now the family sitting room. The limestone paving was installed following the removal of poor quality, late twentieth century, concrete paving slabs that were inappropriate in appearance, character or quality for use in Stoke Hall. Their removal revealed a concrete sub floor similar to that in the main staircase halls, and in the central section of the North wing. The limestone flooring was laid in November 2009 in order to create an attractive domestic environment for Mr and Mrs Drury, and particularly their children, to enjoy Christmas in what otherwise was essentially a building site. This was observed during a visit on 15th February 2010 by John Sewell and David O‟Connor of the Peak District National Park Authority. Mr O‟Connor subsequently wrote on 11th March 2010 to advise that it will be necessary to submit a Listed Building Consent Application for the installation of the limestone floor, bearing in mind that the property is Listed Grade II* whilst expressing an informal view that the modern, precise, light coloured finish of the tile appears at odds with the character and status of this section of the house. An application was required within a month of the date of the letter but a three month period was subsequently accepted.

6.1.2 I have earlier considered the history and status of this part of the house in considerable detail. Observation and evaluation indicates that this room formed part of an early mansion house on the site. Lord Grey of Codnor sold the Manor of Stoke in 1473. It was purchased by Robert Barlow of Barlow Hall and either he or one of his immediate successors may have built a new house there as he was the first lord of Stoke to have lived there

36 for a century or more. The first marriage of Elizabeth, later Countess of Shrewsbury, when she was fourteen was to his descendant, Robert Barley family, Stoke Hall was later occupied by William Cavendish who became (Barlow) who died in his teens in either 1533 or 1544 according to different sources. It was the son of Thomas Barlow, fourth in descent from Robert, who was “interred in his chapel in his own mansion house of Stoke in Hope parish.” It was clearly therefore a mansion house of some substance. The fireplace in the room under consideration has been altered but indicates late Tudor origins and its scale indicates the status of the owner during that period. Robert Barlow left much of his estate to his wife Bess, and when Countess of Shrewsbury she granted in 1573 the Manor of Stoke to her second son Sir Charles Cavendish.) Following tenancy by the Barlow 1st Earl, then Marquess and subsequently the Duke of Newcastle. This re- establishment of so direct a family connection with Stoke Hall does lead one to conjecture whether Bess of Hardwick with her first husband, Robert Barlow, may have rebuilt, extended or altered Stoke Hall during the 1530s. Importantly, the room above the fireplace room and the adjacent smaller room each have very early sash windows and shutters with a series of details consistent with the seventeenth century from about 1670. These would have been extremely fashionable at that time and could only have been installed by someone of status and education with London connections. This may have been Charles Cavendish as Duke of Newcastle before he sold it, or Francis Fisher of Eckington who purchased it at about this time. He died in 1727 leaving a daughter as his heiress who married Revd John Simpson who constructed the present hall in 1751.

6.1.3 It is evident, therefore, that the space under consideration had been one of status throughout these periods. Moreover, the single nine-over-nine sash window, matching the late seventeenth century windows on the west elevation, which is visible on the early C20 photograph (Appendix 4) suggests that this element of the earlier hall had extended into part of the present east wing. This early east wing sash window illustrated on the photograph has been subsequently replaced and is now a blind but glazed window, and this may have been the reason for the survival of the original

37 sash when others were later replaced as illustrated on the photograph. It is not now possible to determine the late C17 disposition of rooms east of the fireplace room, although the now blind window at first floor level must certainly then have been a window lighting an important room for a fashion conscious owner. All of the east wing windows were replaced at some stage during the later twentieth century.

6.1.4 It is difficult to evaluate the role and status of the space under consideration for the half century or so following the 1751 construction of the current main house or indeed to establish the extent of the east wing. Bearing in mind that servants were generally accommodated in basements during the Georgian period, it seems unlikely that they would have occupied the earlier wing, partly because of its proximity to the new house. Nevertheless the location of the stair to the basement does suggest part of it may,for a short while, have formed part of the service accommodation, especially bearing in mind the retention of the old sash windows and possibly even the blinding of the first floor level windows on the western half of the east wing which may have been undertaken to secure the privacy of the pleasure gardens to the south from the eyes of servants.

