Queen Mary's Bath House, Edinburgh

University of Edinburgh

Conservation Technology (AC5) AREA11017 MSc in Architectural Conservation Academic Session 2012-13

Course Organiser Dimitris Theodossopoulos Student Niamh Crimmins (s1255448) Date 01.05.2013

Queen Mary’s Bath House Abbeyhill, Edinburgh

!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! !"#$%#$&'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

''''()*%'

+,-.'/0'1,2345-'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

6'

78'9:.4/;3<.,/:'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

='

68'&>:;-./:5'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

?'

=8'!>-5'&.3;@'A'B355:'C>4@D-'E>.F'G/3-5' '

'

'

'

H'

!

!

"#$!%&'()*&+!

!

!

!

!

!

H!

!

!

"#,!-*.)&/*'(0!1&+)23)! !

!

!

!

!

I!

!

!

"#"!1&+.2/4()*&+!-*.)&/5!

!

!

!

!

76!

!

!

"#6!1&+7*)*&+!89/425!

!

!

!

!

!

7J!

!

!

!

(:!;2.'/*<)*&+!

!

!

!

!

!

7J!

!

!

!

=:!1&+7*)*&+!89>>(/5!

!

!

!

!

7I!

!

!

!

':!;2'(5!?2'@(+*.>.!

!

!

!

!

6J!

!

$# 1/('A.!

!

!

!

!

!

6J!

,# B/&.*&+!

!

!

!

!

!

6K!

"# ;*.'&0&/()*&+!(+7!72<&.*)!

!

!

=7!

6# C*&0&D*'(0!8&*0*+D!

!

!

!

=6!

E# F&))27!G*>=2/!

!

!

!

!

=J!

H# I)@2/!J..92.!

!

!

!

!

=H!

'

'

'

'

?O'

6#$!K(092!&L!?(/5M.!C()@!-&9.2!

!

!

!

?O!

6#,!?2)@&7.!&L!1&+.2/4()*&+! !

!

!

!

?6!

!

!

!

?6!

=:!C*&0&D*'(0!8&*0*+D!F2>&4(0!!

!

!

?=!

':!?(.&+/5!F2<(*/!!

!

!

!

!

?=!

7:!G*>=2/!F2<(*/! !

!

!

!

!

??'

2:!I)@2/!/2<(*/!)(.A.!

!

!

!

!

?P'

6#"!O/&L2..*&+(0!89/425PJ+<9)!!

!

!

!

?P!

?8'(4/L/->M'0/4'!/:-54N>.,/:' '

'

(:!N()2/!O/&)2')*&+!

!

P8'!/:<M3-,/:'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

?J'

E,QM,/24>LF@'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

?I'

)LL5:;,R'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

P7'

'

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

!

List of Figures Figure 1. Geology of Scotland _________________________________________________ 4 Figure 2. Location of Bath House (late 19th century map) ____________________________ 7 Figure 3. English Spy Map of Edinburgh, 1544 ____________________________________ 8 Figure 4. Earliest depiction of Bath House ________________________________________ 9 Figure 5. Gordon de Rothiemay map clearing showing Bath House in 1647 _____________ 10 Figure 6. James Gordon Map, 1647 ____________________________________________ 10 Figure 7. Current view of S & E facades ________________________________________ 18 Figure 8. Analysis of West Elevation ___________________________________________ 20 Figure 9. Analysis of South Elevation ___________________________________________ 21 Figure 10. Analysis of East Elevation ___________________________________________ 22 Figure 11. Analysis of North Elevation __________________________________________ 23 Figure 12. Analysis of Ground Floor ____________________________________________ 24 Figure 13. Analysis of First Floor ______________________________________________ 25 Figure 14. Crack on North elevation ___________________________________________ 27 Figure 15. Detail of Fig. 13 Crack ___________________________________________ 27 Figure 16. Spalling _________________________________________________________ 30 Figure 17. Detail of gypsum on sandstone _______________________________________ 31 Figure 18. Algae growth around window ________________________________________ 33 Figure 19. Algae growth on roof ________________________________________ 33 Figure 20. Lichen growth on East elevation chimney _______________________________ 34 Figure 21. Moss on roof _____________________________________________________ 35 Figure 22. Moss on buttress roof ______________________________________________ 35 Figure 23. Plants growing in West elevation roof __________________________________ 36 Figure 24. Plants growing on West elevation stonework ____________________________ 36 Figure 25. Example of rotting timber doorframe on ground floor ______________________ 37 Figure 26 Early twentieth century Bath House with harling __________________________ 38 Figure 27. Moisture movement within traditional stone and lime ______________________ 44

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

1. Introduction

This report investigates the pathologies of an existing building and forms recommendations for the holistic treatment of the pathology through research of materials and construction, and by identifying possible causes. The most appropriate suggestions are made with regards to repair techniques and treatments. By focusing on a case study, Queen Maryʼs Bath House, this report demonstrates how materials age, deteriorate, act and interact with each other and also structural issues in the building formed by the different materials. The main causes of the decay are identified as well as repair techniques and their relative suitability for this particular case study.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

2. Sandstone – Scotland and Edinburgh

“Scotland represents a varied assemblage

of

geologically

diverse fragments of the earth crust accreted at various times over the almost unimaginable length of time of some 3300 million

years.”

geological sedimentary,

1

Scotlandʼs

foundation igneous

of and

metamorphic rocks date back nearly 4000 million years.2

Figure 1. Geology of Scotland

The immense complexity of the countryʼs geology (see Figure 1) has resulted in the great diversity of its built heritage. Geologically Scotland can be divided into five separate and geologically distinct parts: the Lewisian gneiss and Torridonian of the North West; the Moine rocks of the Central and Northern Highlands west of the Great Glen Fault; the Moine and Dalradian of the central and Grampian Highlands; the Midland Valley and the Southern Uplands.3 Faults, still identifiable in the landscape,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1

Anderson, D., Scottish Agates – The Geology, (2010) http://www.agatesofscotland.co.uk/The%20Geology.htm, accessed February 21 2013 2 McMillan, A. A., and Hyslop, E. K., A Land of Stone, in Wilson, P., Ed., Building with Scottish Stone, (Edinburgh, 2005), p. 9 3 Scottish Geology, Getting Started, (Date Unknown), http://www.scottishgeology.com/geo/getting-started/, accessed March 4 2013 NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! separate these areas and these are the Moine Thrust in the northwest, the Great Glen Fault, the Highland Boundary Fault and the Southern Upland Fault.4 Edinburgh is located in the Midland Valley Terrane, which is mainly underlain by Devonian and Carboniferous sedimentary strata.5

“For situation and durability of its building materials, few cities have equal advantages to Edinburgh, and there is, perhaps, no town of which the general and distant effects are more picturesque and striking.”6