6.1.5 However, the early twentieth century photographs (Appendix 3) illustrate the two rooms on each floor within the east wing fenestrated with fashionable larger paned sash windows. These are more typical of the late Georgian or Regency periods and face south to catch the maximum sunlight whilst overlooking the pleasure gardens, and with the early nineteenth introduction of the segmental bay windows at ground and first floor levels on the east end elevation overlooking the view, indicate that the east wing could certainly not at that time have been intended for service accommodation. Furthermore, the detailing of the first floor easternmost room with its heavy cornice and boldly coved and moulded ceiling and substantial good quality chimneypiece, larger than that in any other first floor room, are typical of the late eighteenth century or early

38 nineteenth centuries indicates its status as a relatively important family room. The first floor panelled room at the southern end of the north wing, with the late C17 sash windows, was the only route from the 1751 first floor staircase landing to the east wing rooms. Therefore, this was clearly also family and not service accommodation. At ground floor level, the small length of self contained corridor, cut off by a doorway from the service corridor introduced alongside the early nineteenth century north service wing, and which connected the east wing to the main staircase hall of the 1751 extension, would therefore most definitely have been intended for family use during this period. Once the kitchen and service accommodation had transferred to part of the north wing, the basement would have changed its function and relied more on external access therefore the internal staircase access to the basement would have become much less important. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the fireplace room with its good chimneypiece and fine arched window and opening off a family circulation area would have been a service space during the Regency and Victorian periods when servants were isolated from the family, as family privacy was considered paramount. During Regency and Victorian times the east wing, extending across what is now the north wing to the west elevation alongside the 1751 building, would certainly not have comprised the service accommodation.

6.1.6 During the late twentieth century, following Stoke Hall‟s conversion from its short period as an hotel back to family habitation, the early fireplace room was opened up into the corridor space to its east, which is of the same early date, and formed part of the family‟s living accommodation which extended into both the east wing and the north wing. The space is isolated by a door from the secondary staircase hall in the 1751 element of the Hall. This is appropriate because it is different in age and scale from the newer and grander Hall. (2008 Plan Appendix 7)

39

6.1.7 The area until recently had a concrete floor, probably dating from its use as a lavatory when the Hall became an hotel. This undoubtedly detracted from the character and appearance of the interior, and the provision of fitted carpet to hide so inappropriate a floor would not be consistent with the character of this or any part of the ground floor of Stoke Hall. The area under consideration has formed part of the family accommodation for most if not all of the life of the hall and was never designed as a service space and there is no direct evidence that it has ever been a service space. York Stone flooring, that has clearly been continuously present in the Victorian service spaces at the end of the north wing, would be wholly inappropriate in this family area.

6.1.8 Marble flooring as existing in the grand entrance hall and as appropriately installed in the second entrance lobby and equally appropriately in the main staircase halls would also not be appropriate for the extended fireplace room as it is not part of the grander and more elaborate 1751 element of Stoke Hall. The scale is certainly smaller, more domestic, less formal and more homely than the much grander 1751 Rooms. It is clearly not part of the stately processional route intended for public display. The room essentially combines a mixture of classical detailing, including the window with the more rugged late Tudor character of the stone fireplace and with the vernacular character of the exposed oak beam. It is an area which has seen extremely fashionable intervention in the past, in order to satisfy changing needs and aspirations for the house. In this context I consider that the provision and installation of „St Aubin” limestone paving slabs is totally appropriate. The slabs are to a large scale appropriate to that of the room itself and to the fireplace, and vary in size from 600 x 600 to 1,000 x 600. The limestone and its appearance is sympathetic to the discipline of classical architecture whilst maintaining the less formal character and textural quality of the stone fireplace and the oak beam, and is wholly appropriate for the slightly rambling plan of the space. It is clearly a material which unequivocally demarks the space as one for family and not for either