Edinburgh was built on seven hills – Castle Hill, Calton Hill. Arthurʼs Seat, Costorphine Hill, Craiglockhart Hill, Blackford Hill and the Braid Hills – all made of hard durable rock of igneous or volcanic origin.7 Most of this rock was formed during the Carboniferous period.8 Rock from the Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician periods as well as rock effected by Quaternary glacial activity is also evident beneath Edinburgh and the surrounding Lothian region.9 The cityʼs “natural heritage and landscape is determined by the variations in hardness of sedimentary and igneous lithologies and their resistance to weathering.” 10 Locally quarried sandstone is the predominant building material and some of the earliest quarries were situated around the houses

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4

Scottish Geology, Getting Started, (Date Unknown), http://www.scottishgeology.com/geo/getting-started/, accessed March 4 2013 5 McMillan, A. A., and Hyslop, E. K., A Land of Stone, in Wilson, P., Ed., Building with Scottish Stone, (Edinburgh, 2005), p. 9 6 McMillan, A.A. and Hyslop, E.K., The City of Edinburgh – Landscape and Stone. In ICOMOS, (2008) http://openarchive.icomos.org/80/1/77-KoCo-73.pdf, accessed February 20 2013 7 McAdam, D., Edinburgh & West Lothian: A Landscape Fashioned by Geology, (2003), http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/geology/EdinWestLothian.pdf, accessed March 2 2013 8 Edinburgh Geological Society, Edinburghʼs Geology, (Date Unknown), http://www.edinburghgeolsoc.org/o_home.html, accessed February 21, 2013 9 Ibid 10 McMillan, A.A. and Hyslop, E.K., The City of Edinburgh – Landscape and Stone. In ICOMOS, (2008) http://openarchive.icomos.org/80/1/77-KoCo-73.pdf, accessed February 20 2013!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! and lands within or immediately outside the town walls and were often temporary features.11 Some of Edinburghʼs oldest quarries worked the dolerite sill at Salisbury Crags in Holyrood Park. ʻWhinstone”, a durable igneous rock, was used to pave the streets of the city and was a source of rubble for buildings situated the city of the south side of the city.12

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock containing visible mineral grain constituents held together by natural cement. The constituent minerals, cement type, grain size and pore structure of sandstones vary greatly and this leads to a wide variety of colours and different performances as building stones.13 Scottish sandstones are often made up of variable proportions of quartz grains, naturally cemented by silica or carbonate.14 As a result of this varying geological composition sandstone can be found in many different colours and with different grain sizes.15

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11

McMillan, A.A. and Hyslop, E.K., The City of Edinburgh – Landscape and Stone. In ICOMOS, (2008) http://openarchive.icomos.org/80/1/77-KoCo-73.pdf, accessed February 20 2013 12 McMillan, A.A. and Hyslop, E.K., The City of Edinburgh – Landscape and Stone. In ICOMOS, (2008) http://openarchive.icomos.org/80/1/77-KoCo-73.pdf, accessed February 20 2013 13 Wilson, P., Ed., ʻBuilding with Stoneʼ, Edinburgh 2005, p. 6 14 Ibid 15 Williams, I., ʻ Sandstoneʼ, in Forsyth, M., Ed., Materials and Skills for Historic Building Conservation, (Oxford, 2008)!!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

'!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

3. Case Study – Queen Maryʼs Bath House

This section describes Queen Maryʼs Bath House and outlines its historical context as well as its conservation history. It concludes with a current condition survey of the structure.

3.1 Location

Queen Maryʼs Bath House

Category: A

Holyroodhouse

Date Listed: 14 December 1970

Abbeyhill

Historic Scotland ID: 28028

Edinburgh, EH8 8DY

NT 26777 74009

! th

Figure 2. Location of Bath House (late 19 century map)

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

(!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

3.2 Historical Context

The obscure date of construction of Queen Maryʼs Bath House is likely to have been during the period of the reign of Marie of Guise (1542-60) and that of her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots (1561-7). The Bath House, a diminutive turreted structure, is supposedly where Mary Queen of Scots (1542-87) used to bathe in sweet white wine. It is popularly known as Queen Maryʼs Bath House and lies peculiarly isolated on the western boundary wall of the grounds of the Palace of Holyroodhouse and Holyrood Abbey, close to the foot of the Royal Mile. Obvious from the exterior appearance of the structure is its chequered history, evident in the variegated rubble stonework, blocked-up doorways, etc. The Bath House was once adjoined to the Privy Garden of Holyrood Palace but due to crude re-landscaping undertaken in the mid-19th century now lies unhappily isolated on the wrong side of the carriage drive introduced through the gardens at this time.

Figure 3. English Spy Map of Edinburgh, 1544

!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

)!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Queen Maryʼs Bath House does not appear in a view of the Palace from 1544 (see Fig. 3), nor is it shown in the Holinshedʼs Chronicles of 1577. The earliest detailed depiction of the grounds around Holyrood is Rombout van den Hoyenʼs 17th century map (see Fig. 4). Gordon of Rothiemay illustrates Queen Maryʼs Bath House in his pictorial map of 1647 (see Figs. 5 & 6) at which date it stood immediately beyond the Kingʼs Privy Garden with its entrance facing the “caichepelle,” or royal tennis court. It can be argued that through architectural evidence the Bath House can be dated to the last quarter of the 16th century, the first half of the reign of James VI. Its 1852 restoration uncovered a richly inlaid dagger in the roof, (rumoured to be that which murdered David Rizzio, private secretary to Mary Queen of Scots who was infamously stabbed 56 times in Mary Queen of Scotsʼ bedchambers within the NW tower of the Palace.)

Figure 4. Earliest depiction of Bath House

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

*!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Figure 5. Gordon de Rothiemay map detail of Bath House in 1647

!

Figure 6. James Gordon de Rothiemay Map, 1647

!

!

Old & New Edinburgh (1890) describes the building as situated ʻnortheastward of the tennis court” and notes that the tradition of it having been a bathhouse is of ʻconsiderable antiquityʼ.16 Its eye-catching, asymmetric form contributes significantly

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

16

Grant. J., Old and New Edinburgh, Vol. 3., (1890), p. 41

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"+!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

! to the Abbeyhill streetscape. Following demolition of a neighbouring building in 1852, the Bath House was repaired and to some extent restored with the two stacks added at this time. Details of its construction and conservation history are explained in the next section.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

""!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

3.3 Conservation History

As there is no surviving documentation regarding its construction, Queen Maryʼs Bath House presents a big problem when it comes to its development history. In 2006 Channel 4ʼs Time Team investigated the entire site surrounding the Palace of Holyroodhouse as part of its Big Royal Dig. At least four phases of building were suggested to have taken place between the early part of the 16th century and the middle of the 19th century.17

Phase 1: During the early 16th century Queen Maryʼs Bath House probably began its life as a corner tower of the north corner of the garden wall of the property now known as Abbey Strand. Gun-holes are likely to have been at ground level during this period as there is evidence of one facing northeast, which would have covered the approach into the burgh of Canongate from the Leith direction.