40 service or processional use and this is architecturally and historically appropriate to the room. It also maintains the tradition of this particular space being adapted for family use over the centuries to satisfy the personal needs, aspirations and preferences of fashionable and discerning owners. In my carefully considered opinion the use of „St Aubin” limestone paving is absolutely appropriate, is clearly a modern C21 choice that makes no pretence of historical “accuracy” and is of course totally removable, if ever required, without affecting the historic fabric. To my mind it is also appropriate for each owner to add a personal stamp to the hall without in any way compromising the architectural or historic integrity of the building and so maintaining the rich development of its history.

6.1.9 The proposed application has been discussed with John Sewell of the Peak District National Park Authority who advised me by telephone that the St Aubin Limestone, as already installed, is considered acceptable. It was also agreed during the subsequent on site discussion, that the limestone may also be used for the floor in the north wing corridor where the floor is currently concrete, which will match that already agreed in the television room located in what had earlier been the C19 kitchen. It was also agreed that the existing York Stone paving will be retained in the utilitarian service segment of the corridor at the north end segment of the wing, where it provides access to small vaulted utility rooms.

6.1.10 It is therefore hoped that Listed Building Consent for the use of St Aubin limestone will be granted, as anticipated.

6.2.0 The second Listed Building Consent Application 6.2.1 The second Listed Building Consent Application is also retrospective and also relates to the former breakfast room where plaster has not been reinstated around the fireplace on the north wall. Mr. O‟connor in the same letter advised that should the intention be to leave the bare stonework in situ, it will be necessary to submit a formal Listed Building Application. The

41 current Application is because my clients wish to leave the bare stonework exposed as presently existing partly as a matter of personal preference but also because of problems associated with replastering resulting from changes that occurred during the mid twentieth century.

6.2.2 The stone surface of the fireplace has been substantially hacked back to the level of the stone wall at sometime in the past, possibly in association with its conversion to a lavatory area as part of the hotel when the fireplace was blocked up and the wall fully plastered over, or possibly when it was again converted to a private dwelling during the 1980s and the fireplace again revealed. In addition, openings were created on either side of the fireplace. The two rooms at the south end of the north wing are shown interconnected on the plan associated with the 2008 sales brochure for Stoke Hall (Appendix 8) .These openings have doors.

6.2.3 There can be little doubt that the fireplace wall would originally have been plastered leaving the jambs and lintel of the substantial stone fireplace slightly projecting as its simple and dominant central feature. Attempting to now plaster the exposed stone walling will result in detailing that will not be consistent with the Classical character and discipline of the room as established by the arched window or with the intended discipline of the late Tudor fireplace.

6.2.4 In my opinion the introduction of plaster will now relate particularly badly to the stonework of the fireplace which, as referred to above, has been substantially cut back in the past. (Photograph 60) Consequently, most of the stone fireplace at its perimeter is essentially flush with the stonework of the wall. (Photograph 61) The problem is exacerbated by the fact that some of the stonework introduced during the 1980s projects from the general face of the earlier stonework which will necessitate a greater thickness of plaster to conceal it than would originally have been provided. Plaster if applied to the wall would originally have butted up against the original thickness of the projecting stone fireplace leaving it standing proud. Plaster introduced at this stage will have to conceal the now projecting stonework and conversely

42 and inappropriately will stand slightly proud of even the original face of the fireplace lintel and jambs, necessitating a square edged, or either a feathered or a bullnosed type, return for the plaster against the fireplace. The plaster will project considerably further from the face of the fireplace where this has been scabbled back, resulting in an irregular detail and line at the junction between the two materials. Moreover the stone lintel to the fireplace was damaged, presumably during the 1980s when the doorway was introduced at its left side, and the rubble stone walling was extended to fill the space that previously formed the edge of the lintel creating an irregular edge to the stone fireplace. Currently the random rubble stone walling and the scabbled stonework of the fireplace are similar in colour, and each is textured, forming a reasonably homogeneous appearance character which disguises the irregularity with the fireplace forming the still formal centrepiece of the wall. This homogeneity is only slightly broken by the brick lining to the fireplace recess which was most probably introduced during the conversion back to a residence from an hotel, during the 1980s. However the brickwork blends well with the colour and scabbled texture of the stone fireplace so reducing its impact.