Phase 2: Around the year 1565 the Bath House was purchased by the Crown and converted into a pavilion at the northwest corner of the new Privy Garden. The conversion involved the replacement of the original entrance into the gun tower, which was blocked up, by a new one at the present entrance on the south façade.

James V had added to the Palace between the years 1528 and 1536 that included the construction of the present northwest tower to provide new royal apartments. The new front, now visible from the new royal apartments, was reconstructed with an external stair leading to a first floor chamber. Precise dating for this period of construction comes from dendro-chronological examination of the timber corbels

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

17

Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"#!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! supporting the upper floor at the south end of the east side of the Bath House. The year of the timberʼs felling can be dated to c.1565.

Phase 3: The building passes out of Crown ownership in the 18th century. It is during this time that it is converted into a two-storey dwelling and a new entrance is added do the north elevation. The roof is altered and raised in height and at the same time the land between it and Abbey Strand is developed for tenement housing.

Phase 4: As part of the process of restoring the Palace od Holyroodhouse (c.1852) for official royal use the empty Bath House is restored much as we see it today.

Timeline of Construction History18

Royal Palace Privy Garden Rough Wooing Bath House

Siege of Edinburgh Bath House Bath House

Bath House Abbey Strand

Construction of earliest sections of the royal palace for James IV & James V. 1st recorded mention of Privy garden to north of palace.

Edinburgh & Holyrood attacked by forces of English King Henry VII commanded by the Earl of Hertford.

Estimated date of construction of corbelled 1st floor (phase 2) based on 2006 dendro-chronological analysis of supporting timbers.

Conflict between Marian forces & forces supporting James VI Alexander Gordon of Rothiemayʼs map of Edinburgh clearly shows During construction of adjoining building, turret staircase to roof demolished and ʻrichly inlaid dagger of ancient workmanshipʼ found.

Purchase of Queen Maryʼs Bath House & adjoining tenement.

Unstable wall of uncertain ownership (92 Abbey Hill owned by Mr. Veitch) adjacent to crown property.

1503 -1536 c. 1537 1544-1545 c. 1565

1571 1637 1789

1858 1906

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

18

Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"$!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Tenements

N Elevation Break-in & Fire

External Walls

Interior

Photographic Recording Internal Walls

Internal Timberwork

Roof

Windows

Interpretation

Crown deemed to have at least mutual ownership of wall and gable of tenement adjacent to Queen Maryʼs Bath House. Wall (previously part of building containing window & door) taken down rebuilt, legally at mutual expense but in practice at crown expense with new rood to beer cellar at 92 Abbey Hill to avoid claim by tenant for disturbance.

Excavation of triangle of land SW of Queen Maryʼs Bath House revealing footing of pre 1858 tenements and drain.

Insertion of steel wedges to replace corner stone removed from NW corner.

Entrance door forced open &fire lit in 1st floor hearth. Fire extinguished without further damage.

New lock fitted to door.

Engineerʼs report on settlement cracking along mortar joints at NW corner of building on N elevation due to past removal of cornerstone.

Recommends corroded steel wedges be removed & replaced with new steel wedges, grouted into position & pointed.

Plaster & lath stripped from ceilings & external walls.

Scheduling of bathhouse, referred to as Queen Maryʼs Bath, & area of Privy gardens to railings E of N Approach.

Photographic recording of interior and exterior.

Lightly brushed down to reveal areas of stonework requiring consolidation, stonework consolidated and re-pointed. New jamb stone indented to lower half of ground floor, internal door (internal doors removed to safe storage).

Skirting & floorboards on upper floor removed.

Joists & roof timbers recorded. Steel lintol bars to N ground floor window removed & replaced with stainless steel. New timber spliced to missing joist ends. Floorboards & skirting replaced.

Moss removed from roof. Missing & misaligned slates replaced. Mortar fillets renewed. Gutters & downpipes cleaned.

Metal grilles & boarding removed from windows replaced with diamond pattern stainless steel mesh.

Metal plate, ʻinterpretation boardʼ (Royal Ordnance

1950

c.1969 1973

1989

1991 1994

1999 2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"%!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

External Walls

Archaeological Recording

Factory format) fixed to railings NE of bathhouse.

Areas of loose mortar & open joints re-pointed.

Corroded iron wedges at NW corner removed & replaced with new steel wedges, grouted into position & pointed (tell-tales fitted for crack monitoring). Cracks on external elevations due to heavy traffic along Abbeyhill raked out & repointed. Rust removed from metal bars supporting corbels, painted with protective paint. Timber corbels treated with preservative stain.

Rescheduling of bathhouse, referred to as Queen Maryʼs Bath, & area of Privy gardens to railings E of N Approach.

3D laser scanning of exterior of Bath House.

Archaeological recording & analysis of interior.

2000

2002

2006

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"&!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

3.4 Condition Survey

This section provides a detailed building description for Queen Maryʼs Bath House as well as an in depth condition survey, outlining the main signs of decay, their causes and the effects they have on the structure and material. Illustrations will help illuminate these.

a) Description

Introduction: A late 16th century vernacular 2-storey turreted structure. Square plan.

A-listed. Original use uncertain although most likely formed part of a defensive series of buildings for the Palace of Holyroodhouse as well as a garden pavilion adjoined to the old Privy gardens. Currently unused, scheduled historic monument maintained by Historic Scotland and held in trust for the state by the Crown. Architect unknown.

Exact date of build unknown. Design and condition of fabric suggest later 16th century construction date with subsequent 19th century additions and alterations. Evidence of varied additions and extensions at different points in time.

S Elevation: Rubble walling in a variety of sandstones and hard mortars.

Presumably once harled. Ashlar raised margins to entrance doorway off-set to right at single-storey lean-to section. Ashlar to pediments and rybats. One small window off set to right of lean-to section. Central dormer window at 1st floor breaking eave course. Tall, coursed sandstone stack.

E Elevation: Rubble walling as on S elevation. Sandstone corbel course at 1st floor level of rounded section at NE 1st floor turret. Ashlar rybats to windows at ground &

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"'!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

!

1st floors. Ashlar masonry to chimney. Small narrow window above corbel course at rounded section at NE. Small window at 1st floor level of turret. Some dentiled timber corbelling at 1st floor level at SE.

N Elevation: Rubble walling as before. Sandstone corbel course at 1st floor level.

Ashlar rybats to windows at first floor (dormer, breaking eave course) and ground floor. Ashlar pediment to dormer window topped with stone ball finial. Blocked doorway at ground floor.