6.2.5 Additionally, the 1980s conversion work included the formation of doorways on either side of the fireplace which unfortunately reduced the widths of the stone jambs leaving them inappropriately somewhat thin. However, this potentially spindly appearance is slightly mitigated by the visible small return thickness of stone into the doorway apertures where the door frames are simply set into the exposed stonework without linings or architraves. In Classical settings, doorways are generally finished with architraves. However, if the wall is plastered, the plaster will be substantially proud of the fireplace which forms part of one jamb to each doorway and it will be impossible to detail an architrave that will relate properly to the different planes of each context. Moreover, architraves would encroach further on the fireplace jambs so further reducing their width which would totally destroy their integrity and be wholly unacceptable. (Photographs 58 and 59) The omission of architraves will be contrary to classical style of the room and will also result in an inappropriate and fussy variety detailing to the

43 doorway jambs with plaster wrapping around small returns into the doorway and which will then inappropriately abut the recessed stone to the fireplace on part of the second side in an inappropriate ad hoc and makeshift manner more appropriate to a vernacular cottage than a fine Hall.

6.2.6 The owners both wish to leave the stonework exposed as this will accept this aspect of the building and the doorways flanking the fireplace as already existing and prevent the creation of detailing which will be detrimental to the overall classical character of the building and to the fireplace which is a special architectural and historic feature. No action will be taken that will in any way damage the historic fabric of the building or be detrimental to its appearance or character.

6.2.7 In my opinion, the addition of plaster to the random rubble stone walling will add an unintended and inappropriate complexity to the composition and detailing of the wall as it now exists. The wall has been altered in the past and is not as now originally intended, but it does display a simple dignity which fits honestly and sympathetically into the much altered form of what nevertheless remains a classically inspired and comfortable family sitting room leaving the much grander rooms to be carefully conserved for their intended purpose as part of the processional route devoted to the entertainment of guests

6.2.8 On balance leaving the stone walling exposed would therefore seem, in my opinion, to be the preferable decision whilst also having the benefit of satisfying the preferences of a client who is expending considerable effort, skill and expense on an extensive and sensitive conservation programme that will secure the wellbeing of Stoke Hall for a generation or more. Leaving the stonework exposed will also be consistent with the long history of owners developing and modifying the building to fulfil their own preferences and aspirations, all of which has resulted in the present appearance and character if the Grade II* Listed Building.

44 6.2.9 The application to leave the stonework has been considered and discussed on site at a meeting with John Sewell and David O‟Connor of the Peak District National Park Authority, who agreed to consider the matter following receipt of the Application for Listed Building Consent with its associated justification statement. Taking the above observations and comments into consideration, it is very much hoped that Listed Building Consent will be granted.

6.3.0 The third Listed Building Consent Application 6.3.1 The third Listed Building Consent Application relates to the service staircase alongside the north wall of the kitchen.

6.3.2 Only the top two goings and associated risers of the staircase now remain along with two closely spaced newel posts joined by a sloping handrail at the first floor landing, but the remainder of the handrail has been totally replaced. The staircase itself had clearly been the subject of several stages of significant alteration as referred to below before suffering from a severe outbreak of dry rot, following which much of it was removed. The staircase enclosure is now separated from the corridor associated with the service part of the north wing by brick infill walls whilst the timber trimmer beam supporting the first floor landing is now supported by a brick spine wall. As described below, observation reveals that these are all clearly mid twentieth century additions based on the proportions of the bricks and the fact that there are no other examples of brickwork evident at Stoke Hall. The more restricted space clearly necessitated the introduction of winders at the foot of the original nineteenth century service staircase. The listed Building Consent Application is for the removal of the added brickwork comprising the spine wall and the partition walls and for the replacement staircase as illustrated on the submitted drawing.