W Elevation: Rubble walling as before. Sandstone corbel course to first floor at NW corner.

Additional: Steeply pitched pyramidal roof in graded Scottish slate apsed over a bartisan at the N angle. Lead finials, valley gutters, ridges and cheeks to dormer windows. Mortar fillet at W gable. Corbelled out turret at N angle and Scots Renaissance detailing.

Interior: Rubble walling exposed following removal of plaster on hard and plaster on lath in 1991. Original flush lime pointing in isolated locations at N, E & S. Fireplace with iron grate to E and wide arch to fireplace at W. Windows at N and NE. Door at S with stone surround, damaged stone to E jamb. 5-panel door on creuk & band hinges. 300mm x 300mm stone flags to floor laid in diagonal pattern. Acro-props to timber joists to floor above.

Interior 1st Floor: Exposed rubble walling as on ground floor. Windows at N, NE and S. Fireplace and doorway at S wall. Broad thick timber floorboards on timber joists,

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"(!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! temporarily supported with acro-props. Timber skirting throughout. Opening in floor adjacent to W wall.

Interior stair & Lobby: Rubble walling as before. Timber lintols to door & window openings. Stone stair. Doorway at N (top of stair), missing door. Timber vertical boarded and studded door on band hinges to S, (ground level entrance).

b) Condition Summary

!

Figure 7. Current view of S & E facades

The Royal Commission Archaeological notes on the structure describe it as being ʻnot in useʼ and in a good state of preservation in 1953 and made no changes to this

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

")!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! report in 1975. A number of visits to Queen Maryʼs Bath House were carried out between January and April 2013, with only one visit to its interior due to safety and security issues. These visits revealed the building to be in fair condition but with a number of presentation and structural issues. During the late-twentieth century the Bath House was re-roofed with new rafters and sarking and any sound older timbers of the internal roof structure were left in place. Many of the rafter ends are precariously supported on uneven wall heads but the lead finials, flashings and valleys appear sound. The most obvious problems appear to be cracks in the external walls as well as biological growth and deterioration of the internal rubble walls.

Individual stones do not appear to be so damaged that they risk losing their structural viability, however structural cracking could possibly be detrimental to the future survival of the Bath House. The main problem on the external walls is the vulnerability of the exposed stone. There are numerous hungry joints as well as spalled stone faces and some erosion due to water run off from the roof. The building was presumably once harled so it currently lacks that protection. It also has no rainwater goods provision, which is intensifying the water damage from the run-off down the steep pyramidal roof.

The location of Queen Maryʼs Bath House, coupled with its chequered history, is a large factor in the current neglected state of its condition. It is not irreparably damaged and there is potential to halt the decay already in progress, however, its position on a very busy road could be quite detrimental to its future. In particular the north façade of the building is in a very defective state as a result of its highly exposed position.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

"*!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

West Elevation (see Fig. 8) •

Vertical crack at junction of buttress with face of wall – see North Elevation

•

Mortar fillets to gable cracked & missing

•

Vegetation on sloping stone capping of lower wall

•

Cracked/missing mortar fillets at west gable (S roof slope).

•

Slipped Slate

Figure 8. Analysis of West Elevation

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#+!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

South Elevation (see Fig. 9) •

Water run off from roof at junction of roof with chimney causing erosion of stone on W & S faces of chimney.

•

Open joints in top section of chimney on N, W & S elevations.

•

Slipped slates at S slope, adjacent to chimney and at SW roof hip.

Figure 9. Analysis of South Elevation

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#"!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

East Elevation (see Fig. 10) •

Vertical cracks at junction of chimney with wall face, N of ground floor window; risband joint S of chimney

•

Slipped slate at N roof hip

•

Lichen growth adjacent to chimney towards the N

•

Algal growth on roof and chimney stacks

Figure 10. Analysis of East Elevation

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

##!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

North Elevation (see Fig. 11) •

Vertical crack west of windows.

•

Hungry joints and isolated locations of extreme spalled faces to stone in masonry below.

•

Iron wedges at base of corbel.

•

Particle soiling resulting in gypsum deposits due to proximity of road.

•

Discoloration

Figure 11. Analysis of North Elevation

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#$!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Interior Ground Floor (see Fig. 12) •

Rubble walls in poor condition – lime pointing deteriorated.

•

Many pinnings and stones dislodged.

•

Stone flags generally appear to be in reasonable order although a number are cracked.

•

Window timber frames decayed.

•

Paint finish to metal bars and mesh in poor condition.

Figure 12. Analysis of Ground Floor

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#%!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Interior 1st floor (see Fig. 13) •

Rubble walls as before.

•

Diagonal crack at W wall.

•

Part of timber riser missing and stone tread below loose.

Figure 13. Analysis of First Floor

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#&!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! c) Decay Mechanisms

This section will identify the possible causes of decay to the various components of Queen Maryʼs Bath House as well as the effects they have on the material and the structure of the building as well as a proposal for the possible need for specialist survey and/or input.

Signs of Decay

1. Cracks 2. Erosion 3. Discoloration and Deposition 4. Biological Soiling 5. Rotted Timber 6. Other Issues

1. Cracks

A crack is an “individual fissure, clearly visible by the naked eye, resulting from separation of one part from another.”19 Cracks are clearly visible throughout Queen Maryʼs Bath House (See Figs. 14 and 15).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

19

ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2 2013 NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#'!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Figure 14. Crack on North elevation

!

!!

Figure 15. Detail of Fig. 14 Crack

Many of these are likely to be the product of stresses from mortar joint erosion.20 It is also highly likely that the traditional structure is unable to accommodate the movement that it is subjected to. A main factor in this failure is the numerous construction phases in its history, contributing to its fragmented composition. It is probable that many of the alterations that took place during its varied conservation history were poorly considered. A serious cause for concern is the location of the Bath House to the busy Abbeyhill road and nearby train-bridge. The effects of vibrations from traffic on the building can be a very technical and complex issue.21 In

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20

Allen, J., Cracking, (2003), http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/cracking/cracking.htm, accessed April 13 20!

21 Hume, I., Effects of Road Traffic Vibrations on Historic Buildings, http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/47/ian_dir/ian_s.htm, accessed March 21, 2013 NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#(!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! extremes cases of vibrations on historic buildings the mortar can pulverize entirely and lose all adhesion to the stones.22

Sandstone becomes vulnerable once excavated and used as a building material. Its sedimentary formation means there is potential for decay mechanisms of both physical and chemical origin, which can be due to natural and biological factors or via man-made actions.