6.3.3 Although little now remains as referred to above, the staircase clearly originally dated from the first half of the nineteenth century and was almost certainly contemporary with the addition of the service corridor to the north

45 wing. Evidence provided by changes in the direction of floor-boarding and the slope of the small section of Victorian handrail between two matching newel posts at different levels on the first floor landing, (Photographs 37 and 38) and the conformation of the first tread still existing below the top riser, along with the location of a bulkhead below the stair, all indicate the original form of the stair with a single top riser across the width of the first floor landing forming a short single step dog leg at the top. This was followed by a “quarter landing” then a riser and winders leading to a probably straight flight to the ground floor. There would have been adequate room for a straight flight as the original nineteenth century stairway was open to the north wing service corridors at both levels, leaving adequate room at its foot, evidenced by the fact that the partition walls separating the stairway from both corridors are built from twentieth century brick, whilst the remainder of Stoke Hall was built exclusively from stone.

6.3.4 The staircase clearly underwent alterations in the nineteenth or very early twentieth century when the single top step forming a short dog leg was removed and the floor level of the first floor landing was extended over the “quarter landing”. This allowed the top riser to be relocated to its present position. This may have been to facilitate the provision of a doorway off the east wall of the first floor landing, which has subsequently been blocked up. This resulted in one of the remaining nineteenth century newel post on the “quarter landing” being partly submerged below the floor level which was raised to the level of the first floor landing whilst the handrail (with banisters) was extended horizontally to the additional newel post at the relocated head of the stair. The additional newel post is similar to the original pair still existing, but does not match them.

6.3.5 Subsequent alterations appear to date from the mid twentieth century when the handrail and balustrade, including those remaining to the first floor landing were substantially replaced by a crudely detailed handrail and a single horizontal planked rail in softwood painted white in a manner which besides being wholly inappropriate is positively dangerous to children. (Photographs 34, 37 and 40)

46

6.3.6 At some stage, and probably when Stoke Hall was converted to an hotel in the early 1970s, a 100mm thick spine wall was built alongside the main flight of the staircase, (Photograph 42) and creating an open ended store below the first floor landing but making the approach to the stair dark and unattractive, which may not have been considered important at the time when its use was confined serving staff. The spine wall is now unstable and has been temporarily braced with timbers. Its purpose may have been to support a possibly inadequate timber trimmer beam holding up the first floor landing. (Photographs 39 and 40) The stairwell was also been separated from the ground and first floor service corridors by a brick wall and a doorway at some stage subsequent to the original Victorian construction, and probably in order create a fire protected enclosure for the stairway when Stoke Hall was converted to an hotel in the early 1970s. (Photographs 33, 40 and 43) These are the only use of brick in the otherwise stone construction of Stoke Hall. The enclosure at ground floor level will have necessitated the addition of the winders at the foot of the original service stair

6.3.7 When Mr and Mrs Drury purchased Stoke Hall in 2009, the east wing and much of the north wing had been devoid of roof coverings for twenty years or more, and were protected only by tarpaulins. Water penetration had clearly been an ongoing problem for many years and extensive dry rot was diagnosed and has now been eradicated as part of the ongoing conservation programme. The service stair under consideration had suffered from extensive dry rot and was in a dangerous condition and had to be removed. There were then winders at the foot of the stairs necessitated by the space restriction caused by the wall separating the stairway from the corridor.

6.3.8 It is now the intention to reinstate a staircase in accordance with the design illustrated on the enclosed drawing which will be sympathetic to the character of its location in this part of the building.