Cracks can be caused by a variety of problems. These include:

•

Broken drains and water pipes

•

Crushed or decayed internal structural timber

•

Mining subsidence

•

Shrinkage of clay soils

•

Tree root growth

•

Unstable adjacent walls

•

Washed out foundations

Movement occurs all the time in traditionally constructed buildings. The extent of this is usually so small in most cases that it goes unnoticed. Distortions and cracks in buildings prompt concern over the use or safety of the building and highlight the problems that need to be addressed and resolved. The very nature of lime mortar used in traditional building construction generally allows for the day-to-day structural movement that buildings are subjected to and recognising this fact will help determine if some cracks are a real cause for concern or not. Cracking can call for

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

22

Rainer, J.H., Effects of Vibrations on Historic Buildings: An Overview, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1982), p. 2!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#)!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! consequential remedial action when there is a possibility of significant structural failure but it is important to note that cracks “are the visible symptom of possible problems, not the actual problem itself.”23 They are good indicators of weaknesses in the buildingsʼ design and are reminders that the world is never static.

2. Erosion

Erosion is “loss of original surface, leading to smoothed shapes.”24 There is general erosion to all visible stones. As there are a variety of different sandstone types used in its construction, and many different construction phases in its history, the Bath House as a distinct appearance. The preferential erosion of originally angular stone edges is known as ʻroundingʼ and gives a lot of the stone a distinctly rounded profile.25 As stone is a natural and porous material it is susceptible to the effects of water. These vary depending on the type of stone, the position it has on the building and the amount of water it is subjected to. “As water repeatedly penetrates and evaporates from stone, it can trigger a variety of processes leading to erosion.”26 The erosion is made worse when combined with larger volumes of water and exposure to other contaminants.

Spalling is delamination, chipping or peeling of the stoneʼs surface. In sandstone it generally occurs when salt crystals grow from the mineral-laden water that has

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

23

Maxwell, I., Structural Cracks, (Edinburgh, 2008), Technical Conservation, Research and Education Group 24 ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2 2013 25 Ibid 26 Maxwell, I., Masonry Decay: Dealing with Erosion of Sandstone, (Edinburgh, 2005)!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

#*!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! penetrated the stone.27 The plane of delamination is located near the stone surface.

In sedimentary stone the natural bedding planes lay horizontally and are often clearly visible. “In construction, the bedding planes should usually run at a right angle to any load that is placed upon the block.” 28 Sandstone blocks are commonly laid incorrectly, as local blocks can often be too shallow in depth to allow them to be correctly bedded.29 (See Fig. 16). When ʻface beddingʼ or ʻedge beddingʼ occurs it can cause delamination, or scaling. Thin layers end up detaching themselves from the surface as a result of this.

!

Figure 16. Spalling, N elevation

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

27

Slique, Spalling (flaking or peeling), (2010), http://www.slique.com.au/Commonproblems/Spalling%2B%2528flaking%2Bor%2Bpeeling%2529/, accessed April 13, 2013 28 Angus Council, Repair to sandstone walls, (date unknown), http://www.angus.gov.uk/devcontrol/advice_note_30.pdf, accessed April 15 2013 29 Ibid NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$+!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Contour scaling is similar in appearance to scaling but “the layer runs at right angles to the bedding planes and it was probably caused by the action of water on the claybased minerals in local sandstones.ʼ30 3. Discolouration and Deposit

There is a variety of staining throughout the surface of Queen Maryʼs Bath House, all characteristic of sandstone. Black stains, including the building up of black crusts, or gypsum, feature to different extents on all of the external walls (see Fig. 17). Airborne deposition of vehicle exhaust fumes, sea salts and other contaminants are the main causes of particle soiling on sandstone, a main element in surface discolouration.31 The dark coloured minerals such as iron or manganese that naturally occur in sandstones cause staining on the surface.

!

Figure 17. Detail of effects of gypsum on sandstone, N elevation

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

30

Angus Council, Repair to sandstone walls, (date unknown), http://www.angus.gov.uk/devcontrol/advice_note_30.pdf, accessed April 15 2013 31 Maxwell, I., Cleaning Sandstone: Risks and Consequences, (Edinburgh, 2007)!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$"!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Black crusts represent the most extreme form of soiling, particularly on the north façade of Queen Maryʼs Bath House. Black crust is defined as:

“…Generally coherent accumulation of materials on the surface. A crust may include exogenic deposits in combination with materials derived from the stone. A crust is frequently dark coloured (black crust) but light colours can also be found. Crusts may have an homogeneous thickness, and thus replicate the stone surface, or have irregular thickness and disturb the reading of the stone surface details.”32

4. Biological Soiling

Biological soiling is the result of organic growth on and within the stone. Some organisms, such as algae, fungi, lichen and bacteria secrete acids and chemicals capable of dissolving some components of sandstones.33

Algae are photosynthetic organisms that occur in most habitats and are the predominant form of biological soiling on building facades.34 They can colonise many different areas of a building and vary in size depending on a number of elements. It is most commonly found where the substrate remains moistened for long periods of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

32

ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2 2013 33 Webster, R.G.M., Andrew, C.A., Baxter, S., MacDonald, J., Rocha, M., Thomson, B.W., Tonge, K.H., Urquhart, D.C.M. and Young, M.E., Stone cleaning in Scotland Research Report to Historic Scotland and Scottish Enterprise by Masonry Conservation Research Group, (1992), http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/schools/mcrg/misst.htm, accessed April 15 2013 34 Ibid!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$#!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! time (see Figs. 18 and 19).35 They can be found deeper into the substrate such as under scales and in cracks.

! !

Figure 18. Algal growth around window

!

Figure 19. Algal growth on roof

!

Lichens are “fungi that live in symbiosis with photosynthesizing organisms (cyanobacteria or green algae).36 Lichen thrives in areas where the alga and fungus cannot survive.37 Lichens are generally indicative of clean air conditions but can also be encouraged by pollutants such as nitrogen oxides derived from vehicle pollution.38

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35

ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2 2013 36 Lisci, M., Monte, M., & Pacini, E., Lichens and higher plants on stone: a review, (Date Unknown), accessed March 21, 2013 37 Ibid 38 ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2, 2013 NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$$!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

!

They cause de-cohesion and biocorrosion, transforming stone substrates.39 However they are also extremely valuable environmental indicators and are only now being appreciated as a rich and valuable historical resource. 40 Lichen is most visible adjacent to the chimney on the east façade (see Fig. 20).

!

Figure 20. Lichen growth on East elevation chimney

Mosses are vegetable organisms forming small, soft and green cushions of centimetre size. 41 Often they grow in places permanently or frequently wet and especially on stone surface open cavities and cracks.42 Moss is mostly visible on the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

39

Ibid Yahr, R. & Ellis, C., Lichens in the Attic, (2009), http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/lichens/lichens.htm, accessed March 4, 2013 41 ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2, 2013 42 Ibid!

40

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$%!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

! roof, and in particular, the roof of the buttress on the west elevation (see Figs. 21 and 22).

!

Figure 21. Moss on roof

!

!