47 6.3.9 Listed Building Consent is requested for the proposed dogleg staircase and associated alterations which follow the principles of the original Victorian dogleg stair and its enclosure. That stair had only a single riser on the upper flight and winders. However in the interests of safety, especially as it will become the principal staircase serving the master bedroom, and Mrs Drury is pregnant, the winders will be eliminated and the upper flight extended accordingly resulting in a more balanced dogleg staircase as illustrated on the enclosed drawing. This will permit the removal of the brick spine wall introduced to provide stability to the landing in the mid twentieth century. The brick partitions introduced in the mid twentieth century to separate the staircase enclosure form the corridor along the north wing at ground and first floor levels will also be removed providing space again for a straight lower flight for the stair. The reinstatement of the more open form of the stairway will allow light from the windows in the north wall of the staircase enclosure to again penetrate to the approach to the staircase and to the south end of what was once the service corridor at ground and first floor levels.

6.3.10 Permission is therefore requested for the removal of the brickwork introduced in the mid to late twentieth century to facilitate the use of the building as an hotel and for the removal of the much altered remains of a staircase that still exist at first floor level including the two original nineteenth century newel posts and the wholly inappropriate twentieth century handrail and the horizontal painted timber rails, and to reinstate a staircase with handrail, newel posts and banisters based on the design of the C19 fragments that still remain, in accordance with the drawing submitted. The banisters will be modelled on the few still existing from the late C19 alteration. The proposal will not detrimentally affect any significant historic fabric or be detrimental to the appearance and character of the listed building. On the contrary it will re-establish the intended character of the stairway and so enhance the listed building.

6.3.11 The existing staircase and its enclosure has been viewed at a meeting and inspection which I attended on site with John Sewell and David O‟Connor of

48 the Peak District National Park Authority and the proposal was then considered in detail, discussed and agreed as acceptable. It is therefore hoped that Listed Building will be granted.

6.3.12 The proposed changes can be well documented and in the public record. In my opinion the change will be appropriate and sensitive and fully satisfy the requirements and spirit of PPS5

7.0.0 CONCLUSION 7.1.0 It has already been explained in some detail that successfully surviving houses have satisfied the needs and aspirations of each generation that occupy them and such requirements change over time. As already noted, historically drastic changes have occurred at Stoke Hall. Some of these have responded to the needs and aspirations of individual owners, some to technological changes, and some have responded to social changes and the requirement or otherwise of servants. During the twentieth century the absence of servants has totally changed the emphasis and requirements of many smaller and mid-sized country houses as has the development of plumbing and the importance of bathrooms and kitchens. The development of integrated family life with parents and children living together now generally canters on the family kitchen and informal sitting and family leisure rooms which are generally located in what were service spaces.

7.2.0 It is important to recognise that the grandeur of the 1751 extension to Stoke Hall is being very carefully conserved and enhanced at very considerable expense by the present owners. The sense of a processional route into and through a series of grand spaces intended for show and entertaining has been and is being carefully preserved. The less formal family accommodation in the east wing along with service accommodation in the part of the north wing is being sensitively adapted for everyday family living, so continuing the changes the have been so important a part of Stoke Halls architectural and social history. The historic changes have enabled Stoke

49 Hall to change, adapt and survive until the twenty first century. The current changes and associated conservation work will enable it to be sustainable and to survive for the next generation and beyond.

7.3.0 The proposals have all been discussed with John Sewell by telephone and on site following submission of a preliminary and incomplete copy of this report, and with a copy of the staircase proposal, and the conclusion of these discussions has been referred to above. It is very much hoped, therefore, that Listed Building Consent will be granted for these three proposals which are modest, well considered and sensitive, and especially in the context of the of the extensive scope of invaluable conservation work currently in progress and in the context the extensive and major changes that have occurred over the centuries to enable the Stoke Hall to survive as a sustainable country house.

David W.Lewis.B. Arch. MA (Historic Building Conservation) RIBA August 2010

50