Figure 22. Moss on buttress roof

Plants are referred to as having root, stem and leaves. Their growth generally identifies when a building is not being well maintained and can lead to serious problems if they are left to continue growing. Their roots can widen joints and cracks and even break the stone. (See Figs. 23 and 24)

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$&!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Figure 23. Plants growing in West elevation roof

!

!

Figure 24. Plants growing on West elevation stonework

5. Rotted Timber

Timber is used in Queen Maryʼs Bath House for floorboards, roof joists, doors and window frames and skirting (see Figs. 12, 13 & 25). It is an integral part of almost all historic buildings and consequently, if not properly maintained can suffer decay and damage. Rot is caused by damp through water ingress or one or more of the many species of fungi. If conditions remain constant in a timber, a rot fungus can spread and grow throughout the wood. Rot can dry off and die once these conditions are

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$'!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! eliminated. The two most common species of rot in Scotland are dry rot and wet rot.43 The term dry rot refers to the dry crumbly condition it leaves timber in. Wet rot requires higher moisture content than dry rot and timber will feel spongy and soft to the touch. Once rot has established in the timber it is imperative that it is treated as early as possible.

!

Figure 25. Example of rotting timber doorframe on ground floor

!

6. Other Issues

Bat Potential Bats play a diverse and extremely important role in many environments around the world. Some bats in the UK are considered ʻindicator speciesʼ as changes in their population are often signs of changes to certain aspects of biodiversity.44 As loss to their natural habitats increases many bats have now adapted to roosting in buildings.

Law protects bats and their roosts, and as a result building work will need careful consideration. It is possible that the Bath House provides an ideal habitat for bats to roost.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %$!Jenkins, M., Rot in Timber, (Edinburgh, 2008)!

44

The Bat Conservation Trust, Importance of Bats, (2013), http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/importance_of_bats.html, accessed April 15, 2013 NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$(!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Slipped slates occur as a result of the fixing nails failing usually as they rust away, ʻnail sicknessʼ. As with many traditional buildings in Scotland, the roof of Queen Maryʼs Bath House is covered with local slate. Produced in a variety of lengths and widths, Scottish slates were laid with the largest slates at the base of the roof and the smaller to the top. Scottish slate is a long lasting material, with appropriate repair and maintenance. The roof of Maryʼs Bath House is in a generally good state (see Figs.

8-11) with a couple of slipped slates therefore major re-slating work is not required.

Missing slates allow water ingress to the interior, which could be the cause of the decay of the interior lime plaster.

Harling Historical evidence, including early photography of the Bath House indicates the presence of a harled exterior (see Fig. 26). The loss of this harling means the stonework cannot function the way it was initially intended to do. The sandstone is going through more wetting and drying cycles. It was not intended for the original random rubble stonework to be exposed.

!

Figure 26 Early twentieth century Bath House with harling

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$)!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Interiors Queen Maryʼs Bath House has remained unused for roughly two centuries. It is not surprising that the interior of the structure has suffered as a result of its age but also neglect. The lack of maintenance has exacerbated the problems and the external decay may well be developing inwards. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate a number of the internal issues that require consideration. There is already extreme deterioration of the lime pointing and many pinnings and stones have become dislodged. The stone tiling is in a fair condition but with some cracks. The top step of the stair leading to the first floor is loose and is likely to dislodge entirely in the near future. Acro-pops support the entire first floor suggesting an obvious failure in the timber.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

$*!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

4. Proposal for Conservation

Through analysis of the aforementioned signs of decay to the exterior and interior of Queen Maryʼs Bath House, this report will now assess the value and cultural significance of the building and propose the most appropriate methods of conservation.

4.1 Value of Maryʼs Bath House

“Cultural Significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social value for past, present or future generations.”45

Queen Maryʼs Bath House is an enigma. It is a highly unique structure with an intriguingly vague past. Additionally it is the source of a number of folktales and myths special to the history of Edinburgh and Scotland. Queen Maryʼs Bath House may also be Scotlandʼs earliest surviving garden building.46 Other than the dendrochronology analysis stated earlier in this report, there has been no other adequate archaeological survey of the building itself carried out. In the absence of documentary records associated with the early years of the Bath House, archaeological investigation is probably the best way of understanding more fully this intriguing structure. The ground surrounding the Bath House is of high archaeological potential. The remains of the Privy Garden, located to the immediate east of the Bath House, would hopefully provide evidence of its form and layout. The development of the ground to its southwest was considerably developed in the 18th and 19th centuries

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

45

The Burra Charter, 1979, Article 1.2, in Glendinning, M. 2012, p. 23 Cooper, S., Ornamental structures in the medieval gardens of Scotland, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 129, (2003), p. 826!

46

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%+!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! and remains of these structures are certainly still to exist beneath the surface of the ground.

Its association with the reigns of Mary de Guise, Mary Queen of Scots and James V is of great historical significance. Its longstanding presence in the landscape through many phases in Scotlandʼs history is testament to the strengths of the original construction of this little structure. Due to its many alterations and extensions, the layers of the built fabric in its current formation act as a timeline and therefore it can be considered to have great historical and architectural significance.

Socially, it can be argued that the Bath House is a strong feature in the cultural landscape of the Canongate area. Its peculiar position, jutting out through the pavement onto the Abbeyhill road, means it is an unavoidable sight in the lives of many commuters and tourists. At times it is even a danger to pedestrians as its position leaves very little space for more than one person to walk by at a time.

However, as much as a nuisance it can be, the heritage of this little structure is a vital part to the overall cultural significance of the area and the fact that our modern world has built up around it is not the fault of the building. It is for these reasons that the Bath House is socially very significant.

Queen Maryʼs Bath House has a strong identity and this is rooted in its traditional construction of sandstone but also in the unique character created by its various extensions and alterations. It is inseparable from its location and rooted in its setting.

For these reasons and also because of its portrayal in many paintings, etchings and sculptures it can be said that the Bath House has considerable aesthetic value.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%"!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

!

4.2 Methods of Conservation

a) Water Protection b) Biological Soiling Removal c) Masonry Repair d) Timber Repair e) Other repair tasks

a) Water Protection A primary agent of decay to the Bath House is water. Protecting the structure from water damage will involve repairing the roof by reinstating the slipped slates caused by nail sickness on the south and west slopes. This is a relatively inexpensive maintenance procedure and inevitably needs to be carried out occasionally. It is important to note the size, texture, thickness, weight and colour when replacing slates, choosing a slightly lighter colour of an exact match is impossible to find. This helps the new slate to blend in better.47 The mortar fillets at the west gable would also need to be renewed.

Extra protection could be to install rainwater goods but as these would not be original to the building it is probable that the aesthetic significance of the Bath House would be jeopardised. It might be advisable to consider lead valley/flashing at the junction of the south roof slope with the west face of the south chimney.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

47

Maxwell, I., Repairing Scottish Slate, (Edinburgh, 2008), Technical Conservation, Research and Education Group NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%#!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! b) Biological Soiling Removal Cleaning away biological soiling can sometimes promote growth by encouraging rainwater to penetrate into the stone.48 However, algae and moss can be brushed from the surface once the stonework and subsequently the plants have been allowed to dry out. The best method for brushing these off would be with the use of a stiff natural bristle brush and is probably the best option for the Bath House as there is relatively minor surface soiling. Taking care not to dislodge mortar and stonework, plants and their roots can be removed with relative ease.

c) Masonry Repair Unless it has become loose or fractured, stone can erode and decay to a considerable depth before causing structural damage. In the case of Queen Maryʼs Bath House, although there are some considerable cracks, for now it is sufficient to re-point cracks in lime mortar to prevent further water ingress. The hungry joints must also be re-pointed. The interior walls and wall-head also need to be consolidated and the stonework re-pointed. Re-plastering on hard with lime mortar the interior walls should also be considered. The loose stone step at the entrance to the first floor must be re-bedded. Currently there is no need for any stone replacements or plastic repairs.

It is always best practice to retain as much of the original material as possible in the repair and maintenance of traditional buildings. In this case it is advisable not to use cement mortars in the repair of cracks and hungry joints in Queen Maryʼs Bath House. “Lime mortars have an inherent flexibility which hard-setting cement mortars

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

48

Maxwell, I., Cleaning Sandstone: Risks and Consequences, (Edinburgh, 2007)!

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%$!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S BATH HOUSE

! do not,â&#x20AC;? and it is also possible for cement mortars to accelerate masonry decay.49 (See Fig. 27)

!

Figure 27. Moisture movement within traditional stone and lime

! d) Timber Repair Remedial tasks to be undertaken in terms of timber repair would be to renew timber window and doorframes, to inspect timber lintols and replace decayed/rotten timbers with new treated timbers of matching type and section in the interior ground floor.

The repair and repainting of the main entrance timber door would be required, trying to retain as much of the existing layers of paint in its current state as possible. It would also be advised to carefully remove rotten sections of structural timbers and replace with new treated timbers to match originals, retaining as many timbers as possible. Other remedial tasks would be to replace the missing section of the timber riser at the internal lobby and to repair joinery and repaint it, replacing timber standards where rotten on first floor.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

49

Mitchell, D.S., The Use of Lime & Cement in Traditional Buildings, (Edinburgh, 2007) NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%%!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

! e) Other repair tasks •

Rub down, rust proof and paint/coat exposed surfaces of iron wedges in a good quality paint.

•

Consider re glazing or fitting shutters to windows.

•

Fit new standard to east jamb to interior ground floor entrance from lobby.

•

Consolidate and repoint rubble walling and wallhead throughout the first floor.

•

Provide protection/make safe aperture in floor, re-fix loose floorboards (adjacent to S wall).

5.3 Professional Survey/Input

There are a number of areas where the expertise of specific specialists would be required to determine the precise cause and plan of action in terms of agents of decay in Queen Maryʼs Bath House.

1. To assess the cracks and possibility of subsidence.

2. To identify the rot in the timber.

3. To apply fungicidal fluid to rotted timber.

4. To employ traditional methods of stone repair, i.e. use of lime mortar.

5. To assess the potential of bat habitation and to determine the best practices for undertaking careful conservation methods as a result.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%&!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

5. Conclusion

This report investigated the pathologies of the structure known as Queen Maryʼs Bath House. It formed recommendations for the holistic treatment of the pathology through research of materials and construction, and by identifying possible causes. The most appropriate suggestions were made with regards to repair techniques and treatments. By focusing on the case study, Queen Maryʼs Bath House, this report demonstrated how materials age, deteriorate, act and interact with each other and also structural issues in the building formed by the different materials. The main causes of the decay were identified as well as repair techniques and their relative suitability for this particular case study.

The unique history, position and size of the Bath House cause many issues in terms of its conservation and preservation. The nature of sandstone as a traditional building material and its decay was studied. This report advised the least invasive, and where possible the best traditional conservation methods in order to repair the age-induced decay and deterioration of the Bath House. At present the primary concern is the general presentation issues caused by lack of use, however if the building goes unmaintained the current signs of decay will lead to serious issues in the future.

Through consideration of the building and its historical, architectural, aesthetic and social significance it can be concluded that with careful repair techniques this building should remain in itʼs setting for many years to come. The main agents of decay are water damage and the pollution and vibrations as a result of being on such a busy road. The main concern is with the cracking and its apparent ʻleaningʼ appearance, which could lead to eventual subsidence.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%'!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

As it is currently maintained by Historic Scotland, and there is no concrete plan for its revival as a working building it is difficult to predict the future of Queen Maryʼs Bath House. This report has hopefully outlined that through the understanding of the varied history of the Bath House, along with careful and considered conservation methods, the building can remain a significant feature in the cultural landscape of Canongate, and Edinburgh as a whole.

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%(!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Bibliography

Australia ICOMOS, the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance: ʻthe Burra Charterʼ, Article 1.2, (Australia, 1979), in Glendinning, M., Course Handout, (Edinburgh, 2012), pp. 23 & 24 Cooper, S., Ornamental structures in the medieval gardens of Scotland, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 129, (2003), pp. 826-831 Grant. J., Old and New Edinburgh, Vol. 3., (1890), p. 41 Jenkins, M., Rot in Timber, in Historic Scotland INFORM, (Edinburgh, 2008) Maxwell, I., Cleaning Sandstone: Risks and Consequences, in Historic Scotland INFORM, (Edinburgh, 2007) Maxwell, I., Masonry Decay: Dealing with Erosion of Sandstone, in Historic Scotland INFORM, (Edinburgh, 2005) Maxwell, I., Repairing Scottish Slate, in Historic Scotland INFORM, (Edinburgh, 2008), Technical Conservation, Research and Education Group Maxwell, I., Structural Cracks, in Historic Scotland INFORM, (Edinburgh, 2008) McMillan, A. A., and Hyslop, E. K., A Land of Stone, in Wilson, P., Ed., Building with Scottish Stone, (Edinburgh, 2005), p. 9 Mitchell, D.S., The Use of Lime & Cement in Traditional Buildings, (Edinburgh, 2007) Technical Conservation, Research and Education Group, Repairing Scottish slate roofs, (Edinburgh, September 2006) Williams, I., ʻ Sandstoneʼ, in Forsyth, M., Ed., Materials and Skills for Historic Building Conservation, (Oxford, 2008) Wilson, P., Ed., Building with Stone, (Edinburgh 2005), p. 6

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%)!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Websites Allen, J., Cracking, (2003), http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/cracking/cracking.htm, accessed April 13 2013 Anderson, D., Scottish Agates – The Geology, (2010) http://www.agatesofscotland.co.uk/The%20Geology.htm, accessed February 21 2013 Angus Council, Repair to sandstone walls, (date unknown), http://www.angus.gov.uk/devcontrol/advice_note_30.pdf, accessed April 15 2013 British Listed Buildings, Holyroodhouse, Abbeyhill, Queen Maryʼs Bath House, Edinburgh, (date unknown) http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/sc-28028holyroodhouse-abbeyhill-queen-mary-s-bath, accessed February 23 2013 Edinburgh Geological Society, Edinburghʼs Geology, (Date Unknown), http://www.edinburghgeolsoc.org/o_home.html, accessed February 21, 2013 Forsyth, M., Materials and Skills for Historic Building Conservation, (2008),http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WPrRovtnjmIC&pg=PT41&dq=building+st ones+of+edinburgh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rwN5UZKTE8ePLbLgZAK&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false, accessed April 3 2013 Grassegger, G., Decay mechanisms of natural building stones on monuments – A review of the latest theories. In: S. Stumpp, M. Krüger & C. Große (Editors), Werkstoffe und Werkstoffprüfung im Bauwesen. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 54-81. (1999), http://129.69.59.201/bibliothek/festschr/grasseg.pdf, accessed 12 April 2013 Hume, I., Effects of Road Traffic Vibrations on Historic Buildings, http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/47/ian_dir/ian_s.htm, accessed March 21, 2013 ICOMOS-ISCS, Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns, (2008), http://www.cicrp.fr/docs/icomos-iscs-glossary.pdf, accessed April 2 2013 InspectAPedia, Black Staining & Stone Damage from Cyanobacteria – Gloeocapsa sp. And fungi, (date unknown), http://inspectapedia.com/exterior/Stone_Stain_Diagnosis.htm#Gleo Lisci, M., Monte, M., & Pacini, E., Lichens and higher plants on stone: a review, (Date Unknown), accessed March 21, 2013 McMillan, A.A. and Hyslop, E.K., The City of Edinburgh – Landscape and Stone. In ICOMOS, (2008) http://openarchive.icomos.org/80/1/77-KoCo-73.pdf, accessed February 20 2013

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

%*!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Queens University Belfast, Understanding Stone Decay, (date unknown), http://www.qub.ac.uk/geomaterials/geomonumental/links/poster_stone_decay.pdf, accessed April 20 2013 Rainer, J.H., Effects of Vibrations on Historic Buildings: An Overview, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1982), p. 2 RCAHMS, Edinburgh, Holyrood Palace, Abbeyhill, Queen Maryʼs Bath, (2011),http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/52389/details/edinburgh+holyrood+pala ce+abbeyhill+queen+mary+s+bath/, accessed February 17, 2013 Scottish Geology, Getting Started, (Date Unknown), http://www.scottishgeology.com/geo/getting-started/, accessed March 4 2013 Scottish Places, Queen Maryʼs Bath House, (2013) http://www.scottishplaces.info/features/featurefirst10459.html, accessed February 26 2013 Slique, Spalling (flaking or peeling), (2010), http://www.slique.com.au/Commonproblems/Spalling%2B%2528flaking%2Bor%2Bpeeling%2529/, accessed April 13, 2013 The Bat Conservation Trust, Importance of Bats, (2013), http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/importance_of_bats.html, accessed April 15, 2013 Webster, R.G.M., Andrew, C.A., Baxter, S., MacDonald, J., Rocha, M., Thomson, B.W., Tonge, K.H., Urquhart, D.C.M. and Young, M.E., Stone cleaning in Scotland Research Report to Historic Scotland and Scottish Enterprise by Masonry Conservation Research Group, (1992), http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/schools/mcrg/misst.htm, accessed April 15 2013 Yahr, R. & Ellis, C., Lichens in the Attic, (2009), http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/lichens/lichens.htm, accessed March 4, 2013

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&+!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Figures Figure 1 Anderson, D., The Geology, Map. (2010) http://www.agatesofscotland.co.uk/The%20Geology.htm Figure 2 Digimap, Bath House Location, tiff format, Map. (2013) http://edina.ac.uk/digimap Figure 3 Unsere Reisen, English Spy Map of Edinburgh, c.1544. Hand drawn map (c.1544) http://unsere-reisen-in-england.de/unsere-reisen/schottland/16-tag---08082009--edinburgh-3/index.html Figure 4 Cooper, S., Ornamental structures in the medieval gardens of Scotland, in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 129, (2003), p. 828 Figure 5 Unsere Reisen, Gordon de Rothiemay map showing Bath House in 1647. Hand drawn map, http://unsere-reisen-in-england.de/unsere-reisen/schottland/16-tag--08082009---edinburgh-3/index.html Figure 6 Unsere Reisen, Gordon de Rothiemay map detail showing Bath House in 1647.

Hand drawn map, http://unsere-reisen-in-england.de/unsere-reisen/schottland/16tag---08082009---edinburgh-3/index.html Figure 7 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 8 Author, Analysis of West Elevation, Photoshop and Photograph (2013) Original drawing Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) p.13 Figure 9 Author, Analysis of South Elevation, Photoshop and Photograph (2013) Original drawing Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) p.13 Figure 10 Author, Analysis of East Elevation, Photoshop and Photograph (2013) Original drawing Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) p.13 Figure 11 Author, Analysis of North Elevation, Photoshop and Photograph (2013) Original drawing Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) p.13

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&"!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Figure 12 Author, Analysis of Ground Floor, Photoshop and Photographs (2013) Original drawing Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) p.13 Figure 13 Author, Analysis of First Floor, Photoshop and Photographs (2013) Original drawing Ponniah, N. & Crae, J., Queen Maryʼs Bath House Condition Survey, (Edinburgh, 2008) p.13 Figure 14 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 15 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 16 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 17 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 18 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 19 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 20 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 21 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 22 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 23 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 24 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 25 Author, Photograph, 2013 Figure 26 RCAHMS, Early twentieth century Bath House with harling, Photograph Figure 27 Mitchell, D.S., Moisture movement within traditional stone and lime, Hand drawn detail. The Use of Lime & Cement in Traditional Buildings, p.5 (2007)

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&#!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

Appendix

!

Image 1 Pencil sketch of Bath House by W.F. Lyon c. 1870

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&$!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Image 2 Twentieth century image of East elevation of Bath House

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&%!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Images 3 &4 Neighbouring tenements before demolition

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&&!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Image 5 Etching of Queen Maryʼs Bath 1863

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&'!

AC5 CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY - QUEEN MARY’S BATH HOUSE

!

!

Image 6 Twentieth century view of East and South elevations

NIAMH CRIMMINS S1255448 MSC ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION 2012/13

&(!